The Heretics: Steve Milloy – by Rich Trzupek

Given the dogmatic fervor of global warming proponents, and their intolerance of skeptics who dare to question the latest commandment (see: cap-and-trade) in the green scripture, it is perhaps no coincidence that the environmentalist movement sometimes seems to have more in common with theology than with science. If that is true, then the logical word to describe those scientists who have challenged environmental hysteria and extremism is “heretics.” In a series of profiles, Front Page’s Rich Trzupek will spotlight prominent scientists whose “heretical” research, publications, and opinions have helped add a much-needed dose of balance and fact to environmental debates that for too long have been driven by fear mongering and alarmism. In a field that demands political conformity, they defiantly remain the heretics. – The Editors

3428120777_2e21236bb8

In green circles, Steve Milloy is a pariah. But for many scientists who worry that political agendas are corrupting independent research and undermining the scientific method, Milloy is a hero. Using his website, junkscience.com, to deliver his message, Milloy has been a key soldier in the front lines of the battle to maintain the kind of healthy skepticism that is a critical component of scientific endeavor.

It’s not overstating the case to say that Milloy, along with Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre and Joe Bast’s Heartland Institute, laid the groundwork for an increasingly skeptical public to ask the tough, uncomfortable questions that are making global warming zealots squirm.

There was a time, Milloy recalls, when he was almost a voice in the wilderness, after he first started to speak out on the issue in 1996. “We’ve been slogging away at this all through the decade,” he said. “The first part of the decade was really tough. Today, there are lots of people questioning the science behind global warming, but back in 2000 it was very lonely out there.”

One can measure Milloy’s importance by the vehemence with which his critics denounce his work. The Guardian’s George Monbiot has described Milloy as “the main entrepôt for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press.” To that, Milloy replies: “Why, thank you, George. We work very hard to deliver the whole counter case.”

As a regular guest on Fox News and the author of several popular books on the environment and science, including his latest work, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, Milloy is one of the most prominent figures offering a dissenting voice when alarmists of all sorts raise a hue and cry.

While he is best known for climate change skepticism, the “Junkman” takes on the questionable science behind popular hysteria wherever he finds it, from “dangerous” consumer products to the swine flu. A common thread runs through all his work: Milloy strives to be a calming, rational influence, patiently and clearly explaining scientific principles to show why some risks are overstated by the media and political figures.

Mention the word “dioxin” to the average person and it will call to mind what is popularly believed to be one of the most powerful toxins on earth. But it hardly rates a shrug in Milloy’s mind. He believes that Environmental Protection Agency’s dioxin standards are ridiculously low and went on to prove the point in one his earlier and most famous moments of, as he puts it, “debunking the junk.”

In 1999 Milloy had a sample of Ben & Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream analyzed for dioxin. The results showed that the ice cream had over 2,000 times the amount of dioxin that EPA would later say was “the safe level” in its 2003 dioxin report, proving Milloy’s point that dioxin is everywhere in our life, from both man-made and natural sources. The dioxin scare was whipped up by junk science.

The World Health Organization rolled back its ban on using DDT in 2006, a move that will save millions in Africa from dying of malaria. There is little doubt that Junk Science played a role in achieving that result. “100 things you should know about DDT,” authored by Milloy and J. Gordon Edwards, is an invaluable compendium of facts about one of the world’s most useful and needlessly-maligned chemicals. This compellation of data and research makes the convincing argument that DDT presents no threat to human health and the environment; that using DDT to control malaria in the developing world is essential to public health there; and that the reasons DDT was banned in the United States were based on politics and personal profit, not science.

Milloy’s risk evaluation experience gave rise to Junk Science. He was employed as a lobbyist during George H.W. Bush’s term in office, trying to convince the President to sign an executive order that would bring some reason and structure to the EPA’s haphazard risk assessment process. That didn’t happen, primarily, Milloy believes, because doing so would have left EPA bureaucrats with much less to do. “Agencies like the EPA are happy to meet with you and to listen to you,” he recalled. “But, when it comes to doing something, if they don’t like what you say, they just ignore you.”

A likable, well-spoken man with a gift for breaking down complex concepts, one would think that Milloy would become a resource for many news networks. But with the notable exception of Fox, none of the other major outlets call on him any longer, not even to provide an alternative opinion. But then, his non-Fox exposure was minimal, even before global warming took center stage and left him out in the cold among the other networks. “I was on ABC once, with Peter Jennings,” Milloy said, pausing to add with a laugh: “No. Wait. It was with [outspoken libertarian] John Stossel, so I don’t think that counts. And then I used to be on CNBC from time to time, until the CEO of GE took me off.”

One might not know it from the mainstream media, but Milloy’s skepticism about the environmental movement has been repeatedly validated. When a whistleblower released e-mail and data files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009, even some scientists who line up squarely in Al Gore’s camp were shocked by contents. The files revealed that, even at one of the world’s leading centers for climate research, global warming research is not quite as tidy a package of consensus as many alarmists claimed. The scandal, inevitably dubbed “Climategate,” proved to be a vindication for Milloy, demonstrating that many of the things he said were happening among the alarmist community – from data alteration, to “gatekeeping” at scientific journals that rejected inconvenient findings, to the manipulation of the mainstream media – were in fact going on. “It’s amazing,” Milloy said. “I engage in a lot of correspondence with other skeptics and we’ve never had any discussions that even come close to what is in the CRU files. We talk about what the data is telling us, not how we can manipulate the results.”

While Climategate and Copenhagen are important milestones in the fight to take back science, for Milloy they do not represent the tipping point. He believes that we reached that point a few years ago, when more and more of the public began to take notice of what was going on. When you examine the global warming debate, Milloy believes that even the casual observer realizes that the issue is not about science, but about control. “This is a tribal issue,” Milloy said. “The people on the left who advocate this stuff see the environment as a way to advance their political agenda.”

The overall impression that one takes away from a conversation with the Junkman is that he both enjoys his chosen mission and that he receives a good deal of personal satisfaction every time he convinces another reader to question conventional wisdom. He’s been fighting for rational analysis and scientific integrity over the course of two decades and he’s confident that the future will see more victories. “On my tombstone, it’ll say: he was right,” Milloy concluded. “And I was.”

  • eerie steve

    lol liberals deep down the best scientists are conservatives, not preservatives. Left essentially means already dead while right essentially means the derivative of the state of dying.

    My tipping point? Oh, ho-hum the fundamentals of electromagnetism and photon exchange by the alcheimist Isaac Newton are just a blip on my radar screen. I'm talking death by the EOF paradox. The relative age is over. It is now time for the bosonic age.

    And *heh* watch this:

    Germany if you agree become the black flag of the pope's right hand

    Iran, if you agree change Hizbollah's colors from Green to Torquise to show Internationality solidarity with all oppressed people world wide to get the pope's money. Why kill him? He is like the golden goose of the world. Just shake catholics until pennies and nickels fall out their pockets and make coin, ie encrypted coin, the new NEW gold standard.

  • davarino

    eerie.

  • davarino

    Good article.

    I wonder how the global warming theory is supposed to go now. Is it that the world has gotten so hot that it has gone full circle and now its on the cold part of the circle? Hmmmm makes sense to me, snicker.

    Good luck with changing it to “Climate Change”. I think we pretty much always had that.

    Its fun watching the sinking ship. I see Copenhagen went well, must have been a fun confab. I wander if they got anything out of the real polluters, China, and India?

  • thalpy

    We have been damaged by their dishonesty. They must pay a price for their treachery. Loss of employment and pensions would be a proper beginning.

  • ciccio

    I do know all about DDT. It stinks. For the 25 years I lived in the tropics and every night before dinner I shut the bedroom doors and windows, sprayed the hell out of the room with DDT to kill the mosquitos lurking in every nook and cranny. Just before going to bed, opened the windows, put the net down and went to sleep. To top it all, I had a corrugated asbestos roof, kept the worst of the heat out. According to the environmentalists, I should be dead by now.

  • Klem

    It’s too late. Climate change and the creation of a new world government are old stories now. The public has moved on. And by December, Obama will have lost the Dem majority in the House so he will struggle to get anything done. Climate change as a socialist movement is over. Time to try something else.

  • Barry Cooper

    One point that needs to be made is that Leftism is a package. It is based upon conformity to the mutable agendas of a tribe led by village elders like Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, and your local college professor. You are either in, or you are not. There is no middle. And the cause–the Daily Kause–changes constantly.

    You either believe without reservation that the means by which we have achieved our level of economic well being are making the Earth hotter, or you don't. This, of course is a primary symptom of propagandistic indoctrination. No grey areas exist, and no deviation is possible, within VERY narrow lines.

    However, this also means that ANY daylight that enters that grim world where everyone marches in lockstep with everyone else risks ruining the whole project. If ONE piece of the puzzle can be shown to be profoundly wrong, the WHOLE thing can be called into question, depending on how deep in a given individual is.

    So, it is not always the case that shifts are gradual, and on a case by case basis. Rather, there is a qualitative shift that can happen, in which the whole world is looked at in another way, and actual dialogue can begin.

    And where actual debate happens, conservative ideas win. Leftism can only survive in a vacuum protected from criticism.

    The beauty, then, of the patent evidence that the supposed “scientists” behind this global warming fraud have been acting as political activists all along is that it can set up a string of questions, that can lead to more and more people rejoining the human race where we start with doubt, and try to figure things out as we go along, using evidence, common sense, logic, and trial and error.

  • USMCSniper

    The Holy Father, Al Gore has just excommunicated me for being a non-believer – an atheist in the Church of Environmentalism.

  • andrewew

    Fact Check: W.H.O. never banned DDT, so it couldn't have “rolled back its ban” in 2006. In fact W.H.O. has been recommending the use of DDT against malaria without pause since the 50s.

  • Barry Cooper

    Andrewew,

    DDT was demonized for many years, and banned outright in the United States. The environmentalist movement got its start in its modern iteration (i.e. focusing on the environment rather than Malthusian/Marxist disaster scenarios, although of course they never dropped those either) with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which blamed DDT for hair loss, bad dates, crappy jobs, and not being born rich.

    Our own EPA banned DDT for use in the United States, and in my understanding we prohibited foreign aid money shipped overseas from being used for DDT, as did most Western nations. Part of the logic of the Left is that millions dying in Africa every year was good since they weren't creating a problem of overpopulation.

    DDT, in the most literal possible sense, was the Global Warming of the 60's. Leftists always need what I call an “operative pretext” for their usurpations of power, and they said so then. From here: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

    “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”

    So they took an issue about which they were able to drum up a lot of–shall I use the term?–astroturf outrage, and used it to get themselves into positions of power. The EPA (under Nixon) was founded in part as a reaction to this movement.

    In issue after issue after issue, one sees that the goal is NEVER to get it right, but to get POWER. It is EXACTLY the same with their currently dominant big idea, global warming, which they had to rename since even Gaia thinks they are full of crap.

  • trickyblain

    “Part of the logic of the Left is that millions dying in Africa every year was good since they weren't creating a problem of overpopulation.”

    You wouldn't happen to have a primary source for this absurd statement, would you?

  • edarrell

    Milloy's “100 things” screed against DDT is filled in gross distortions, inaccuracies, errors, and flat out lies.

    If that's science, you are Marie, the Queen of Romania.

  • richtrzupek

    My first “fact checker” ever at Front Page. I am honored. Perhaps a little fact checking of the checker is in order. Perhaps at the W.H.O. website itself?

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/20

    The lead paragraph of the press release:

    “15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.”

    Might want to check out your checkin' ability there, checkers.

  • Barry Cooper

    “Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

    From the link I posted which you were, uh, too busy to read.

  • Barry Cooper

    Eddarell: perhaps you have heard the phrase “damned by faint praise” in one of several variants. Let me coin the counterpoint: vindicated by vague criticism. I looked at your links. In one they criticize point number six, which apparently contains a math error. They do nothing to rebut the actual POINT which was made, which was that legislatively reduced access to DDT in the Third World, as a DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTION OF IDIOTS LIKE RACHEL CARSON, caused the unnecessary death of millions of Africans and others.

    In another, a citation is subjected to critique.

    Let me put it this way: I believe that in the doses in which it is actually used, DDT is almost entirely harmless to animals and humans, and with respect to the latter that it manifestly saves lives.

    I believe that its use was virtually halted by do-gooder, no-thinker leftists back in the 60's and 70's, not least because it offered an operative pretext for the increase in their access regulatory powers, as indeed admitted back then.

    I believe that as a direct result of propaganda campaigns waged by the Left, a beneficial substance was removed from use, with the result that actual human beings in the millions–black African Africans for the most part–DIED because they were unable to effectively prevent the reproduction of mosquitoes, accompanied by the spread of malaria.

    I believe there were NO positive benefits that flowed from this decision, even to birds and other wildlife, and that EVERYONE who was involved in that campaign should be as ashamed of their involvement as the radicals who cooperated with the North Vietnamese to make sure the South was enslaved.

    What part of that do you want to dispute?

  • edarrell

    Barry, I read that link. It's false, too.

    You think they're accurate? Show us the quotes. Malaria fighters, like Rachel Carson, have never urged that we allow people to die from malaria. That's such a repugnant claim that any rational person would regard the claims as false on their face.

  • edarrell

    Eddarell: perhaps you have heard the phrase “damned by faint praise” in one of several variants. Let me coin the counterpoint: vindicated by vague criticism. I looked at your links. In one they criticize point number six, which apparently contains a math error. They do nothing to rebut the actual POINT which was made, which was that legislatively reduced access to DDT in the Third World, as a DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTION OF IDIOTS LIKE RACHEL CARSON, caused the unnecessary death of millions of Africans and others.

    You accuse me of not reading, when you're not reading my post. The point was simple: Not only was there a math error, but the National Academy of Sciences said that DDT, despite being useful in killing mosquitoes, is too dangerous to keep using. NAS called for a speedy phase out of DDT use, even before it became as weak a pesticide as it has become.

    Yes, there was a math typo. But also, the book Milloy cited said exactly the opposite of what Milloy claims it said. That's no math error: It's a patent, intentional falsehood.

    In another, a citation is subjected to critique.

    Let me put it this way: I believe that in the doses in which it is actually used, DDT is almost entirely harmless to animals and humans, and with respect to the latter that it manifestly saves lives.

    Let's put it this way: Milloy lied about DDT not being harmful to animals. He cites work by a guy named DeWitt. He says DeWitt's research showed no harm to non-predator birds fed DDT, and that their young hatched naturally. So I got DeWitt's paper, and it concludes that DDT is harmful to all birds. Generally DDT killed the chicks in the eggs before they could hatch, apart from eggshell thinning, which made the eggs impossible for chicks to grow in. DeWitt noted that he fed DDT to grain-eating birds, and in two cases, there was a normal hatch rate. Milloy cut off DeWitt's sentence, however. DeWitt said that there was a normal hatch rate, but all of the hatched chicks died within a few days. 100% mortality to the chicks from DDT, the exact opposite of what Milloy claimed.

    That's known as academic and science fraud. Were Milloy to make such a claim in federally-funded research, he'd go to jail.

