Global Warming ???

[iholdit]

It's actually a review of the available evidence. I went back to my fails and found the original article.




Right. The review of all available evidence at the time of study found mixed results. Many studies show no problems, some showed possible issues. That was why the same Lancet issue had a reply to that Rogan and Chen article, by another expert:

Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) has been shown, over
the past 60 years, to be one of the few affordable and effective tools against malarial vector mosquitoes, which account for more than 300 million cases of disease and more than 1 million deaths every year. However, the Review by Walter Rogan and Aimin Chen (Aug 27, p 763),1 which aims to balance the risks and benefits of DDT, consists mainly of hypothetical concerns while
the reality of human suffering gets short shrift.​

That's the central issue. Possible health concerns while millions die.




Because all that is possible. The point here is that DDT was banned in the 70s with no alternative. It was responsible for nearly wiping out malaria because of how great it was a controlling mosquitoes. When it was banned, millions died. Possible (and possibly controllable) health and environmental risks, thanks to the precautionary principle, resulted in a ban and millions and millions of people died as a result.


The above you quoted is from an article in EHP from 2009. Also in the conclusion is the following:

"The use of DDT historically may have helped prevent millions of infections and deaths from insect-borne diseases."​

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if millions were saved by the use, by preventing malaria and similar issues, when the stuff was banned without any cost-effective alternative, millions would die. And this is indeed what happened and what continues to happen, as my sources have shown. Indeed, the authors note, despite their concerns about possible health risks:
"We recognize the serious implications of restricting DDT use given that an estimated 880,000 people die each year from malaria, most of whom are < 5 years of age (WHO 2008)."​

Yes, there are possible concerns, but looking at the effectiveness of DDT and the millions of lives it saved as well as the millions lost when it was banned, the following statement from the journal EHP says it all:

Many prestigious and authoritative groups and individuals with no
ideologic agenda have evaluated potential DDT harms over the last 70 years, and have consistently found no evidence of DDT harm that would cancel out the enormous health benefits of its use in malaria-endemic countries. (Tren & Roberts, 2009).​

dfd​

For the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. You still have a serious problem. The timelines don't match. AGW only refers to a warming that began in the 1970s. All the "abnormally" hot years (abnormally hot for the instrumental record) on record were really during the 90s and onward (although the globe hasn't warmed in 15 years, it hasn't cooled either).


"Chaves and Koenraadt re-examined more than 70 of these studies. They found that the studies ruling out a role for climate change in highland malaria often use inappropriate statistical tools, casting doubt on their conclusions."
"In contrast, most studies concluding that climate change is indeed playing a role in highland malaria tend to be statistically strong,"
Climate change one factor in malaria spread


Mosquitoes. DDT killed them off.


.

First, at the moment there aren't any alternatives which are cost effective form some of the countries with the biggest problems. Second, and this is the important part, there was nothing in place to prevent mosquitoes and other disease causing insects to come back in full force after the ban. And millions died. Again, for the history and death toll, see Wildavsky, Aaron. But is it true? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.



I'm all for trying to use less energy, developing alternative energy sources, reducing emissions, etc. The question is weighing the cost and effectiveness of the solutions against the probability of danger. Current programs are neither very effective nor are they economically sound, and they certaintly aren't called for given the uncertainty in AGW theory.

The lancet article did not deal with the studies after 2005. The studies after 2005 mostly show health risks including certain cancers and you still have not addressed the other health risks other than cancer.

DDT did not kill off ALL the mosquitos or all countries that have been using ddt would be malaria free and they are not. Malaria has even increased in some areas where ddt was and is still being used. DDT is not a cure all for eliminating malaria and we now know an ecological approach can be as effective and possibly be more effective than ddt in many areas.

If you look at the data you will see a 77% increase in malaria in the highlands based on just deforestation. As i said we now have plenty of information to show that malaria has been increased significantly by environmental and biological factors. We also know that malaria is becoming drug and insecticide(such as ddt) resistant. The best measure would be a ecological approach. An ecological approach was not used directly after the ddt ban and more importantly deforestation continued and even increased during the time of the ddt ban in most places. You are basing the ddt ban and increased malaria link on statements like this "The use of DDT historically may have helped prevent millions of infections and deaths from insect-borne diseases." Notice the word may, which is the same word you have pointed out in other references.

Knowing what we know now, that there are ecological approaches that have been proven effective. It only makes logical sense to use them instead of ddt in every circumstance possible. This same ecological approach will also reduce our impact on climate(if the 50% or more of scientists are right).

If our goal is to reduce malaria, reduce mans impact on climate change and a host of other issues, then an ecological approach would seem to be the best approach. Im not sure exactly what "current programs" you are referring to so you will have to be specific if you want to discuss their effectiveness.

I also am not going to respond to a book from 1995, that i can not read myself and have to only rely on your quotes. You seem to be honest from the limited conversation i have had with you but i would prefer to read the book myself before i respond. Also since the book was published in 1995, i would suspect the data in the book is not relevant. Based on the current studies and current data we see other major factors besides a ddt ban that caused increases in malaria and i do not know the writer would have even had access to the environmental data showing the major impact it has had.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I already posted numerous studies showing the problems with AGW theory:

1. Which one of them are peer-reviewed, scientific studies?
2. Can you please define for me what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense?
3. Are we going to continue to play this "throw something against the wall until it sticks" game, or are you going to pipe down and have a real discussion with us?

Wrong. Completely wrong and baseless.

READ:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on climate change]; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3]"

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The lancet article did not deal with the studies after 2005. The studies after 2005 mostly show health risks including certain cancers and you still have not addressed the other health risks other than cancer.

DDT did not kill off ALL the mosquitos or all countries that have been using ddt would be malaria free and they are not. Malaria has even increased in some areas where ddt was and is still being used. DDT is not a cure all for eliminating malaria and we now know an ecological approach can be as effective and possibly be more effective than ddt in many areas.

If you look at the data you will see a 77% increase in malaria in the highlands based on just deforestation. As i said we now have plenty of information to show that malaria has been increased significantly by environmental and biological factors. We also know that malaria is becoming drug and insecticide(such as ddt) resistant. The best measure would be a ecological approach. An ecological approach was not used directly after the ddt ban and more importantly deforestation continued and even increased during the time of the ddt ban in most places. You are basing the ddt ban and increased malaria link on statements like this "The use of DDT historically may have helped prevent millions of infections and deaths from insect-borne diseases." Notice the word may, which is the same word you have pointed out in other references.

Knowing what we know now, that there are ecological approaches that have been proven effective. It only makes logical sense to use them instead of ddt in every circumstance possible. This same ecological approach will also reduce our impact on climate(if the 50% or more of scientists are right).

If our goal is to reduce malaria, reduce mans impact on climate change and a host of other issues, then an ecological approach would seem to be the best approach. Im not sure exactly what "current programs" you are referring to so you will have to be specific if you want to discuss their effectiveness.

I also am not going to respond to a book from 1995, that i can not read myself and have to only rely on your quotes. You seem to be honest from the limited conversation i have had with you but i would prefer to read the book myself before i respond. Also since the book was published in 1995, i would suspect the data in the book is not relevant. Based on the current studies and current data we see other major factors besides a ddt ban that caused increases in malaria and i do not know the writer would have even had access to the environmental data showing the major impact it has had.

