Defending Rachel Carson

Um, sorry. This story is more than just a LaRouche fantasy. It was, at least when I took a public health course at the graduate level in the 1990s, pretty much received wisdom.

Of course, not in the form it has mutated into. And Swartz is correct to point out that DDT would be essentially worthless today. But there is (or was) a widespread belief that a concerted eradication campaign (a al smallpox) would have been effective during the window period between DDT’s introduction and the development of immunity to the pesticide in the mosquito population, but that this was not attempted (at the same levels as the smallpox campaign) because of concerns about DDT’s impact on the environment.

I will have nothing to say until Slocum and Holsclaw show up.

“I will have nothing to say until Slocum and Holsclaw show up.”
Posted by John Emerson

Now you’ve gone and hurt Brett Bellmore’s feelings.

and what of Tim Worstall?

(patiently awaiting “moderation”)

Look, I’m not arguing that it’s fair to compare Rachel Carson with, say, Pol Pot. And arguments can certainly be made that, in balance, an attempt at species eradication via DDT in the 1950s would have been a net bad thing. See, for example, “this article.”:http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:AVdQrwkUQNEJ:www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol5/21-28.pdf+mosquito+eradication&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

All I am saying is that it is legitimate to question the decision not to attempt world-wide species eradication when we were in a position to try it, and reasonable people think that this was a mistake that has had significant negative consequences in terms of human morbidity and mortality. And by “reasonable people,” I do not mean Micheal Crichton. See, e.g., “here.”:http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm

It’s not just the loony right though, is it? The linked article refers to features in the New York Times…

John,

Obviously, the timing indicates that it is a little silly to place all of whatever blame there may be on Rachel Carson’s shoulders. However:

(a) What I have read suggests that the abandonment of eradication as a goal happened beginning in the 1950s and was driven in large part, initially, by concerns about the impact of DDT on the environment. Many people have argued that this was a tragic misstep.

(b) I’m not so sure that a ban on agricultural use in the regions of widespread agricultural use would have been especially important in the regions where eradication efforts would have focused.

(c) I’m also not so sure that eradication was a lost cause as early as 1962 because of resistance.

Paul, the book Gladwell references (and that you reference by referencing Gladwell) is pretty clear on the reasons that Soper’s project failed. The failure was not only resistance, but the fact that it was impossible to create the kind of phasing in and out of DDT use that might have ameliorated resistance, if that was possible. Even during the golden time of the mosquito eradication program, Soper couldn’t do it – hence the failures in Corsica and Greece. The funny thing about the Carson farce is that Reason, that pseudo-libertarian mag, long ago joined the witchhunt, even though Soper’s entire project was a great example of the failure of central government planning in the face of nature. And, in fact, the original DDT resistance came from property owners sick and tired of the government spraying their property. But in pseudo-libertaria, government is only bad if it operates to countervail corporate power. If corporate power and the government are joined about some project, the pseudo-libs are all for it – especially if it is nastily coercive.

Is it really just a “War on Science”?
The nuts and bolts of the specific instances aside it makes strategic sense to place Carson’s advocacy of birds and bees against the saving of human lives, because this is the larger and more fundamental issue. Nice that they’re wrong on the facts, but it isn’t about facts really is it? It’s about attitudes, and survival.
Humble coevolution v. arrogant dominion. Willing submission to the harrow and cull of the natural world v. complete world dominance by super-rational manly men. The touchie-feelie tree-hugger contingent v. the champions of human chauvinism.
Just letting them frame the debate this way means the more vital questions never get asked, let alone answered. Lomborg and Crichton et al’s bizarre yawping about global warming is right out of that same bag.
It’s driven by a hatred of the natural world by creatures who are constantly reminded that they do not fit there, cannot fit there without wrecking everything beautiful and worthwhile about life on earth.
It preys on our inability to admit that saving human lives isn’t always the ultimate good. No one can take that stance, even now, without entering a cesspool of degraded sentimentality and moral confusion.
Arguing about the efficacy of specific tools and solutions, while important, obscures the more essential conflict, which is with the attitude that’s behind them. The nightmarish arrogance that laid waste to so much of the non-human life that Carson defended is still in play.

sg,

As previously stated, my point was not to support the critique of Carson, but to point out that the abandonment of malaria eradication is a contentious issue in the public health field, not just some moonbat nonsense dreamed up by Lyndon LaRouche.