    I believe that its use was virtually halted by do-gooder, no-thinker leftists back in the 60's and 70's, not least because it offered an operative pretext for the increase in their access regulatory powers, as indeed admitted back then.

    Because you don't know the history. DDT use in Africa, by WHO-funded malaria eradication programs, was stopped in the mid-1960s because the mosquitoes had become resistant or immune to DDT in those places DDT was used (overuse by agricultural interests caused the changes) — and that made the malaria eradication program impossible if it relied on DDT. Plus, DDT programs were impossible to initiate in several nations where eradication was most needed, because the governments were too unstable to provide the education, medical care and pesticide spraying discipline to beat the disease. (Google the full story, in Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker profile of veteran malaria fighter Fred Soper — it wasn't regulation that stopped DDT use, it was the malaria fighters.)

    You claim that it was an exercise in regulation? DDT was never banned in any African or Asian nation. How could there be an “increase in regulatory powers” when there was no law, no regulation, no nothing? DDT was banned by the U.S. EPA, in the U.S. The “ban” left DDT available for use to fight disease and emergencies in the U.S. Specifically, the “ban” left DDT manufacturing in the U.S. alone, to keep servicing export markets. In other words, we kept making DDT to use in Africa and Asia. Who do you think bought the stuff? Where do you think it was used?

    I believe that as a direct result of propaganda campaigns waged by the Left, a beneficial substance was removed from use, with the result that actual human beings in the millions–black African Africans for the most part–DIED because they were unable to effectively prevent the reproduction of mosquitoes, accompanied by the spread of malaria.

    But DDT was never banned for use in Africa. So what you're really saying is that you think Africans were too stupid to use DDT despite it's magical powers. That's a racist claim, grounded probably more in ignorance of the history and chemistry than in actual animus — but racist all the same.

    Propaganda campaign? EPA's rulemaking on the re-labeling regulations was mandated by two different federal courts, each of which had determined DDT was a hazardous substance and too dangerous for common use. There is a 10,000-page record of science data showing the harms of DDT. Two chemical companies (who had been full participants in the earlier litigation and in the EPA hearing) sued in federal court to stop the rule. Under U.S. law, no such regulation can stand if there is insufficient or incorrect science data to support it. In both of those post-ban suits, the courts ruled summary judgment against DDT. “Summary judgment” means that, even if all the evidence had been interpreted in the best light against EPA's rule and for DDT, DDT lost on the law, based on the evidence showings.

    The science case against DDT is solid, and always has been. From the Forest Service, to the USDA, to FDA, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to the courts, to EPA, the findings have been unanimously against DDT's being a safe substance in the wild. Unanimously. Discover magazine surveyed the literature in 2007, and they found more than 1,000 peer-review research papers confirming the harms of DDT to birds as Rachel Carson had stated them, written after Carson's book was published. There was not a single research report to deny those findings. 1,000 to zero is a heck of a count for you to ignore.

    I believe there were NO positive benefits that flowed from this decision, even to birds and other wildlife, and that EVERYONE who was involved in that campaign should be as ashamed of their involvement as the radicals who cooperated with the North Vietnamese to make sure the South was enslaved.

    Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, brown pelican, osprey. Mexican free-tail bats. By the way, the bats are major disease fighters here in the southwest U.S. — they eat several times their body weight in mosquitoes each night. We had major problems because DDT nearly wiped them out, and mosquitoes populations exploded, carrying diseases farther and faster. That's a bad effect of DDT spraying — it almost always results in an explosion of the pest after all the beneficial pest predators have been eliminated. How can you ignore the dozens of news stories on the recover of these animals just in the last two years?

    What part of that do you want to dispute?

    Nothing you've claimed is supported by history or science. And if one is aware of the science, it's not supported by reason, either. You've said nothing that is factual. What's left to dispute? I think I've made my case. If you think I left anything unrefuted, I'll refute it.

  • cjkcjk

    Excellent!

  • cjkcjk

    So then you believe the WHO is wrong to relax it's rules?

  • Barry Cooper

    OK. All 109 points are relevant, but let's take two, 26 and 27, here copied:

    Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.”

    [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]
    A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.”

    [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32]

    You have two journals, presumably peer reviewed, indicating non-carcinogenic effects. Do you dispute this?

    Do you dispute that the editor of Science magazine said that he would never print a story which was supportive of DDT?

    Do you dispute that virtually all of the foreign aid we gave to many African nations for many, many years explicitly prohibited those funds from being used for DDT?

    We'll start there, and continue as long as necessary.

  • Barry Cooper

    Actually, let me add number 9:

    “Resistance” may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied — this still reduces mosquito-human contact. “This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.”

    [See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]

    The claim is that DDT is reducing rates of malaria even where the mosquitoes are resistant. The corrolary is that the bans on the use of foreign aid money for DDT was directly responsible for preventable deaths in humans.

    Do you dispute this?

  • Barry Cooper

    One last thing: there are hundreds of citations on there. Which one are you referencing when you talk about some “guy named Dewitt”. I scanned it, and didn't see it. I saw many dozens of other papers supporting his research. How many of them have you read? You make it sound like only one source is cited.

    Nonetheless, if it's on the internet I would be more than happy to read it. If I do so, I will ask you to read one of the numerous citations also quite obvious and available in the piece that contradict your fundamental claim.

    To be clear, I categorically do NOT deny that the “scientific” establishment can be corrupted by political activism, cronyism, extortion, and systematic exclusion of countervailing narratives. On the contrary, the case is absolutely clear that that is what happened in the realms of diet and climatology.

    So I don't deny that many or most people might have claimed DDT is bad. What I AM claiming is that after decades of seeing it as evil, virtually all of the main environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, now have come around and admitted it has its uses, after denying that virtually since Carson's book came out.

    Given that, we can reliably infer a LOT of evidence has been suppressed. You have addressed virtually NONE of it.

  • Barry Cooper

    Found it: number 10.

    How about number 45?

    Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use.

    Or number 68: After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

    [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

    [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]

    The beauty of this for me is you will force me to learn this material in the course of shutting you up. So by all means carry on. See you tomorrow, hopefully.

  • Barry Cooper

    Actually, I found another source: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/

    Here's a nice quote: “Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”

    Discussing page 120 of “Silent Spring” he has this to say: “Carson either did not read DeWitt’s article, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt’s experiments on pheasants, which were published on the same page. The “controls” hatched only 57.4 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed pheasants, (dosed with 50 ppm of DDT in all of their food during the entire year) hatched 80.6 percent of theirs. After two weeks, the DDT chicks had 100 percent survival, while the control chicks only had 94.8 percent survival, and after 8 weeks the DDT chicks had 93.3 percent survival while the control chicks only had 89.7 percent survival. It was false reporting such as this that caused so many leading scientists in the United States to take Rachel Carson to task.”

    He is saying that DDT exposed eggs, according to Dewitt's research had both higher hatching rates, AND higher survival rates.

    Let's drop Dewitt, though. We have hundreds of other sources. What do you have to say about the one's I've cited?

  • cjkcjk

    Excellent point!
    If I had 33,000 times the daily exposure to toothpaste I'd worry about something happening to my health.

  • richtrzupek

    Mucho gracias cjkcjk – although I must say that I had hoped my first “fact checker” had brought a little more game. This one didn't even raise a sweat!

    Cheers,

    Rich

  • richtrzupek

    Barry – you are trooper. Kudos. One more point to add to the excellent points you have made so far.

    edarrell said: “Were Milloy to make such a claim in federally-funded research, he'd go to jail.”

    This is spurious on two counts: 1) Milloy is not a researcher, he is a compiler and “translator”. The implication that Milloy does research or claims to do research is nothing more than building a straw man. Citing and explaining research that others have done – no matter what “side” your on – is a valuable service. 2) If a researcher WERE to make an erroneous claim, that is known as a “mistake”, not a felony. “Going to jail” is typically alarmist hyperbole.

    In addition, WHO (as noted in my earlier comment) admitted that it phased out the use of DDT in the 1960's – that is indeed a regulatory action. And, if DDT is so pitifully ineffective, one must wonder why WHO would choose to start using it again. Or perhaps that just me…

    Cheers,

    Rich

  • edarrell

    What do you mean, “relax its rules?” WHO's rules on DDT have not changed since 1964, maybe earlier.

    Except for the announcement a few months ago that DDT isn't working well in Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), and so they expect to be using less of it in the future.

    What rule is it you claim that is being “relaxed,” and what does that mean?

  • edarrell

    DEET works a lot better, is less toxic to humans and fish, and usually cheaper. Why not use DEET instead of DDT, if you wish to repel?

    Why not use bednets? Bednets reduce malaria by 50% to 85% — DDT can reduce malaria by 25%, maybe 50% at the high mark. Bednets are about 10 times cheaper. Why not use the cheaper, more effective solution?

    Saying a poison is still useful because of a small repellent effect is rather like saying, 'well, yeah, the nuclear device does some collateral damage, but it sure does take care of the dandelions in the lawn!'

  • cjkcjk

    you've just confirmed your incredibility Mr.LeftyGo back to yopur leftist hack blog 'Milliard Fillmore's Bathtub' or whatever it's called..LOL
    Go look it up genius, but first take a course in English and look up the possible meanings for the word 'relaxed'.
    What's next? You gonna criticize my grammar like a good lefty?

  • cjkcjk

    Congratulations on beating the piss out of another lefty…..most admirable and a service to all who seek real truth.

  • cjkcjk

    I see you now begin to side step someone who's probably spent less than a 20th. of the time you've spent on the subject, but then again reasearching is alot easier when you're seeking the truth instead of an agenda.LOL

  • timeklek

    Interesting' Huxleys' 1955 book, Brave New World Revisited, listed DDT as undesirable because it saved Too Many Lives; (pop.control) (Page-?)

  • bubba4

    “When a whistleblower released e-mail and data files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009, even some scientists who line up squarely in Al Gore’s camp were shocked by contents.”

    The e-mails and documents were hacked (stolen) and deliberately released leading up to the summit in Copenhagen. There is virtually nothing of note in all the documents and FPM like other like-minded outlets are short on the content and long on the description of what is in the documents and what it means.

    Like any of you needed a reason not to “believe” in climate change.

  • bubba4

    You can put DDT on your breakfast cereal if you want to and it probably won't hurt you. It's the long term effects to the life cycles of birds and amphibians that give it it's downside.

    Before the ban, DDT was being sprayed often and everywhere because it was “so safe” so it was being overused without a care in the world. Come to think of it, so were a lot of other chemicals…

    While DDT can be effective in killing mosiqutoes and such, it doesn't work well in all circumstances and is not a miracle chemical. I would hardly call it the greatest discovery ever. I think it remains banned for large scale agricultural use, because that tends to make the bugs resistant.

  • davarino

    Hey Tricky, you wouldnt happen to have a brain would you? What else can be deduced when it is obvious DDT was not the threat we were told and that its use could save millions of lives in Africa. The only conclusion that can be drawn, is that those who banned DDT didnt care about the African people.

    There you have it, the left, who are supposed to be the saviors of the world, are in fact evil people who will stop at nothing to gain power.

    This is why we say that liberalism is a mental disorder, because logic goes out the window for most liberals, and the leaders are just outright evil because they know better.

  • edarrell

    That's inaccurate. Huxley wrote that saving lives with DDT is good; however, that leaves underfunded undeveloped countries with a greater population problem, greater problems in starvation (which you would agree would be bad, I hope), and other problems.

    See page 15 of Brave New World Revisited; Huxley wrote:

    “For example, we go to a tropical island, and with the aid of DDT we stamp out malaria and, in two or three years, save hundreds of thousands of lives. This is obviously good. But the hundreds of thousands of human beings thus saved, and the millions they beget and bring to birth, cannot be adequately clothed, housed, educated or even fed out of the island's available resources. Quick death by malaria has been abolished; but life made miserable by undernourishment and over-crowding is now the rule, and slow death by outright starvation threatens ever greater numbers.”

    It never ceases to amaze me how DDT advocates — advocates of poison — will twist the good words of good people working to reduce death and ease suffering and pain, in order to make it appear that doing good is an evil thing to do.

    Huxley's vision of suffering was alleviated in the 1960s and later by the Green Revolution produced by Norman Borlaug and his associates, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation — another arm of the environmental movement.

    I am convinced more than ever that the critics of DDT do not know what they are talking about. I prefer that to the other possible solution, that timeklek and colleagues are evil, and distort things like Huxley's writing knowingly.

    DDT is mentioned three times in Huxley's book. On none of those occasions does Huxley write that saving lives with DDT is undesirable. Please correct your notes and do not repeat that false claim.

  • Barry Cooper

    Bubba4,

    You're categorically wrong. What was in those emails were specific instructions to delete raw data that had been requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. That is AGAINST THE LAW.

    The reason they HAD to be stolen is that the Anthropogenic Global Warming folks are the closest thing to a mafia we have seen since the low fat fraud, or the DDT fraud, take your pick.

    Yes, it is against the law to hack computers. Yet, it happens all the time. Twitter was taken down just recently. The key point is that these demented liars are asking that TRILLIONS in dollars be spent to prevent something that DOESN'T exist.

    More, and on line with the DDT fraud, the people who will suffer the most from globally mandated reductions in the production of energy are persons of color in the developing world. You know, the EXACT people Leftists claim they care about. Of course, if you never bother to check on the actual outcome of your policies, you will never know what effect was achieved.

    As far as your point about DDT, look at the paper. He has DOZENS of citations showing NO long term problems in bird populations. Of course, actually doing work would be contrary to the code of the Gentleman Blogger.

    Being far less genteel, and living in a far less rarified sphere, I've always found it most useful to try and understand issues prior to commenting on them. You do lose sstyle points, but I've always felt content trumps packaging.

  • edarrell

    OK. All 109 points are relevant, but let's take two, 26 and 27, here copied:

    And almost all the 109 points that are not innocuous ('DDT was discovered in the 19th Century!') are false. Have you checked out the citations on any of the points? Do the sources Milloy and Edwards point to actually say what Milloy and Edwards claim? Check out the sources. You'll be informed.

    See those points where Milloy argues that eagles did well with DDT? That's false. Each reference to an Audubon study is total fiction — there are not Audubon studies supporting Milloy's claims. Get the magazines and check it out for yourself.

    If you think those points are valid, please remind me of that if I ever interview you for jury duty — and I hope to heck you're not an investment advisor.

    Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.”

    [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]

    Why do you mention carcinogenicity? DDT was not banned because it was thought to be carcinogenic. That is not an argument that is on the table.

    In 1972, it was pretty clear that DDT is at least a weak carcinogen. Fortunately. Human exposure has been pretty high in far too many cases, and that it's only weakly carcinogenic in humans is good for those thousands exposed.

    But make no mistake: DDT is a known mammal carcinogen. It is listed by the American Cancer Society and EPA as a “probable” human carcinogen. I trust the American Cancer Society to get that sort of stuff right (their conclusions are based on dozens of studies, not one or two). Also, every other cancer fighting organization on Earth lists DDT as a probable human carcinogen. I know of no other mammal carcinogen that is not also carcinogenic in humans, so I take high comfort in DDT's having a weak effect.