You know, Oberion's posts remind me of something I've said before about climate change: If the anti-pollution crowd turns out to be wrong, yet their policies become law, then we will have to deal with cleaner water, skies, and soil. But if the pro-pollution crowd turns out to be wrong, and their policies remain law, then we will have to deal with rising oceans, ecological catastrophes, and people's ways of life irreversibly altered.

In short, even if the deniers were somehow right and there were a good chance that climate change science were wrong, it's a much safer bet to stand for environmentalism instead of against it.

 

[Oberon]

The lancet article did not deal with the studies after 2005. The studies after 2005 mostly show health risks including certain cancers and you still have not addressed the other health risks other than cancer.

I quoted two other sources from 2009. One was Eskenazi et al. (2009). "The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT." Environmental Health Perspectives 117.9. It was a review of all the evidence to that point. They concluded, as had previous reviews, only that DDT may be a risk. But they acknowledged that "The use of DDT historically may have helped prevent millions of infections and deaths from insect-borne diseases... We recognize the serious implications of restricting DDT use given that an estimated 880,000 people die each year from malaria, most of whom are < 5 years of age (WHO 2008)."



In the next issue of EHP (again, this is 2009), another expert wrote:

In his commentary “Global Status of DDT and Its Alternatives for Use in Vector
Control to Prevent Disease,” van den Berg (2009) raised concerns about the impact of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its derivates on human health, in spite of the fact that DDT has been used widely for seven decades and no properly replicated and confirmed study has found any specific human health harm. Given the enormous and proven public health benefits arising from the use of DDT in disease control, it is incumbent on van den Berg to cite human health harm from DDT exposure that fulfills the basic epidemiologic criteria for a clear and unambiguous cause-and-effect relationship. In the absence of such evidence,​

van den Berg’s concerns should be ignored.... Many prestigious and authoritative groups and individuals with no ideologic agenda have evaluated potential DDT harms over the last 70 years, and have consistently found no evidence of DDT harm that would cancel out the enormous health benefits of its use in malaria-endemic countries... After almost 70 years of use, DDT—when used in IRS programs—remains one of the safest and most effective methods of saving lives from malaria.

DDT did not kill off ALL the mosquitos or all countries that have been using ddt would be malaria free and they are not.

No. What it did do was make malaria a minor illness. The ban made is a global problem and millions died and continue to.

DDT is not a cure all for eliminating malaria

Not permamently. But that's not what I'm talking about. My point here is less about what can be done now, but what was done because of the precautionary principle. We may have methods now to combat DDT. We didn't when it was banned. The results of the ban, which weighed some potential and at the time not well-researched risks against the known effectiveness, resulted in the death of millions.

That's the point. Inaction and action have costs. Not just inaction. Saying "we have to do something about global warming just in case" is all well and good, as long as you consider the price tag.

Notice the word may, which is the same word you have pointed out in other references.

Right, but this wasn't a study supporting the use. This was one of those groups who favor not using it now, so that was thrown in there as a boon to critics. The truth is, the history of DDT use is well-documented, as are it's effects. One can argue, now, whether or not we should continue to use DDT and in what way. One cannot argue how much it did to combat malaria and what happened after the ban given the facts of history.

.

Also since the book was published in 1995, i would suspect the data in the book is not relevant.

I'm not citing it to support current claims about the safety of DDT. Studies since it was published are about this. I'm citing it because it is the most thorough account I know of which documents what happened leading up to and after the ban. In this sense it is a historical account, and the history hasn't changed since 1995. I would cite a journal article you could get if I were aware of one which documents this history as thoroughly. I will check for one.

 

[Oberon]

1. Which one of them are peer-reviewed, scientific studies?

Every single one.

2. Can you please define for me what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense?

The last step in the scientific method, i.e. a hypothesis is formed, then tested repeatedly, and if the results confirm the hypothesis, we have theory. Science is not about proof, which is reserved for logic and mathematics. It is about theories. The theory of gravity, evolution, etc, are called theories because in science nothing is ever proven. The fact that AGW is a theory doesn't mean by itself that it doesn't have much backing it up. Gravity is a theory. What makes AGW problematic is the current state of research.

3. Are we going to continue to play this "throw something against the wall until it sticks" game, or are you going to pipe down and have a real discussion with us?

Here's my problem with AGW (and for any point, I can refer you to recent studies backing me up). We know there is plenty about the climate we don't know (particularly clouds). The central argument in AGW is based on computer models. But these computer models are KNOWN to be wrong (none of them can account for the lack of warming for the last 15 years). The models also can't explain the satellite temperature data, which is the most accurate. We know, from proxy records, that climate goes up and down in terms of temperature. Heck, the initial warming of the 20th century was not statistically signifcantly different from the supposed anthropogenic warming since 1970. We know that, by itself, CO2 is not going to be a problem. The problem is the proposed feedback parameter. In order for the models to show the warming from 1970 on, they have to include a positive feedback parameter which makes the initial warming from CO2 much greater.

The problem is, we don't know enough about the climate to know if that is necessary. Several studies suggest that all of the warming is the result in changes in cloud cover, possibly from solar radiative flux which in turns changes the levels of GCRs entering out atmosphere. Or it could be due to many natural oscillations we don't fully understand (e.g. ENSO and so forth). That's without taking into account the problems with the instrumental record and recent studies showing that much of the surface warming has nothing to do with global warming but poor temperature data.

READ:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on climate change]; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3]"

Already read this. Notice something:
1. It doesn't matter which scientific bodies say anything. They don't represent everyone who belongs to that body (I've belonged to a few academic organizations myself and I certaintly don't agree with every official stance they make, nor am I always even asked. I'm just or was just a member). These are often simply political statements.
2. This says nothing about either what the research shows or how many scientists believe AGW or not. Plenty have come out publicly saying the don't buy the theory. There have been several studies recently (though not as many as I'd like) which seek to determine exactly how many relevant experts believe what. All of them show that the majority believe AGW theory, although they also show that almost everyone agrees climate science is in its infancy. More importantly, they show a substantial minority disagreeing.
3. Science is not about consensus. This is why I take the time to read the actual published research. I gave you a bunch of examples. Those are all recent, peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals by actual experts.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You're playing the "respond to posts with sheer volume" game, so I may have to decide what comments to respond to and which ones to let speak for themselves. For this post, and this post only, I'm going entirely with the former.

Every single one.

Prove it.

The last step in the scientific method, i.e. a hypothesis is formed, then tested repeatedly, and if the results confirm the hypothesis, we have theory. Science is not about proof, which is reserved for logic and mathematics. It is about theories. The theory of gravity, evolution, etc, are called theories because in science nothing is ever proven. The fact that AGW is a theory doesn't mean by itself that it doesn't have much backing it up. Gravity is a theory. What makes AGW problematic is the current state of research.

1. No, it's not the last step in the scientific method. There is NO "last step" in the scientific method. Theories are not sacred texts that are immune from scrutiny.
2. Your comment about science not being proof is a half-truth. While technically correct that science doesn't "prove" anything with 100% accuracy, theories can be refined to 99.9999% or so accuracy.
3. How can you accept the theory of gravity and deny the theory of climate change? Like so many other deniers, you seem to have a reasonably good grasp of science, yet you are utterly resistant to any evidence that does not suit your view. That is a fundamental failure in the world of science.

