The deadly cost of environmentalism
WorldNetDaily: The deadly cost of environmentalism: “In one long-term study, volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for a year and a half, and 16 years later, they suffered no increased risk of adverse health effects. Despite evidence that, properly used, DDT is neither harmful to humans nor animals, environmental extremists fight for a continued ban. This has led to millions of illnesses and deaths from malaria, especially in Africa. After WWII, DDT saved millions upon millions of lives in India, Southeast Asia and South America. In some cases, malaria deaths fell to near zero. With bans on DDT, malaria deaths and illnesses have skyrocketed. Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, ‘In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.’ Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, ‘Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . .”
Date posted: Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 12:35 pm | Under category: Health, ddt
RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback
WorldNet Daily, which falls victim to every slightly anti-liberal hoax that comes down the pike, swallows the pro-DDT hoax completely. They have no room to complain about anyone else ever falling for a hoax (though of course, they don’t name any “liberal hoaxes).
DDT itself probably passes through a mammal without too much problem the first time, if all fat tissues are fully loaded. Otherwise, the DDT stores in the fat tissues, and frequently pops out with toxic effects when the fat tissues are burned. In humans, this may not be a problem. In migratory animals, it means the DDT kills them when they migrate and use the stored fat.
DDE, on the other hand, is a breakdown product of DDT. Were these same people to consume that amount of DDE directly, they’d all suffer from estrogen poisoning. DDE mimics estrogen in the wild.
DDT has been found toxic to many animals (including humans), but larger animals are more resistant to it for acute poisoning. It is immediately toxic to mosquito-eating birds and bats in concentrations used for mosquito control, which produces the ironic result that mosquitoes increase dramatically in the next generation after spraying in the wild. DDT is implicated in the near-extinction of many populations of pest-eating bats in the American southwest. It killed off house cats in Borneo, threatening the island with plague and typhus when the rodent populations subsequently exploded (not to mention the fact that DDT destroyed the roofs of huts! DDT killed off wasps that preyed on caterpillars that ate the thatch on the roofs, but it didn’t kill the caterpillars. Uncontrolled, the caterpillars literally ate the roofs off of the huts — exposing the people to large infestations of mosquitoes, by the way).
DDT is no panacea against malaria. By the early 1960s the mosquitoes that carry the most virulent forms of the malaria parasite had begun to develop resistance and immunity to DDT, and so DDT spraying was ineffective in many places (including some of the places you claim spraying was stopped prematurely; local government officials figured, probably wisely, that it was foolish to spray DDT when it doesn’t work; contrary to the racist assumptions of WorldNet Daily, government officials in tropical areas are very smart on what works and what doesn’t).
Malaria deaths have not “skyrocketed.” They have risen in many areas. In many places where infection and death rates are up, this is attributable to failures in the health care system, failures of the government to do much to control either mosquitoes or malaria, or both, and poverty, which confounds even DDT spraying efforts.
Where malaria has been eliminated, if only briefly, there has been a fortuitous combination of events: Poverty dropped, and people could afford screens on their homes (a huge factor); medical care was good, so infected people could be successfully treated; the more virulent strains of the parasite were not present (such as in the U.S.); the strains of mosquitoes which carry the disease were not present (again, as in the U.S.); and governments were stable.
The scurrilous charge that environmentalists wanted to reduce human population by grisly death is simply false. In point of fact, organizations such as Environmental Defense, which was the group which first sued to stop DDT spraying more than 30 years ago, have been urging the Bush administration to get off their butts and spend the money for DDT in Africa that Bush had promised.
Malaria is a huge problem. DDT is no panacea. Blaming people, falsely, doesn’t cure anyone. If you truly care about people affected by malaria, do them a favor and learn the facts. Then act.
I am not sure that WorldNetDaily knows the truth about every commentary by every commentator that they post on their news website. As you should have noticed this article is by Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.,the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.
I report what I find in the news by known authors and this article is highly reportable information.
I will pass along your response to Professor Williams and he can do what he wishes with it. I do not know who is most correct on the facts. I am sure there is truth in both of your statements.
I can’t speak on any conspiracy theory that WND or professor Williams might believe because I generally do not believe them myself. I also do not know if all environmentalists know the agenda of all other environmentalists. Lets face it there are some radicals who want to reduce human population and who favor animals over humans.
That of course would be a fringe minority but that does not mean they do not exist in high places of influence. I would say the Club of Rome is a very high place of influence. so are you saying that Alexander King did not say what professor Williams reported? If he did say that, why would any sane person wish that Malaria would remain as a natural birth control? With such a view I can understand why some believe some globalist Leftist Environmentalists want people dead.