I don’t have a public health degree, my degree is in history.

barry,

Thank you for that insightful critique.

You know what? I don’t disagree with Tim Lambert. I don’t even know who the h*ll he is. I don’t disagree that the issue of mosquito eradication has been misused in propagandistic ways by people like Michael Crichton.

However, I do believe, based on things I heard in a class that I took over a decade ago, that there was a period of time when we could have engaged in a concerted world-wide mosquito eradication effort that had a chance of making a significant impact, that the window period may have extended into the 1960s, and that the decision not to pursue eradication was taken in part because of (in some ways very legitimate) environmental concerns. I may be wrong. Maybe my professor was wrong. I may have not been paying close enough attention to what we were talking about in class that day. I may, actually, just be a stupid person. In any event, I don’t pretend to be a public health expert. But calling me and *sshole and a liar is not likely to change my mind, nor does it reflect very well on your character, barry.

You know what? I’m sick of the internet. I’m sick of people acting like you, I’m sick of the echo chamber, and I’m sick of the pointless point scoring that substitutes for debate and discussion in pretty much every forum I visit.

Tim,

No, I can’t. Because (a) I am not here pretending to be an expert on this subject, and (b) I never actually said that eradication was abandoned because of “environmentalist opposition.”

Which, BTW, I am not presenting as evidence of “environmentalist opposition,” but rather just to show that there were environmental concerns about spraying tons of pesticide around, even in the 1940s.

Tim,

I would be happy to talk to you about this in more detail off thread. I sent you an email with my address.

For here, suffice to say that I think your reading of the article is a little off. But if you’re larger point is that a serious case can be made that eradication was never possible, I certainly agree with you.

I think Aaron was not precise enough in asking Bate about how AFM was funded.

Barry,

I am outraged because you are unable to have a discussion with someone that disagrees with you on this without accusing them of being a stupid *sshole and a shill for corporate interests. Based solely on the fact that I failed to fall directly and instantaneously in line with a view that you derived from a website that, like, links to actual academic articles. Which you simply direct me to simply read for myself, as if further discussion of the actual subject with someone as stupid as I am is beneath you.

I refuse to discuss this with you further, so feel free to have the last word about how I am hiding my ignorance behind false umbrage. But, for the record, and for the last time, I am not saying what you appear to think I am saying. Goodbye.

Do you guys actually think that I’m a troll or a shill, and that you have achieved some kind of victory by alienating me? Does the top poster think that this is a legitimate way for people to behave on his comment thread?

Why is it so important?

Look, I don’t want to make a public representation about what some specific person said in a course that I took over a decade ago. It was a real school, and my professor was not a shill for the tobacco companies.

James,

Agreed about the tone of discussion here. I have no idea whether you’re right about the other things that you say.

Not only that, but just in case you didn’t notice, Paul (since you seem to have trouble understanding what I said), the article which started this thread was about a campaing of lies and fraud. When you come in and use an anecdote from some class that you recall taking years ago, well, people don’t start with excessive respect.

paul: “I do believe, […] that the decision not to pursue eradication was taken in part because of […] environmental concerns.”

Also paul: “I never actually said that eradication was abandoned because of “environmentalist opposition.””

From a purely literal perspective, your second statement holds. But do you see the tension?
You’re still coming with a very serious accusation against environmentalists, and you can’t back it up as far as I can see. It’s also quite unreasonable, since as has been pointed out “Silent spring” came too late to influence these decisions – and it’s generally recognized as the start of the popular environmental movement.

Is it reasonable to suggest that what little environmental movement existed before Rachel Carson was so powerful that it could stop disease eradication efforts in their tracks? (disease eradication, by the way, had strong popular support)

Also, at least at least one very qualified blogger does not seem to agree that eradication with DDT could ever have worked.

Paul, don’t take it badly. This thread is an excuse for hatefest against John’s political opponents. It’s not actually meant to be a serious discussion of anything. The modus operandi is to identify the most extreme expression of an particular view, rubbish an easy target and then declare victory. I’m sure there’s some rightwinger somewhere writing a parallel post about how environmentalists are lunatics and hate science because the most extreme claims made about DDT being pure evil in liquid form don’t add up.

