This, on Bishop Hill, says it all about the BBC mindset. Note the worship of the greenie bible Since Silent Spring (which condemned millions of Africans to death in its total villification of DDT); the belief that the NASA warmist lunatic and eco-thug James Hansen is an authority worth consulting; and the idiotic, arrogant certainty that such an investigation on these terms is terribly important. Truly toxic!
HOW TO DO BBC RESEARCH – LESSON 1
Bookmark the permalink.
Exactly how did the ‘greenie bible’ Silent Spring (not ‘Since Silent Spring’ as you think) condemn millions to death? It criticised the widespread use of DDT as an agricultural pesticide, not its anti-malarial uses.
The mass agricultural use of DDT as a pesticide was increasing DDT resistance in mosquitoes, decreasing its effectiveness in combating malaria.
“total villification of DDT.”
If you had any knowledge of the book you’d know that was not the case. From Silent Spring:
“The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. … Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. … Practical advice should be ‘Spray as little as you possibly can’ rather than ‘Spray to the limit of your capacity'”
Paulo
Disinegenuous, to say the least. I have read Rachel Carson’s book three times over the years and there is no reasonable doubt that, whatever she actually said, her politicisation of the issue had a huge impact on the green movement, to the extent that it was a major factor in the US decision to ban DDT in 1972. I have worked in African countries and know from my own experience that the attitude among NGOs and other ‘relief’ agencies to DDT – often based on Silent Spring – was one of the main reasons why it was not used in malaria control. it was drilled into the hapless Africans instead that they must use mosquito nets when most of them could not afford them and did not have the basic housing to make them practicable, let alone effective. Greenies generally, as the Bishop Hill post makes clear, hate the idea of ‘toxicity’ – ie as they see it, tampering with the environment – and their rigid stance is one of the the biggest obstacles in the way of African development and prosperity.
Paulo displaying invincible arrogant ignorance of REAL effects, as usual
I assume Paulo (if it is indeed a single individual) works for the BBC. So his comments during his working hours on on our dime ?
David.
“her politicisation of the issue had a huge impact on the green movement, to the extent that it was a major factor in the US decision to ban DDT in 1972.”
Agreed, many people say that the publishing of Silent Spring was actually the start of the modern ‘green’ movement as we know it. I would point out though that the the US ban was on agricultural use (not vector control).
However, to say that Silent Spring ‘condemned millions to death’ and was a ‘total vilification of DDT’ is completely incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, the book never argued for a ban on its use in disease vector control. DDT’s decreasing effectiveness due to resistance means that its continued widespread use would never have saved ‘millions of lives’ more than alternative treatments.
Wth the cost issue, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying was $1.87 compared to the cost of treated nets at $1.54. As for saying nets are ineffective as they require housing, seeing as DDT spraying is most effective when done on the walls of houses, that seams a bit of a moot point.
John Anderson
You assume wrong.
David 10:03
I have lived in African countries too and will be visiting W,Africa in a couple of months. I concur with your points.
You will be pleased to know that attitudes to using DDT as an anti-malarial spray are, at last, changing in that part of the world.
“Artificial” chemicals = toxic. Classic.
I’m rather amused at his reference to “funghi” (sic). This surely indicates someone who’s knowledge of fungi comes from italian restaurants and cookery rather than the natural sciences.
A classic!