Being Green Means Never Saying You’re Sorry for Killing Millions

I have heard that the first world threatened the third world with loss of aid unless DDT was banned. Since the money was more important than the suffering and death of the weak and voiceless, the choice was made. Mass hysteria leads to horrible policy. It is also totally hypocritical for a country which has conquered a plague to pressure those who still suffer to ignore the means it used. Carson lied; millions died. God will distribute the responsibility justly. To Ruckelshaus and the rest as well. NatanElias

Clown Fish, I am not arguing over semantics. You made a false statement and dared someone to show that you were wrong. So, I did. It is the person who has been refuted that has lost the argument. Meanwhile, you claim to have been misunderstood. So, I am asking you to say exactly what you mean. It appears that you received incomplete information from an anti-DDT website without really understanding what it is that you were reading. What else can I do for you? I provided all the likely interpretations of what you might have meant, so all you have to do is pick one.

Barry is accusing Rachel Carson and environmentalists for millions of malaria deaths.

And, of course, he is right. They are responsible.

How many African countries have, or ever had, a ban on the use of DDT for disease control?

Irrelevant. They didn't cause their own shortage of DDT. It was the anti-DDT campaign that prevented most African countries from taking the measures necessary to save lives. The environmentalists claimed that DDT would harm nature more than it would help people. As a result, millions died. It's a simple as that.

Or, refute the other eight facts that I am claiming

If I refute them, you will likely respond the same way you did when I refuted fact #1--revise and repackage them until they pass inspection and then carry on as if that is what you had meant all along. Besides, all your numbered claims are either distortions or irrelevancies. StephenB

Arguing over semantics rather than substance is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. So? People ought not do that because it displeases you. And why should anyone care about that, exactly? Mung

Stephen, arguing over semantics rather than substance is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. Barry is accusing Rachel Carson and environmentalists for millions of malaria deaths. How many African countries have, or ever had, a ban on the use of DDT for disease control? Or, refute the other eight facts that I am claiming. clown fish

So, when you (Clown Fish) said...

DDT has never been banned for disease control.

, ...what you really meant was that DDT has been internationally banned for agricultural reasons, and it has also been banned by individual countries for disease control, but it has never been banned internationally for disease control? And you think that we were supposed to interpret your earlier unqualified claim as if it had contained all your later qualifications. Is that correct? Which, then, is the case? Are you saying that every one of the world's 196 countries (without exception) banned DDT for agricultural reasons and that only 26 (or could the number be as high as 68) of those countries banned DDT for both agricultural reasons and disease control? Or, are you saying that most (not all) of the world's countries banned DDT for agricultural reasons and only 26 countries banned DDT for disease control? (If so, how many of the world's 196 countries banned DDT for agricultural reasons?). Or, are you saying that some internationally agency has the power to ban DDT for all countries? StephenB

DDT was banned internationally for agriculture. It was never banned for disease control. You can twist what I say, but it does not change anything. Indivudual governments can, and do, ban chemicals for whatever reason they see fit. My province has banned 24D for residential weed control. But there is no international ban. The US has banned Kinder eggs. Canada has banned hormone treated meat. clown fish

Clown Fish

We were talking about international bans.

No, we were not. Your statement was clear:

Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.

This is made even more evident by your previous statement:

Perhaps you can find me the document that banned DDT for malaria control. I assure you that you won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. The ban was for agricultural use.

Clearly, you are saying that DDT was banned for agricultural reasons only. That is not true. In order to avoid my clear refutation, you revised your claim. This, by the way, is why I won't address any of your other claims until you concede the point. What would be the point of correcting you if you move the target again? Here is the way is supposed to be done. Say something like this: "StephenB, you have a point. Not only has DDT been banned for agricultural reasons, it has also been banned for disease control." Then, you can try a new tack, such as, "Still, my broader point stands,".....It's much better than digging your hole deeper and deeper. StephenB

StephenB, we were talking about international bans. Any outright DDT bans have been at the country level, largely in countries where Malaria has been eradicated, or in countries where it is ineffective. You are really hung up on objective vs subjective. This is a thread about DDT and the devil incarnate, Rachel Carson. Please don't try to hijack the thread. clown fish

Clown Fish

To add to #21: Fact 8: See # 37 Fact 8: mosquito resistance to DDT had been a problem long before Rachel Carso wrote her book.

Why do you move on to "fact" #8 when you have not yet answered the refutation to your fact #1. CF

Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.

From Wikipedia on DDT–: 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[43] followed by Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the US in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans, including for disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, CF

But, since these don’t fit in with the demonic evolutionist nature of the OP, I assume that Barry will simply say that these are lies as well.