There’s a perfectly reasonable case to be made that environmental campaigning has damaged our ability to use DDT for public health purposes, but this thread was never meant to be a discussion of that.

“All I said in my original post was that I had heard from people that I considered reputable…”

You are, in the face of overwhelming evidence holding to this as a truth claim. It is not. As long as you hold to it, you’re a moron, a corporate shill, or worse. You do like sitting in the seat here though, and there are many watching, just to see if the (moron, corporate shill, or worse) monkey will do something new. So far, nope.

The modus operandi is to identify the most extreme expression of an particular view, rubbish an easy target and then declare victory.

Check out the links in Aaron Swartz’s piece. Extravagant pro-DDT arguments aren’t restricted to marginal venues. John Tierney in the New York Times: “The human costs have been horrific in the poor countries where malaria returned after DDT spraying was abandoned. Malariologists have made a little headway recently in restoring this weapon against the disease, but they’ve had to fight against Ms. Carson’s disciples who still divide the world into good and bad chemicals, with DDT in their fearsome ‘dirty dozen.’”

There’s a perfectly reasonable case to be made that environmental campaigning has damaged our ability to use DDT for public health purposes

Then you should be making the case, or pointing us to somewhere that it’s made. Because the views that John attacks are certainly out there.

Tim Lambert writes: “paul, can you provide cites for books that say that eradication was abandoned because of environmentalist opposition. Nothing that I’ve read from any reputable source says this.”

Opposition from environmentalists certainly played a part in the failure of the eradication effort. Here’s an excerpt from Gordon Harrison’s Mosquitoes, malaria, and man: A history of the hostilities since 1880:

“No error was more egregious in practice than the premature establishment of islands of surveillance surrounded by areas under attack, or conversely the tolerance within large consolidation areas of considerable enclaves without natural boundaries where transmission persisted. The error came in part from the genuine difficulty of deciding just how large a defensible consolidation zone had to be, but in greater part from the manifold political and economic pressures to get off the DDT wherever it seemed even marginally possible. The result was a gerrymandered patchwork of defense zones whose frontiers were certain to be regularly and even massively reinvaded.”

There’s also this from Robert S. Desowitz’s The Malaria Capers: More Tales of Parasites and People, Research and Reality (page 214):

“Human resistance was also developing. Led by the Silent Springers, there developed a revulsion to all things chemically insecticidal. It was not recognized that DDT used for medical purposes never killed an osprey.”

Lambert is, of course, a denier of the de facto DDT ban, here described by Environmental Defense’s Dr John Balbus:

“As the organization that led the successful campaign to ban use of DDT in the United States in the early 1970’s, we have read with concern recent reports that US AID is unwilling to consider even limited use of DDT in anti-malaria programs in developing countries. According to the New York Times Magazine, you recently stated that part of the reason US AID “doesn’t finance DDT is that doing so would require a battle for public opinion. ‘You’d have to explain to everybody why this is really O.K. and safe every time you do it.’ ”

The wider ban was recently acknowledged by The Global Malaria Programme’s Arata Kochi:

“Nearly one year ago, I was asked to take charge of the World Health Organization’s Global Malaria Programme. I knew the job would be a challenge. Little progress was being made in controlling malaria, even though WHO had declared – way back in 1998 – that rolling back malaria would be one of its greatest priorities.

“I asked my staff; I asked malaria experts around the world: “Are we using every possible weapon to fight this disease?” It became apparent that we were not. One powerful weapon against malaria was not being deployed. In a battle to save the lives of nearly one million children ever year – most of them in Africa – the world was reluctant to spray the inside of houses and huts with insecticides; especially with a highly effective insecticide known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or ‘DDT’.

“Even though indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides had been remarkably effective preventing malaria sickness and death where used, this strategy seemed to have been abandoned by most countries nearly 30 years ago. By the early 1980s, WHO was no longer actively promoting it.

“Some people told me that there was a good reason why its wide scale use had been phased out. I was told the practice was unsafe for humans, birds, fish and wildlife; that the use of DDT in the United States in the 1950s had led to the near extinction of the bald eagle. I was told that indoor spraying with DDT was “politically unpopular.”