    It's not great comfort, though. Wikipedia has a quick rundown:

    DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as a class B2 “probable” human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it is as a “possible” human carcinogen. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][21]

    There is epidemiological evidence (i.e. studies in humans) that DDT causes cancer of the:

    * Liver[21][32]
    * Pancreas[21][32]
    * Breast[32] (see below)

    There is mixed evidence that it contributes cancer of the:

    * Blood (i.e. Leukemia)[32]
    * Testis[21][32][72]
    * Lymphatic system (i.e. non-Hodgkin Lymphoma)[32][73]

    The class of chemicals to which DDT belongs frequently causes liver cancers. Milloy picked one area where the links to cancer were perhaps weakest a few years ago — breast cancer — to focus his disinformation campaign on. Remember, DDT was NOT banned because of its danger to cause cancer. So claiming now that DDT is only a weak carcinogen is a red herring argument, beside the point, and misleading.

    But here's the latest about breast cancers:

    Breast cancer

    The question if DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been the subject of numerous investigations. While individual studies have come to conflicting conclusions, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that exposure to DDT before puberty increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.[32][74] Until recently, almost all studies measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. This study design has been criticized, since the levels of DDT or DDE at diagnosis do not necessarily correspond to the levels present in a woman's body at the time when her cancer first started.[75] Such studies have thus yielded conflicting results and taken as a whole “do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer.”[42] The studies of this design have been extensively reviewed.[21][76][77]

    In contrast to these studies, a study published in 2007 found a strong association between exposure to specifically the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life. Unlike previous studies, this was prospective cohort study in which blood samples were collected from young mothers in the 1960s while DDT was still in use, and their breast cancer status was then monitored. In addition to suggesting that exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT is the more significant risk factor of breast cancer, the study also suggests that the timing of exposure is critical. For the subset of women born more than 14 years prior to the introduction of DDT into US agriculture, there was no association between DDT levels and breast cancer. However, for women born more recently—and thus exposed earlier in life—the third who were exposed most to p, p-DDT had a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence over the least exposed third, after correcting for the protective effect of o,p-DDT.[42][78] These results are supported by animal studies.[32]

    Recent research indicates DDT is indeed a breast cancer risk — to the daughters and sons of the woman exposed more than to the woman first exposed — and that <a href=”http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/how-ddt-could-work-in-aggressive-breast-cancers/”?DDT can promote the growth of breast cancers.

    A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.”

    [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32]

    You have two journals, presumably peer reviewed, indicating non-carcinogenic effects. Do you dispute this?

    I don't dispute the existence of two studies that show DDT to be not a strong carcinogen. Do you dispute the dozens of studies that show DDT is carcinogenic? Do you dispute that DDT is an unquestioned carcinogen in other mammals? Do you claim the American Cancer Society is lying?

    Since 1962, we've also learned that DDT is an endocrine disruptor. It mimics estrogen, swelling the mammaries of little boys, and shrinking their testes. It causes freak mutations in other animals. Most endocrine disruptors are also carcinogenic. Do you dispute any of this?

    Do you dispute that the editor of Science magazine said that he would never print a story which was supportive of DDT?

    Yes. I don't think any editor would say that, and I've never been able to source the quote to anyone reliable, with any date or name attached. Give me a date — I'll wager I can find a paper in Science after that date with an article that didn't slam DDT.

    I gather you are not a regular reader of Science — that's not how the journal side of that publication works.

    Do you dispute that virtually all of the foreign aid we gave to many African nations for many, many years explicitly prohibited those funds from being used for DDT?

    Yes. The only reference I've been able to track down was to hearings in 2005 before a Senate committee. Tom Coburn, the usual-fool-for-poison from Oklahoma, pressured an AID official to say it was okay to spend money on DDT, and got no good answer. Let me remind you that this was the Bush administration, and I don't think anyone is fool enough to argue George W. Bush was a lefty environmentalist. Let me remind you that Environmental Defense is on record pressuring the Bush administration to renew funding for IRS in Africa.

    Plus, DDT is relatively cheap. For anyone unconcerned about the environment, like a poverty-struck African nation where malaria is a bigger problem than saving birds in America, DDT was easily and readily available.

    We'll start there, and continue as long as necessary.

    Why not just read Carson's book and come to my blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, and go to Deltoid, and read up on the issue? You can probably get a lot more good information on DDT and fighting malaria by doing that.

    • Barry Cooper

      I find it interesting that you first claim that Carson never claimed that DDT causes cancer, then reverse yourself and quote extensively in support of that claim.

      Do mosquitoes cause malaria? That was my understanding. I suspect that particular relationship is empirically much better founded than the claims you are making. Do you remember when all the research said you should take a lot of Vitamin E, then was reversed?

      I trust cancer researchers less than I trust you, and that's saying something. They have accomplished something close to nothing in the last 50 years.

  • edarrell

    See point #10 on Milloy's list. He specifically misquotes DeWitt's research there.

    See my response here: Dissecting Milloy's Point #10

  • edarrell

    The beauty of this to you is trying to send me on wild goose chases.

    I have been unable to find any of those articles. Can you get them from your library?

    More specifically:

    Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972

    The 1972 annual bird census could not possibly say what is alleged here, and if you check the magazine, there are articles that deny each and every claim about eagles that Milloy makes. It's a made-up claim.

    Go read Audubon from 1940 through 1972. Count the articles that say eagles are doing well, that eggshell thinning does not occur, and that DDT is exculpated. Count the articles that say the opposite. I dare you.

    The annual bird count cannot be immediately extrapolated as an indication of bird populations — go read the bird count edition and see for yourself. To claim, as Milloy does, that this count raw total/observer means health of the eagles, is fraud. If you were to read that edition, you'll find articles noting the decline of eagles and the problems in their reproduction (largely due to DDT).

    I'm tired of citations of fraudulent material. I'm curious why you cite it to me before you check it out, as I have earlier urged. And I'm curious: When you discover that Milloy has committed fraud here, will you chastise him for it?

    Have you checked out what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says about DDT and eagles? Why not?

    Are you opposed to helping the bald eagle? Is it your position that they should be poisoned out of existence?

    Can you tell me how stopping DDT use in North America possibly affects African malaria rates?

  • trickyblain

    So, the short answer is no. You do not have a primary source for that
    absurd statement.

  • Ruler4You

    Steve, I've been right there with you from the beginning. And folks, stop with the GW stuff already. The science was never there to begin with. Get beyond it. In point of fact, climate changes. Don't panic. Adapt and over come. After all we are human, remember? the ones with the large brains?

    It's what's “behind” GW that is the goal. And it has been in your face since the beginning, and that is: GLOBAL TAXATION and REGULATION. Wake UP!. When you can't believe scientists and politicians are all on board you know it has to have something to do with your money.

    How many times do you have to see the same show before you know the ending? Socialism is at our door step because people won't pay attention to the money trail. If you wait for some one else to discover the truth it will be too late.

  • cjkcjk

    Boo-Effin-Hoo!……..Yeah and during the Cold War the USA stole and hacked a lot of documents from the USSR…..so what?
    I guess it's okay and protected by law for these creeps to conspire to rip us all off for trillions of dollars?
    As far as I'm concerned the fiends should be thrown in jail for the immensity of their conspiracy.

  • cjkcjk

    You lefties are masters at twisting logic!
    You state that timeklek's paraphrase of Huxley is inaccurate and then print the exact quote which says to anyone with intelligence that timeklek was accurate!….LOL
    A careful analysis of the quote exposes the liberal mindset in a nutshell. We shouldn't save these lives because WE DEEM THAT IT WILL CAUSE MORE MISERY LATER………Well who the F*UCK are you to deem that assholes!!!!

  • cjkcjk

    Our PRIMARY source is our eyes, ears, historical knowledge, knowledge of human nature, and our brains.
    The left seems to use semantics and deception in lieu of the above for their primary sources.
    Hey tricky-brain, go look at your fellow leftie's quote of Huxley below.

  • timeklek

    edarrel, you are probly correct, its been years ago' I read the book & recollection was not total. Still, the hint of Malthusian intent was taken when the ban' instituted; along with quotes from other globalist insiders: Prince Philip, Jaque Coustea and others….silent spring etc..

    Scientific data gets questionable too; when “the Agenda” is afoot.
    global warming anyone?

  • edarrell

    What was the fact the fact checker challenged? If the fact checker challenged your statement that WHO had a ban on DDT, the fact checker is right, and you are wrong. Read that WHO press release carefully. It says nothing about a ban. There never was a ban at WHO.

    Nor did the press release really change any policy.

    Moreover, WHO has no power to ban DDT in Africa. So if you're claiming that Idi Amin didn't use DDT to fight malaria in Uganda because bad old WHO wouldn't let him, you're wrong.

    What is your claim?

  • edarrell

    Actually, I found another source: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/

    I didn't realize you were a Lyndon Larouche fan. That article, by the way, is from Gordon Edwards, Milloy's co-conspirator. It's not “another source.” It's the same source from an even less reputable publication.

    No, let's not drop DeWitt. Milloy (and Edwards) lied about the research. They said DeWitt found no problem in cases where DeWitt found DDT killed 100% of the chicks. This is a bright line case: Milloy is a disreputable source who cannot be trusted.

    I'm sure you'd like to drop this crystal clear example of dissembling, this crystal clear example of science fraud by Milloy. But no, we can't do that. Fraudsters don't change their ways usually until parole, if then.

    Do you have a single credible source to say what you Milloy claims? As I noted, Discover magazine found more than 1,000 sources saying eggshell thinning is a problem for birds, and DDT causes it. Not one source supported Milloy's claims. You suddenly found “hundreds?” You've not looked at any of them yourself, though, have you.

  • edarrell

    edarrell said: “Were Milloy to make such a claim in federally-funded research, he'd go to jail.”

    This is spurious on two counts: 1) Milloy is not a researcher, he is a compiler and “translator”. The implication that Milloy does research or claims to do research is nothing more than building a straw man.

    Actually, I'm saying that federal researchers must answer to much higher ethical standards than Milloy can reach. You're right — he's not bound by any code to tell the truth. Shame on him. You'd think a guy taking money from big business would at least be able to tell things as straight as a Tenderfoot Boy Scout.

    Not a straw man. A lament. You can't trust Milloy, and the lies he tells, no matter how many Africans die because of them, he can't be prosecuted for.

    Citing and explaining research that others have done – no matter what “side” you're on – is a valuable service. 2) If a researcher WERE to make an erroneous claim, that is known as a “mistake”, not a felony. “Going to jail” is typically alarmist hyperbole.

    We've had laws since at least 1985 that make it a federal crime for researchers to propose projects with factual misstatements such as those Milloy makes habitually, constantly and continuously.

    Plus, if a federal researcher were to mis-report USFWS research as Milloy misreports Dr. DeWitt's bird studies, he'd be liable for jail time. Lying is okay for lobbyists like Milloy — they have only their clients and God to answer to. We have much higher ethical standards for federally-funded research.

    Which is one reason Milloy can't cite federally-funded research that supports his side. They have to tell the truth in their papers. Milloy can't tolerate that.

    In addition, WHO (as noted in my earlier comment) admitted that it phased out the use of DDT in the 1960's – that is indeed a regulatory action.

    No nation can be affected by such a WHO decision. WHO has zero regulatory authority — no UN agency does. WHO could stop using it in programs it operated, but it doesn't even have the power to stop a nation from using malaria-fighting money from going to DDT, even if WHO didn't want that.

    Saying WHO's cessation of use of DDT is regulatory is rather like saying Henry Ford's cessation of the Model T was regulatory. Not so, not possible, outside the bounds of reality — and really silly.

    WHO stopped using DDT only because it stopped working. You can read the history of the incidents at Malcolm Gladwell's site, where he has preserved his article out of the New Yorker, a great tribute to that ace malaria fighter Fred Soper. Mosquitoes got the alleles to be resistant and immune to DDT. For the UN's malaria eradication program, that was “game over – you and Africa lose.”

    And, if DDT is so pitifully ineffective, one must wonder why WHO would choose to start using it again. Or perhaps that just me…

    After 40 years, some mosquito populations lost some of their resistance. But the reality is that DDT remains pitifully ineffective. So WHO has again stopped using it in favor of other, more effective insecticides (that are generally safer, too).

    Malaria is a complex problem. There is no pixie dust solution, and DDT never was pixie dust.

  • Barry Cooper

    I offered you a primary source.Let's fast forward to today, though: would you be comfortable with banning most uses of carbon energy in the developing world, even if it meant increased hardship for them?

  • mf48

    Edarrell wrote: “Lying is okay for lobbyists like Milloy — they have only their clients and God to answer to. We have much higher ethical standards for federally-funded research.”

    That's reason enough right there not even to bother reading this person. Anyone who says that his ethical standards are higher than God's – well, that would immediately merit addition to the killfile.

  • Barry Cooper

    So your argument is that if someone agrees with someone with whom you disagree, they must be wrong too, and this constitutes a complete argument. I must have missed that lesson when I was learning the process of debate.

  • Barry Cooper

    So, again, you demonstrate a penchant for playing God. The simple reality is that if many of your children die, you have more children.

    When your children stop dying, there may be a short term spike in population, then once they're sure it's not a fluke, populations normalize. This has been the pattern throughout the industrialized world.

  • Barry Cooper

    My claim is that the use of foreign aid funds for DDT was not allowed, from roughly 1972 to just recently.

    What is your claim, that is has been widely used, and praised by the Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace for 30 years? I thought you said everybody knew it didn't work, and was dangerous, and that only stupid people question this. You know, people like the WHO.

  • Barry Cooper

    I looked up the original article, and it is $30, which I'm not going to pay.

    Can we agree that you have done NOTHING to refute ANY of the other 108 points, and that you are not only alleging that Milloy lied, but that a confederate literally made up results out of whole cloth, by saying that pheasant eggs hatched at higher rates, and had higher survival rates?

    Is that what you are saying? If I look this up, and you are full of it, will you shut up?

  • Barry Cooper

    BTW, no, I am not a Lyndon Larouche fan. Are you a Stalin fan? Just asking.

  • Barry Cooper

    I would really like to shut you up, because I don't like you. Please give me the EXACT citation, and if I can't find it at the library, I may well pay the damn money to get it. This is quite obviously your topic, and if you are right, I will admit it, but the evidence in favor of DDT is overwhelming, as is the evidence that positive studies were suppressed in the 70's.

    Let's go toe to toe as long as it takes and see what happens. I may lose, but I will not quit. Ever.

  • bubba4

    Boo-Effin-Hoo!……..Yeah and during the Cold War the USA stole and hacked a lot of documents from the USSR…..so what?

    “It was asserted that it was a whistle-blower which is inaccurate. Maybe you can ask FPM why they would lie about such a thing.

    “I guess it's okay and protected by law for these creeps to conspire to rip us all off for trillions of dollars?”

    Oh please…

  • trickyblain

    Your opinion is not a primary source.

  • bubba4

    You're categorically wrong. What was in those emails were specific instructions to delete raw data that had been requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. That is AGAINST THE LAW.

    Can you show me?

    Also, I don't think the Freedom of Information Act extends to the entire world….it's a US law and the University of East Anglia is a foreign university. Are you sure you aren't thinking about NASA?

