Shock horror and diddums! The BBC New Yorks studios – along with most of the NY UN rat palace – have an infestation of bed bugs. I’ll refrain from the cheapest gibes, but this makes news, of course, only because it’s the usual BBC self-obsession. But actually, bed bugs are a growing problem across the whole of New York. And what you won’t read or hear on the BBC is that many believe that the real cause is America’s obsession with environmentalism. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the pesticide DDT in 1972 after Rachel Carson’s book Since Silent Spring falsely claimed it was too dangerous to use. DDT is the most effective weapon against the pesky bedbugs. So cleaners can no longer eradicate them effectively when they are found, and now, after years of gradually building up numbers, they are spreading like wildfire. A good account of the saga is here.
What you won’t also read on the BBC is that DDT is still the most effective treatment against malaria. The greenies have hampered its use in many developing countries and the consequence is millions of deaths. Rachel Carson, the EPA, the tranzis – and the BBC for failing to speak the truth – all have blood on their hands. I won’t say I’m pleased that they are suffering bed bug bites but sometimes I think there is a God.
Update: There are those say that bedbugs miraculously “developed resistance” to DDT before Rachel Carson (econuts have an answer to everything). But if you read this post and its responses, you will see why that’s a load of baloney, too.
From Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/08/conservatives-blame-environmentalists-for-bedbugs.html):
But long before the United States banned most uses of it in 1972, DDT had lost its effectiveness against bedbugs—which, like many fast-breeding insects, are extremely adept at evolving resistance to pesticides. “Bloggers talk about bringing back DDT,” says Bob Rosenberg, director of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association, “but we had stopped using it even before 1972.”
This is a myth about Rachel Carson which is spread by both those who hysterically oppose all use of pesticides and by those who then oppose the straw woman Carson that has been set up by the organics brigade.
Carson was opposed to what she termed the irresponsible use of organochlorines such as DDT, ie the blanket spraying at any opportunity. She was not opposed to all uses of such pesticides, such as to control malaria etc.
I think she was far more sensible than either her supposed supporters or opponents give credit for.
Senior IPCC economist states baldly that Cancun is all about taking untold billions from us and giving it to Africa :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027776.php
At least they get the news right in Taiwan
What we need is balance, what we have is one side dominating the real issues of ‘chemical use’ seemingly using the issues as a cover for a political narrative.
What are the facts and does anyone really care about the facts anymore? Prefering to ramp up the hysteria and fear and hatred of progress there is truth on both sides but both sides no longer listen to reason.
We need to careful when introducing chemicals into the environment, thats obvious but to take the stance of a mythical earth purity regardless of the damage to human progress is wrong. We need a controlling interest over those who would pollute without consience but also over those whose anti progress prejudice blinds them to human needs.
What we need is a new TV series, you might call it the ‘rational environmentalist’ unhindered by partisan prejudice and ignorance it would a hit I am sure. No chance the BBC would air such a show is there?
I think it’s more poor management and cost-cutting measures than anything forced by environmentals. Of course, since everyone is scared into “thinking green”, the proles easily buy into the scam when the hotels tell them it’s best if they don’t bother to provide clean towels and bed linens every night. Even if there is a bedbug problem reported, the hotel will often clean just the one room and not the adjacent ones, or maybe not even call in a proper exterminator.
The greenies created the environment in which hotels could take advantage of it and screw things up, but I don’t think it’s forced.
Hotels in many places, not just NYC, have for a while now had this policy of asking guests if they want to have fresh towels or not, and can choose to “help the environment” by saving water and energy, etc.
Movie theaters are a big problem as well, as seats aren’t cleaned for who knows how long.
As for DDT and malaria, lots of people – especially government leaders and UN apparathicks and NGO darlings – are to blame for millions of unnecessary deaths.
I cannot help but be impressed by the way you linked to a comments citing a scientific paper on resistance to DDT by bedbugs in 1948 and then claimed it proved that bedbugs did not evolve resistance.
Johnson, M. S. and Hill, A. J. (1948). Partial resistance of a strain of bed bugs to DDT residuals. Med. News Letter., 12, 26-28
I’m not sure why you have linked to an article that argues precisely the opposite to what you claim! The idea of a reference is to support your argument, not just to be decorative!
Resistance to DDT among bedbugs was recorded as early as the late 1940s and 50s (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537818/pdf/bullwho00516-0089.pdf) and there are innumerable scientific papers, agricultural studies etc on the matter. If that’s a little heavy have a look at a gardening book and you’ll probably find reference to insecticide-resistant whitefly, spidermites and other pests.
Insecticide resistance is no mystery and has been widely known for decades, it is not a controversial subject as any gardener or farmer will know.
Insect populations become resistant to insecticides over time (just as bacteria become resistant to antibiotics eventually). That’s not an argument against all insecticide use, it’s a reason why new insecticides have to be developed to replace old ones that are no longer effective, and why insecticides shouldn’t be used willy-nilly.
See the paper here which shows that DDT is still a good repellent even if resistance is developed:
http://rachelwaswrong.org/2007/08/no-excuse-for-resistence/
Also see the dramatic rise in Malaria cases that occurred after the de-facto DDT ban:
> In 1948 Sri Lanka there were 2.8 million malaria cases & 7,300 deaths.
> With widespread DDT use, cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963.
> After DDT was banned Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in 1968 & 69,
> The disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today
The same pattern can be seen in all countries that banned DDT. It took until Sept 2006 for the cowards at the WHO to finally overturn the ban, only after millions had died needlessly thanks to the eco-loons:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3343240/DDT-in-Africa-saves-babies-lives-says-WHO.html
“Arata Kochi, the director of the WHO’s malaria department, issued his appeal to the green lobby after announcing that the agency now endorsed spraying the pesticide inside dwellings, especially mud and thatched huts, in mosquito-infested regions.
“I am here today to ask you, please help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment. African babies do not have a powerful movement… to champion their well-being,”
The eco-loons would rather see a million Arfican babies die than allow them to be protected by DDT home spraying. Just like they’d rather see UK pensioners freeze to death than emit a molecule of CO2 heating their homes.
It’s not so much the mosquito’s we need to worry about: the real threat is from green parasites and their murderous hatred of all mankind.
Surely bed bugs are proliferating because global warming has produced ideal breeding conditions?
Burn the mattress.
You should also read the comments in this thread which debunk Tim’s claims that DDT wasn’t really banned atall:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php
And of course
http://rachelwaswrong.org/