In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, about which some have credited the beginning of the environmental movement. It also led to the subsequent ban of DDT in 1972. DDT was accused of causing cancer and in damaging wildlife, particularly birds by causing eggshells to thin.
Prior to this DDT was believed to be a miracle, and the scientist who discovered it, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. During WWII, GIs would cover themselves liberally with the substance before heading into the jungles for protection against malaria. It is also believed that its use eradicated malaria in the U.S. and other developed countries.
Flawed Science
A 1969 study found a higher incidence of tumors in mice that were fed DDT. Let’s think about that. A single study found an increase in cancer in mice fed DDT. However over 20 years of widespread use among humans did not show any increase in the cancer rate among those populations that used them. Upon closer examination of the study they found that both the subject and control groups had increased levels of tumors. Oops. It appears that both groups were fed moldy food that contained a carcinogen. When the test was repeated, neither group had any tumors.
The studies of birds whose eggshells were thin, were also given closer scrutiny. It was determined that the cause was due to a calcium deficiency, not DDT. Actually during the period of greatest DDT use in the U.S. many of the bird species under study grew in numbers rather than fell.
Don’t Let Science Stand in the Way of Politics
In 1971, authority for pesticides was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency. What better way to kick off a new government bureaucracy than some bold action:
“In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that ‘DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.’” — Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32)
However, two months later, the new head of the EPA, William Ruckleshaus, instituted the ban on DDT. This was done without him attending a single hearing on the matter as it was discussed over a seven month period or reading the transcripts.
The Tragic Results
In Ceylon, modern day Sri Lanka, widespread use of DDT cut the number of malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17, that’s right, seventeen in 1963. Spraying was stopped in 1964 and by 1969 the number of cases had risen again to 2.5 million.
It is estimated that in the last ten years alone the number of deaths worldwide from malaria is over 27 million.
There is an aggressive program today to raise money to buy bed nets to protect children in Africa and other parts of the world where malaria is still rampant. Billions of dollars are estimated to be needed to buy and deliver these nets. One of the positive factors about DDT was that it was inexpensive, around seventeen cents per pound.
If only had cooler heads prevailed, and the “science” looked at with a reasonable dose of skepticism, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and malaria, perhaps eradicated. But when some in the environmental movement latch onto a position it soon moves into the realm of settled or consensus science.
The Next Blunder
So before we drive the world over the next environmental cliff, perhaps it’s time to tune out Al Gore, take a cleansing breath, and take a closer look at the science with clear eyes. What the global warming, er, global climate change crowd is proposing would cost in the trillions. Let’s ask if what some scientists are saying that global temperature peaked about ten years ago, why is the earth cooling if we continue to pour more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Why are we calling carbon dioxide, which is essential to life…we exhale it, trees take it in and give off oxygen…a pollutant? What if we eradicate the pollutant, carbon dioxide like we did DDT?
Will there be anyone around to count the damage?
