The DDT Scare: AGW’s Grandfather

Here is a question for you: 

Who is responsible for more Human deaths then any other person in the history of the planet? 

The answer is Chairman Mao who is believed to be the reason behind the deaths of over 70+ million people in China. 

Now here is a second question for you: 

Who is in second place behind Mao? 

If you guess Pol Pot, he is not even in the same universe as this person with a “paltry” 2 million to his credit. Hitler you say? He was a piker in comparison with his 6+ million total. How about “Uncle” Joe Stalin? Hah his 30+ million is only roughly half of this persons total. 

So who is this person? None other then Author and Environmentalist Rachael Carson who has 60+ million human deaths on her hands. That’s right over 60 million people have died due to her efforts to ban the insecticide DDT and the lies and myths she propagated in the 1960’s are still spouted today and the death count keeps climbing. 

The story of the DDT scare up to and including the banning of its use by the EPA is the blueprint for the AGW movement. You want to see where AGW will take the human species just check out what the DDT scare did. 

Lets start with the abstract from a paper by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards in the Fall 2004 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: 

The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds 

What was the book? It was called Silent Spring and it was written in 1962 by Rachael Carson. 

To put DDT into perspective this is what the National Academy of Sciences had to say about it: 

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable

That is what Rachael Carson wanted to get rid of, something that saved 500 million lives in 20 years. 

Why did she want to do this?

It was the beginning of the radical green movement and their beliefs that Humanity was nothing more then a pestilence on the body of “mother earth”. So they set out to to get rid of things like pesticides that helped humanity while at the same time hurting the profits of evil corporations. So lets start looking at some of the myths she propagated: 

Myth #1: DDT causes cancer. 

For anyone that has grown up in the 1970’s through today that is almost always the first claim that the left leaning green fringe points to. 

Fact #1: DDT doesn’t cause cancer, it helps prevent it! 

Human volunteers in Georgia ingested up to 35 milligrams daily, for nearly two years, and did not experience any difficulties then or later. Workers in the Montrose Chemical Company had 1,300 man-years of exposure, and there was never any case of cancer during 19 years of continuous exposure to about 17 mg/man/day. Concerns were sometimes raised about possible carcinogenic effects of DDT, but instead its metabolites were often found to be anti-carcinogenic, significantly reducing tumors in rats. DDT ingestion induces hepatic microsomal enzymes, which destroy carcinogenic aflatoxins and thereby inhibit tumors. 

After an 80-day hearing in 1972 on the potential for carcinogenicity, the EPA concluded that. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard for man. Nevertheless, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT two months later, stating that .DDT poses a carcinogenic risk. to humans. The primary evidence used to support his assertion was two animal studies. The first was challenged because it was not replicated by other workers using similar dosages and because the findings might have resulted from food contaminated with aflatoxin. The second study, which used a nearly lethal dose, reported hepatomas in 32 percent of the experimental group compared to 4 percent of the control group. However, the tumors were not shown to be malignant, and the litters were not distributed randomly 

So the EPA banned DDT based on 2 flawed studies, one that couldn’t be replicated and another where they had to feed so much DDT to the test animals it was almost a fatal dose. 

Myth #2: DDT thins the shells of bird eggs thus putting Robins and Bald Eagles at risk and sometimes kills them outright. 

Many anti-DDT activists alleged that DDT was killing birds or causing them to produce thin-shelled eggs. Some extremists even wrote that because of DDT birds dropped from the sky, dead. Others said that birds were falling out of trees by the thousands. 

Every kid growing up in the 1970’s has heard of this and it is still taught to a lot of people even today. 

Fact #2: DDT doesn’t thin bird shell eggs. 

No such tragedies actually occurred, not even to a few birds. It was easy to test such claims of toxicity by simply feeding known quantities of DDT to caged birds. Even extreme amounts of DDT in the food did not seriously poison birds. 

Rachel Carson declared that like the robin, another American bird, [the Bald Eagle] seems to be on the verge of extinction.. That same year Roger Tory Peterson, America’s greatest ornithologist, wrote that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America. There is no doubt as to which writer was correct! 

