WoW Blog

Ralph Nader got the same treatment when he dared to criticize the design methods of a certain large US auto-maker. They even tried to tempt "St. Ralph" with a scandal, but he resisted, like a monk to his cause. Since I was born in the mid-60's, I have personally benefited from both Rachel and Ralph's work, and owe them both a debt of gratitude for the less poisonous environment and safer cars I enjoy today. A society that tolerates both the captains of industry and their critics is one that makes the most progress, in my view. -april05

Actually, in part because of the backlash from Rachel Carsons work, you are exposed to much more dangerous pesticides and herbicides, like organophosphates. The backlash from her work is one of the best and most pervasive example of NIMBY in the US. It has lead to the use of compunds that are much more highly toxic to humans, but do not persist in the environment and bio-accumulate in eagles, which lead to a reduction in eagle reproductive success. Organophosphates hydrolyze rapidly reducing the risk of accidental exposures, are neurotoxic, and kill everything fast, so i guess there there are fewer individuals that risk exposure and those that do really do not have much time for reproduction. DDT is illegal in the US, but has continued to be used throughout many other areas of the world where the health of the citizens outweighs the health of a few borderline species. It is quite effective on mosquitoes and controlling malaria and yellow fever. Regulation of many pesticides and herbicides really isn't controlled very well outside the US, and with the push from many of the same people who oppose Such use in the US for opening our borders to trade with foreign markets, there is still risk of exposures now from foods imported from the south. So the overall effect is the US citizens pay more for food, are still exposed to many of the same chemicals from the ever increasing imports of cheaper foreign foods along with potential exposures to highly toxic compounds, poor people in foriegn countries still get high exposure rates that are increasing as agricultural development increases (that is not our public concern), but the eagles are doing better. It is not a issue of protecting the US citizen, as much as a issue of creating the perception amongst the less educated that they are being protected.

Ralph Nader on the other hand has always kept a practical perspective in his work, worked many hours for very little benefit, and has kept his eye on the ball in focusing on the health and welfare of humans and the issues that cause substantial damage to humanity that he has a background to study.

DDT is only manufactured in two countries, India and China. Many countries ban it simply because we did, and few manufacturers will make it because of the liability risk. It is easy to claim in court that they should have known Juan was going to be drinking himself into a stupor every night drinking the stuff and that they should have known it caused cuticle cancer or some such because it was banned by the US EPA.

There is some evidence that long term low level exposure to many organophosphates may in fact be harmful to human reproductive systems and fetuses. So we may well turn out to have traded one relatively small problem for a much bigger one.

I would be curious if the "internal memo" excuse would still stand up to a modern day FOIA request. I suspect it would not. In fact I'd be suprised if anyone at the EPA would give a second thought to releasing the information now.

While it is true that many US citizens are now exposed to chemical agents that may pose a much greater health risk, at least the birds are proliferating. I mean what is the problem if a number of humans must die in order to protect that one more bird has a better chance of being hatched (except chickens and turkeys however, since they have less apparent value).

Except for the little issue that there is no evidence that DDT was the cause to begin with...

And I do hope you are being facetious about eagles being more important than humans. I'd hate to think you actually thought that way.

" I mean what is the problem if a number of humans must die in order to protect that one more bird has a better chance of being hatched (except chickens and turkeys however, since they have less apparent value)."

Huh????

milo

no sense of humor? it was a sarcastic comment, joke. though i have met enviromnmental activists who believe that, though they tend to start back track rapidly (though somewhat unwillingly) when they think they may be con tributing to a image that is adverse to their compaign and the public (or at least their kore moderate donors) perception may become that they would be willing to kill babies to save one bird.

Sarcasm does n't seem to get through my operating system. Must be the anti virus program.

Just trying to understand.

milo

Hi RCE - I understand your point that while we (folks motivated by Rachel Carson) may have restored the eagle population (along with the Wild Turkey and birds of prey I never saw as a kid - I'm 40+ now) from extinction here in the Hudson Valley near the Albany area (and made ourselves feel good about restoring this patriotic symbol to the landscape we inherited from the Native Americans), we may have done damage to ourselves in the process, as humans sharing the same geography (myself included). So it's a trade-off - birds win, people lose.

Interesting point. However, I always thought what was good for animals lower in the food chain, usually was good for those higher up, and so something doesn't add up for me here?:

Dr. Ward Stone (wildlife pathologist for NYS) and researchers at Cornell Agricultural and Life Sciences school in Ithaca, NY have worked on the post-DDT, Bald Eagle re-introduction program here in Upstate NY from the 1970's until now:

Ward's got a weekly show produced in the Albany area, "In Our Back Yard" (WAMC public radio web site) -

Since I try and keep an open mind, and my training/experience is limited to engineering, I would be very pleased if you considered writing him an email, putting your arguments to him on the topic of DDT. I follow his program, know he responds to many emails during his show, and would enjoy listening to his response to your email.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

-april05

Will do. Thanks for the link. BTW I always considered eagles competitors in the food chain, that are at the pinnacle of their own chain. Though i guess we could eat them, I never have seen anyone eat an eagle. I am 40 years old and have seen eagles and wild turkeys my entire life, but since the 1980s they began to proliferate like crazy in Central California (to the point i have seen 2 eagles that were killed by car strikes, and have myself been hit twice by wild turkeys). I think more important to their numbers have been federal programs on various military bases to develop and protect habitat. Since these programs began on the bases their number have exploded in these areas, e.g. Fort Hunter Liggitt. This type of program i do not actually mind since it also benefits the humans and other wildlife using the base to have large oak tree cover. I guess the only downside is that now our military is limited to training around the breeding habits of eagles. I could see this being an issue if they were too constrained such that it impaired their ability to train properly, but since tank treaining only occurs a few weeks a year.