    “The reason they HAD to be stolen is that the Anthropogenic Global Warming folks are the closest thing to a mafia we have seen since the low fat fraud, or the DDT fraud, take your pick.”

    The DDT fraud. You guys are hilarious. Everything a conspiracy to spoil your fun.

    “More, and on line with the DDT fraud, the people who will suffer the most from globally mandated reductions in the production of energy are persons of color in the developing world.”

    LOL…you're reality is the spin…you can't distinguish. No one is saying that the world needs to produce less energy…only that we are still just digging stuff up and burining it for energy…you know…fossil fuels.

    “You know, the EXACT people Leftists claim they care about. Of course, if you never bother to check on the actual outcome of your policies, you will never know what effect was achieved.”

    Well, I'm not responsible for what you think is “leftist” and what you think it means. They are not “my” policies…we are simply talking. When you feel that cultic itch snaking up your spine and you want to call someone a Leftist…just try to induce vomitting into the nearest trash can until the feeling passes.

    “As far as your point about DDT, look at the paper. He has DOZENS of citations showing NO long term problems in bird populations. Of course, actually doing work would be contrary to the code of the Gentleman Blogger.”

    I just haven't been whipped into a frenzy by FPM and others about DDT. You think that for no good reason but greed or just wanting to hurt humanity that people are conspiring to make up problems just to piss you off.

  • bubba4

    I know those damn environmentalist…caring about people's health…damn them all to hell. DDT is not directly toxic to humans. The asbestos could still kill you and might be in your lungs right now. It's a crap shoot…

    Please don't tell me you guys are going to start saying the abestos ban was a communist conspiracy to make people hot.

  • Richard L Whitford

    Truth is indestructible so when we want to know the truth we set up a premise and then, by the process of elimination, try to prove it false. Junk science sets up a premise and then tries to prove it to be true. It is easier to prove a false assumption to be true than it is a true assumption to be false. It it extremely likely that all of us harbor a false assumption or two.

    I suppose our current cold weather is the result of too much carbon dioxide. Our gloval warming salesmen do have something to sell that is a fraud without natural value. If we are persuaded to buy they get our money and we get robbed. Lets quit trying to prove Socialism is valid and start asking the questions that will prove that it has no value. What kind of fruit does it bear? These comments are bringing up some good points that we do need to consider. It may be that neither side has the correct answer but through debate we can find that answer.
    Whit

  • Barry Cooper

    Ace,

    It was two comments down. I'm new to this format. “Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

    I will, Eddarrell has graciously added much the same opinion as expressed by Alduous Huxley, further down.

    And you skipped my question: are you prepared to tolerate the inevitable unnecessary pain and suffering which will attend forcing the developing world to use source of energy other than carbon based ones in their on-going efforts to end grievous poverty?

  • Barry Cooper

    I will note that Eddarrell skipped these points. He (or she) thereby admits that there is he can make no strong argument in favor of the claimed carcinogenic nature of DDT; that he cannot dispute the prominent members of the scientific community–here the editor of Science magazine–worked to prevent publication of evidence that supported the use of DDT; nor that we specifically prohibited foreign aid money from being used to buy DDT. It killed birds, you see–so they told us, at any rate–and birds matter more than people, especially poor black people half a world away.

  • Barry Cooper

    Why not use the solution that causes the fewest number of people to die? I know if they are black and 5,000 miles away they matter less than if they are pretty girls and blonde, but it would seem to me that you have neither established that DDT is a poison to HUMANS–and I doubt you will be able to sustain your case that is is a poison to any other creature but insects–nor that it doesn't work.

    You have professionals, there–people who study mosquitoes for a living–saying DDT works.

    You skip around: you say DDT doesn't work, then you say it worked but every insect on the planet developed immunity, then you say mosquito nets are cheaper, and do sort of work. You ignore recent positive statements by the very environmental organizations whose advocacy got DDT banned by the EPA in the US, and which prevented the use of US money anywhere on the planet to buy DDT.

    Let me ask you:

    Are all of the experts who claim DDT is an effective bug control agent wrong?

    Do you dispute the ideas of, say, Greenpeace, which says that DDT IS actually of value, especially when sprayed in homes?

    Do you believe that African lives are the equivalent of our own, and that the idea of NOT buying things which can be afforded that save lives is morally odious?

  • Barry Cooper

    Unless you're an utter cretin, you have done that. Enlighten me. What are the numbers? How many pro, how many against? Absolutely, if Milloy is committing fraud I will chastise him for it.

    I will equally chastise you, since as a betting man I suspect you are the one who will look the worst under close scrutiny. You are publicly calling Milloy a liar. That is a strong claim, and the simple fact of the matter is that the article is question is in the public domain. If he has done what you say, he is not just a liar, but stupid.

    However, I have cited another article which quotes from Dewitt's piece at length, and I simply do not find it credible that he made it up out of whole cloth.

    You, on the other hand, are an anonymous blogger with an axe to grind.

    Still, I will look up the piece. I see you post on this topic all over the place, and I think it's time to put this issue to rest one way or the other. I suspect you are used to people backing down since refuting you takes work. I'm not one of those people.

    I see clear structural homologies between the abuse of science with respect to DDT, and the current healthcare “debate” (legislative imposition by a majority without a mandate): in both cases, a problem has been drummed up, by means of which corporations–understood in the abstract, and as something other than the place where all your working relatives work–are demonized; in both cases, the “solution” is a bitche's brew of pseudoscientific pap that will make the lives of the people in question worse; and the solution is used to increase the power of people who have never run a business or held a real job in their lives.

    Historically, this process has oftened worked, and the record has been rewritten (or simply forgotten: it's easy to bury things when we reset our memories daily in response to the most recent dose of propaganda). You are a revisionist. I am not going to let you get away with it.
    ,

  • andrewew

    Exactly: “WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission”. Read that sentence carefully. It's announcing that WHO is broadening of the range of situations where it recommends DDT use. They had always recommended the use of DDT in areas of sporadic, episodic transmission, and now they also recommend it in areas of constant, year-round transmission. Ergo, WHO never had a ban on DDT in place. (As a side note, WHO has absolutely zero authority to ban DDT or any other chemical. They can only make non-binding recommendations. And they have always and consistently recommended the use of DDT in areas of sporadic transmission.) Here's a UN document compiling data on recent DDT use. http://www.pops.int/documents/ddt/Global%20stat… Note that 5000 metric tonnes were used in 2003 and 2005. You're claiming that there was a WHO ban on its use until 2006, and you imply that this “ban” had prevented it's use. This is non-sense.

  • andrewew

    “In South Africa, DDT has been sprayed annually since 1945 in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province…” – http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle

    Yet more evidence of the lack of a “ban” on DDT. When can we expect to see a correction to this article?

  • edarrell

    Unless you're an utter cretin, you have done that. Enlighten me. What are the numbers? How many pro, how many against? Absolutely, if Milloy is committing fraud I will chastise him for it.

    The clear documentation of Milloy's distortion of DeWitt's work is here. DeWitt concluded that DDT kills birds who eat grain — in one case where an almost normal hatch occurred, all the chicks died. That's exactly the opposite of what Milloy claims. He even doctors quotes out of Carson's book to make it appear she wrote differently than she did.

    In Silent Spring we learn:

    On Mount Johnson Island [in the Susquehanna River] as well as in Florida, then, the same situation prevails — there is some occupancy of nests by adults, some production of eggs, but few or no young birds. In seeking an explanation, only one appears to fit all the facts. This is that the reproductive capacity of the birds has been so lowered by some environmental agent that there are now almost no annual additions of young to the race.

    Exactly this sort of situation has been produced artificially in other birds by various experimenters, notably Dr. James DeWitt of the United State Fish and Wildlife Service [Carson's former agency; she probably knew DeWitt]. Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments on the effect of a series of insecticides on quail and pheasants have established the fact that exposure to DDT or related chemicals, even when doing no observable harm to the parent birds, may seriously affect reproduction. The way the effect is exerted may vary, but the end result is always the same. For example, quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched. “Many embryos appeared to develop normally during the early stages of incubation, but died during the hatching period,” Dr. DeWitt said. Of those that did hatch, more than half died within 5 days. In other tests in which both pheasants and quail were the subjects, the adults produced no eggs whatever if they had been fed insecticide-contaminated diets throughout the year. And at the University of California, Dr. Robert Rudd and Dr. Richard Genelly reported similar findings. When pheasants received dieldrin in their diets, “egg production was markedly lowered and chick survival was poor.” According to these authors, the delayed but lethal effect on the young birds follows from storage of dieldrin in the yolk of the egg, from which it is gradually assimilated during incubation and after hatching.

    This suggestion is strongly supported by recent studies by Dr. Wallace and a graduate student, Richard F. Bernard, who found high concentrations of DDT in robins on the Michigan State University campus. They found the poison in all of the testes of male robins examined, in developing egg follicles, in the ovaries of females, in completed but unlaid eggs, in the oviducts, in unhatched eggs from deserted nests, in embryos within the eggs, and in a newly hatched, dead nestling.

    These important studies establish the fact that the insecticidal poison affects a generation once removed from initial contact with it. Storage of poison in the egg, in the yolk material that nourishes the developing embryo, is a virtual death warrant and explains why so many of De Witt's birds died in the egg or a few days after hatching.

    Academic fraud. You know where Milloy is. Go get him.

  • edarrell

    No, I merely point out that the bizarre kooks at the Larouche organization are pushing the views you claim to like for their odd political reasons. Those of us who have had to defend our nation against the Larouchites probably are a bit affect-loaded to their strange claims and methods of twisting the truth.

    The simple fact is this: If it appears in a Larouche publication, it's probably wrong. Instead of making an argument from authority, you're adopting an argument from a source who hates the U.S. and actively works to bring our nation down.

    On top of that, it offers no additional information — it was wrong the first time Dr. Edwards delivered the speech, and it's not made any more correct by being copied by political kooks.

  • edarrell

    I looked up the original article, and it is $30, which I'm not going to pay.

    That's too bad. I had found a free source at one time — but this is an issue important enough that I've paid such fees many times. If you're close to a research university, it's highly likely they have it in their library. Call your local library to see whether they have a database that has the article, or whether they can get it for you on interlibrary loan. If you wish to read the relevant portions, go to my blog and read it. See especially the comments from Jonathan Buhs, who discussed exactly this issue with Dr. DeWitt before DeWitt died.

    Can we agree that you have done NOTHING to refute ANY of the other 108 points, and that you are not only alleging that Milloy lied, but that a confederate literally made up results out of whole cloth, by saying that pheasant eggs hatched at higher rates, and had higher survival rates?

    No. That would be completely false. Start here and you'll see why. If Milloy is right on any point, it's either by error or because his claim is so non-controversial that it provides no information — such as his noting that Paul Muller won a Nobel Prize for his work with DDT. That fact doesn't change the facts that DDT is wildly dangerous released in the wild, as the National Academy of Sciences found when it urged DDT be phased out, because despite it's great utility, its harms outweigh the benefits.

    Is that what you are saying? If I look this up, and you are full of it, will you shut up?

    Consider me as a stone. As Jesus noted, when other try to muffle the truth, even the stones cry out. I can do no other that promote the truth.

  • edarrell

    Stalin sided with the chemical companies, with DDT. He was no friend of the environment, and he created several of the greatest environmental disasters of the 20th century, perhaps of all time.

    I'm curious why you would ask such a bizarre question? Larouche isn't the opposite of Stalin.

    I'm a fan of science and life. I'm a teacher and attorney. I'm a great fan of life in America and freedom. I think good health is important. I enjoy watching birds, and otherwise recreating in our nation's outstanding parks and monuments (National Parks and other places).

    I'm a father.

    Are you none of those things?

  • edarrell

    “As far as your point about DDT, look at the paper. He has DOZENS of citations showing NO long term problems in bird populations. Of course, actually doing work would be contrary to the code of the Gentleman Blogger.”

    I've been working this thing for three years. None of the citations offered to support a claim of no problems in bird populations check out. If the article exists, it says DDT kills birds. In far too many cases, there simply is no such article. Fiction generally is not acceptable for science claims.

  • edarrell

    I didn't say science standards are higher than God's. I merely note that Milloy can legally get away with telling any tale he can get you and gullible people to accept, without fear that he will face any sanctions until after death.

    Of course, most people who have no faith don't fear such a penalty.

    Point is the same. Science has standards and Milloy doesn't. Scientists in federal projects go to jail if they tell tales like Milloy tells.

    You distort my words only slightly. Enough such distortions and it's akin to claiming DDT, a deadly poison and carcinogen to almost all living things, is “perfectly safe.”

  • mf48

    As REAL science has proven, the gullible people are those who bought into the scare that DDT was hazardous. Milloy is only one of many who have clearly demonstrated that fact (that DDT *is* perfectly safe when used properly).

    You keep claiming that Milloy tells lies. All he has done is to examine the scientific studies and point out their fallacies, and then call people on their misstatements, coverups and, yes, lies.

    BTW, not that it's particularly relevant to this discussion, but I wonder where you stand on the global warming issue. Have you bought into that nonsense, too?

    Oh, and I don't question your faith. I have no idea where you stand with the Lord. That's between you and Him. I only know that I will be very comfortable answering to God, knowing that I've got my Redeemer to cover my sins and answer for me.

  • Barry Cooper

    Ed: you claim to possess the paper by Dewitt. You say you have read it, right? You say that Carson quoted it correctly, and Milloy quoted it incorrectly, right? From this it follows that you can tell me EXACTLY what citation you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know what it is, but I want YOU to say EXACTLY where I should look to check out your claims.

    You are saying Carson got it right, and Milloy got it wrong. This is verifiable, correct? I am not going to look at your blog. I am going to look at the primary source.

    And I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right source, so that you have NO wiggle room. You see, I think you are the liar, but I willing to do the research to find out.

    Of course, if you ARE telling the truth, it will be obvious, right? So you have nothing to lose and everything to win. In fact, make it easy for yourself: tell me what page to look for, where Dewitt made the comments you are referring to. Simplest thing in the world.

    I'll keep checking back on this site for several weeks. And once you provide the citation, I will hunt it down.

    And of course if you are unwilling to do that, the obvious conclusion is that you are either lying, very ignorant, or mentally unbalanced, in all of which cases you can and should be ignored.

  • Barry Cooper

    Well, we'll find out, won't we? I would have thought you could have extended beyond one critique of one point of 109 by now, if you were “working it”.

    We'll start with what you seem to think is your best piece of evidence. Cite it. Tell me what page to go to. I will buy it, if I need to.

  • Barry Cooper

    Thank you for asking for documentation. I hadn't actually read any of the emails. Everyone should. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=

    “don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
    trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
    email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.”

    A lot of reference to hiding. An explicit vow to break the law.

    Why? These are publicly funded researchers, who claim to be scientists. Since when do scientists feel the need to hide data?

    To be clear, the claim being made is that computer algorithyms were used to data mine ONLY raw information that amplified warming effects, to create an artificial and false picture of warming from a background that was otherwise neutral.

    This clearly shows that is what has in fact been happening.