Here's my problem with AGW (and for any point, I can refer you to recent studies backing me up). We know there is plenty about the climate we don't know (particularly clouds). The central argument in AGW is based on computer models. But these computer models are KNOWN to be wrong (none of them can account for the lack of warming for the last 15 years). The models also can't explain the satellite temperature data, which is the most accurate. We know, from proxy records, that climate goes up and down in terms of temperature. Heck, the initial warming of the 20th century was not statistically signifcantly different from the supposed anthropogenic warming since 1970. We know that, by itself, CO2 is not going to be a problem. The problem is the proposed feedback parameter. In order for the models to show the warming from 1970 on, they have to include a positive feedback parameter which makes the initial warming from CO2 much greater.

1. We don't know what the weather is going to be three weeks from today. We don't know the exact chemical composition of any given parcel of air. Who the frack cares?? You conclusions are WRONG, Oberon; climate change is as well-established of a fact as the Earth's orbiting around the sun.
2. You KNOW that CO2 is not a problem? Well then! Surely you have found THE study, THE research that disproves every single robust, peer-reviewed study ever done that shows that excess CO2 is the number one atmospheric threat to our climate. Please post it, I am so excited to hear about this!

The problem is, we don't know enough about the climate to know if that is necessary. Several studies suggest that all of the warming is the result in changes in cloud cover, possibly from solar radiative flux which in turns changes the levels of GCRs entering out atmosphere. Or it could be due to many natural oscillations we don't fully understand (e.g. ENSO and so forth). That's without taking into account the problems with the instrumental record and recent studies showing that much of the surface warming has nothing to do with global warming but poor temperature data.

Ah, yes, solar flares. Straight from the annals of Climate Change Pseudoscience. Here's one of very many statistical studies refuting that correlation, but that study is a collection of facts, so it is probably not what you are looking for.

Already read this. Notice something:
1. It doesn't matter which scientific bodies say anything. They don't represent everyone who belongs to that body (I've belonged to a few academic organizations myself and I certaintly don't agree with every official stance they make, nor am I always even asked. I'm just or was just a member). These are often simply political statements.

So I'm supposed to believe one random person on the Internet who has demonstrated a clear ignorance of this topic, and I'm supposed to completely discount those statements that reflect thousands upon thousands of hours of climate research. Got it. I'll be sure to go find a four-year-old who believes in Santa Claus and use that as undeniable proof that he exists.

2. This says nothing about either what the research shows or how many scientists believe AGW or not. Plenty have come out publicly saying the don't buy the theory. There have been several studies recently (though not as many as I'd like) which seek to determine exactly how many relevant experts believe what. All of them show that the majority believe AGW theory, although they also show that almost everyone agrees climate science is in its infancy. More importantly, they show a substantial minority disagreeing.

Still beating this drum, are we? You can say it all you want, but nearly every actively-researching climate scientist in the world accepts climate change science. Don't let the facts get in your way, Oberon.

3. Science is not about consensus. This is why I take the time to read the actual published research. I gave you a bunch of examples. Those are all recent, peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals by actual experts.

Hmm, OK, I can play this game too...let's see...Those sources could have been kid's books for all I know. You got any links to them?

Your utter refusal to accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of climate change science is embarrassing. You deniers play all sorts of games to make it look like you really have a case, when you really have nothing. Those of us who actually care about the planet wish you would make your stupid lies go away.

 

[Oberon]

You're playing the "respond to posts with sheer volume" game

I don't even know what this means. I'm thoroughly addressing every point.

Prove it.

How? All the citations I gave in that list are real. They are easily verified by google. As for the journals or conferences they appeared in, these are also easily verified to be peer-reviewed journals. Just look at the home pages. Journal of Geophysical Research, the Proceedings of the Royal Society, GPR, and so forth are all big journals. Apart from Science or Nature, do you have any idea at all where climate science research is published?

1. No, it's not the last step in the scientific method. There is NO "last step" in the scientific method. Theories are not sacred texts that are immune from scrutiny.

It is the last step in the scientific method in the classic hypothesis-test-theory model of science. Obviously, science itself continues and theories can be shown to be false.

2. Your comment about science not being proof is a half-truth. While technically correct that science doesn't "prove" anything with 100% accuracy, theories can be refined to 99.9999% or so accuracy.

It's simply a matter of language. Science doesn't use the word proof. Theories can be shown to be false (in fact, to be theories they must be falsifiable) but they cannot be proven true because they don't result from a formal system which has at its base various axioms and in which everything is known. Logic and math use proof. Science doesn't.

3. How can you accept the theory of gravity and deny the theory of climate change

Because I've read extensively in the area of climate science. How many studies have you read? How many journals do you even have access to? Can you search JSTOR, Science Direct, Academic Search Premier, and other databases? Or do you have easy access to the hard copies of these journals? Have you read them?

I've spent the past few years reading the studies. I know many of the big names in the field, and I know that quite a few of them don't buy AGW any more than I do, often for the same reason.

1. We don't know what the weather is going to be three weeks from today. We don't know the exact chemical composition of any given parcel of air. Who the frack cares??

Everyone in climate science obviously. Clouds and other subsystems of climates are FUNDAMENTAL to understanding climate change, and we don't understand them.

You conclusions are WRONG, Oberon; climate change is as well-established of a fact as the Earth's orbiting around the sun.

And you know this how? Exactly what have you read on the subject?

2. You KNOW that CO2 is not a problem? Well then! Surely you have found THE study, THE research that disproves every single robust, peer-reviewed study ever done that shows that excess CO2 is the number one atmospheric threat to our climate. Please post it, I am so excited to hear about this!

You don't get it. NO STUDY and NO SCIENTIST argue that BY ITSELF CO2 will do anything. Do you even know what AGW is? Let me explain- CO2 is a radiative gas. That is, it is one of those gases which prevents infrared energy from leaving the atmosphere. An increase in CO2 results in a logarithmic increase in temperature. NO MODEL OF THE CLIMATE predicts that this rise will be anything substatial.

However, the rise from roughly 1970- 1998 was greater than can be accounted for by CO2. Many climate scientists, therefore, posit a positive feedback parameter. What this means is that the rising CO2 causes changes in other climate subsystems (like water vapor) which increases temperatures even more. It is this positive feedback parameter which is at the heart of the issue. Without it, the climate change from CO2 isn't an issue. And if, as some research suggests, the warming is accounted for by other factors (e.g. GCRs or natural oscillations), then the positive feedback parameter which is at the heart of AGW is wrong.

Ah, yes, solar flares. Straight from the annals of Climate Change Pseudoscience. Here's one of very many statistical studies refuting that correlation, but that study is a collection of facts, so it is probably not what you are looking for.

NOT solar flares. GCRs result in cloud seeding, and the flux of these particles is related to the magnetic flux in our solar system due to the sun. Again, see for example

Kirkby, J. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28 pp. 222-275.​

Scafetta, N. (2009). Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.​

Scarfetta, N., West B. (2007). Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

Shaviv, N J. (2005) On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.​

Svensmark, H. (2007). Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48.​

So I'm supposed to believe one random person on the Internet who has demonstrated a clear ignorance of this topic, and I'm supposed to completely discount those statements that reflect thousands upon thousands of hours of climate research.

No. You are supposed to actually read the research and make-up your mind.

Still beating this drum, are we? You can say it all you want, but nearly every actively-researching climate scientist in the world accepts climate change science. Don't let the facts get in your way, Oberon.

Try reading the studies on climate opinion, or looking at the number of public climate scientists who have come out against the theory.

For example, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Hmm, OK, I can play this game too...let's see...Those sources could have been kid's books for all I know. You got any links to them?