The linked Aaron Swartz artcile is misleading light-weight crap, with the first significant factual error coming in the second paragraph: Carson quit the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1952, not the 1940s. This is hardly surprising since Swartz’s article looks to have been assembled largely through research in Lambert’s archive of misleading DDT rubbish. Lambert is not a reliable source of information on DDT’s use in the fight against malaria. Neither, for that matter, is Quiggin.

J F Beck would, presumably, like to live in world where malaria is completely drug-resistent and we had no living birds of prey. I refer readers to

http://timlambert.org/2005/02/malaria

The full quotes, presented in that link, make it clear that malaria suppression efforts failed for a variety of reasons. And lack of enthusiasm for mass pesticide spraying was not a dispositive factor. These things have been pointed out to Mr. Beck, repeatedly, and yet he continues to post the same stuff across the internet. Perhaps on the theory that repeating things enough times will make them true. This is creationist logic.

There has, historically, been no intrinsic conflict between political conservatism and science. This is no longer true, and I think that conservatives will end up regretting it. Science does have a reasonable track record of describing the world around us.

marc,

Lambert asked for citations so I provided two. I did not blame environmentalists for the failure of the eradication effort, noting that their opposition merely “played a part in the failure of the eradication effort”.

Now I’m not surprised that you’re confused about what I wrote because you’re in way over your head in this discussion — drug resistant malaria and DDT resistant mosquitoes are two separate topics. And anyway, whereas I support indoor residual spraying with DDT where appropriate, I do not support the broadcast use of DDT.

Lambert’s DDT posts are mostly propagandistic bullshit while mine are factually correct. Prove me wrong.

Marc:

“J F Beck would, presumably, like to live in world where malaria is completely drug-resistent and we had no living birds of prey.”

Burn, straw man, burn.

“I refer readers to

http://timlambert.org/2005/02/malaria”

…which contains a couple of clippings from books on the subject collected by someone with a computer science degree, and no original research.

“The full quotes, presented in that link, make it clear that malaria suppression efforts failed for a variety of reasons. And lack of enthusiasm for mass pesticide spraying was not a dispositive factor.”

Please show me where, in the quoted material, it says anything like what you are saying. Also, please explain the specific basis for your conclusion that “lack of enthusiasm for mass pesticide spraying was not a dispositive factor. Feel free to use “science.”

Rachel Carson lives every time this kind of story (in today’s N.Y. Times) comes out:

Recently, while working for a developer, I discovered that topsoil on a proposed southeastern Connecticut subdivision, an apple orchard until 1990, contained up to 2,000 parts per billion of dieldrin, more than 50 times the safe level of 38. In a subdivision project in a neighboring town, which had been an ornamental shrub nursery, the topsoil had 270 parts per billion of dieldrin, along with chlordane exceeding its safe level. Topsoil from another orchard subdivision project I tested had as much as 320 parts per million of arsenic, more than 30 times the safe level of 10.

The scare quotes around the word “science” were not intended as an attack on your qualifications, whatever they are. The point I was making (albeit admittedly in snark – I’ve calmed down a bit now) was that I doubted you would be able to provide me with scientific proof that environmentalists had nothing to do with the abandonment of eradication.

The quotes that you provide seem to me to sort of make my point. First of all, they are not quotations from studies conducted by scientists. They are quotes from a book written by a historian. Presumably they are based on wide familiarity with primary documents, but that process is not science, much as a previous generation of historians would have liked to make it such.

Moreover, while they support your assertions that eradication efforts included insecticides (something I never denied), and that those insecticides were used repeatedly (something I also never denied), they do not really support your assertion that “they failed for reasons unrelated to environmentalists,” unless you mean that only in the narrow sense that widespread resistance eventually emerged making eradication (probably) hopeless, something that I also have never denied.

I spent some time today poking around the internet and looking at abstracts on pubmed and generally playing around, and I came up with this summary of the literature. And no, I won’t give you citations, because the books that you are quoting from actually seem to give pretty much the same picture.