    With respect to Third World, what exactly do you propose as energy, Einstein? Coal is cheap and plentiful. Nuclear power is not, although there is no reason they should not both be pursued.

    So your solution is to ignore the problem? Effing brilliant. They raise em big and bright therein Arkansas, don't they?

  • Barry Cooper

    No one has ever claimed it was banned. It was officially considered a dangerous carcinogen and a disastrous toxin when used in the wild.

    That position has been relaxed, and in so many words the EPA and Environmental Defense Fund have said they were wrong. DDT use is again being encouraged, after being demonized for nearly 40 years.

  • Barry Cooper

    To be clear, the two M's are Steven Mcintyre and another guy whose name I forget who broke the story that Michael Mann's Hockey
    Stick used methods which can only be called fraudulent.

    No real scientists EVER–EVER–refuse to release raw data.

  • edarrell

    You keep claiming that Milloy tells lies. All he has done is to examine the scientific studies and point out their fallacies, and then call people on their misstatements, coverups and, yes, lies.

    Milloy distorted the research of Dr. James DeWitt, changed DeWitt's words, and even changed the words of Rachel Carson, to make it appear that DeWitt disagreed with Carson. Milloy misreported, claiming that bird studies show DDT safe for birds. No study ever showed that.

    I've provided links to much more extensive debunkings of the hoax claims of Mr. Milloy. Please read them.

    Do you claim Milloy is right? Please tell me which study backs his claims.

  • edarrell

    That position has been relaxed, and in so many words the EPA and Environmental Defense Fund have said they were wrong. DDT use is again being encouraged, after being demonized for nearly 40 years.

    EPA has never backtracked on the regulation — the courts rather made that impossible, but there's never been any reason to.

    ED supports indoor residual spraying, which is extremely limited, non-outdoor use of DDT. That's no change from their position in 1962.

  • edarrell

    Well, we'll find out, won't we? I would have thought you could have extended beyond one critique of one point of 109 by now, if you were “working it”.

    If you've been counting, you've noted that I dealt specifically, at great length, with Milloy's points 6 and 10. Had you been paying attention to the issues, you'd see that I've discussed all of his points on birds.

    Here's the fisk on 17, 18 and 19.

    20 through 25 don't state anything significant in favor of DDT use, nor against protecting from it. I've already addressed the fact that DDT was not banned for being carcinogenic, so Milloy's points 30 through 38 are moot. Why he bothers to tell lies there about DDT's carcinogenicity, I cannot imagine.

    39 through 64 are Milloy's odd claims about eggshell thinning. I noted earlier that there are more than 1,000 peer review studies confirming Carson's statements, and according to my count, not a single contrary study.

    69 through 76 are his claims about eagles, the most famous species brought back from the brink of extinction by our ban on DDT overuse. It's unclear what Milloy wants to establish. To the extent that his quotes go to actual publications, the publications either note simply the decline of eagles, or they say nothing in favor of DDT. To the extent the quotes claim DDT didn't harm eagles, those quotes and citations are fictional.

    77 through 90 cover the peregrine falcon. Same comments for eagle apply to his claims on peregrine falcons. 91 through 96 are Milloy's claims about the brown pelican, another species brought back from the brink of extinction by stopping DDT use. My comments on eagles apply here, too.

    97 through 105 apply generally to birds. And as with the other bird references, where the citations are valid, there is no case for DDT, no case against Carson. Where there is a case for DDT and against Carson, the citations simply don't work.

    I've not bothered with the last four claims on gas chromatography.

    It's interesting that no matter how many links I offer, no matter how much of the material I post, you claim I've not. I'm not sure what to make of that.

  • bubba4

    “don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites…”

    Now you're reading these e-mails looking for something insidious. FTP sites are good for sharing files, but they are notoriously short on security. God forbid someone steal a year of e-mails from my company with the intent to make me or any of my guys look bad.

    “Why? These are publicly funded researchers, who claim to be scientists. Since when do scientists feel the need to hide data?”

    Even in a casual reading, it's clear that “model code” is at issue. These may be programs that these scientists wrote or developed over years. Like you, I really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

    “To be clear, the claim being made is that computer algorithyms were used to data mine ONLY raw information that amplified warming effects, to create an artificial and false picture of warming from a background that was otherwise neutral. This clearly shows that is what has in fact been happening.”

    Um…actually the claim is that the e-mails revealed the Marxist Global Warming Hoax in vivid detail…leaving not a shred of doubt that Gloabl warming is a made up problem designed to rob the US of money. This is built on the assumption that the University of East Anglia is the epicenter of all climate research around the globe. This is what you were railing against earlier.

    “With respect to Third World, what exactly do you propose as energy, Einstein? Coal is cheap and plentiful. Nuclear power is not, although there is no reason they should not both be pursued.”

    Right…um…I'm afraid I don't know what the alternatives are. If you want a video made about it, or you want a program developed to manage an energy system, then my skills might come into play. You need engineers and researchers who can explore new ideas about how to generate power. They will need money and big computers I guess and lots of room to tinker with their experiments. That's going to cost some money. Meanwhile, coal is “cheap” because we don't really factor in the pollution…maybe…hmmm…if we had a way to charge for the pollution and put the money toward alternative energy, we might be able to spur the innovation to get something new and interesting done. Somehow I don't see the big coal companies really putting their heart into it otherwise. Nah…it would probably be denounced as a Marxist conspiracy to rob the United States to give to Africa.

  • Barry Cooper

    They don't care about people's health. That's the point. They care about the health of birds, and if their policies made access to DDT less possible, with the result that people died, well, they don't live in Africa, do they? They live in comfortable brownstones in large cities, and comfortable houses in suburbs.

    And they complain about the price arugula.

  • Barry Cooper

    Given the lack of a response, Ed demonstrates here his inability to respond. This is quite reasonable, since the claim I am making is correct, and he knows it.

  • Barry Cooper

    This carries in my favor. Leftists–including one of the current Obama Czars whose name escapes me at the moment–have long considered mass death in the developing world preferable to the possibility of overpopulation. You see, if you have too many people, you can't feed them, and, uh, they die. So if they die NOW, it prevents them from dying later.

    That is as sound a logical chain as you will find anywhere (on the Left).

  • Barry Cooper

    Crap, Ed quit. I hate that. I wanted to run that libelous fool into the ground. He apparently realized I was going to, since he is either lying outright, or so contorting the facts that that is still the best word.

    Since this is one topic I don't currently own, I am still going to print the list, and check out a few of the citations from Milloy's piece. If I can get access to the Dewitt article in my library, I will.

    I will point out, though, that the best way to think of leftists is that they are little machines, that are wound up to repeat certain things, and travel along a certain path. This is both a source of strength and a source of weakness.

    The strength, of course, is the strength of a train running on a rail. It has tremendous energy, since no deviations are possible. No alternatives suggest themselves. All you have to do is repeat slogans, and reinforce stereotypes among ideologically vulnerable populations. It's not hard work at all. There's no soul searching, and no agonies of decisions. That's the value, to leftists: their anxiety and sense of disconnection is gone.

    The vulnerability is that truth is to them like water was to the Wicked Witch of the East. It melts them. The package HAS to be whole and complete, or all the anxieties come back. This means that they can be forced into forfeiting simply through principled and reasoned persistence.

    Where dialogue begins, propaganda ends. That is one slogan even intelligent people can abide.

  • Barry Cooper

    Ed,

    You appear incapable of irony. You use a Communistic meme with respect to Stalin–that there are evil chemical companies–while ignoring the fact that THERE ARE NO PRIVATE COMPANIES IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

    Here are the facts: DDT works, and is almost entirely harmless. If you want to argue otherwise, tell me EXACTLY what the citation is for Dewitt that you are claiming to refute with respect to point ten.

    Since you claim to have done a lot of research, tell me what OTHER citations you have looked up that proved wrong. Five would do. I will go find them.

  • Barry Cooper

    Ace,

    Let's start with the Dewitt citation. You mentioned it repeatedly. Tell me EXACTLY what the citation is. It's not on Milloy's piece, and if it was on yours, I missed it. It should be easy. You're a thorough guy, right? An attorney. You can read. You can copy citations.

    Right here, you say “39 through 64 are Milloy's odd claims about eggshell thinning. I noted earlier that there are more than 1,000 peer review studies confirming Carson's statements, and according to my count, not a single contrary study.”

    Well, for starters, how about this one, number 39: Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 (“There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .”) ]

    Or this one, number 40:
    [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 (“acute” doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 (“In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. … no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with … DDT up to 100 ppm)]

    For a lawyer, you are sloppy as hell. You're not dealing with an idiot. IN THE COURSE OF PRETENDING YOU REFUTED THEM, you ignore all the evidence cited, then claim Discover–which is no doubt fully as partisan as Science–has 1,000 studies. You don't even go the extra step to support that statement; you just assert it.

  • Barry Cooper

    Bubba,

    Do you actually consider sarcasm refutation? I don't. I consider it stupid.

    The data set that the CRU kept is one of the PRIMARY paleoclimatologic data sets that are used to construct past climate history. Their data set was a primary source for the infamous (and now fully irrelevant and falsified) Hockey Stick graph of the late 90's.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the entirety of their effort was to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period from the record, so they could artificially inflate the background warming since 1850.

    They have denied this repeatedly, but THEY WON'T RELEASE THE RAW DATA. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after them for at least 5 years.

    You miss the most important point, because you are an indoctrinated clown who is not serious: REAL scientists subject their work to replication and peer review. And it isn't peer review if you are asking fellow cultists to do the work. In another set of emails, Michael Mann discussed how they can SUPPRESS alternative viewpoints.

    This is not science. This is advocacy. How can I make the words smaller and the concepts simpler so you are capable of grasping this?

    As far as the Developing World, my point stands. You punted. Complete failure. Coal is available today, and there are NO credible alternatives NOW, or for the foreseeable future.

    What YOU want to do is make decisions for other people that they would not make if given a choice. That makes you are first rate moral cretin.

  • Barry Cooper

    BS. The same people who were marching in the streets are now–very quietly–admitting that DDT is not the horrible things it was claimed to be.

    You have not touched, much less refuted this point. They said it was a carcinogen. That's in Carson's book. Don't deny it.

    They said it caused massive wildlife extinctions, even in limited doses, and had NO business being used anywhere, and that it was only evil chemical companies pushing that caused it to be used at all.

    This is reality. Don't rewrite the history, even if those were your best years. Here's a hint: your time was not only wasted, it was counterproductive, and to the precise extent you were successful, you facilitated unnecessary human death and suffering, and had virtually no positive effect on birds or other wildlife.

    That's my view. I am still open to convincing, but you are not doing a very good job.

  • Barry Cooper

    I will add, that Milloy freely admits that oil, lead and mercury all cause elevated levels of bird death, and the EPA also effectively limited those. The EPA is not useless, nor are environmental regulations. It is STUPID regulations that need to be opposed.

  • edarrell

    You have not touched, much less refuted this point. They said it was a carcinogen. That's in Carson's book. Don't deny it.

    It's not there, Barry. Am I wrong? Give me a page number. Here, you can search the book, and show us the passage where Rachel Carson said DDT is a carcinogen and should be banned as a result.

    Carson worried whether chemicals were being checked to see whether they are carcinogenic, and at that time they were not. She noted the troubling rise in childhood cancers and in other, often pollution-related cancers, as the chemicals themselves rose in number and quantity, and as human exposures increased.

    If you find where Carson said “DDT causes cancer,” you'll be the first. Please knock yourself out looking.

    They said it caused massive wildlife extinctions, even in limited doses, and had NO business being used anywhere, and that it was only evil chemical companies pushing that caused it to be used at all.

    Carson, especially Carson, did not call for any ban on any chemical. You've got a searchable version of the book, show us differently.

    However, DDT does indeed wreak havoc on ecosystems. Originally advocates said that it disappeared, broke down quickly when sprayed. They based this claim on research that showed DDT sprayed in riparian environments could not be detected within a few days. Alas, what was discovered is that DDT is rapidly taken up by living things. Spray an estuary, and all the primary producers suck it up like sponges. Then, as creatures in higher trophic levels consumer the primary producers, first-level consumers and other consumers, the does multiplies. It's called biomagnification. It means that a “safe” dose to kill mosquito larva sprayed in an estuary will become a fatal dose for fish and birds very quickly. DDT sprayed in water measures 0.000003 ppm; by the time the osprey eats the fish that at the bugs that ate the plants, the dose is 25 ppm — a multiplication of the dose by 10 million times!

    Spread about the wild, DDT can indeed be deadly to entire ecosystems.

    This is reality. Don't rewrite the history, even if those were your best years. Here's a hint: your time was not only wasted, it was counterproductive, and to the precise extent you were successful, you facilitated unnecessary human death and suffering, and had virtually no positive effect on birds or other wildlife.

    Get the history correct, and you can understand the present, and make a better future. But those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. What you say is not history, but phantasm. Stick to history instead, please.

    That's my view. I am still open to convincing, but you are not doing a very good job.

    You refuse to read the citations, you haven't read the book you criticize, and you make all sorts of claims of voodoo history — and then you say you are open to convincing?

    Stick to the facts, please.

  • edarrell

    You refuse to read the material I link to. As I noted, the DeWitt paper is no longer available, free, on-line, and I do not have a copy of it.

    But I have read it. I quote directly and accurately from it. Your refusal to read the material does not exactly make me anxious to go find another copy.

    Then you say:

    Well, for starters, how about this one . . .

    Specify for me: Which of these papers have you read?

  • bubba4

    Right…yeah the “elites” and their arugula. You have this fantasy in your mind that at some point the elites screamed stop and DDT was no longer available to anyone on earth for any reason. A tiny amount of research on your part (outside of the bizarro world) would show you that DDT has been used and is used today. They don't use it on crops and everywhere because that makes the bugs resistant.

    Saying that a ban on DDT killed people in Africa is a false argument that FPM has been instrumental in pushing. By your logic the Christian Missionaries in Africa have killed tens of thousands of Africans by giving them AIDS….or by not giving them condoms…same thing.

    I know it's a tasty little piece on the overall construction of “lefty” as a do-gooder who kills innovation (and Africans) as they sip lattes and think of new ways to surpress your freedoms…but all that is a lot of hooey.

    The Bald Eagle isn't extinct…and you still have Walmart….YOU'RE WELCOME.

  • Barry cooper

    I have read the material you link to. What you are providing are allegations. Specifically, let's dilate on Point number ten. I thought you had said you found it, and had it in your possession. You have said that every source you checked was fraudulent, but you have not cited any. The 17,18,19 or whatever has to do with somewhat subjective statements made with respect to the legislative and judicial review process in this country.

    Those don't interest me. You are making very broad claims, specifically that Dewitt's paper was intentionally misrepresented by Milloy. You are claiming that 1,000 of studies support the damaging effects of DDT on birds, and none support it being non-harmful. But when I cite studies to the contrary, you punt. Nor do you link to anything saying that according to Discover magazine this is the case. Presumably you're not lying about that, but you could put up a link to support that very broad claim. I don't consider Discover an impartial source, nor is science based on anything but facts (consensus most often in fact betrays a victory of conformity, not rigor), but that would still be a logical step. I will read it.