On general lack of knowledge in climate science, see http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

This study found a significant minority who didn't follow AGW. Subsequent studies which actually polled scientists found generally higher numbers supporting AGW (c. 80%).

As expected, the majority of experts agree with climate change, particularly climatologists. The problem, of course, is judging by publications (as people who publish contrary research are either not funded or not published), and the fact that climate is so complicated that nobody can understand more than a few of the various involved fields. This is why those who study long term climate are far more likely to doubt AGW, because they see a 30 year warming period in the context of millions of years. But whether or not the 82% figure is spot on, I think it's clear that the majority of those in relevant fields feel that AGW is an accurate theory.

Again, though, consensus is nothing. Everbody followed newtonian physics until Einstein. Eugenics was a consensus position too. Groups like the IPCC are primarily political, and funding and publication goes to those scientists who are mainstream. So no wonder we have consensus. Anybody who followed climategate or the hockey-stick controversy knows what a tight-knit exclusive group the climate community is.

What matters is the research. If you haven't read it, then you can't really say anything about it.

Your utter refusal to accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of climate change science is embarrassing.

What of this evidence have you read?

 

[Alceste]

It costs money to take measures against GW. Money, ie, resources, could be allocated towards other good causes,
eg, education, health care, research, tax cuts. Of course, some policies which would counter AGW would have other
benefits too, eg, energy independence, reduced pollution.

Don't forget job creation. Decisive action on climate change could help get the world out of this interminable recession. Retrofitting buildings for greater efficiency, making electric cars, building algae farms for biofuel production, solar thermal farms in deserts, de-salination plants to address water shortage, installation, training, marketing and manufacture in the area of power micro-generation, growing or marketing local food as people reduce their dependency on the global supply chain... there really is no end to the avalanche of opportunities for innovative small businesses that will ensue when the old guard in government (those working for multi-national corporations) is displaced by an upcoming generation of leaders with dramatically different values and aspirations.

That's the West, though. Most of the world does not have these opportunities and is at high risk of starvation. The inevitable social turmoil of food scarcity is already beginning in the M.E.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't forget job creation. Decisive action on climate change could help get the world out of this interminable recession. Retrofitting buildings for greater efficiency, making electric cars, building algae farms for biofuel production, solar thermal farms in deserts, de-salination plants to address water shortage, installation, training, marketing and manufacture in the area of power micro-generation, growing or marketing local food as people reduce their dependency on the global supply chain... there really is no end to the avalanche of opportunities for innovative small businesses that will ensue when the old guard in government (those working for multi-national corporations) is displaced by an upcoming generation of leaders with dramatically different values and aspirations.
That's the West, though. Most of the world does not have these opportunities and is at high risk of starvation. The inevitable social turmoil of food scarcity is already beginning in the M.E.

Job creation for job creation's sake is worthless. Remember the old story about boosting the local economy by breaking everyone's windows?
The window repairmen get work & spend money, which circulates....everyone wins! Nah...that scenario fails to take into account that there
was a net loss of wealth, in this case, loss of equity in real estate. People were busy fixing damage. What's your next trick...arguing that war
boosts economic activity because of injury & destruction mitigation? Money should ideally be spent in ways with greater utility than the alternatives.
If it's spent on fashionable things like inefficient "green" technology, it could very well harm the economy even more. Example: My town spent about
$100K on photocells for a farmers' market. They had a payback period of about 100 years. But they had an expected life of less than 30 years.
The money could've been spent on something with a greater return, eg, LED traffic light bulbs, switching old T12 magnetic ballasted bulbs out for
T5 electronic ballasted bulbs. If thought & economic analysis aren't applied, then bad "feel good" decisions will be made.

 

[Alceste]

Job creation for job creation's sake is worthless. Remember the old story about boosting the local economy by breaking everyone's windows?
The window repairmen get work & spend money, which circulates....everyone wins! Nah...that scenario fails to take into account that there
was a net loss of wealth, in this case, loss of equity in real estate. People were busy fixing damage. What's your next trick...arguing that war
boosts economic activity because of injury & destruction mitigation? Money should ideally be spent in ways with greater utility than the alternatives.
If it's spent on fashionable things like inefficient "green" technology, it could very well harm the economy even more. Example: My town spent about
$100K on photocells for a farmers' market. They had a payback period of about 100 years. But they had an expected life of less than 30 years.
The money could've been spent on something with a greater return, eg, LED traffic light bulbs, switching old T12 magnetic ballasted bulbs out for
T5 electronic ballasted bulbs. If thought & economic analysis aren't applied, then bad "feel good" decisions will be made.

Re: life span and payback period of PV cells and other alternative energy technologies - those types of calculations tend to use certain unsupportable assumptions, such as the assumption that energy prices will remain stable or at least increase at a steady and predictable rate. All such bets are off now, since oil supplies have peaked and are beginning to decline despite increasing demand. Another example is the assumption that there is no monetary value to clean air, or to a pristine forest. Anybody with at least two brain cells knocking about in their head can see the long term cost of runaway climate change and pollution - both in blood and treasure - dwarfs any whingeing CEO's complaints about short term investment in green technology.

Not to say a cost-benefit analysis shouldn't be undertaken at all, only that these exercises suffer from a critical design flaw when they do not include costs to the environment or the community in their calculations. I approve of cost-benefit analysis to the extent that it includes ALL the costs.

The green technology / sustainable / transition employment expansion I am expecting is not job creation for job creation's sake. At the moment, the deck is stacked in favour of multi-nationals. The Western markets are not fair or free at all - multi-nationals enjoy massive benefits ordinary businesses do not enjoy, right up to and including the privilege of writing legislation to benefit themselves. They are bailed out when times are tough, they pay little or no tax, the government writes them new retroactive laws to get them out of hot water when they misbehave... All that is required to catapult the critical mass of budding transition businesses into the sun is proper regulation of mega-corporations (protection from the development monopolies, price fixing, irresponsible safety and environmental practices, misinformation, fraud, tax evasion, etc) and a few tax breaks for ordinary people.

Many people will pay a premium for peace of mind with respect to climate change and other, similar concerns. However, Western governments are so busy kissing the arse of the likes of Tony Hayward there is nothing left over to encourage what I expect will be the most significant industries of the century - micro-generation and re-localization.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for using supportable assumptions & looking at all costs in analysis.
(You might be surprised to find that I favor improved environmental regulation.)
I also like micro-generation & re-localization for strategic & system stability reasons, rather than for economic reasons.
Not much to argue about except details, eh?

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,
It wasnt just one persons opinion in the EHP study that you referrenced earlier, it was a panel of scientists who looked at 494 studies. If you want to choose one persons opinion over a panel of scientists who looked at hundreds of studies that is your choice but i believe the scientists in the panels opinion is more valid, considering they actually looked at hundreds of studies. The panel of scientists said 2001 Stockholm Convention should be upheld and the WHO agrees as well.

"In 2007, the WHO clarified its position, saying it is "very much concerned with health consequences from use of DDT" and reaffirmed its commitment to phasing out the use of DDT.[83]"
Dictionary - Definition of DDT

DDT did not make malaria a minor illness, but things like deforestation did make it a major illness. There was not some world wide ban that took place in the 1970's.

"From 1950 to 1980, when DDT was extensively used in agriculture, more than 40,000 tonnes were used each year worldwide,[8]"

"DDT was first banned in Hungary in 1968[26] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970 and the US in 1972, but was not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984.