1. Mosquito eradication as a global project began in earnest in the 1940s and 50s.

2. From the outset, there were concerns about resistance, and also competing environmental concerns, ie. concerns about the potential health consequences of dumping tons of DDT in human and animal communities. [In support of this, please take a look at the first article that I link to, above.] Note that I am not arguing that these “environmental concerns,” at least initially, had anything whatsoever to do with “environmentalism” as a movement in this country.

3. It does seem to be fair to say that the WHO was not overly concerned in any formal, institutional way, during the 1950s and 1960s, about the environmental impact of DDT.

4. Historians tend to blame the failure of global eradication in large part on lack of local infrastructure and a “failure of will” on the part of the institutions to attempt more comprehensive and systematic eradication.

5. In the story as told by historians, in other words, the emergence of resistance was the immediate cause of the end of eradication attempts but not necessarily the ultimate cause.

6. People who are not Lyndon LaRouche have looked at this historical set of circumstances and come to the conclusion that environmental concerns played a role in undermining the possibility of more comprehensive and systematic eradication efforts. A historical case can be made either way (there seems to be little support for this in the institutional records), but it is not provable or disprovable in a scientific sense.

7. These environmental concerns existed before Rachel Carson, and at the date of her book there was substantial resistance in some mosquito populations. However, I remain unconvinced that any potential in the eradication effort was exhausted by 1962. That said, I do not blame Rachel Carson personally for the death of millions of people.

8. Taking at face value what is being said here, it sounds like a serious case can be made that a more comprehensive and systematic eradication effort would have been (a) unsuccessful and (b) environmentally disastrous. I don’t really have an opinion on this issue, except to note the argument is counter-factual and that premising the argument on history monographs is…not science.

Tim,

So what?

Folks,

For the record, here is a snippet from what a good faith discussion might sound like:

Me: Mosquito eradication blah blah blah.
TL: Um, do you mean malaria eradication?
Me: Right. Thanks. Yes I do. Blah blah…
TL: It looks as if we agree about some things. Let’s try to focus in on our substantive disagreement…

Compare 49, above.

here is a snippet from what a good faith discussion might sound like:

See, there’s the problem. The context here is a massive propaganda campaign to discredit Rachel Carson and the larger environmental movement by vasting exaggerating the value of DDT and flat-out lying about the shift away from its indiscriminate use. (Yes, really.) When that’s what you’re dealing with, it’s stupid and kind of immoral to pretend a good-faith conversation is being had.

You, paul, are no doubt arguing in good faith. But can’t you see why people dealing with a huge, profoundly dishonest smear campaign might not have that much patience for good-faith comments about how there could be a grain of truth in some of the smears?

Or, let’s try one of those dialogues.

DDT Fan: Rachel Carson and environmentalists like her are directly responsible for tens of millions of deaths. if it weren’t for the ban on DDT they pushed through, malaria could have been eradicated.

Sane Person 1: “Tens of millions” sounds high to me, and I wouldn’t blame Carson personally. But DDT probably could have been used more effectively, and maybe environmental concerns were one reason it wasn’t. Let’s work together and see if we can answer these questions.

Sane Person 2: The whole thing is bullshit. The “Carson DDT ban” was invented out of whole cloth by paid propagandists at places like AEI and is spread by dishonest hacks like you.

The first response is more pleasant and courteous. The second, however, is correct.

Paul,

Look, the problem here is that there are actual shills making arguments that are superficially similar to yours. It’s not your fault that AEI has poisoned the well of discourse on this issue, but it’s also not Lambert et al.’s fault that they are more interested in combating really harmful misinformation than giving every blog commenter the benefit of the doubt.

I’m sorry Paul, but your comment 58 only makes sense if you think that mosquito eradication and malaria eradication are the same or only a little different.

If I assume that you are referring only malaria eradication in comment 58 then we have:

1. WHO’s global malaria eradication project started in 1955.

2. Unlike mosquito eradication, malaria eradication does not involve dumping tons of DDT in the environment, so environmental concerns were not an issue.

5. The ultimate reason for the end of the eradication efforts was that the program had been sold and funded as a short term thing.

6. Who? Names and cites, please.

7. In 1962 the eradication program was in full swing. For example, in 1964 Sri Lanka declared victory over malaria and suspended DDT spraying.