During the “DDT Years”, the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts published the numbers seen per observer in 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after peak use of DDT). The actual numbers seen increasedfrom 90 birds seen per observer in 1941 to 971 birds seen per observer in 1960. 

Similarly, the counts of raptorial birds migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, indicated that there were many more hawks there during the “DDT years” than previously. The numbers counted there increased from 9,291 in 1946 (before much DDT was used) to 13,616 in 1963 and 29,765 in 1968, after 15 years of heavy DDT use. 

In Massachusetts, herring gulls on Tern Island increased from 2,000 pairs in 1940 (before DDT) to 35,000 pairs by 1970, before DDT was banned. Gulls were on the state’s list of “protected sea birds,” but the Audubon Society was permitted to poison 30,000 of them there. William Drury of the Society said that killing those 30,000 gulls was “kind of like weeding a garden”. 

On Funk Island, in the north Atlantic, the gannets increased from 200 pairs in 1945 (when DDT use began) to 2,000 pairs in 1958, and 3,000 pairs by 1971 (before DDT was banned). Murres there increased from 15,000 pairs in 1945 to 150,000 pairs in 1958 to 1.5 million by 1971.

Well so much for the birds dropping dead. 

The alleged thinning of eggshells by DDT in the diet was effective propaganda; however, actual feeding experiments proved that there was very little, if any, correlation between DDT levels and shell thickness. Thin shells may result when birds are exposed to fear, restraint, mercury, lead, parathion, or other agents, or when deprived of adequate calcium, phosphorus, Vitamin D, light, calories, or water. While quail fed a diet containing 2 percent calcium produced thick shells, a calcium content of only 1 percent resulted in shells 9 percent thinner than normal. In the presence of lead, shells were 14 percent thinner, and with mercury, 8 percent thinner. 

Bitman and coworkers demonstrated eggshell thinning with DDT by reducing calcium levels to 0.56 percent from the normal 2.5 percent. After this work was exposed as anti-DDT propaganda, Bitman continued his work for another year. Instead of the calcium-deficient diets, however, he fed the quail 2.7 percent calcium in their food. The shells they produced were not thinned at all by the DDT. Unfortunately, the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Thomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT (T. Jukes, personal communication). Bitman therefore had to publish the results of his legitimate feeding experiments in an obscure specialty journal, and many readers of Science continued to believe that DDT could cause birds to lay thin shelled eggs. 

So there you see even back then “Peer Reviewed” science is not all it’s cracked up to be and how results of tests that didn’t support the scare story were supressed. 

Myth #3: DDT kills fish, algae and makes alligator privates smaller. 

Florida’s Lake Apopka became famous when anti-pesticide propagandists stated that DDT killed fish and caused shortened alligator penises.(Bolded to show the ridiculous claim) 

DDT was claimed to have dire effects on marine life. Charles Wurster claimed that marine algae died in his tank of seawater because it contained 500 ppb DDT. 

Fact #3: DDT does no such thing. 

First on the alligators: 

It was stated that a mere 0.1 nanogram (1 nanogram = 10 g) of ethinyl estradiol (EE) per liter of water is a potent estrogen. W. R. Kelce claimed that DDT was antiandrogenic, based on an experiment in which he gavaged DDT metabolite DDE directly into pregnant female rat stomachs for five days, at a level 200,000 times the average human dietary intake. The resulting male pups retained their nipples for 13 days,indicating, Kelce said, “prenatal anti-androgen activity of DDT”. 

However, it was reported that “Lake Apopka is a fetid shallow body of water, the state’s most embarrassing pollution problem. Human waste is dumped into the lake from the Winter Garden’s sewage treatment plant,” as well as citrus-processing wastes, agricultural chemicals, and fertilizers. Also, the alligators had been exposed to the birth control chemical EE that was in the sewage water with the urine of women in Winter Garden. Moreover, it was reported that alligators there were also being killed by a bacterium, Aeromonas liquifasciens, which dissolves internal organs of marine animals. 