"Use of DDT for agricultural purposes was banned in India in 1989"

"DDT continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985"
Dictionary - Definition of DDT

So we see ddt was still in use in places like india until 1989, yet malaria was not a minor disease in india overall between the start of ddt and the agricultural ban.
Lets see what the experts say is the reason.

"Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that eradication programs had to be wary of relying on DDT for too long as "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[18]

In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form. According to one article by V.P. Sharma, "The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT." In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[88]

"According to a pesticide industry newsletter, DDT is obsolete for malarial prevention in India not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but because it has largely lost its effectiveness."

"Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India.[91]"

"The initial appearance of this resistance was largely due to the much greater quantity of DDT which had been used for agricultural spraying, rather than the relatively insignificant amounts used for disease prevention."
Dictionary - Definition of DDT

So it seems malaria became resistant to ddt before the ban in 1989 and ddt may have actually promoted outdoor transmission of malaria. One reason for malaria increase seems to be TOO MUCH DDT USE and not a ban on ddt. Other studies seem to confirm ddt increased malaria in at least some cases.

"According to one study which attempted to quantify the lives saved due to banning agricultural use of DDT and thereby slowing the spread of DDT resistance: "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[19]

Dictionary - Definition of DDT

May Berenbaum head of the department of entomology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign says.

"What people aren't remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working"

"Though widespread use of DDT didn't begin until WWII, there were resistant houseflies in Europe by 1947, and by 1949, DDT-resistant mosquitoes were documented on two continents."

"By 1972, when the U.S. DDT ban went into effect, 19 species of mosquitoes capable of transmitting malaria, including some in Africa, were resistant to DDT. Genes for DDT resistance can persist in populations for decades. Spraying DDT on the interior walls of houses -- the form of chemical use advocated as the solution to Africa's malaria problem -- led to the evolution of resistance 40 years ago and will almost certainly lead to it again in many places unless resistance monitoring and management strategies are put into place."
If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer - washingtonpost.com

A DDT ban does not seem to be the cause of a major increase in malaria, it was not banned in many places until much later than most believe and it may have even increased malaria in some places where ddt was regularly used.

"A commentary on the current state of global malaria control was published in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors identify "3 critical factors that are currently absent or in too short supply" for making progress in the fight against malaria: "leadership, management, and money," while making no mention of restrictions limiting the use of DDT. They also single out resistance of the malaria parasite to chloroquine as the cause of increasing malaria mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, not restrictions on DDT.[81]"
Dictionary - Definition of DDT

If you would like to talk about the price tag associated with preventing a possible risk global warming, then we should discuss specifically what costs you are referring to. I know you posted examples for someone else earlier but if you want to give me some specific examples of what you mean i will be glad to discuss it with you.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon,
It wasnt just one persons opinion in the EHP study that you referrenced earlier, it was a panel of scientists who looked at 494 studies.

And all they found was possible risks, as many studies showed little to no harm associated with DDT. Even vegetables have naturally occuring carcinogens.

If you want to choose one persons opinion over a panel of scientists who looked at hundreds of studies that is your choice

You can't compare the two. I'm not choosing the opinion of one scientist over the panel (or even many scientists), but choosing how to evaluate and deal with the risk. The commentaries in 2005 and 2009 on the reviews of studies conducted did not disagree with the panel findings. What they point out is what I agree with: possible risks do not out way actual deaths in the millions.

"In 2007, the WHO clarified its position, saying it is "very much concerned with health consequences from use of DDT" and reaffirmed its commitment to phasing out the use of DDT.[83]"

I'm fine with phasing out. It was the WHO which determined that DDT was necessary to bring back, albeit reluctantly, for disease control in certain areas.

DDT did not make malaria a minor illness

It did. "Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions &#8212; even tens of millions &#8212; of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical then or since."

From http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/malaria.pdf (a history of the chemical and it's use).

Again, from the link above, take the case of the effect of the ban in Sri Lanka. In 1948, Sri Lanka had 2.8 million cases. By 1963, thanks to DDT, that number became 17 cases total. In 1964, the US and others convinced Sri Lanka to stop using DDT. By 1969, the number of cases was back at well over 2 million. Deforestation had nothing to do with it. The same thing can be observed all over the world.

Again,
"Then, beginning around 1945, specific applications of DDT resulted in 20&#8211; 40 years of spectacular and sustained disease control (Brown, Haworth, and Zahar 1976). The era of vector control through persistent pesticides has now passed; in developing countries, the use of insecticides by public health authorities is declining, and diseases are reemerging."

Roberts, D. R., Masuoka, P., & Au, A. Y. (2002). "Determinants of Malaria in the Americas." in Casman, E. A., & Dowlatabadi, H. (Eds). Contextual Determinants of Malaria. Washington, DC.: Resources for the future, p. 35.

The chapter cited above also gives a breakdown of the major effect of DDT spraying on a per country basis. It saved countless lives. The authors also note:

"How toxic is DDT? In one study, 24 human volunteers consumed 35 milligrams of DDT daily for 21.5 months without harm; 8 were clinically monitored for an additional 25.5 months and 16 for an additional five years, with no adverse health impact (Hayes 1971). As a comparison, consider that nicotine is 170 times more toxic to mammals than is DDT (Brown 1951)."

"From 1950 to 1980, when DDT was extensively used in agriculture, more than 40,000 tonnes were used each year worldwide,[8]"

The question is where. In many places, like Sri Lanka and Ethiopia, the US and other countries convinced these places to stop use, and malaria came back into full force.

So we see ddt was still in use in places like india until 1989, yet malaria was not a minor disease in india overall between the start of ddt and the agricultural ban.

On the contrary, DDT saved millions of lives in India. What limited its usefulness was improper spraying procedures. See e.g. http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/history_india.htm

Lets see what the experts say is the reason.

"resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[18]

Yes, resistance occured. But like you say, let's look at what the experts say:

"The claims that DDT resistance has neutralized the usefulness of DDT for malaria control in the Americas must be balanced against the understanding that there is no clear correlation in distributions of DDT-resistant vector populations and the distributions of resurgent malaria. In Brazil, there is no DDT resistance in important vectors, yet malaria has rapidly increased (Roberts et al. 1997). In Belize, there is no significant DDT resistance in vector populations, yet malaria increased when the DDT-spraying program was stopped; rates quickly dropped when DDT spraying was resumed in 1995 (PAHO 1992). In Mexico, extensive and intensive levels of resistance occur in vector populations, yet DDT was used to effectively control malaria from 1988 onward (PAHO 1992; Roberts and Andre 1994). "

Roberts, D. R., Masuoka, P., & Au, A. Y. (2002). "Determinants of Malaria in the Americas." in Casman, E. A., & Dowlatabadi, H. (Eds). Contextual Determinants of Malaria. Washington, DC.: Resources for the future.

Talking about resistance is also problematic because DDT works to kill pests in multiple ways:


"There is good evidence that, despite the buildup of mosquito resistance to DDT, the global death toll would be higher if in-home spraying of DDT where malaria is currently endemic were to be discontinued. First, DDT combats malaria through three mechanisms: repellency, irritability, and toxicity. (Attaran et al. 2000). Studies find that indoor DDT spraying repels mosquitoes, and significantly fewer mosquitoes venture into houses that have been sprayed with DDT. In a study by Grieco et al. (2000), 97 percent fewer mosquitoes entered DDT-sprayed huts than entered unsprayed huts. By contrast, 66 percent fewer mosquitoes entered huts sprayed with deltamethrin, a pyrethroid touted as a substitute for DDT (Raloff 2000). In other words, 11 times as many mosquitoes entered the deltamethrinsprayed hut as entered the DDT-sprayed hut. This suggests that if in the long run mosquitoes develop resistance to both DDT and deltamethrin, DDT is likely to be more effective in controlling malaria."