OK, good. Let's get back to your much larger problem: Subjectivism. Are lies a violation of objective moral standards or are they just personal subjective opinions to which everyone is entitled. Whatever happened to your *live and let live*--*there is no objective truth* subjectivism? How is it possible to misrepresent the truth with a lie if there is no such thing as the truth. StephenB

I thought we had been over this ground before so I looked up a post I remembered writing back in November of last year: ********** Let’s try to clarify a few points since some people seem to be hard of reading.

1. There was no ban on spraying DDT.

Where did I write anything like that? The ban on the use of DDT allowed for its continued use in vector control – killing mosquitoes – until better alternatives could be found. From the Wikipedia entry on DDT:

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[41] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans on the use of DDT, including in disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, Singapore in 1984, Chile in 1985 and the Republic of Korea in 1986.[42] The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, the convention exempts public health use within World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines from the ban.[43] Resolution 60.18 of the World Health Assembly commits the World Health Organization to the Stockholm Convention’s aim of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT.[44] Malaria Foundation International states, “The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.”[45]

No one is denying that DDT can be – and is – effective against malaria but the problem is that over-use leads to the emergence of resistant strains of mosquitoes, just as excessive use of antibiotics has led to resistant strains of bacteria – all of which was predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory. It’s harder to see why a designer would have arranged things thus. Again, from the Wikipedia entry:

WHO’s anti-malaria campaign of the 1950s and 1960s relied heavily on DDT and the results were promising, though temporary. Experts tie the resurgence of malaria to multiple factors, including poor leadership, management and funding of malaria control programs; poverty; civil unrest; and increased irrigation. The evolution of resistance to first-generation drugs (e.g. chloroquine) and to insecticides exacerbated the situation.[22][86] Resistance was largely fueled by often unrestricted agricultural use. Resistance and the harm both to humans and the environment led many governments to restrict or curtail the use of DDT in vector control as well as agriculture.[34] In 2006 the WHO reversed a longstanding policy against DDT by recommending that it be used as an indoor pesticide in regions where malaria is a major problem.[87] Once the mainstay of anti-malaria campaigns, as of 2008 only 12 countries used DDT, including India and some southern African states,[83] though the number is expected to rise

In some areas resistance has greatly reduced DDT’s effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[96] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that “resistance has appeared after six or seven years.”[32] Resistance has been detected in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[97] In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[98] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989 and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[99] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[100] and one study had concluded that “DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor.

And for a different Ugandan perspective, there is this article from the UK’s Independent newspaper by Ellady Myumbi, Secretary General, Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC)

I was compelled to write this article after reading an opinion titled “DDT use would save many lives in Uganda” published in the New Vision of June 27, 2013 by Prof. George B Kirya. I agree with Prof. Kirya that malaria is a major problem in Uganda but I reject his argument that DDT use can help eradicate it. The spiraling death rate from the malaria mortality rates in Uganda and Africa in general are not due to lack of DDT but other factors. Malaria is not like HIV/AIDS, Ebola or SARS which do not have known cures. It must, therefore, be confronted with the best available technologies and solutions and DDT is not such a solution. Appropriate malaria control measures should be anchored in eliminating the parasite from the human host while promoting personal hygiene and better sanitation practices. DDT is not a medical intervention and neither a preventive measure. In most cases, it is never advisable to solve a problem with another complex problem. DDT and its metabolites is a known endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC), a persistent organic pollutant (POP), a reprotoxin and a carcinogen. Previous and recent studies conducted in areas where DDT has been used for malaria vector control even at low doses reveal negative human health impacts. DDT use, therefore, will put the health of Ugandans and our already deteriorating environment at a great risk.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), an international agreement aiming at the elimination of organic pollutants which accumulate in the environment, allows the use of DDT indoor residual spraying (IRS) for disease vector control such as malaria vectors only when there are no safe, affordable, effective and local available alternatives. Even then, the use must be in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Uganda and more than 170 other countries signed and ratified the Stockholm Convention. But the inventory report by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) on POPs reveals that, Uganda has no capacity to use DDT to the standards required by the WHO.

Impassioned denunciations of the late Rachel Carson are both unhelpful and a straightforward Alinskyite demonization of someone who is no longer around to defend themselves in print or in court against defamation. She is no more responsible for the millions of deaths from malaria than is Charles Darwin for the millions who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. ********** Seversky

DDT was never used in a concerted eradication effort in most of Africa because the experts (scientists, not environmentalists) knew that it would not be effective. Rather it was, and is, being used as one of a multi part strategy to control it. Eradication efforts using DDT in many western countries were possible because of a combination of land use practices, draining wetlands and the seasonal mosquito reproductive cycle. DDT is not effective in many tropical and subtropical areas because of the continuous reproductive cycle of the mosquitos, the serious lack of resources and government corruption. clown fish

