After reading the transcript to Michael Crichton’s speech to the Commonwealth Club, in which he states:
" DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned."
and further goes on to say:
"I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn. "
I was wondering what is the straight dope on this? Has the banning of DDT caused millions of easily preventable malaria deaths? Is it an essentially safe substance to humans?
Crichton also says:
“I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.”
Are these claims also true? Is second-hand smoke really innocuous? Are all these things just myths based on the collective articles of faith of the environmentalist elite?
Typical quote: "DDT was not banned because there was evidence it harmed wildlife or humans. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency administrative law judge who listened to 9,000 pages of testimony over seven months concluded, ““DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.””
From other reading, my recollection is that the key “evidence” against DDT was the thinning of birds eggs and it was discredited long before the DDT ban.
There is no question that DDT can control malaria. As I understand it, malaria has been on the rise in many areas since the ban because other control methods are too expensive for developing countries.
The reference says it is not against WHO policy or international law to use DDT in control of malaria and similar deseases. It says nothing about the validity of laws in specific countries. Therefore, it is not OK to use DDT in a country which still bans it without exception.
The idea that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing is based (AFAIK) on a single article (referenced here). It only refers to sea ice, the total amount of ice.
Every other piece of research I’ve seen says it’s shrinking pretty quickly.
OK, I had to look around a little to recall the issue on the second hand smoke issue. Most of the second hand smoke data goes back to a couple of sources, the EPA analysis of 11 studies and some Canadian studies. The main objection is that the Canadian studies seemed to concentrate on spouses of smokers and the EPA study started with 30 studies and threw out the 19 that did not support the desired results. Why is this significant? Apparently living in a smoking household is much different than being in a smoking workplace or public area. However, EPA has taken results from the spouse studies and used it to justify banning smoking in public areas.
As a non-smoker, banning smoking in public places doesn’t bother me in the least. However, I think this may be another bit of evidence for the demise of the scientific method.
Regardless of your opinion of Crichton’s writing, given that he is a Medical Doctor, I’m inclined to give him a bit more credit than most writers.
I’ll kick in here and agree with Crichton that the evidence of global warming is really weak. There is just not enough information at this point to come to the conclusions some of the environmentalists suggest. Global warming may be caused by us but then again it could be just part of the natural cycle.
And the second hand smoke issue really depends on the situation. Does second hand smoke in public really harm other people? Probably not much. Does second hand smoke in a household harm people who live in the house. Probably.
But I would take anything Crichton says about science with a grain of salt.
But, what about cloning dinosaurs from their DNA in insects stuck in amber? I mean that is happening now isn’t it? I’m guessing that the Raelians must be close
The concept here is that the US ban was based on faulty information and was adopted world wide on that same basis. In a similar vein, European resistance to genetically modified grains has been adopted by African countries, resulting in situations where people are starving to death because their governments will not accept GM food from the US. The US can ban DDT with only minor impact. Europe can ban GM with only minor impact. However, people die in other countries from the same decisions.
The problem is an economic matter. The US has outlawed not only organochlorine use within its own birders, but has also set zero tolerance limits for organochlorines in imported produce. What this means is that if one Steak from Brazil has one part per billion of Dieldren then the entire Brazilian beef industry is shut down pending an investigation. No developing nation can afford to take that risk and as a result many have been forced to ban the possession an importation of organochlorines. It’s a little hard to use DDT to spray for malarial mosquitoes in rice paddies when any residue in the foodstock will cost billions in export dollars.
The other problem is that with a US domestic ban it has become unprofictable for the major chemicals companies ot manufacture organochlorine pesticides and as a result prices have risen to the point where they are unattaibale by many developing nations. Sure it’s a knock on effect but I think Crichton’s point is that making decisions based on bad science costs lives needlessly.
I don’t see any basis for the 2nd hand smoke argument.
Is anyone seriously arguing that sitting in a smoke-filled room does absolutely no harm to your breathing? It is exactly the same as sitting in a room clear of smoke? That smarting in your eyes and cough at the back of your throat is just a sign that you’re not used to it yet, it’s not a sign at all that your body doesn’t like it? All those nasty substances that fill the smoker’s lungs magically disappear when breathed out?
** Futile Gesture** that is pretty much the argument. Humans have been using fires indoors for quite few generations now. It’s very hard to tell how much effect breathing in smoke is capable of having on us since presumably anyone with a high sensitivity to smoke particulates will have long since failed to breed.
The smarting eyes and cough are not necessarily indicative of long-term harm. They could just be generic physiological responses. People experience the same reactions to sunlight and laughing hard and there is no evidence that sunlight or laughing causes any damage to the lungs.
And yes, all those nasty substances that fill the smoker’s lungs magically disappear when breathed out. In fact they are never breathed out. Many of the worse substances are only gaseous at high temperatures and they condense inside the smokers lungs. Other substances are chemically shortlived and become very different when they are allowed to cool and react with oxygen. Many more substances are simply absorbed by the lungs of the smoker. Second hand smoke has a different chemical makeup to directly inhaled smoke. Although all the same chemicals are probably present the mix is hardly comparable.
I had a nice elequent post almost ready to submit, but then the hamsters ate it. Here’s an abbreviated version.
Not to contradict the master, but DDE, a metabolite of DDT, has been found to be an endocrine disrupter, and has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer, premature births, and reduced sperm count in mammals.
The most recent evidence pointing to DDE resulting in premature births comes from Longnecker et al (Lancet, 358, 110 - 114, (2001). ) who also found evidence that even full term babies born to mothers with elevated DDE levels were frequently smaller than average.
Additionally, insects are developing an immunity to DDT. Dahorn et al (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5590/2253) report that overtranscription of a single gene,Cyp6g1, is sufficient to provide immunity to DDT in Drosophila.
This is not my area of expertise, but as a scientist, I feel there is enough evidence to say that DDT does have long term health risks. The true danger of DTT and its byproducts lies in the fact that they accumulate in fatty tissues and therefore are passed up the food chain. Researchers are working on improved malaria vaccines (thus far, none of the vaccines made have been overly effective) and transgenic plants which, when eaten will provide malaria resistance.
I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong."
[\quote]
Something doesn’t make sense here. If one believes the general consensus on global warming, then anything humans do to limit the introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next century will limit climate change. It’s not an all or nothing situation, where by small measures are a 'total waste of time".
Also, it is incorrect to say that nuclear fusion is superior to nuclear fission in terms of reducing carbon dioxide gas emissions. Both technologies produce zero greenhouse gases.
I suspect Mr. Crichton has taken the words of the blue-ribbon panel (whatever that is) so far out of context that he is essentially making them say something that they did not.
I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong."
[\quote]
[bob & doug mackenzie]
Brakes don’t work! Might as well not steer, eh?
[/bob & doug mackenzie]
Re “second-hand” smoke: surely this does not just refer to the smoke coming out of a smoker’s mouth, but also the smoke at the tip of the smoker’s cigarette? Which is as fresh (and presumably therefore as deadly) as the “first hand” smoke? If not more deadly, as it hasn’t even been through the filter.
I have never yet come across a smoker who does not hold their cigarette away from them while not inhaling, so the tip smoke doesn’t go in their face. Usually, holding the cigarette so the tip smoke instead drifts directly in the face of me on the next table, which is majorly pissily rude.