Goklany, I. M. Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk. 2001, p, 15.

In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form. According to one article by V.P. Sharma, "The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT." In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[88]

"According to a pesticide industry newsletter, DDT is obsolete for malarial prevention in India not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but because it has largely lost its effectiveness."

I noticed your neat cut and past job. An industry newsletter? Your source goes on to say: Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used in India.[92] One study concludes "The overall results of the study revealed that DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[93]

"So it seems malaria became resistant to ddt before the ban in 1989 and ddt may have actually promoted outdoor transmission of malaria.

No, it doesn't. Even your article shows that it continues to be used effectively in many places and that it saves lives. I've quoted several sources which show that because of the way DDT works, it can be effective despite resistance. And further, I've quoted several sources showing how it worked to save millions and how the death toll rose exponentially after various bans.

According to one study

Yeah, I read it. It's a 1981 study in Nature. The problem is, this correlation turned out to be faulty. DDT continued to be used effectively in places where resistant strains were, simply by proper use. This Nature article also documents the dramatic death toll in Sri Lanka, which occured after the DDT ban.

 

[Oberon]

If you would like to talk about the price tag associated with preventing a possible risk global warming, then we should discuss specifically what costs you are referring to. I know you posted examples for someone else earlier but if you want to give me some specific examples of what you mean i will be glad to discuss it with you.

Allow me to repost:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/

Obama climate plan could cost $2 Trillion

Then there is the analysis Yale economist W. Nordhaus, who puts the cost of kyoto at $716 billion, 2/3 of which would fall on the US.

Nordhaus, W. D., & Boyer, J. G. Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol, 1999.

The 1999 journal I cited was a special issue devoted to running various models to evaluate the economic impact of the kyoto protocal. From the summary of the introductory article:

"Despite these considerable uncertainties, a number of common results and insights emerge from the set of model results considered here. First, meeting the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol will not stop economic growth anywhere in the world, but it will not be free either. In most Annex I countries, significant adjustments will need to be undertaken and costs will need to be paid. Second, unless care is taken to prevent it, the sellers of international emissions rights (dominantly the Russian Federation in the case of Annex I trading, and China and India in the case of global trading) may be able to exercise market power raising the cost of the Protocol to the other Annex I countries. Third, meaningful global trading probably requires that the non-Annex I countries take on emissions targets; without them accounting and monitoring (even Annex I monitoring and enforcement may be quite difficult) becomes almost impossible. Finally, it appears that the emissions trajectory prescribed in the Kyoto Protocol is neither optimal in balancing the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation, nor cost effective in leading to stabilization of the concentration of carbon dioxide at any level above about 500 ppmv.

Kyoto would have cost a great deal, but more importantly even in the best case scenerio it wouldn't have lowered any global temperatures by more than a .1 of a degree.

 

[Alceste]

I'm all for using supportable assumptions & looking at all costs in analysis.
(You might be surprised to find that I favor improved environmental regulation.)
I also like micro-generation & re-localization for strategic & system stability reasons, rather than for economic reasons.
Not much to argue about except details, eh?

Well, I expect libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists have quite a lot more in common than authoritarians do with libertarians, right or left. I'm not so surprised by your position on environmental regulation, yada yada. You don't seem like a half-wit or a faith-driven fellow and you seem comfortable with math, so I imagine the impossibility of eternal exponential growth must have sunk in somewhere along the line. From there it is pretty inevitable that effective strategies for coping with interruptions in the increasingly monopolized, growth-dependent global trade network would occur to you.

The thing about environmental regulation, micro-generation and re-localization is that curbing environmental contamination and re-localizing food, energy and water security is so very obviously the right thing to do most people will eventually arrive at those solutions regardless of the Big Problem they happen to be contemplating. Peak oil, climate change, credit contraction, war, famine, water shortage, disease control, whatever.

The exception being Wall Street, which only ever contemplates the Big Problem of how to make more and more money for fewer and fewer people without feeling a twinge of remorse about the millions who are being shot, bombed, displaced or starving to death as a consequence.

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,
You said "Even vegetables have naturally occuring carcinogens."

However almost all vegetables also have antioxidants, bioflavinoids, phtochemicals etc. which reduce cancer. I know of no studies that show ddt prevents cancer, so unless you know of studies that show this then it is a poor comparison.

You said "The commentaries in 2005 and 2009 on the reviews of studies conducted did not disagree with the panel findings."

The study done in 2005 did not include the studies i posted. As i said the commentary in 2009 was one persons opinion and i find the opinion of a panel of scientists who looked at 494 studies more valid then one persons commentary.

You said "Then, beginning around 1945, specific applications of DDT resulted in 20&#8211; 40 years of spectacular and sustained disease control (Brown, Haworth, and Zahar 1976)."

You either accidently misquoted this or it is just a complete fraud. The source is from 1976, yet it says ddt resulted in 40 years of disease control. So 1945 + 40 years = 1985. How can a source from 1976 account for what took place in 1985? Either this is a prediction of what could happen(which is not valid now, considering we now know what did happen) or it is a complete fraud.

You said "Again, from the link above, take the case of the effect of the ban in Sri Lanka. In 1948, Sri Lanka had 2.8 million cases. By 1963, thanks to DDT, that number became 17 cases total. In 1964, the US and others convinced Sri Lanka to stop using DDT. By 1969, the number of cases was back at well over 2 million. Deforestation had nothing to do with it. The same thing can be observed all over the world."

This is false on so many levels. First you just ruled out deforestation in sri lanka without looking at the data. So lets start by looking at that data.

"Deforestation is one of the most serious environmental issues in Sri Lanka. In the 1920s, the island had a 49 percent forest cover but by 2005 this had fallen by approximately 20 percent.[1] Between 1990 and 2000, Sri Lanka lost an average of 26,800 ha of forests per year.[2] This amounts to 1.14 percent of average annual deforestation rate.[2] Between 2000 and 2005 rate accelerated to 1.43% per annum. However with a long history of policy and laws towards environmental protection, deforestation rates of primary cover have actually decreased 35% since the end of the 1990s thanks to a strong history of conservation measures.[2] The problem of deforestation in Sri Lanka is not as significant in the southern mountainous regions as it is in northern Sri Lanka, largely due to the nature of environmental protection."
Deforestation in Sri Lanka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if deforestation is a major factor in the increase of malaria we should see much higher rate of malaria in northern sri lanka because that is where the most deforestation has occured. So what do we see?

"Clearly, the northern areas are facing a serious malaria problem."
Malaria Journal | Full text | Sri Lanka Malaria Maps

So we see a higher rate of malaria in the north as predicted. If deforestation and malaria are linked we should also see a decrease in malaria after the late 1990s because the rates of deforestation of primary cover decreased 35%. This is different than the earlier methods of deforestation which was to clear entire areas which made it easier for mosquitos to breed. So we should see a decrease in malaria after the late 1990s. So what do we see?

"Although the malaria incidence showed a general increase over the 1995 &#8211; 2000 period, it declined strongly after 2000."
Malaria Journal | Full text | Sri Lanka Malaria Maps

Ok so now lets look at the data of the effect of ddt and lack of ddt in sri lanka.