Bob: For those who worry about things like evidence, the piece by Dr Sam Zaramba is from the WSJ in 2007. The quote given by velikovskys is from a Ugandan paper, the Sunday Monitor, from 2010. Sorry should have included that, thanks. velikovskys

To add to #21: Fact 8: See # 37 Fact 8: mosquito resistance to DDT had been a problem long before Rachel Carso wrote her book. But, since these don't fit in with the demonic evolutionist nature of the OP, I assume that Barry will simply say that these are lies as well. clown fish

Kairosfocus: " It also seems that it can be used in successful malaria eradication." Actually, the experts say that it is only effective in eradication in developed economies with a high standard of living and mature infrastructure. clown fish

To all of the trolls trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of the theodicy. No. Barry Arrington

Roy, passing by and noted a specific point. Whoever told you there is only one relevant or possible designer involved in the history of our planet? Does biological weapon mean something? KF PS: I do think on glances above that some lowering of the volume will help. It is clear from my memory that DDT was cast as a villain of the piece and that it was sharply restricted, banned in many contexts, taken out. There was very little discussion in the general media that shaped public opinion regarding likely consequences for malaria. I recall a lot more on thinned out eggshells of birds and half life of chemicals in the environment. It also seems that it can be used in successful malaria eradication. We need to ask ourselves hard questions on the balances of policies in the name of progress. Unintended consequences can be awful, and must be faced -- a fact that was known a long time ago. So we need to be a lot more cautious about what we present as scientifically established findings and policy recommendations, also options and consequences. DDT and malaria is only one of many cases where there has been or may well be a the rest of the story. kairosfocus

Is there any reason to believe that Rachel Carson or the environmental movement set out to kill millions or willfully ignored clear evidence that such would be a consequence of their research? Did Rachel Carson, at any point, possess the executive power to ensure that DDT was deployed wherever in the world it was needed? Are there malaria control measures that could be applied such that, even of DDT had never been invented, it would be possible to greatly reduce the incidence of the disease? Is it not true that these millions of deaths can, with much more justification, be attributed to human indifference, incompetence and corruption rather than to the work of one researcher? Seversky

For those who worry about things like evidence, the piece by Dr Sam Zaramba is from the WSJ in 2007. The quote given by velikovskys is from a Ugandan paper, the Sunday Monitor, from 2010. I also found an interesting interview with Dr. Zaramba from 2010, where he advocates for integrated disease management and tailoring solutions to the local situation, all of which sounds sensible and I think is in line with the consensus. He doesn't mention DDT, although there was an opportunity to do so. Instead, he says

My number one priority would be human resources. They don’t have to be doctors specifically. We need all different types of health care providers. We need trained physicians of course, but also clinical staff and paramedics, too.

But most importantly, this year he won the Smile Senior’s Golf tournament at the Uganda Golf Club in Kitante. Bob O'H

CF: “By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21.” Let's take them one at a time: Clown Fish

Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.

From Wikipedia on DDT--: 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[43] followed by Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the US in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans, including for disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, StephenB

Barry: "And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands." See #21. By the way, deleting comments? That speaks volumes. [UDEitors: Yes, it speaks to the fact that there is only so much trollish behavior that we will tolerate.] clown fish

CF: "By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21." And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands. Barry Arrington

Let’s not be too hard on Clown Fish. Subjectivists, after all, lack all moral conviction, so they are incapable of feeling righteous indication. If there is no such thing as right and wrong, then there can be no wrongs to be righted. To be sure, subjectivists become miffed when someone calls an abortionist a “murderer,” but the murder itself--the violent invasion, the scalding to death, the slicing up of baby parts—moves them not in the least. Their ire is reserved for the moral reformer. You will never find a subjectivist marching into hell for a heavenly cause; his aim is to uncover the judgmentalism that may be lurking in the marcher’s vocabulary The record shows that environmentalists stumped for a premature ban on DDT and tragedy followed. Still, we must make allowances for subjectivist priorities: Yes, says Clown Fish, millions of children died needlessly, and that is unfortunate; but great danger is looming: Someone, somewhere is considering the death penalty for homosexuals, Now that’s just too much. StephenB

V: "Maybe DDT is not the whole story." Understatement of the year. But these are the guys that Barry prefers to listen to, over the facts that have been presented. The malaria issue is not as simple as DDT. DDT is only one of the factors for it not being prevalent in North America. And DDT without the other factors, would not have made much of a difference. Anyone who says that DDT does not have significant environmental impact is simply lying. Anyone who says it is not persistant in the environment is lying. Anyone who says that it does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects is lying. Anyone who says that it does not bioaccumulate in fatty tissue is lying. Anyone who says that it does not travel long distances in the atmosphere is lying. Anyone who says that mosquitos have not developed resistance to DDT is lying. Malaria is a huge problem in Africa. DDT has a role in irradicating it. But it is not a magic bullet. Without significant financial and logistic support from the west, and a significant reduction in the corruption of many African countries, and significant infrastructure changes, all off the DDT in the world will not help. clown fish