    More to the point, WHICH of the studies–you have implied more than once you have read quite a few of them–have YOU read? I'm not the one calling Milloy a liar. I'm not the one posing as the knowledgable one.

    And I will pay the money for the Dewitt study. Don't worry about me. I just want you to tell what the EXACT citation is. Please understand: if you can't cite a piece which is a cornerstone of your libelous accusation, then am I not well justified in viewing you and your claims with something between skepticism and contempt?

    To be clear, I'm pretty sure I found it. But when I pull it off, and print it, I don't want there to be any lack of clarity as to EXACTLY what you are claiming. That tells me what to look for.

    And if you're telling the truth, I will find just what you said, right?

    Would there be any reason I wouldn't? You're telling the truth, correct? You've done your homework carefully, right?

  • bubba4

    “They have denied this repeatedly, but THEY WON'T RELEASE THE RAW DATA. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after them for at least 5 years.”

    Yep, and they got everything they wanted in 2005 when Congress ordered Mann to provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements. Wow. I guess Mann is lucky they weren't allowed to look around in his asshole while they were at it.

    “You miss the most important point, because you are an indoctrinated clown who is not serious: REAL scientists subject their work to replication and peer review. And it isn't peer review if you are asking fellow cultists to do the work.”

    What isn't peer reviewed? The models have been done and redone by scientists all over the world…the most peer reviewed research to date still shows a warming trend this century. They are just models…projections. And that is just the theoretical side of things. What about the thousands of scientists around the world that are throwing up red flags because of what they are observing real-time on the earth? Are they part of the conspiracy to dupe us all?

    “In another set of emails, Michael Mann discussed how they can SUPPRESS alternative viewpoints.”

    What other set of e-mails? A different, mystery set aside from the all the hacked ones? Because you can do word searches through all of those online.

    “This is not science. This is advocacy. How can I make the words smaller and the concepts simpler so you are capable of grasping this?”

    It's not the size of the words but the condescension that counts.

    “As far as the Developing World, my point stands. You punted. Complete failure. Coal is available today, and there are NO credible alternatives NOW, or for the foreseeable future.”

    LOL…you're so dramatic. Sorry I can't whip up cold fusion or a harness anti-matter or something for you. No one is saying we have to shut off the lights and live in darkness until a new discover is made. But, for it to EVER HAPPEN…it's going to take a serious effort by our society…not just the coal companies making commercials with dancing CG animals. You just seem pissed that anyone would dare want for an alternative.

    “What YOU want to do is make decisions for other people that they would not make if given a choice. That makes you are first rate moral cretin.”

    LOL…like what?

  • edarrell

    I have read the material you link to. What you are providing are allegations. Specifically, let's dilate on Point number ten. I thought you had said you found it, and had it in your possession. You have said that every source you checked was fraudulent, but you have not cited any. The 17,18,19 or whatever has to do with somewhat subjective statements made with respect to the legislative and judicial review process in this country.

    You read the material I link to, but not the material you link to? Look, here's part of the way Milloy dodges the truth — and now you, too? Look at this reference you gave: “Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 (“acute” doses)”

    Volume 7 Number 3, I assume. Who wrote the article? That's how we could find it rationally in an on-line database. My experience with Milloy is that he hides the details in order to prevent anyone from checking his sources. He does that because the sources say the opposite of what Milloy says.

    So, I can tell that you have not bothered to look for any of these sources, or you'd be more careful in citing them, as the gentleman you are, versus the jerk Milloy is.

    So can you tell us: What's the article name, and who wrote it?

    I've searched Volume 7 of this journal — which is available online — and so far as the computerized databases go, there is no article in Volume 7 Number 3 that deals with DDT.

    However, I do find this article in Volume 7, which does deal with DDT, but it's not in issue #3, though the page numbers match. It says that in tests, DDT causes eggshell thinning in ducks, not so much in chickens.

    [abstract]Treatment with DDT or DDE caused eggshell thinning in ducks but not in chickens; however, treatment with DDT or DDE did not alter significantly the percentage of radiocalcium that appeared in eggshells of either species.

    You can understand why both genera would be of concern in this regard — but look at what Milloy says: “no thinning.” That's exactly contrary to the paper, which found thinning in ducks.

    Calcium-45 uptake by shell gland, oviduct, plasma and eggshell of DDT-dosed ducks and chickens

    K. L. Davison, Agricultural Research Service, Metabolism and Radiation Research Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture, 58102 Fargo, North Dakota, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Publisher Springer New York
    ISSN 0090-4341 (Print) 1432-0703 (Online) Volume 7, Number 1 / December, 1978
    DOI 10.1007/BF02332063
    Pages 359-367

    Come clean here: Have you read any of these papers? No? Then do not represent them as accurate citations. You know that is simply not the case.

    And here is my claim: That article you claimed was there, does not exist. Not only does it not support Milloy's claims, Milloy has suckered you into giving a citation to an article that is pure vapor, pure fiction, as bold and crass a lie as it is possible to tell in research. This is fraud, on you, on all of us. I beg you to stop passing fraudulent citations.

    When I point out science fraud, you don't look, and claim you don't see fraud. That's another form of fraud, my friend. Stop it.

    As to Milloy's points 17, 18 and 19: Again, he perpetrates fraud here, on the history of the events. He lies boldly. Your claim that this is “subjective” is erroneous. We're talking the laws and Constitution of the United States here — anyone can look it up (except when Milloy hides the sources, as he does in these cases; but even then he can be checked for accuracy, and we did). Milloy's claim is that William Ruckelshaus ignored the evidence in signing the ban on agricultural DDT use. Milloy's statement is contrary to the law of the U.S., contrary to the hearing record, and contrary to history. You may regard that as “subjective,” but what Milloy does is prosecutable were he to testify under oath before Congress, or make a citation like that with federal money.

    You can say that it's okay for Milloy to lie like a rug if he can avoid prosecution. That only makes it clear that you are not fit to be a Tenderfoot Boy Scout. Milloy may have only a moral duty to change his ways, but it is still a duty.

    So you refuse to read the frauds Milloy commits when I cite them. This is frustrating to me. I think it's bad faith on your part.

    Those don't interest me. You are making very broad claims, specifically that Dewitt's paper was intentionally misrepresented by Milloy.</blockquote<

    Here's a place you can read what Milloy said, and compare it with what DeWitt actually wrote. You'll note that Milloy even misquotes Rachel Carson. Milloy can't be trusted to quote anyone correctly or accurately, as you can see by the blue-line comparisons of what Milloy claims and what was actually written. The intentional misrepresentation — the fraud — is clear to all fair minded people.

    You are claiming that 1,000 of studies support the damaging effects of DDT on birds, and none support it being non-harmful. But when I cite studies to the contrary, you punt.

    Let's be honest here: You're not citing any studies. You're copying the false stuff from Milloy. That's not a citation, that's fraud.

    If you have a real study, one that you have read, that claims there is no harm to birds, let us see the study with citations. Quote from it. Make it easy for us to check on the study itself.

    No one likes to eat his own words. But I will, if you provide such a study, and not fraudulent references to non-existent studies or reports that actually say the opposite of Milloy's claims.

    Can you do that? Not yet.

    Here's the Discover Magazine story, which is among the most favorable for DDT by any serious science-oriented publication:

    In fact, Carson may have underestimated the impact of DDT on birds, says Michael Fry, an avian toxicologist and director of the American Bird Conservancy’s pesticides and birds program. She was not aware that DDT—or rather its metabolite, DDE—causes eggshell thinning because the data were not published until the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was eggshell thinning that devastated fish-eating birds and birds of prey, says Fry, and this effect is well documented in a report (pdf) on DDT published in 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The report, which cites over 1,000 references, also describes how DDT and its breakdown products accumulate in the tissues of animals high up on terrestrial and aquatic food chains—a process that induced reproductive and neurological defects in birds and fish.

    Nor do you link to anything saying that according to Discover magazine this is the case. Presumably you're not lying about that, but you could put up a link to support that very broad claim. I don't consider Discover an impartial source, nor is science based on anything but facts (consensus most often in fact betrays a victory of conformity, not rigor), but that would still be a logical step. I will read it.

    I cited the article earlier, and it is linked to several times in the other posts I've pointed you to. There is the quote and the citation above.

    You don't consider Discover to be unbiased? In the policy community we have an old saw, a jab at people who refuse to believe the facts: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

    Discover plays the science straight up. No reputable publication will be the ardent, eager-to-the-point-of-fiction advocate of DDT that Milloy is. DDT is a poison and a dangerous environmental toxin. Our tax dollars go to pay millions to clean up old DDT manufacturing sites in the U.S. Milloy doesn't want you to know that, either.

    More to the point, WHICH of the studies–you have implied more than once you have read quite a few of them–have YOU read? I'm not the one calling Milloy a liar. I'm not the one posing as the knowledgable one.

    I have read every study that Milloy properly cites, which is three of them, if I'm counting right. Do you begin to see the problem?

    I've also searched every issue of Audubon from 1937 through 1972 to find his claimed articles about the good health of eagles and other birds. They do not exist. I did read several dozen reports that directly deny his claims.

    Have you bothered to look, even?

    And I will pay the money for the Dewitt study. Don't worry about me. I just want you to tell what the EXACT citation is. Please understand: if you can't cite a piece which is a cornerstone of your libelous accusation, then am I not well justified in viewing you and your claims with something between skepticism and contempt?

    One more time, here is the dissection of Milloy's claims, with the complete citations more than he gave — there's a clue here, you know: You don't trust Milloy's citations either. You don't want to pay the $30.00 on the basis of Milloy's word; I think you've made the point for me).

    Here are the two articles; the first one is the one Milloy refers to:

    DeWitt, James B., “Effects of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides upon Quail and Pheasants,” Jour. Agric. and Food Chem., Vol. 4 (1956), No. 10, p. 863.

    Dewitt, James B., “Effects of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides on Quail and Pheasants,” Jour. Agric. and Food Chem., Vol. 3 (1955), No. 8, p. 672. (see abstract here)

    Here's where you can look at the first page and buy the article. It's impossible to read that article and conclude that DeWitt found no harms. The adults could not breed, or if they could, the chicks were sickly. Chicks died with contemporary applications of the pesticides. It is possible, at best, to say some adults survived the poisoning. It is fraud to claim that no harms were found, or to claim that DDT did no harm. The studies certainly did not draw that conclusion.

    Here's the part of Carson's book that Milloy misquotes: Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring 40th Anniversary Edition, Houghton Mifflin 2002; originally 1962; pp. 120-121

    To be clear, I'm pretty sure I found it. But when I pull it off, and print it, I don't want there to be any lack of clarity as to EXACTLY what you are claiming. That tells me what to look for.

    That's a lot more than you give me. It's a lot more than Milloy gives. I resent that you put me through a wringer when I give you good citations and clear quotes, but you give Milloy great deference when he gives you garbage citations. Perhaps you're oblivious to that double standard, but I am not, and it makes me distrustful of you as well. You're not playing this honestly at all.

    And if you're telling the truth, I will find just what you said, right?

    Go to the library, look it up yourself. I've done your legwork for you. If you were telling the truth, you'd have seen the light by now, I think.

    I don't have time for this, you know. I've got some Boy Scouts who need a board of review. It's refreshing to work with honest men after dealing with Milloy's junk. Obviously, it's more vital work because of Milloy's assault on American values.

    Would there be any reason I wouldn't? You're telling the truth, correct? You've done your homework carefully, right?

    More than you have. While you're at the library, check out the citations you gave me. You're not living up to your end of the bargain.

    • Barry Cooper

      I have not had time to go to the library yet. I want to make sure a free version is not available. It will be today or tomorrow.

      To be clear, though, Carson makes one use of Dewitt's research. Milloy reads it another way. Your link–which you apparently get paid for, since it's shown up at least 5 times now, says Carson was right and Milloy was wrong. So we have different versions of the story. I will find that story, and report what I find.

      In the meantime, let me offer up two points. First, you state "I have read every study that Milloy properly cites, which is three of them."

      I call BS on that. There are well over 100 references in there. If you had done that kind of work, you would not feel the need to obsessively dilate on point number 10. I wouldn't. I would cite link after link after link. You have cited one, which is ambiguous, finding both no harm, and limited harm.

    • Barry Cooper

      Secondly, according to YOUR OWN LINK TO DISCOVER, Carson did claim DDT caused cancer. You asked me for evidence of that earlier. I thank you for providing it.

      You may work with Boy Scouts, but you forget that the first environmentalists were hunters, and it is quite possible to care about the environment without a compulsive need to attack American job creating entities, aka Corporations.

      I'll be back tomorrow at the latest. Before I post the results, though, let me ask an excruciatingly simple question: if it IS the case that Carson mischaracterized what Dewitt said, will you confer on her the same calumny which you have poured out in spades with respect to Milloy? Logically, that is NECESSARY. There is no other possible way to approach it which is consistent with personal integrity.

      I would appreciate it, though, if you would simply affirm that if Carson lied, she deserves to be remembered as a liar.

      • Barry Cooper

        No answer. I found out today the library has an apparently free research service, and sent them an email on the Dewitt link. If that works, I will submit 5 of the links regarding the effects of DDT on bird populations.

        I don't doubt that the actual evidence will validate the utility of DDT for almost all insecticidal purposes, but will report faithfully what is there regardless. Based on past debates of this sort, I suspect Milloy will be 80-90% right, and Ed here will have at least one very tentative and weak hook to hang his hat on, which is strong enough to support his dogmatism in an uncontested environment, but not here.

        • Barry Cooper

          Here is an abstract: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf60068a004

          It does claim greatly increased mortality rates among the hatchlings. There are two question I will ask, when I get the full study: first, is 50 or 100 ppm a dose that might realistically have been expected in the wild; and secondly, what is the actual percentage of relative increase in mortality? I would ask Ed, but he doesn't have the paper. He has just compared Carson to Milloy, starting from the presumption that his hero was right.

          Fortunately, we do now know that DDT is not a carcinogen, as she claimed, and as he claimed. That is why the WHO is again recommending its use inside dwellings, as the most effective agent available.

          What the story is with birds, remains to be seen. Research will continue as I have time.

        • Barry Cooper

          I will add, though, that among the compound studied, DDT was by far the least toxic. Correllation and causation are always very difficult to tease out, but clearly if DDT is just one of dozens of pollutants–including both alternative pesticides and toxins like Mercury and lead–in the wild, it is exceedingly foolish to blame it for decreases in bird populations; it is equally foolish to ban the release of a dozen toxins or more and attribute all the positive increases in bird and other wildlife populations solely to the removal of ONE of the agents.

          That is point where science becomes politics.

          My next post on this will be on the main Comment thing, so it should go to the bottom of the Comments thread, to make it easier to find the resulting discussion, if any.

  • edarrell

    Crap, Ed quit. I hate that. I wanted to run that libelous fool into the ground. He apparently realized I was going to, since he is either lying outright, or so contorting the facts that that is still the best word.

    I'm a lawyer, and I'm a long-time member of the Society of Professional Journalists. I don't call Milloy a research fraud without reasons. I am well aware of libel laws. This isn't libel. Truth is the defense here.