"In 1968, the programme reverted from consolidation to attack phase, but by that time malaria had already taken root again in all previously endemic areas. DDT residual spraying was again applied on a total coverage basis, accompanied in some areas by mass radical treatment. These measures met with limited success, but the malaria situation deteriorated once more between 1972 and 1975. Apart from operational and administrative shortcomings, the main reason for this second increase was the development of vector resistance to DDT, to such an extent that it was necessary to change to the more expensive malathion in 1977. Residual spraying with malathion was the main measure of an intensive plan of operations supported by a consortium of bilateral agencies and WHO. In addition, surveillance was intensified and complementary control measure such as larviciding, space spraying, water management and drug administration were applied as necessary. The situation levelled out in 1978 and 1979 after a dramatic reduction of cases in the first year of the intensive programme, and in 1980, 47 949 cases of malaria were reported of which 3% were due to P. falciparum." (Malaria: Principles and Practice of Malariology edited by Wernsdorfer and McGregor (1988) Chapter 45 "The recent history of malaria control and eradication. by Gramiccia and Beales pages 1366-1367)
Resurgent Malaria in Sri Lanka : Deltoid

So we see sri lanka began using ddt again shortly after 1968 and it wasnt very successful. By 1977 they switched to malathion and that was much more successful than ddt. So why was ddt ineffective?

"the main reason for this second increase was the development of vector resistance to DDT,"

So it appears that a ddt ban was not the main factor in the increase of malaria in sri lanka because ddt was used throughout the ban for agricultural purposes, which lead to ddt resistant mosquitos, which made ddt ineffective. So once again it seems too much ddt actually increased malaria. You also claimed that the u.s. pressured sri lanka to ban ddt in the 1960s which strangely is before the u.s. itself banned ddt in 1972. So lets examine that claim.

"Intradomiciliary residual spraying with DDT had been withdrawn in the early 1960s because of the low number of cases (in accordance with the criteria for passing from attack to consolidation)."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/malaria.php

So it seems the main reason was not a u.s. pressure to ban ddt, instead ddt use was stopped because of the low number of malaria cases. Sri lanka appeared to stop spraying ddt to save money as they did earlier and not because of u.s. pressure.

" Sri Lanka had appeared on the point of abolishing malaria as early as 1954. But instead of continuing the attack past the point of apparent victory to make it sure, the government yielded to the temptation to save money and progressively stopped spraying in district after district as soon as the criteria were minimally met."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/malaria.php

In fact when malaria reemerged in the late 1950's the u.s. actually helped fund ddt spraying in sri lanka.

"When malaria resurged in 1956 following an abnormal drought, Sri Lanka resumed full attack. In 1957 the endemic dry zone was completely resprayed. The surveillance organization, the oldest and probably the best in Asia, was overhauled. A supplementary budget was approved and the United States offered vehicles and sprayers."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/malaria.php

You also stated the u.s. pressured the whole world to ban ddt. Yet we know ddt was not banned for agricultural use in sri lanka, it was not banned in the u.k. until 1984, it was not banned in india until 1989 etc. If the u.s. pressured the world to ban ddt, then why did the u.s. continue to manufacture and sell ddt on the foreign market until 1985? It just doesnt add up.
(continued in next post, this post was too long)

 

[iholdit]

Oberon, (continued)

You said ""How toxic is DDT? In one study, 24 human volunteers consumed 35 milligrams of DDT daily for 21.5 months without harm; 8 were clinically monitored for an additional 25.5 months and 16 for an additional five years, with no adverse health impact (Hayes 1971). As a comparison, consider that nicotine is 170 times more toxic to mammals than is DDT (Brown 1951)."

First, the study was done in the early 1950s which we know during that time disease detection was not as good as it is now. Second, we know many diseases take longer than 5 years or so to detect. Mad cow for example takes 7 or more years for symptoms to occur. Third, the study was done on only 24 people and there was no follow up study as far as i am aware. Fourth, we know people can smoke cigarettes for 20 years in some cases before they develop cancer, so if ddt is 170 times less toxic than nicotine(i would like to see modern studies confirm this) then perhaps it would be 20 years after the ddt ingestion before we see the harmful effects. I am also for outlawing general tobacco use, such as smoking and chewing tobacco.

You said "In Brazil, there is no DDT resistance in important vectors, yet malaria has rapidly increased (Roberts et al. 1997)."

This actually coincides with deforestation. Lets look at the data.

"Brazil once had the highest deforestation rate in the world and as of 2005 still has the largest area of forest removed annually.[1] Since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil

So if deforestation is a major cause of the increase in malaria, then we should see the highest increase in malaria happen around the amazon basin, which is where most of the deforestation has occured. So what do we see?

"Although the main mosquito vector (Anopheles darlingi) is present in about 80% of the country, currently the incidence of malaria in Brazil is almost exclusively (99,8% of the cases) restricted to the region of the Amazon Basin"
Malaria Journal | Full text | Malaria in Brazil: an overview

You said "Studies find that indoor DDT spraying repels mosquitoes, and significantly fewer mosquitoes venture into houses that have been sprayed with DDT. In a study by Grieco et al. (2000), 97 percent fewer mosquitoes entered DDT-sprayed huts than entered unsprayed huts. By contrast, 66 percent fewer mosquitoes entered huts sprayed with deltamethrin, a pyrethroid touted as a substitute for DDT (Raloff 2000). In other words, 11 times as many mosquitoes entered the deltamethrinsprayed hut as entered the DDT-sprayed hut. This suggests that if in the long run mosquitoes develop resistance to both DDT and deltamethrin, DDT is likely to be more effective in controlling malaria."

Yet this study says "But that's only half the story. The problem is that you've just made it more likely that that mosquito will bite your neighbor instead, and you've also decreased the chances that it'll pick up a lethal dose of insecticide from your walls or your treated bed net. This "behavioral avoidance" of DDT has been cited as one of the reasons for the declining effectiveness of African anti-malaria campaigns based on DDT."
http://www.panna.org/blog/ddt-can-make-malaria-worse

You said "I noticed your neat cut and past job. An industry newsletter?"
I hope you are not accusing me of being dishonest here. First it wasnt just an industry newsletter there were other sources mentioned but you must have overlooked them so i will repeat it for you.

"Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India.[91]"

Also if ddt is still effective in india then why "Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions &#8212; even tens of millions &#8212; of lives" yet ddt was still used in india until 1989 and malaria increased after 1965? Also why if ddt is still being used today is malaria in india still increasing?

"malaria accounts for nearly two lakh premature deaths every year - higher by 10 percent than the number of malaria deaths reported in 2009."
http://health.gaeatimes.com/2010/10/21/malaria-mortality-rate-underestimated-in-india-28712/

I said ""So it seems malaria became resistant to ddt before the ban in 1989 and ddt may have actually promoted outdoor transmission of malaria."

You said "No, it doesn't. Even your article shows that it continues to be used effectively in many places and that it saves lives."

One study showed it was used in india effectively and the data refutes that study as i have already shown. Outdoor transmission was promoted in india from ddt use.

"In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[88]"
Dictionary - Definition of DDT

You said "I've quoted several sources showing how it worked to save millions and how the death toll rose exponentially after various bans."

Yet none of those sources factored in things like deforestation or several other environmental, biological and economic factors.

You said "Yeah, I read it. It's a 1981 study in Nature. The problem is, this correlation turned out to be faulty. DDT continued to be used effectively in places where resistant strains were, simply by proper use."