Barry: "OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy." So, you now consider facts that you have made no effort to provide evidence to dispute as "talking points". How pathetic is that? "The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa." In spite of the fact that DDT use has increased consistently since the seventies. That doesn't sound very successful to me. "Anyone who denies this is a liar." So, anyone who provides facts that conflict with what you are saying is a liar. I have never heard of that definition of liar before. But, if that is all you can do to support your false claims, I guess you have to stick with it. By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21. clown fish

OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy. Here are the cold hard facts. The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa. Millions of needless deaths ensued. Anyone who denies this is a liar. You can stop repeating your talking points. Barry Arrington

"The retirement of Dr Zaramba depletes an already embattled ministry that has lost many of its most senior officials in the recent past to international appointments and a litany of alleged corruption cases. Only last week, three senior managers of the Malaria Control Programme were arrested and charged with the alleged negligence and theft of drugs worth Shs2 billion. The trio currently at Luzira Prison pending hearing of their cases are Dr Richard Ndyomugenyi, the malaria programme manager; his deputy Dr Myers Lugemwa and Mr Martin Shibeki, the programme administrator. Maybe DDT is not the whole story velikovskys

Barry: "Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion." You are basing your entire argument on the statements of a government official in a corrupt government. A government that seriously considered the execution of homosexuals as a moral act. Are you sure that you want to lump yourself in with that crowd? From the seventies until the Stockholm agreement, there was no ban on the use of DDT in Africa. And it was used. Following the Stockholm agreement, the use of DDT increased further. It was never at the levels that were used in the US, or in US controlled areas in other countries, but that had nothing to do with environmentalists. It was not used in Africa to the same extent for the same reason that other malaria controls in Africa have not been effective. It cost money and the western countries don't care as much about Africa as they do about western countries. Again you call me a liar without once addressing the facts that I listed. Is that because you can't address them but don't want to admit it? How pathetic. I have not once said that DDT should not be used in Africa. And the facts are that it is being used. And the fact is that the mosquitos are becoming get resistant to it. And the fact is that it is a persistent, bio accumulating chemical that does environmental damage. So, are you going to again ignore all of this and call me more names, or are you going to act as a mature adult and actually address my points? Or are you just going to silently ban me and declare victory? clown fish

CF said:

How do you rationalize your claims against the fact that DDT use in Africa has actually increased since the Stockholm convention?

The de facto worldwide ban on DDT started in the mid 1970's, the Stockholm pesticide treaty went into effect in May, 2004. How much DDT was being used in Africa prior to the release of "Silent Spring", and how much is being used currently? Saying that the use of DDT since the treaty in 2005 has risen in Africa is entirely irrelevant to the argument that the de facto ban that has been in effect since the 70's generated the unnecessary death of millions, and doesn't even matter currently unless you mean, and can show, that current use rivals usage in the 40's and 50's.

And that one of the problems that they are now being faced with in malaria prone areas is resistance to DDT. But, if it makes you feel better to demonize a long dead marine biologist, go right ahead.

The time it takes for a mosquito population to develop resistance to DDT is 4-7 years; the time it takes to eradicate malaria in a given area is 3 years, given that a a full program of widespread use of DDT for the purpose of impacting as much of the mosquito population as possible in as large a geographical reagion as possible is utilized (which is how several countries were able to eradicate malaria by the time "Silent Spring" was published). If there is increased resistance to DDT today in areas of the world that still use DDT, it's due to the highly restricted use of DDT over the past 50 years. Highly restricted, localized application of DDT (as it is done now) cannot impact a nearly sufficient quantity of the mosquito population in any given geographical area, over the necessary time frame, to eradicate malaria. All they are doing with vector use is, essentially, breeding resistant mosquitoes. William J Murray

Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion. How do I know? Because millions upon millions of Africans died as a result of the Western environmental colonialists decried by the Ugandan Minister of Health, and if what you write were true that would not have happened. Let’s break down what the minister said:

Though Africa’s sad experience with colonialism ended in the 1960s, a lethal vestige remains: malaria. It is the biggest killer of Ugandan and all African children. Yet it remains preventable and curable . . . Now they must honor this promise by supporting African independence in the realm of disease control. We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane — DDT.