    On the other hand, Barry, you have given me mostly fraudulent citations.

    I resent the “libelous fool” comment, especially coming from someone foolishly issuing libel. You owe me an apology; and you owe us all some work in the library. Get cracking.

  • edarrell

    Barry, I have a longer response, but I fear it's gotten caught in the spam filters here because of the number of links I listed.

    You can find the citation you ask for here:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-

    You don't have to spend money on this — just follow the citations and read the material available for free. Plus, Milloy misquotes Rachel Carson's book. You do have a copy of Silent Spring to compare, right?

  • Barry cooper

    I am asking a simple, simple, simple question. You have claimed multiple times two things: first, that Dewitt's study was miscited by Milloy; second, that you are read a number of the citations in Milloy's piece. You have repeatedly called Milloy a liar.

    You do not buttress this claim by repeating claims made by Carson in her book. I am certainly glad that we can agree that DDT is not a carcinogen.

    However, I have asked you repeatedly for the exact citation. J.B. Dewitt, correct? What magazine, what issue, what year, and what pages do I need to be looking at? YOU are the one who publicly called Milloy a liar. I am merely saying that you LOOK like a liar, and am giving you the opportunity to vindicate yourself by spending MY money to get access to a resource you claim you are citing faithfully, and which I strongly suspect you either have not read, or are willfully misrepresenting.

    Moreover, if in fact it is true, as you claim, that Milloy's citations don't “check out”, tell me which ones. I have a public library. I can likely go check them myself. If you want to make your case, it will be quick and efficient simply to point me to those sources. You're not lying about that, are you? If not, then this is really a very simple means of closing your case. I will look them up, and report faithfully–integrity is something I personally value–what I find.

    To be clear, what you have done here is simply repeat the catechism, with which I am well familiar. Lead is amplified in systems, too, as is mercury.

    You have repeated the catechism, and IGNORED ENTIRELY my repeated requests that you tell me exactly where you found the information in primary sources that allows you to call someone a liar in public with an apparently clear conscience.

    This point will continue to carry for me until you have provided actual checkable data–posts to a blog with an ax to grind clearly don't count. I want the actual primary texts.

    What issue number did Dewitt publish in? What page were you looking at? What other citations of Milloy didn't check out? These are simple questions, and to evade them is to plead guilty to being a disingenuous partisan.

    YOU are the one who brought these things up. Man up or shut up.

  • Barry cooper

    What link? YOU are the one claiming YOU have researched this. Give me TWO. The actual primary text from which the arguments are made about Dewitt is not cited in Milloy or your partisan blog. Please provide it. This is a very basic request.

    You have now posted the Millard Fillmore thing roughly three times. I see summaries of the text, but I don't see the citation. You do speak English as your primary language, correct? What part of this is ambiguous?

    I am academically trained. Academics don't read summaries of blogs for information, but the texts to which those secondary texts refer.

    At least, the competent, serious ones do.

  • Barry cooper

    That's the third time you've posted that. I don't think you have read ANY of the citations. I think you have read Silent Spring multiple times, and blogs supporting Carson in the face of overwhelming evidence that THE BITCH GOT IT WRONG.

    Which of these two should I start with, ace? I'm looking them up: 2. DeWitt, James B., “Effects of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides upon Quail and Pheasants,” Jour. Agric. and Food Chem., Vol. 4 (1956), No. 10, p. 863.

    3. Dewitt, James B., “Effects of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides on Quail and Pheasants,” Jour. Agric. and Food Chem., Vol. 3 (1955), No. 8, p. 672. (see abstract here)

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    Which one do you think is from 1956? That's the one.

    Yes, I know it's the third time I've posted it. At least.

    You claim to be trained, educated, and not blind. No evidence of any of that yet. Can you cut the insults and do your part?

    I can't help it if you have no discernment for hard research, nor accurate data. That award-winning blog I keep referring you to has the footnotes, the quotes from the pieces, and anything else you'd need. Did your academic training include how to read footnotes?

    If so, why do I have to keep reposting it?

  • Barry Cooper

    Mostly fraudulent? Which weren't?

    You'll get your apology the moment I decide you aren't a libelous fool. I do have a day job, but I WILL look these things up. I assume you've finally offered a direction in a thread below.

  • Barry Cooper

    To give me some hope you yourself have read it. You could have cut and pasted it days ago. You didn't. I don't believe you have read it. I believe you are lying when you say you have read it. And I don't believe it says what that blog says it does. But we'll find out.

  • Barry Cooper

    Let me make this simple: would it offend your sense of moral and professional integrity to learn that publicly funded, professional scientists had systematically suppressed alternative viewpoints, and doctored data to reach conclusions which the data otherwise did not support?

    Or are you an intellectual and moral nihilist, for whom nothing is wrong, and never could be, other than being a Conservative?

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

      If you're alleging that about DDT, then, yeah, I'd be offended. I'd be offended that you thought I'd buy such a piece of crap so counter to the history.

      The only publicly-funded professional scientists who worked hard to suppress information on DDT was J. Gordon Edwards, and he didn't work so hard to suppress as to misinform. I understand that he used to drink a teaspooonful of DDT before lectures. I think it may have affected his thinking, and his ability to discern fiction from fact.

      The story of DDT's dangers has been consistent in research papers since 1945 at least. The story of DDT's harms to birds and their reproduction has been consistent since at least 1955 — and the declines in birds were noted earlier than that, just with no cause attached.

      I hope your not offended that I call your bluff. If you're offended, stop bluffing.

  • andrewew

    “No one has ever claimed it was banned. It was officially considered a dangerous carcinogen and a disastrous toxin when used in the wild. “

    Barry, this very article claims DDT was banned by the WHO: “The World Health Organization rolled back its ban on using DDT in 2006…” This is an entirely false characterization of the history, as my citations have shown. Trzupek should issue a correction. Otherwise he's just living up to the stereotype about conservatives that they have no regard for truth.

    • Barry Cooper

      Here you go: http://africanhistory.about.com/b/2006/09/16/worl

      How hard did you look for that? To be clear, DDT was still officially available through that period. It wasn't an illicit, controlled substance. It's just that ALL of the high level officials at the UN and various foreign aid organizations told Africans it was a dangerous substance that shouldn't be used, and for which they would not pay.

      And the stereotype is that Conservatives have no heart and don't care about poor people. Given that it is Leftist policies which led to so much death in the developing world, I guess you really deserve that stereotype more than we do, in addition to your well earned and daily documentable proclivity for ignoring facts which don't fit the mold you were given in school.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

        It's just that ALL of the high level officials at the UN and various foreign aid organizations told Africans it was a dangerous substance that shouldn't be used, and for which they would not pay.

        So your allegation is that Idi Amin and other African leaders were persuaded by Rachel Carson and unnamed, uncited UN officials who, in memos never recorded in history that cannot be found now, urged Amin and others not to use DDT? Can anyone be so wholly ignorant of African history as to believe any part of that?

        And, to the extent that any African leaders were not Idi Amin nor similarly encumbered by disregard for human life generally, your claim is that, despite the fact that DDT was available cheap and they didn't like interference from foreign nations, and despite the fact they knew better, they just didn't spray DDT on their own? I'm not sure which is more offensive, the claim that African leaders are too stupid to use DDT if it worked, or the claim they didn't care enough to bother to do it.

        Either claim is racist.

        DDT was never banned in Africa. It stopped working well against vectors of malaria in the middle 1960s. It was never a panacea, and it only worked in conjunction with improving health care greatly. Use of DDT alone without improving health care does nothing useful.

        You haven't talked about the fish kills, either. Sometimes DDT got out of control (usually from agricultural use, again). DDT killed off food fish in several places, prompting starvation.

        Africans aren't stupid. They'd use DDT if it were safe, and if it worked. Beating malaria requires more than just poisoning the heck out of Africa.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    So, please tell me: What rule was relaxed? Where is your documentation?

    Just because I state a fact would not be a challenge to a seeker of truth, would it? Why are you so threatened by a simple question of historicity?

    As a Reagan appointee, I challenge your credentials to call me a lefty.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    Why not use the solution that causes the fewest number of people to die?

    40 years later, and we are indeed using the solution that causes the fewest number of people to die, exactly what Rachel Carson recommended.

    Why do you slander her instead? If you are concerned about killing fewer people, why don't you fight malaria instead of the environmentalists who do fight malaria?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

    Can you vouch for the existence of any of those claimed citations, plus that they say DDT doesn't cause harm? I can't find any of them. Can you?

    • Barry Cooper

      Most of the on-line databases only go back ten years or so. Here is one way to get to the Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America: http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journa

      Here is Audobon Magazine. Their on-line access only goes back ten years. You are claiming to have looked at ALL the magazines from 1942 onwards (you did notice one citation is from 1942, which combined with your claimed exhaustive research leads necessarily to that conclusion). If we figure 6 journals a year, that is 402 journals. Do you have that many? Have you read them all?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    Hey, I'm not the idiot who claimed Stalin as a buddy of free enterprise. I pointed out that the connection between environmentalists and the polluter-of-the-century Stalin were spurious at best.

    Glad to see you agree. Now, go and stop doing as Lysenko did.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    No, my argument is simply that there is no research to show that DDT doesn't thin the shells of eggs of raptors and other birds. There is some ambiguous evidence, but I have never seen that reported in an article that did not also document the thinning.

    So, any claim that DDT doesn't thin eggshells is not based on research, and misreports the research that is done. It is, consequently, the perpetration of a fraud on the reader.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    “As far as your point about DDT, look at the paper. He has DOZENS of citations showing NO long term problems in bird populations. Of course, actually doing work would be contrary to the code of the Gentleman Blogger.”

    Go hit a university library and let us know when you find that one of those citations is real, AND that the article says DDT is no problem for birds.

    I've been looking for several years now. Not one of Milloy's citations works as he claims, that I have found so far.

    Don't take my word for it — check with your library. Go see for yourself.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    As REAL science has proven, the gullible people are those who bought into the scare that DDT was hazardous.

    Please cite for me the studies that show that. No, don't recycle Milloy's stuff — if what you said were accurate, there would be dozens of studies to show it, right?

    Show us a dozen, can you?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/100-things-about-ddt-dissecting-10/ Ed Darrell

    Well, since DDT is the miracle cure for malaria, South Africa's Vhembe District of Limpopo Province must be completely malaria free, right?

    C'mon, Barry — show us the malaria figures for this district, can you?

    • Barry Cooper

      The World Health Organization says that it is THE most effective compound for use in-doors, and they officially recommend its use for that purpose. Does that count for anything?

  • edarrell

    I will point out, though, that the best way to think of leftists is that they are little machines, that are wound up to repeat certain things, and travel along a certain path. This is both a source of strength and a source of weakness.

    One of the best ways to defeat non-thinkers is simply to tell the truth and keep at it. Non-thinkers believe anyone with a different idea is a “leftist,” and they think that implies one set of political ideas. It's a shorthand way of saying they don't want to be bothered with having to think things through.

    Malaria and DDT are not simple issues, however. We already know that, just with the odd juxtaposition of Environmental Defense, the agency who first sued to stop DDT spraying in the U.S., having to plead with the George Bush administration to allow USAID money to be used for DDT treatments of huts in Africa.

    But while complex, these issues are not beyond the understanding of normal people who wish to find the facts, and who love the truth and will cling to it.

    You have no pigeon hole for that. Quit trying to push everything into pigeon holes. It makes the pigeons angry, and homeless.

  • Barry Cooper
  • Barry Cooper

    Well, I took the time to read everything Ed wrote. The first thing that is obvious is that he places his faith in those who oppose the use of DDT, and that he is being profoundly hypocritical in insisting I read articles he is claiming he has read, but hasn't. He has not even retrieved, himself, the very article which he attacked in his blog, point number 10. He compares what Milloy wrote to what Carson wrote, and finds in her favor, since she has more citations, and Milloy obviously has an axe to grind.

    However, given that, it is true–if perhaps accidental–that he is right that the Dewitt study shows increased mortality among chicks. It shows no effects to the adult birds of DDT consumption, or problems of reproduction. He gets that part wrong–after all, he didn't read the study before launching his apparently scholarly treatment of it–but the point remains that Carson was not fully wrong.

    This is a situation I have never yet encountered: an arrogant, somewhat sloppy advocate of the political use of environmentalism who is not fully wrong.

    I will continue doing research, and have some further, more general thoughts, but no time for them now.

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

      The first thing that is obvious is that he places his faith in those who oppose the use of DDT, and that he is being profoundly hypocritical in insisting I read articles he is claiming he has read, but hasn't. He has not even retrieved, himself, the very article which he attacked in his blog, point number 10. He compares what Milloy wrote to what Carson wrote, and finds in her favor, since she has more citations, and Milloy obviously has an axe to grind.

      Barry, if you're claiming DeWitt's research did NOT show that DDT kills chicks and otherwise interferes with bird breeding, you've stepped into the realm of writing fiction.

      DDT didn't kill the adults in grain-eating birds; generally the acute dose doesn't get quite high enough. It kills adults in insect-eating and other predator birds.

      But DDT also damaged the reproductive organs of the seed eaters. Alive but non-breeding birds don't do a lot for the survival of the species.

      Carson was absolutely right. No study has ever challenged any of her conclusions.

      I often encounter arrogant, sloppy advocates of poisoning Africa. Go check the literature. Spend a few days in the library. Reread the Scout Oath and Scout Law. You'll make time to do the right thing.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

        For eggshell thinning, you may want to start reviewing research here:

        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/16

        • Barry Cooper

          I will add, that the library got back with me, and I can get most of these on inter-library loan. That means I get acces to them at no charge, and with little work

          You say in your own piece that you have researched three citations. Since you have shown you didn't research Dewitt, that leaves two in the best case, and I doubt even those got beyond comparing Carson with Milloy.

          You a liar. You are misrepresenting, grossly, the work you have done. This sin is made all the more egregious since you are hanging your hat on accusing Milloy of the same. Milloy copied Edwards, or whatever the guys name was. You have no excuse.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

            Barry, you claim I am a liar — I resent it, and especially from someone who defends a liar — and you claim that DeWitt's work is not as I presented it.

            Quote from DeWitt's work, will you? I've read DeWitt's articles. He says in each of them — you can read the abstracts on line — that DDT is a problem in eggshell thinning. Carson quotes at length from his work, and from his letters. I've read some of those letters. I've had contact with a man who interviewed DeWitt on that precise point for a book — one of those links you dishonestly and in such a cowardly manner refuse to read — and he confirms what DeWitt's work said, and what DeWitt said.

            Where have you quoted anything that gives you the brass to claim I lied?

            You're hot. You're angry. You're defending stuff that the library cannot back you on. I understand the emotion. Back off a bit and collect your wits, and your manners.

          • Barry Cooper

            Dewitt says, as I quoted: "egg production, fertility, and hatchability were relatively unaffected. . "

            This directly contradicts your statement "But DDT also damaged the reproductive organs of the seed eaters. "

            How is that complicated? Are you so silly that you are conflating DDT with the other tested pesticides? The evidence is right there.