We now import foods from South and Central America where they use DDT and even here in the USA Agent Orange is still used to Defoliate Cotten before picking.

Imagine the drinking water in Houston and Dallas woth all those cotten farms up above their water table.

The problem ingredients in Agent Orange were 2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP which, as I understand, were not problematic due to their presence but because the manufacturing process produced a known carcinogen TCDD, a dioxin, which made its way into the brew. DDT is an insecticide and the above-mentioned are herbicides.

Exactly on target.

DDT id not off the Market except in the USA.

They spray tobacco with in all over south and central america.

Not true. DDT banned worldwide. And it is not soluble in water, therefore it cannot contaminate groundwater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Here you go read the 4th paragraph. Also I know because I have seen barrels of it on a friends farm there. You can also buy Tuolene really cheap in Brazil too. That is the chemical they ise to get the Keroene out of the COCA PASTE so they have the White Cocaine.

Sorry link did not take in the last one

http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm

Is this the line you are talking about?

"Although 120 countries adopted a treaty to phase out persistent organic pollutants (POPs)(includes DDT) in 2000, the treaty (United Nations' Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants) allows for limited use for control of malaria. About 25 countries including South Africa still DDT."

There is an obvious typo here because it does not say what the 25 countries still do with DDT. Make it? Sell it? Use it widely? Use it narrowly? Allow it's use regardless whether it is actually available or not? The web site does not say.

Again, because the EPA has labeled it a "probable carcinogen" regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of that or not, few countries will risk using it, and of those who don't care there is still the issue of availability. If few companies will make it due to liability concerns, you don't have to ban it to keep it off the market. The only people who will make it are manufacturers that are protected from any possible legal culpability, like China.

I'm not saying you didn't see it, it is entirely possible you saw some of the Chinese or Indian product that is still available, Neither of those countries have ever given much concern to environmental or legal issues after all. But it is not widely available and many countries that desprately need to use it won't because we have scared them off with our banning it for no logical reason.

Everything is soluble in water to some degree, it is just a question of does the solubility limit exceed the MCL. Also the very low solubility and the partitioning will severely attentuate downward migration towards groundwater through the vadose zone. so it is unlikely to severely impact groundwater quality unless you have a substantial quantity across the surface, for a substantial period of time, shallow groundwater, and large volumes of water transporting materials through the vadose zone.

Point taken, I was oversimplifying.

You lost me at the bakery..... sorry, what's your point ?????

Excellent comments, I couldn't have said it better !!!!

Lol bans have to be enforced.

Like the PRODUCTION of Cocaine depends on 1 chemical. Tuolene !

Toulene is used to remove the Kerosene they use to make the cocoa paste by stomping the leaves in a vast with their feet.

Tuolene is use as a thinner for the gule which hold Tennis Shoes togeather.

So needless to say many many drug dealers own tennis shoe manufacturing businesses.

Tuolene is very restricted in the USA but you can oder all you want if you own a tennis shoe business. They never track the chemical and the glue togeather. 3 barrels of Tuolene can be purchased for everyone glue in Brazil.

Now they is not restriction on selling the glue or the tuolene so they sell the glue back to the supplier over and over. Dow Chemnical in Mexico is the largest supplier of Tuolene and DDT.

Ah yes, Rachel Carson and the "Silent Spring".

Now that DDT (the most effective means for mosquito control) has been banned, we now have a resurgence in malaria, the most deadly disease to children (and others) on the planet. Way to go Rachel!!! Score one for population control.

Actually,

Political whitewash and junk science.

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." source:
Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972) Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. source:
Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972

After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus' "Opinion and Order on DDT."

Attributed sorced references on this subject such as those I have quoted here can be found at :

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Materials on that site were compiled by J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University. Dr. Edwards testified at the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on DDT.

"Critical thinking is different from running with the lemmings"

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists is not moral."

Ms Carson and her "chemicals are always bad" allies did little more than shout fire when none existed.

Now people die because of politics> science.

sad.

milo

Emotional NIMBY outcries and public fears are much more effective than scientific investigation in getting a response from the US government. Politicians aren't there to solve real problems, they are there to create the perception of resolving peoples irrational fears and hopes.

"Emotional NIMBY outcries and public fears are much more effective than scientific investigation in getting a response from the US government."

Certainly true.

"Politicians aren't there to solve real problems, they are there to create the perception of resolving peoples irrational fears and hopes."

If this is true, it is depressing.

It is incomplete however, in that it fails to account for how much money and damage is done by their flawed policies.

very sad.

milo

To be fair what I think is a better analogy is more like she shouted "where is all that smoke coming from" in a crowded theatre full of idiots, and they went right to the assumption of a raging fire and everyone went charging out without any consideration for the consequences of their actions.