Dear readers, Clown Fish implies that Western environmental colonialists have not prevented Uganda from using DDT to control the mosquitos that spread malaria. Here is some simple logic, if what Clown Fish says is true, the Minster of Health would not have written that. But he did write that. Therefore, we can be certain that Clown Fish is a liar. Clown Fish says or implies there are alternative pesticides just as good as DDT. Dr. Zaramba talks about the use of some of those alternatives and then he writes:

But DDT lasts longer, costs less and is more effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes than Icon. It functions as spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes out of homes, as an irritant to prevent them from biting, and as a toxic agent to kill those that land. The repellency effect works without physical contact. And because we will never use the chemical in agriculture, DDT also makes mosquitoes less likely to develop resistance.

Again, CF is shown to be a liar. Clown Fish says that DDT is environmentally harmful. Dr. Zaramba:

after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.

Again, CF is a liar. CF says DDT was never banned by law. Dr. Zaramaba:

Although Uganda’s National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us.

Here CF’s statement is misleading and a distortion. There has never been a de jure ban. The ban has always been de facto. The Westerners have told the Africans, stop using DDT or commit economic suicide. Distortion = lie. So, again, CF, is shown to be a shameless liar. Millions have died. CF defends those who killed them. That’s the bottom line. Barry Arrington

Barry, you keep accusing me of lying, and you keep throwing ad hominems at me, rather than actually addressing what I have said. There are several words that describe that sort of pathology, but I obviously have more class than you. Let's list some of the things, and a couple others, that you are accusing me of lying about. Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control. Fact 2: DDT use has increased in Africa since the "so called" ban. Fact 3: mosquitoes are developing resistance to DDT. Fact 4: There are other insecticides that are effective against mosquitoes. We use them every year in Ottawa for the control of West Nile virus. Fact 5: DDT wasn't the only reason for the decline in malaria in North America. We erradicated it in Canada long before DDT was discovered, largely by draining swamps and other sources of standing water around populated areas. Fact 6: DDT is a broad spectrum insecticide, killing beneficial as well as detrimental Arthropods. Fact 6: DDT is a persistent chemical that bioaccumulate throughout the food chain, causing negative affects. Fact 7: Humans are at or near the top of the food chain. Rather than simply claiming that I am lying about these, why don't you try something that is apparently foreign to you. Provide evidence that these are lies. If I am lying, it should be very easy to prove so. From the start, I have said that we have dropped the ball big time on malaria prevention. Environmental policies play a part in this tragedy. But to blame it all on this completely ignores the fact that the foreign policies of western countries towards Africa have been horrendous. But feel free to ignore all of this and continue to falsely accuse me of lying. It is definitely easier to blame a dead marine biologists and the environmentalists that you despise rather than address the real problems, that both the left and right are guilty of. clown fish

CF:

Didn’t WJM just write an OP about the leftist use of inflamatory labels

The labels are not inflamatory if they are true, and in your case they are. You efforts to spread lies that have resulted in the deaths of millions truly are contemptible. I just wish you could have seen the anguish in the Kenyan father's eyes as his daughter lay dying. Perhaps your flinty environmentalist let-'em-die heart would have been softened just a little.

So, you would prefer to believe a minister from a country who was seriously considering the death penalty for homosexuals?

My God. "Shameless" does not even begin to cover that attempted deflection and guilt by association maneuver. Here's your logic: "Some people in Uganda have extreme views about homosexuals; therefore, you should believe me, CF, instead of the Ugandan Minister of Health when it comes to malaria and DDT." As for the rest of what you write, adding more lies does vindicate the previous lies. Again, dear readers, you can believe the Ugandan Minister of Health, or you can believe a contemptible internet troll. By the way, CF, you often argue for the subjective view of morality. I suppose trafficking in lies that have resulted in the deaths of millions is OK under your personal, subjective moral code? The blood of millions of Africans is on the hands of the Western environmental colonialists who forced the de facto DDT ban on the continent. And, to some extent, that blood is on the hands of those who perpetuate the lies they told. That's you CF. Barry Arrington

Barry: "Add “arrogant on a cosmic scale” to “contemptible.” He is utterly shameless." Didn't WJM just write an OP about the leftist use of inflamatory labels to limit discussion and cast dispersions on the person disagreeing with others views? I guess you didn't read it. "They can believe Clown Fish, a nameless, faceless, anonymous internet troll who obviously has a progressive/greenie ax to grind, or they can believe the Health Minister of Uganda about why Uganda was not using DDT. I will take the Minster over the troll." So, you would prefer to believe a minister from a country who was seriously considering the death penalty for homosexuals. That speaks volumes. How do you rationalize your claims against the fact that DDT use in Africa has actually increased since the Stockholm convention? And that one of the problems that they are now being faced with in malaria prone areas is resistance to DDT. But, if it makes you feel better to demonize a long dead marine biologist, go right ahead. clown fish

CF said

The problem is not the ban on DDT. It is the deplorable lack of aid provided by the rest of the world in controlling malaria.