It is also worthy of note that the estrogenic potency of naturally occurring plant bioflavonoids relative to 17 -estradiol is 0.001 to 0.0001, whereas for estrogenic pesticides it is about 0.000001. The estrogen equivalent intake of plant bioflavonoids is about 102 /day, compared to 2.5 x 10 /day from estrogenic pesticide residues. Therefore, the estrogen equivalent ingested in natural substances is estimated to be about 40 million times that from estrogenic pesticides. 

Well so much for that claim so onto the algae. 

DDT was claimed to have dire effects on marine life. Charles Wurster claimed that marine algae died in his tank of seawater because it contained 500 ppb DDT. Paul Ehrlich seemed to approve of Wurster’s hoax, for he wrote an article based on it, which many schoolchildren were required to read. The following year Ehrlich published that same article in England, in a Sphere Book titled The Year’s Best Science Fiction – a more appropriate outlet. 

Because DDT is only soluble in water at 1.2 ppb, Ehrlich was asked how he could have such high concentrations of DDT in his seawater. He explained that he had added enough alcohol to the tanks to obtain the desired concentrations of DDT in the water. Of course, the seas do not contain much alcohol, so what happened in his tanks bore no resemblance to what would happen in unaltered seawater. Not surprisingly, two other scientists had earlier reported that DDT in their tanks of seawater caused no harm to the same species of algae that Wurster used. 

It has often been said that DDT persists for decades in the ocean. Researchers at EPA’s Gulf Breeze Laboratory in Louisiana added DDT to seawater in huge submerged containers. They reported that 92 percent of the DDT its metabolites, DDD and DDE, disappeared from the seawater in just 38 days. 

At the EPA consolidated hearings on DDT, George Woodwell, testifying under oath, attempted to convince the court that DDT was building up to high levels in the environment. Incredibly, he had had an article published in Science a month earlier, in which he and his coauthors found that only 11 million pounds of the 6 billion pounds of DDT that had been produced, less than one-thirtieth of a year’s production in the 1960s.could be accounted for in the world’s biota. Indeed, they concluded that .most of the DDT produced has either been degraded to innocuousness or sequestered in places where it is not freely available to the biota. 

Hmm doesn’t that DDT build up claim sound familiar to the IPCC’s claim about how long CO2 lingers in the atmosphere compared to what the actual science says? Oh and when you can’t get the DDT to high enough levels just add Alcohol to the tank so that it doesn’t represent the real world at all. Hey that reminds me of that little test the head of NOAA did in front of the Congressional committee with the chalk and vinegar to show the acidification of the oceans and what it will do to shelled marine life. We all know that the ocean is just like vinegar. 

Well as shown DDT didn’t do any of the claims the environmentalists claimed it did. The science didn’t back it up but the EPA still banned it, Why? 

The printed testimony from seven months of hearings on DDT filled 9,300 pages. My impression was that persons chosen to testify often presented very biased reports that were not truthful. 

In an interview with reporters for Business Week, published on July 8, 1972, George Woodwell said that he was told by EPA lawyers not to mention his article in Science, lest his testimony be disallowed. I specifically discussed Woodwell’s testimony in a letter to William Ruckelshaus concerning the frequent absence of truthfulness in testimony. Ruckelshaus responded: “Not only did we not tell Dr.Woodwell to avoid making those statements, but he was not our witness and our lawyers did not talk to him at all.” (W. Ruckelshaus, personal communication, 1972). I again read Woodwell’s testimony to determine whether that was true. The EPA lawyer (Mr. Butler) had stated: “I’d like to call our next witness, Dr. George M.Woodwell“. Notice that Butler said our next witness. 

In his final 113-page decision issued on April 25, 1972, Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife..and..there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.” 

This decision, however, was overruled by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. In his 40-page Final Opinion, handed down on June 2, 1972, he omitted most scientific data, misnamed the major chemicals involved, and proposed that farmers “should use organophosphates, like carbaryl, instead”. (Carbaryl is not an organophosphate). He also recommended substituting parathion, a very deadly chemical, for DDT. He later wrote that “in such decisions the ultimate judgement remains political.” (W. Ruckelshaus, letter to American Farm Bureau President Allan Grant,April 26, 1979). 