          • Barry Cooper

            OBVIOUSLY, what you are doing is reading Carson as the authority, and making truth claims based on the ASSumption she is right, and Milloy is wrong wherever his citations differ from her.

            But the link YOU posted, and which I have reposted twice, says, explicitly, that DDT did NOT affect reproduction. It DOES say that the mortality rates of the chicks were affected in a very negative manner.

            Why on earth are you dilating on a point where you are PATENTLY, DEMONSTRABLE WRONG, when you have data which supports the point you want to make?

          • BArry

            What seems to be happening here is not patent political advocacy, so much as a personal defense of Carson herself. Did you have a crush on her? Why else do you feel the need to act stupidly in public, as in calling Milloy a liar, when your OWN PIECE STATES that you only "fisked" 3 sources out of all of them, and based on that you guess/wager/suspect (all words you used, if memory serves) that Milloy is a "liar".

            You are not quoting Dewitt accurately, despite your claim to have read him. That means you haven't read him, or you are stupid. You don't appear to be stupid, so that makes you a liar.

            That is the accurate word, your own narcisstic conceits to the contrary. You're not in friendly territory, and you won't get passes on blatant BS.

            I should have the piece some time next week. Apparently my libary card expired, and I have to go in and revalidate it. Once that is done, though, I can get a steady stream of citations. If I were you, and were trying to evaluate this honestly, that's what I would do, too.

            But of course, honest evaluation is not the task which you have set yourself.

          • Barry Cooper

            We are discussing potentialities that can be made realities: articles you claim are fraudulent that NEITHER of us have seen. I will get ten or so, picked from a cross-section of the piece, and report back in two weeks or so. If this thread is closed, I will post on your site what I find.

            In the meantime, two questions:

            1) Manifestly, the purported carcinogenicity of DDT was one of the key elements in the PR campaign led by the environmentalists who eventually got DDT banned for most uses in the US. Are you willing to concede that there is no moral or professional difference between overstating the effects on humans relative to understating them with respect to wildlife? That a lie is a lie no matter who tells it?

          • Barry Cooper

            2) Clearly, DDT has been used to great effect in the past. There is no dispute about this. Among other things, it played a key role in the eradication of malaria in the US south, and saved many millions of lives–by all accounts–in the first half of the 20th century. Given this, can we not posit that there are remaining uses for it in some areas, and that if it is indeed a bird killing agent, that we have to weigh its use in terms of human lives saved per bird killed? This point seems obvious to me, and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. How many birds are worth one human life, then? 10? 100? If we are going to implement rational policy, these are the sorts of questions that need to be answered.

          • Barry Cooper

            If of course you are not arguing against the on-going use of DDT in Africa, then its a moot point, since the individual nations can form their own policies. But if you want to claim that no one anywhere should be using it, then it comes into play, and you need to answer it.

            As mentioned, I will dig up a number of the citations, and report on them. This is more than you have been willing to do. Whatever they say, I will report faithfully.

            One last question, actually: how many of the citation need to be accurate for you to retract the insults you have leveled at Milloy? All of them? I will grant that Edwards did not get number 10 right, at least based on the abstract. I'm not fully convinced that political use has not been made even of that–so I will get the full article and read it–but what if all the rest–or most of them–say exactly what they are claimed to have said?

          • Barry Cooper

            You claim 'Milloy's "100 things" screed against DDT is filled in gross distortions, inaccuracies, errors, and flat out lies."

            Yet on your own site you admit to only having looked up 3 citations. You then "wagered" that the rest were lies. The two claims cannot be reconciled. You are citing as research what is manifestly simple assumption.

            You claim "I got DeWitt's paper, and it concludes that DDT is harmful to all birds. Generally DDT killed the chicks in the eggs before they could hatch".

            According to the citation we are both looking at, that simply isn't true. Carson may have made that claim, but that is not what the citation says. I view that as evidence that you are CLAIMING to have read the paper, when in fact you are simply taking Carson's word for it.

      • Barry Cooper

        Ed,

        Straighten up and fly right, or shut up. Here is the damn citation: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf60068a004

        You know, the one you keep pretending you have read. READ IT!!!!!!!

        It says EXPLICITLY–in clear enough prose for a hack like you–that "egg production, fertility, and hatchability were relatively unaffected. . "

        What part of that is ambiguous, Boy Scout? Do the damn work–the simple, basic work, which you keep claiming counterfactually you have done–or shut up. This is a very simple situation, now.

        • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

          Read the thing, Barry. Read it all the way through.

          Carson was writing about the effects of DDT and other pesticides on the reproduction of birds.

          Read that again: "reproduction of birds."

          What part is ambiguous? Nothing.

          DeWitt's research demonstrated clearly that DDT affected the reproduction of the birds. Among other things, when chicks did hatch, they all died.

          Which part do you fail to understand?

          I've done the work. I've quoted this to you at least a half-dozen times. I've given you the citations. I've given you citations to others who have checked the stuff out.

          Read it. The issue is reproduction.

          Steven Milloy edited out the parts of the quote that made the point, as dishonest as it is possible to get in academia.

          Read it carefully. "Egg production, fertility, and hatchability" being relatively unaffected is good for DDT — but you, you dishonest scoundrel, you cut the quote where Milloy did.

          Here's the whole quote from the abstract:

          Egg production, fertility, and hatchability were relatively unaffected were relatively unaffected by inclusion of pesticides in diets fed breeding quail, but chicks from these matings showed high mortality rates even when reared on insecticide-free diets. Lowered viability of quail chicks was most pronounced in groups receiving DDT and strobane in the reproduction diets.

          Carson was writing about the chicks. You're focusing on the adults.

          Another reason this research was so critical was because the claim of the DDT proponents at the time was that seed-eaters would be completely unaffected. They don't suffer from the biomagnification that raptors get. The doses they get is much lower, though it still accumulates ominously in their fat.

          I'll accept your apology just as soon as you reread the abstract. And I do expect an apology, if you're an honest man.

          • Barry Cooper

            I already admitted that the mortality rates of the chicks were increased 3-4 days ago. That does not work out to "Milloy is a liar".

            You have already demonstrated you are a liar, here, by claiming exhaustive knowledge of the citations Milloy put out there, when in fact you have done a half-assed job of reading no more than 3 of them, at most.

            I'm not apologizing, for the simple reason that, even if you are right, it is not as a result of doing the work you claim you have done. When I say I've read something, I've read it, and will reread as often as needed to get it right.

            As I said, I will continue to do the work you claim to have done, but manifestly haven't.

  • Barry Cooper

    I like to drive things into the ground, then keep driving. That’s when interesting insights come to you. First, I think we need to abolish once and for all the notion that simply because some body–some group of scientists, some court, some legislative body, some regulatory agency–says something is so, makes it so. Science can never be “settled”, finally.

    And ESPECIALLY when political benefits–i.e. power–flow from such a standardized and commoditized “range” of opinions, we need to be skeptical. If you want to see how the facade of science can be used to mask political agendas in detail, read Gary Taubes “Good Calories, bad calories”. When fat was officially declared a toxin, in effect, when ingested in more than nominal amounts, only TWO studies had been done on the actual dietary protocols being recommended, using homogeneous groups, and even then, THE RESULTS WERE CONTRADICTORY.

    Fat, you see, is a key component in meat, and meat is produced by corporations. What else did the leftists pushing the anti-fat agenda need to know? That C. Everett Coop worked under Reagan is moot: the fact that he relied on science that was political to the point of polemic is what is relevant.

    With respect to DDT, let us posit–and I will continue to do research–that it is not carcinogenic, does kill some–but not many–birds, and is a highly effective agent at killing disease vectors, except when used over large areas for long periods of time. That is my view currently.

    On the left, they chose to overemphasize the carcinogenic part of it so as to scare people. This enabled them to accomplish two things: get regulatory control that was greater than they had had before (not altogether bad, necessarily, since some poisons WERE in the enviroment, and DID need to be removed, like mercury), and to protect birds the world over. And if this meant increased human death in the then Third World, so be it.

    On the right–and to be clear, Milloy copied, but did not create this list, which apparently dates in it’s raw form to 1972–let us say that the effects on birds were underemphasized, and its malaria control potential overemphasized. This would have happened to block increased control of the private sector by the State, as facilitated by a misinformation campaign oriented around DDT.

    Is it clear, Constitutionally, that the Federal Government even HAS the power to regulate things like DDT? Clearly, the Supreme Court had no problem abusing its authority in the 70’s, as shown abundantly clearly by finding a right to abortion in the Bill of Rights; but do the rights to regulate interstate commerce and to legislate in the “public interest” convey on Congress the power to ban specific products which have both positive and negative aspects? Is or should this be a matter for the Courts? Should a regulatory body have that power, or should that not be a matter of legislation by Congress? Should it devolve to the sundry States?

    These are all valid questions. Clearly, a chain of decisions making the EPA’s decision legal can be cited, but were those decisions made with integrity with respect to what the Constitution actually says, and with respect to what was intended by our Founding Fathers, who understood all too well that power concentrated is power that will be abused?

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

      On the left, they chose to overemphasize the carcinogenic part of it so as to scare people. This enabled them to accomplish two things: get regulatory control that was greater than they had had before (not altogether bad, necessarily, since some poisons WERE in the enviroment, and DID need to be removed, like mercury), and to protect birds the world over. And if this meant increased human death in the then Third World, so be it.

      Except that carcinogenicity was a weak indication in 1962, and in 1972. DDT was not banned because it was considered to be carcinogenic. DDT was banned because it was a hazard when used as a pesticide, a hazard to beneficial insects, birds, amphibians, lizards, snakes and reptiles, and mammals. There was no "overemphasis" of carcinogenicity until Edwards and Milloy got into the act. When they say 'DDT was banned, but it was never proven to be carcinogenic,' most people won't stop to understand how that statement is misleading: DDT was banned for toxicity to wildlife and disruption of wild and domestic animal and plant life, not for causing cancer. It would be like saying 'DDT was banned, but it was never proven to cause explosions in the gas tanks of the Ford Pinto.' Exactly the same meaning, ignoring the reason that DDT was banned for use on agricultural crops.

      Is it clear, Constitutionally, that the Federal Government even HAS the power to regulate things like DDT?

      See the commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. You would do well to look up the litigation on DDT, I would think. Or take a look at the here.)

  • Barry Cooper

    To claim that a key element in the PR/propaganda campaign that led to the banning of DDT was not the claim that it was killing our children is simply disingenous. It was. The whole thing was based largely on tapping into primal emotions. You yourself argued extensively earlier for the carcinogenicity of DDT. Why do that when it either isn't a carcinogen, or that fact is irrelevant to considering it? How else COULD it be poisoning Africans?

    I am well familiar with the Commerce Clause. It's abuse has been endemic at least since FDR. My question remains. Simply creating a legal chain of precedents–as was done in Roe v. Wade, is nothing other than clever fraud, rather than clumsy fraud.

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

      I noted that DDT is carcinogenic, exactly contrary to Milloy's unscientific (political purely?) claims. I also noted, if you read carefully, that DDT is a weak human carcinogen so far as we know.

      All that shows is that Milloy will make any claim no matter what science says, if it follows his political skew.

      The stuff is poison. Cancer isn't the only result of poisons. Among other, perhaps more dangerous effects of DDT on large mammals like humans, it messes up reproductive systems. The first daughter product of DDT is DDE, and DDE especially mimics estrogen in humans and all other animals. Look up "endocrine disruption" and you'll get a libraryful of bad health effects for everything but the possible exception of plants and algae.

      DDT is particularly deadly to fish and anything else that lives in water. Indoor spraying, we hope, doesn't get into waterways. There is a record of massive fish kills in Africa similar to the massive fish kills in the U.S., in Austin, Texas, and Oklahoma, and several other places.

      Plus, DDT isn't all that effective as a pesticide, especially absent a lot of money to upgrade health care systems.

      The debate on DDT itself is a diversion from the task of beating malaria.

      Interstate commerce in poisons is squarely in the purview of the commerce clause — under English common law and its American counterpart after 1787, use of DDT would probably be absolutely prohibited as a nuisance to neighbors. Be careful what you wish for if you wish for an end to commerce clause regulation of business.

      • Barry Cooper

        Ed,

        Here is your own text: "Although we provide evidence to suggest that DDT and DDE may pose a risk to human health, we also highlight the lack of knowledge about human exposure and health effects in communities where DDT is currently being sprayed for malaria control. We recommend research to address this gap and to develop safe and effective alternatives to DDT."

        We know it kills mosquitoes very well when not used indiscriminately. We know this leads to reduced death from malaria, which you don't have to worry about since it's been eliminated in the US. With DDT.

        We don't know, even now, if it causes illness in humans, or even in birds. Self evidently, the histrionicists–if I may be permitted a neologism–have a profound emotional committment to the validity of decisions they fought for 30 years ago. This does not mean wishing can be turned into scientific reality.

    • andrewew

      Barry, you obviously don't know wtf you're talking about. The main driver for banning the agricultural use of DDT in US was ecological effects. Yes, there was also some concern about carcinogenicity and human health effects, but EPA's prime motivation for banning–and the main argument championed by EDF–were ecological effects, not concerns over human health. See http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemical

      And I'd still like to see Rich Trzupek, the author, correct the factual errors he propagates in this article. "The World Health Organization rolled back its ban on using DDT in 2006…." W R O N G. WHO never had banned DDT, as the references I cited in earlier comments definitively demonstrate.

      • Barry Cooper

        And you don't read very well. There is a point where you shift from being pedantic to simply obstructionist. The simple fact of the matter is that prior to 2006, the official position of the WHO was that DDT should not be used for ANYTHING, since it constituted a danger unto itself.

        That position was reversed, and playing silly little language games only points to your inability to comment on the larger issue, that a potential tool for saving human life was rejected for 30 years for very dubious reasons.

        I will agree that "save the birds" was the motto under which DDT was banned in the US, but the way it was SOLD was that DDT was killing our little babies, giving pregnant mothers hemmhoroids, making Coca Cola taste better than Pepsi, and preventing the Vikings from winning a Super Bowl.

        It's much the same as with the current issue of the Himalayan Glaciers: manifestly inaccurate claims were made that served solely political ends.

        The mark of a little mind is an inability to deal with larger issues.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ Ed Darrell

    There was a major conference at Alma College in Michigan a few months ago specifically looking at DDT. You may want to review the report of the people at that conference. It's available free from Environmental Health Perspectives through PubMed.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27370

  • Barry Cooper

    Been busy. Got the issue with my card sorted, and just submitted for the 2 DeWitt pieces, and number 70, on the correllation of eggshell thickness and DDT residue.

    Since eagles seem to be Ed’s thing, I’ll probably get 3-4 of those, if this works.

    I’m curious to see the DeWitt pieces, to see if there is any gap between the abstract and the actual research.

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com Ed Darrell

      So, what did you learn from reading the actual research pieces?

  • http://homingparty.com/pg/blog/traducteuroolight Winfred Felico

    Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you? – Homer

  • http://www.pellemoda.net/tag/glitzy/ Pelle Moda

    magnificent issues altogether, you just gained a new reader. What could you recommend in regards to your post that you just made some days ago? Any positive?