Since CF seems to be unable to understand the worldwide effect that the hysteria against DDT and the politics of those committed to apocalyptic environmentalism had in eliminating the production, infrastructure, support and willingness to use DDT at all (even though it was technically still legal for vector use), I'll spell itout for him. From here:

“Fraud in science is a major problem.” So begins “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud” by the late J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. ... Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about DDT and synthetic pesticides. “For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death,” she intoned.

“Rachel Carson set the style for environmentalism. Exaggeration and omission of pertinent contradictory evidence are acceptable for the holy cause. There has never been any convincing evidence that DDT (or pesticide residues in food) has ever caused cancer in man,” - pesticide specialists Bruce N. Ames and Thomas H. Jukes of the University of California at Berkeley

(Ames is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, world renowned. Jukes, who died a few years ago, was a professor of biophysics and a leader in the defense of DDT.) ... IN 1969, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (then, three guys with a clipboard; now “Environmental Defense”), Sierra Club, and National Audubon Society petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to ban DDT, claiming it is carcinogenic to humans. He agreed to partially phase it out by December 31, 1970, which did not satisfy the environmentalists.

“As you know, many mass uses of DDT have already been prohibited, including all uses around the home. Certainly we’ll all feel better when the persistent compounds can be phased out in favor of biological controls. But awaiting this millennium does not permit the luxury of dodging the harsh decisions of today. - William Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

The Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, to stop exports of DDT to third-world countries, instituted a number of lawsuits, ultimately gaining the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1977.

The article goes on at this juncture to thoroughly debunk all supposed health-risk claims made against DDT, none of which had ever been scientifically established and all of which were scientifically shown to be false. From here:

However, two months later, ignoring his own agency’s ruling and advice, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus single-handedly outlawed almost all use of DDT. He made the unscientific assertion that it poses “unacceptable risk to the environment and potential harm to human health.” He had not bothered to attend a single day of the seven-month hearing and, according to aides, had not read any transcripts. ... Ruckelshaus’ naïve response to criticism that his decision would endanger lives was, “There’s arrogance in the idea that everybody’s going to do what we do. We’re not making these decisions for the rest of the world, are we?” Was it possible he was unaware that DDT producers in the United States exported more than 60 percent of their product to worldwide malaria control programs? Environmentalists next targeted DDT production and export. Industry producers had little incentive to fight for the inexpensive powder because they could make more money on higher-priced “alternatives” that were, ironically, toxic to humans and the environment. With little opposition and fueled by Ruckelshaus’ decision, environmental groups sued to ban DDT export. In response, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the bureau responsible for coordinating foreign assistance, threatened “to stop foreign aid to any country using it,” relate Gerald and Natalie Sirkin in their 2005 special report DDT, Fraud and Tragedy. “Its threat spread Ruckelshaus’ ban worldwide.” WHO and UNICEF, the two UN agencies responsible for malaria eradication programs, reacted by decentralizing DDT-based efforts, placing them in the hands of local USAID mission directors in underdeveloped countries without the means or infrastructure to continue them. According to Javed Siddiqi in his 1995 book World Health and World Politics: The World Health Organization and the UN System, “Many USAID mission directors were more interested in endorsing family-planning programmes, which they felt would address the growing problem of over-population.”

Well, I guess one way to address the (also false) "over-population problem" was to effectively ban all use of an entirely safe and miraculously effective pesticide worldwide and just let tens of millions die from the repercussions. I'm sure that CF, however, in order to defend is worldview, will cling to his mantra that DDT use "to prevent malaria" was never officially banned, even though that technically true claim entirely misses the broader point: that apocalyptic environmental alarmism generated a worldwide, entirely unscientific hysteria against a perfectly good pesticide. That hysteria pressured manufacturers of DDT to stop making it altogether and switch to less effective, more expensive alternatives, and made healthcare organizations shy away from supporting the use, infrastructure and training wrt DDT in third world countries. Even third world politicians, health administrators and leaders shied away from the use of DDT solely based on the false information generated entirely by Rachel Carson's book and those that promoted it without any scientific basis whatsoever. Does CF imagine that, in this atmosphere of hysteria against DDT, world leaders and health organizations were willing to try and find manufacturers of DDT, risk having foreign aid cut off, and expose third world populations directly to DDT by using it in populated "disease vectors" such as in homes and throughout populated areas? Do you think such health program directors and leaders, or those they might contact and work with, wanted to put themselves in the sights of rabid, litigious, hysteria-manufacturing apocalyptic environmentalists? Yet, CF insists that it was just a lack of funding that has been the problem, where before the DDT scare there was absolutely no "lack of funding" issue: malaria had almost been entirely eradicated in many parts of the world via use of DDT. Funds were not cut off, CF; the DDT was, whether or not it was "technically" still legal to use in certain situations, and it was cut off because of the scare tactics and political pressure brought to bear on politicians, world health organizations, and DDT manufacturers by left-wing apocalyptic environmentalists with no regard for science whatsoever. William J Murray