Finally, I would have more sympathy for your complaints about folks here being mean to you if you weren’t so fond of ad hominem arguments.

Paul, you claimed:

“But there is (or was) a widespread belief that a concerted eradication campaign (a al smallpox) would have been effective during the window period between DDT’s introduction and the development of immunity to the pesticide in the mosquito population, but that this was not attempted (at the same levels as the smallpox campaign) because of concerns about DDT’s impact on the environment.

Despite repeated requests you have not offered anything concrete in support of your claim. Your latest excuse is that it’s a secret and I’m not a fit person to share it with.

People have pointed to my posts on the topic because they find my arguments and evidence compelling. Rather than provide your own counter-arguments and evidence you just offer an ad hominem, dismissing it all as “blog posts written by non-experts with transparent ideological agendas”.

It’s possible that there is a mistake in my reasoning or that there is some evidence that I’ve missed. If so, I’d like to know about it. But I’m not going to be persuaded by evidence you keep secret from me and everyone else.

John,

That sure sounds nice, but Lemuel actually called me a dishonest hack (see # 66). Now, you are suggesting that I somehow needed to earn the assumption of good faith from him by making some kind of loyalty oath at the outset of the discussion to the common goal of opposing bad people. I sort of think I did, but I also think that it is wrong to demand that of me as a condition of my being treated with basic respect.

And people weren’t just rude – I got plenty rude myself, when it came to it. My point is that they’re arguments were maddeningly devoid of substance and directed at insulting me as opposed to addressing anything that I actually said. If you want to encourage that, fine. Don’t expect much else but that.

I looked at JF Beck’s site. He seems like sort of a jerk. The fact that he “supports” me is, however, irrelevant.

Paul

Paul,

The “sort of a jerk” jibe is very disappointing; really, I’m more of an asshole. Be that as it may, I have not supported you here because you seem to be doing just fine coming to grips with a very complicated subject — good on you for not allowing yourself to be seduced by the misleading rubbish cranked out by Lambert.

JQ,

Here’s an overview of my publicly stated position:

“In the ’50s a massive anti-malaria program was undertaken. Scientists attached to the program realized from the start that DDT, the main weapon for attacking malaria-carrying mosquitoes, would quickly (less than a decade) become ineffective owing to targeted mosquitoes developing DDT resistance. Such a massive program was hugely expensive, and difficult to manage and implement. The effectiveness of the program was undermined by corner-cutting and mismanagement (as in Sri Lanka) and ultimately by funds shortages.

“Silent Spring was released in 1962. The book induced near anti-DDT hysteria and contributed to the formation of the organized environmental movement. It heavily influenced U.S. EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus’s unilateral decision to ban the non-public health use of DDT.

“The U.S. banning of DDT (it is banned for agricultural use and has not been used for public health measures) saw DDT fall out of favour — it is unreasonable to expect developing countries to use a chemical banned in the U.S. and unethical for organization such as the WHO and USAID to promote its use. DDT continued to be produced and used but the two biggest players in the anti-malaria effort made a determined effort to move to other insecticides and gradually shifted to non-spray strategies (bed nets, for example). Thus the de facto DDT ban was born.

“DDT is not a magic anti-malaria bullet. It is but one of the weapons in the fight against malaria. Did the de facto DDT ban cause millions of deaths? Possibly. Is Rachel Carson to blame for these deaths? No, the environmental movement, inspired by Silent Spring, is to blame. That said, the anti-malaria efforts mounted by the WHO and USAID are not the best managed public health programs. But here again, some of this apparent managerial confusion might result from perceived pressure to employ environmentally friendly anti-malaria measures.”

Where exactly — either above or in my numerous DDT posts — do I get it wrong?

Lemuel,

Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up. I think my confusion comes from the fact that I was not responding to “DDT Fan” but, rather, to Sane Person 2. That said, I re-read your post and it is clear that you are not talking about me.

Paul, the trouble is that your account of the discussion is pretty much the exact opposite of what happened. In your very first comment you made a bold claim and despite repeated requests you have provided nothing of substance to support. On the other hand, others have provided solid evidence but you just dismissed it, offering specious justifications — including the assertion that a PhD in entomology was an irrelevant qualification in a discussion of insect vector control.