Where is the evidence "this correlation turned out to be faulty"?
Its also not just one study that says this, here is another more recent one.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102003/1532.pdf

Also, you are assuming that ddt would have been properly used. Yet we know even before the ban in india it was improperly used. The same improper use happened in many places, which lead to ddt being much less effective before it was ever banned in most places. The evidence for this is substantial.

""What people aren't remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working"
If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer - washingtonpost.com

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,

I am not going to argue for obamas environmental plan because i do not completely agree with it and i actually disagree with much of it.

However i do think the u.s. should have signed the kyoto treaty.

This is your argument "Then there is the analysis Yale economist W. Nordhaus, who puts the cost of kyoto at $716 billion, 2/3 of which would fall on the US."

Ok, so lets look at the medical costs and lost wages cost etc. of not signing the kyoto treaty.

"Air pollution costs the California economy more than $28 billion annually, according to a new study released today and co-authored by two Cal State Fullerton economics professors."
Dirty Air Costs California Economy $28 Billion Annually

I honestly dont have time to look up the costs for every state and territory in the u.s., so lets do some math instead.

The u.s. has 50 states plus 5 main territories(guam, virgin islands, samoa, puerto rico, marinaras islands). So that is about 55 total. California is a very large state so it would be unfair to make them all equal to california. So lets be fair and divide 55 in half.

So we have $28 billion times about 27, which equals $756 billion.

So based on this math it actually costs the u.s. more money not to sign the kyoto treaty!!!!

Not only is the dollar cost higher but the california study showed.

"The study, which focuses on the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, also found that the life- and health-threatening pollution in these regions contributes to more than 3,800 premature deaths each year."

So if we take 3,800 and times that by 27 we get 102,600.

That means not only would we save money by signing the kyoto treaty we would SAVE OVER 100,000 LIVES!!!!

Based on this information it is hard to argue against signing the kyoto treaty.

 

[Oberon]

I know of no studies that show ddt prevents cancer, so unless you know of studies that show this then it is a poor comparison.

The point is that just about everything contains toxins. It doesn't make it unsafe.

You said "The commentaries in 2005 and 2009 on the reviews of studies conducted did not disagree with the panel findings."

The study done i 2005 did not include the studies i posted. As i said the commentary in 2009 was one persons opinion and i find the opinion of a panel of scientists who looked at 494 studies more valid then one persons commentary.

You are acting like it is that one scientist versus the panel. It isn't. The two sources don't disagree on the facts, in that they both recognize the possible risks. The expert commentator simply disagrees that these possible risks outweigh the gains, and the 2009 study doesn't properly address that.

You said "Then, beginning around 1945, specific applications of DDT resulted in 20&#8211; 40 years of spectacular and sustained disease control (Brown, Haworth, and Zahar 1976)."

You either accidently misquoted this or it is just a complete fraud. The source is from 1976, yet it says ddt resulted in 40 years of disease control. So 1945 + 40 years = 1985. How can a source from 1976 account for what took place in 1985? Either this is a prediction of what could happen(which is not valid now, considering we now know what did happen) or it is a complete fraud.

The source I quoted was from 2002. It included an in-text citation from 1976, but I wasn't quoting from that source.

So what do we see?

Your dates don't match up. Again, in 1963, the total number of malaria cases was 17. In 1964, they stopped using DDT. A mere five years later, the number of cases was back in the millions. All your dates are talking about the 1990s. I'm not saying that deforestation doesn't have anything to do with malaria rates in the 90s and later. But it can't account for an increase of 17 to over 2 million in five years. Are you seriously suggesting that the jump from 1964 to 1969 was due to deforestation?

But don't take my word for it:
"For instance, the incidence of malaria in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped there in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. In India malaria was nearly eradicated in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages of DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b)."

Goklany, I. M. Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk. 2001, p, 17.


"In Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), there were 2.8 million cases of malaria prior to the advent of DDT and only 17 by 1963 when its use was widespread. Because of the rising anxiety in the United States about the theoretical possibility of DDT carcinogenesis, spraying was halted in the mid-sixties. In 1968, the number of malarial cases in Sri Lanka returned to 2.5 million. This is a tragedy that must not be repeated. Were any lives saved from DDT-induced cancer?"

Riviere, J. (2002). Chemical Food Safety: A Scientist's Perspective. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Press.

And on banning DDT in general:


"What has been the effect of banning DDT? First, other insecticides have replaced DDT, most, if not all, of which have been more toxic. No human deaths have been attributed to DDT, while hundreds of deaths have been caused by the organophosphate insecticides which succeeded it. Secondly, the control of the malarial mosquito was hampered when DDT was banned, and consequently many more people in countries such as India and Sri Lanka succumbed to malaria than might otherwise have done so. Millions of extra cases of the disease have occurred as a result. This was again illustrated recently in South Africa where the banning of DDT (and replacement with the more expensive and less effective pyrethroid insecticides) resulted in a huge increase in malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province (from just over 4,000 cases in 1995 to more than 27,000 cases in 1999). DDT represents a good example of how the misrepresentation and manipulation of toxicity data with little regard for risk&#8211; benefit can lead to the banning of a valuable chemical that has saved rather than threatened, millions of lives. Nevertheless DDT is still used in some parts of the developing world because it is both cheap and very effective."

Timbrell, J. (2005). Poison Paradox: Chemicals as Friends and Foes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

So why was ddt ineffective?

Socioeconomic reasons, as Dr. Hemden and Dr. Service point out:

Similarly in Sri Lanka there were an estimated 2.8 million cases of malaria in 1946, but a DDTspraying campaign reduced this to 17 detected cases in 1963. DDT-spraying ceased in 1964, because it was considered too costly when there was now virtually no malaria. Thereafter there was widespread resurgence and between 1968 and 1970 some 1.5 million people were infected. Renewed control reduced this figure in 1971, but in 1975 there was yet another resurgence. What were the reasons for such malaria resurgences in India and Sri Lanka? DDT resistance was partly to blame but it seems that a variety of socioeconomic reasons, such as apathy, poor surveillance for vectors and the disease, and reduced budgets, were the main cause.

Hemden & Service. (2002). Pest and Vector Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

You also claimed that the u.s. pressured sri lanka to ban ddt in the 1960s which strangely is before the u.s. itself banned ddt in 1972.

It was, however, after Rachel Carson published Silent Spring which started a widespread activist movement to ban DDT. I believe that the sources I quoted were referring to this. However, I too have read (and quoted one above) sources which state that the cause was the low rates of malaria and the unnecessary cost of continued spraying. And in my view this seems far more likely. I can't imagine a third world country reacting on a wide-scale to an environmental movement begun in the us a mere 2 years earlier, while even the US was still in the midst of dealing with the issue.

(continued below)

 

[Oberon]

In fact when malaria reemerged in the late 1950's the u.s. actually helped fund ddt spraying in sri lanka.

Absolutely. The US, along with most of the world, was all about DDT until Carson's book.

If the u.s. pressured the world to ban ddt, then why did the u.s. continue to manufacture and sell ddt on the foreign market until 1985? It just doesnt add up.

See here:

&#8220;In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India&#8217;s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree not to control mosquitoes by using DDT. In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: &#8220;The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin.&#8221; Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. The term .genocide. is used in other contexts to describe such numbers of casualties. The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of Deaths&#8230;&#8221; p. 87

Edwards, J. G. (2004). "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 9(3).