Clown Fish @ 13 thinks he knows the affair of Uganda and the reason they have not used DDT better than the Health Minister of Uganda. Add "arrogant on a cosmic scale" to "contemptible." He is utterly shameless. The readers have a choice here. They can believe Clown Fish, a nameless, faceless, anonymous internet troll who obviously has a progressive/greenie ax to grind, or they can believe the Health Minister of Uganda about why Uganda was not using DDT. I will take the Minster over the troll. Barry Arrington

It is only deplorable if there some kind of real/true (“objective”) moral obligation. Pointing out the clown fish hypocrisy is deplorable. Mung

14 john_a_designer May 28, 2016 at 7:07 am It is not deplorable unless there some kind of real/true (“objective”) moral obligation.

It's just chemical reactions in his brain. He might just as well have said the Moon is made of green cheese. cantor

It is only deplorable if there some kind of real/true (“objective”) moral obligation. john_a_designer

Barry: "Clown, you are contemptible." Thank you for the kind words. [UDEditors: Yes, our words are harsh. We stand by them. There are lies about "academic" subjects. And there are lies that result in the deaths of millions. The lies CF is perpetuating and spreading are of the latter type. "Contemptible" is the nicest word we could think of.] Perhaps you can find me the document that banned DDT for malaria control. I assure you that you won't find it because it doesn't exist. The ban was for agricultural use. Any African country has always been free to use it for malaria control. Where your confusion probably comes from is the fact that there has been very little foreign aid directed towards this. The problem is not the ban on DDT. It is the deplorable lack of aid provided by the rest of the world in controlling malaria. clown fish

Clown Fish, I'm not finished with you. When I was in Kenya a man begged me for help treating his little daughter, who had contracted malaria. I just wish you had been there to see that. You could have told him "the issue has never been the banning of DDT, because it continued to be used in malaria prone areas." That would have been news to him and the millions of other fathers whose children suffered and died. Damn your lies. Do you have no shame? Barry Arrington

clown fish writes:

Malaria killed people by the thousands before DDT, during DDT, and after DDT. The issue has never been the banning of DDT, because it continued to be used in malaria prone areas for decades after it was banned in North America.

The abject stupidity CF displays deserves further comment as a case study in the credulity of ideologues such as he. There was no ban on spraying DDT? Does is strike anyone else as passing strange that the leaders of these African countries stood around wringing their hands while literally millions of their citizens died of an entirely preventable disease under the mistaken impression that they were not free to spray DDT? That claim is absurd on its face. It requires no refutation. Yet clown fish swallows it right down. Why? Because he is a credulous ideologue and the claim was consonant with his ideological prejudices. Perhaps Clown Fish knows better than Dr. Zaramba,former director general of health services for the Republic of Uganda, who writes:

KAMPALA, Uganda — Though Africa’s sad experience with colonialism ended in the 1960s, a lethal vestige remains: malaria. It is the biggest killer of Ugandan and all African children. Yet it remains preventable and curable. Last week in Germany, G-8 leaders committed new resources to the fight against the mosquito-borne disease and promised to use every available tool. Now they must honor this promise by supporting African independence in the realm of disease control. We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane — DDT. The United States and Europe eradicated malaria by 1960, largely with the use of DDT. At the time, Uganda tested the pesticide in the Kanungu district and reduced malaria by 98%. Despite this success, we lacked the resources to sustain the program. Rather than partner with us to improve our public health infrastructure, however, foreign donors blanched. They used Africa’s lack of infrastructure to justify not investing in it. Today, every single Ugandan still remains at risk. Over 10 million Ugandans are infected each year, and up to 100,000 of our mothers and children die from the disease. Recently Ugandan country music star Job Paul Kafeero died of the disease, a reminder that no one is beyond its reach. Yet, many still argue that Africa’s poor infrastructure makes indoor spraying too costly and complex a means of fighting malaria. Uganda is one of a growing number of African countries proving these people wrong. In 2006, Uganda worked with President George Bush’s Malaria Initiative to train 350 spray operators, supervisors and health officials. In August 2006 and again in February 2007, we covered 100,000 households in the southern Kabale district with the insecticide Icon. Nearly everyone welcomed this protection. The prevalence of the malaria parasite dropped. Today, just 3% of the local population carries the disease, down from 30%. This exercise pays for itself. With 90% fewer people requiring anti-malarial medication and other public-health resources, more healthy adults work and more children attend school. When we repeated the test program in Kabale and neighboring Kanungu district this year, our spray teams required little new training and were rapidly mobilized. Our health officials at every level were able to educate our communities, implement spraying programs and evaluate operations. With each passing year, it will now be easier and less expensive to run the programs. But DDT lasts longer, costs less and is more effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes than Icon. It functions as spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes out of homes, as an irritant to prevent them from biting, and as a toxic agent to kill those that land. The repellency effect works without physical contact. And because we will never use the chemical in agriculture, DDT also makes mosquitoes less likely to develop resistance. The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring.” Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs. We are trying to do precisely this. In addition to distributing nearly three million long-lasting insecticidal nets and 25 million doses of effective anti-malarial drugs, we will expand our indoor spraying operations to four more districts this year, where we will protect tens of thousands of Ugandans from malaria’s deadly scourge. We are committed to storing, transporting and using DDT properly in these programs, in accord with Stockholm Convention, WHO, European Union and U.S. Agency for International Development guidelines. We are working with these organizations and to ensure support from our communities, and to ensure that our agricultural trade is not jeopardized. Although Uganda’s National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us. The EU has acknowledged our right to use DDT, but some consumer and agricultural groups repeat myths and lies about the chemical. They should instead help us use it strictly to control malaria. Environmental leaders must join the 21st century, acknowledge the mistakes Carson made, and balance the hypothetical risks of DDT with the real and devastating consequences of malaria. Uganda has demonstrated that, with the proper support, we can conduct model indoor spraying programs and ensure that money is spent wisely, chemicals are handled properly, our program responds promptly to changing conditions, and malaria is brought under control. Africa is determined to rise above the contemporary colonialism that keeps us impoverished. We expect strong leadership in G-8 countries to stop paying lip service to African self-determination and start supporting solutions that are already working.

Clown, you are contemptible. It is one thing to spread lies that hurt only a few. You spread lies that have killed millions. Damn your lies. Barry Arrington

clown fish: The issue is the lack of financial and other support for African nations and other third world countries. Is this a moral issue? Are you merely attempting to express your subjective wish again? Mung

Malaria killed people by the thousands before DDT, during DDT, and after DDT. The issue has never been the banning of DDT, because it continued to be used in malaria prone areas for decades after it was banned in North America. The issue is the lack of financial and other support for African nations and other third world countries. In the last few decades there have been effective alternatives to DDT. Why do they continue not to be effectively used? clown fish

Needlessly dead people are dead people no matter how they died or what the intentions were. Stalin and Pol Pot's forced collectivization of agriculture was not designed to kill people but to advance their nations by creating the New Soviet Man and New Khmer Man. Environmentalists are at best blind to the deaths caused by their policies, but many actually hate humankind and consider our species a cancer on the Earth. StuartHarris

clown fish: Exaggerate much? Would that be objectively morally wrong? Or do you just wish that people would not exaggerate, because you don't like it when they do, but for no particular reason. Given your moral subjectivist stance, why do you feel so compelled to judge others? It makes you look like a liar and a hypocrite, if that matters to you. Mung

clown fish, you are correct that there is a qualitative difference between what Carson did and what the dictators did. Doubtless she did not specifically intend her victims' deaths. OTOH, in terms of sheer numbers, as SH points out, the policies she was instrumental in having implemented, resulted in a death toll that dwarfs the toll of any mass murderer in history. Barry Arrington

Last year 800,000 people in Africa died from malaria. Multiple that by only three years and you've Pol Pot beat. Fifteen years and your into Hitler numbers. Effective use of DDT would end this. From: http://www.malaria.com/questions/malaria-deaths-afric QUESTION What is the estimated number of deaths in Africa caused by malaria each year? ANSWER The exact numbers of deaths caused by malaria every year is very difficult to measure accurately, due to difficulties in diagnosis and also failure to report cases. However, the Roll Back Malaria partnership, coordinated by a host of international organisations including the World Health Organisation, estimates that last year approximately 801,000 people died of malaria in Africa, which represents over 90% of the total annual worldwide deaths. Of those, the vast majority of victims were children under the age of five. StuartHarris

Say: " Rachel Carson is up there with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century." Exaggerate much? clown fish

Rachel Carson is up there with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century. The death continues into the 21st, mostly in Africa, mostly children as victims, mostly from malaria. StuartHarris

Andrew Klavan has a great, and short, commentary on some of the results of environmentalism, social justice and multiculturalism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3DhquH12jQ bb

There was a time when being green meant being a frog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prQwEWKu5Eo Today, being green is anti-science, so far as I can see. It is NOT fact-based. See also: Whole Foods News