Now lets introduce someone that is well known in the AGW debate and one of his most famous quotes and you will see that he used it for DDT. 

The procedure for banning DDT reflected the method described by Stanford biology professor Stephen Schneider, who appeared on the scene during fraudulent anti-pesticide debates, predicting grave environmental harm. In a widely quoted statement to Jonathan Schell in a 1989 article in Discover, he explained: “We need to get loads of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios and make dramatic statements. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Schneider has objected to the omission of the last line, “I hope that means being both” 

 As Jonathan Schell wrote: “Scientists should disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real”. 

Forecasting environmental disasters often requires taking a value-laden leap of faith beyond the present state of knowledge,.writes Jocelyn Kaiser. Thus, scientist activists lead a double life,imperiling the credibility of science. 

Hmm does that not sound familiar to us? 

Now you could still believe they were just misguided but no, you have to keep in mind that there is one species that environmentalist want to see on the endangered species list: Homo Sapiens. 

The balance sought by environmental activists is not one of costs and benefits to humanity. Rather, they balance the needs of humanity against the needs of the Planet and the Biosphere in general, as they perceive them. One measure of planetary health is the viability of species. The extinction of any species is a cosmic tragedy, and huge numbers of species are allegedly threatened. 

Paul Ehrlich and E.O. Wilson wrote that there is “a massive extinction rate caused by human activity, which threatens the aesthetic quality of the world”. They predicted that “thousands of species will become extinct each year, before they have even been discovered” in spite of the fact that Ehrlich himself said that only three species of forest birds became extinct during all of the “destruction” (his word) of eastern North America.{Now doesn’t that also sound so familiar to AGW} 

Other assertions about massive species extinctions include these: Norman Myers estimated that we lose “one species a day” and “most haven’t even been identified”. He added: that “The extinction rate will accelerate to one species every hour, by the late 1980s”. Thomas Lovejoy, formerly of the Smithsonian Institution predicted that “15 to 20% of all species, [or] as many as 1,875,000 species, would become extinct” and “at least ten million species, would be extinct by 200”. In the Global Report 2000 commissioned by President Jimmy Carter, the range of extinctions was stated as 3 to 10 million species. Former Vice President Al Gore stated that “species of animals and plants are now vanishing one thousand times faster than at any time in the past 65 million years. [emphasis in original]. 

Obviously there can never be any factual basis for such hypothetical suggestions, and no credence can be accorded to predictions which have already been proven to be false. Between 1600 and 1900, the estimated extinction rate of known species was about one every 4 years.Since the endangered species list was established, precisely seven species have been declared extinct in the U.S. 

In attempting to reach the stated if mostly hypothetical objective of preventing a decrease in nonhuman inhabitants of Earth, environmental activist policies have demonstrably increased the human death rate, primarily by thwarting efforts to control malaria. Could this be the true objective of many activists? Jacques Cousteau stated, “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day”{My bold}. This is nearly 128 million people per year, or 1.27 billion people over 10 years. Edwin J. Cohn of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) Office of Policy Development was quoted as saying, with reference to the fecundity of many women in poor tropical countries, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing”. 

Environmentalist Gro Brundtland, Director of the World Health Organization, stated in 2001 that her goal was “to halt half of the malarial mortality by 2010 and half again by 2015”. Apparently, Brundtland will be content if by 2010 only one child dies of malaria every minute, instead of two children dying every minute as at present. 

Currently, no obvious efforts are being made to reduce the numbers of infective mosquito adults or larvae, and neither Brundtland nor any of the dozens of recent malaria researchers have proposed plans to help save human lives by killing mosquitoes or their larvae. Such humane preventive endeavors have not even been mentioned in Science in recent years! Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars are devoted to the search for vaccines, which might or might not be effective. 

At least two malaria vaccine researchers have been indicted. Dr. Miodrag Ristic received $3.28 million in grants, but developed nothing. In 1990 he was indicted on four counts and heavily fined, but not imprisoned. Dr.Wasim Siddiqui of the University of Hawaii, who had claimed that his vaccinewas almost ready for clinical trials, was accused by the U.S. Inspector General of “an apparent diversion and theft of funds, submission of false claims, and criminal conspiracy”. Siddiqui was arrested by Honolulu police, but that very day the Vaccine Research Office of AID awarded him another $1.65 million “to continue his research”. Hawaiian Senator Inouye then announced on live television that if Siddiqui was handed any more federal funds he personally would see to it that the University of Hawaii would never get another grant of federal research money. Siddiqui served six months of house detention, but the local newspapers reported that he was still receiving his salary of $92,340 a year, even though not teaching classes. {Buck up Dr. Jones, see even when caught “scientists” still get their money} 

The malaria protections that were hoped to replace mosquito controls have simply been expensive fantasies. After 25 years, AID’s malaria vaccine research project is still proving to be a disaster. In a 6-year effort, during which perhaps 18 million human beings died of malaria, U.S. Navy researchers sequenced the genome of the parasite causing falciparum malaria, which has about 6,000 genes, compared to fewer than 30 in a typical virus. The “breakthrough” was announced at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C., called by Science and Nature. The genome of the vector, which contains nearly 300-million DNA base pairs, has also been sequenced. To date, there is no evidence that knowing the sequences will lead to any methods of controlling malaria transmission. 

With no better methods available, past mosquito control programs were terminated. From 1974 to 1977, the U.S. Export-Import Bank financed more than $3 billion of pesticides, saving millions of human lives. In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree to control mosquitoes by not using DDT. In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin”. Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. The term “genocide” is used in other contexts to describe such numbers of casualties. 

I recommend that anyone reading this post, hit the link and read the paper for themselves. 

To Rachael Carson and her “spiritual” descendents congratulations, shortly you will surpass Chairman Mao as the all time mass murder/s, especially if you get your way with AGW. As a final piece of evidence that these people know what they are doing just look to Rachael Carson’s dedication in Silent Spring: 

On the first page of the book widely credited with launching the environmental movement as well as bringing about the ban on DDT, Rachel Carson wrote: “Dedicated to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth’.” She surely knew that he was referring to atomic warfare, but she implied that he meant there were deadly hazards from chemicals such as DDT. Because I had already found a great many untruths in her book, I obtained a copy of Dr. Schweitzer’s autobiography, to see whether he even mentioned DDT. He wrote: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us”.

As shown Rachael Carson warped the views of an eminent person for her own benefit.

For even more on this read the American Spectator article and see how the head of the EPA back then,refusing to comply with FOIA, mirrors Dr. Jones.

Here is more on how the banning on DDT has cost Human lives:

In some countries such as Sri Lanka, spraying programs that had virtually eliminated malaria were terminated. As a consequence the number of cases of malaria in that country rose to 2.5 million in 1968 and 1969.[9] More than 100,000 people died as a result of malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s after house spraying with DDT was stopped. Since the early 1970s the UN and the WHO have blackmailed developing countries, through the withholding of financial aid, to force them to discontinue the use of DDT. The result has been an upsurge in the number of cases of malaria. The South African government has reported that the annual number of deaths from malaria there have risen from 20,000 to 350,000 since the ban on DDT. Malaria currently kills about two million people each year, and the number is rising.

DDT was used in Ethiopia in 1991 to control a major epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in refugee camps.[10] As had been the case in World War II, it was highly effective in controlling the human body louse that transmits the Borrelia recurrentis of relapsing fever. Millions of lives have been saved by the control of mosquitoes, flies and lice that transmit such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, filariasis and plague.  Many residents of West Africa were spared the ravages of river blindness (onchocerciasis) when DDT killed the insect vector (black fly) carrying the filaria for this disease. All of this progress is now threatened by UN politicians who are either totally ignorant of the facts or dedicated to population reduction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: