The accuracy of environmental science research is critical because decrees by the United States impact the world, along with the consequences of that science.\u00a0 So, shouldn\u2019t we question environmental science?\u00a0 And, if that science is solid, shouldn\u2019t questioning be welcomed, rather than feared?<\/p>\n
One of the problems with\u00a0 environmental science is that it can become politically influenced; leading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and international organizations to conclusions\u00a0 and rulings with too little questioning.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the likelihood of reversing an erroneous EPA ruling is slim because hell can no longer freeze over now that global warming is \u201cfact.\u201d<\/p>\n
But this discussion is not about global warming.\u00a0 No, this is about something that happened in 1972, following decades of questionable science.\u00a0 The world was saved when the EPA banned the chemical DDT.\u00a0 Science triumphed over profit.\u00a0 Or, did political correctness triumph over science?<\/p>\n
Just a decade before DDT was banned, the National Academy of Science said, \u201cTo only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT.\u201d\u00a0 It\u2019s use had prevented over 500 million deaths from malaria.\u00a0 And conveniently, the United States and most of the industrialized nations of the world did not ban DDT until they had eliminated malaria in their own countries.<\/p>\n
What happened following the EPA ruling?\u00a0 Most public and private donors to Third World countries followed suit, no longer funding DDT use and effectively ending its use in most of these countries.<\/p>\n
And the cost to stop using DDT?\u00a0 Only 50,000,000 lives.\u00a0 What a great investment for the health of the world, especially since no American or European lives were lost.\u00a0 We can sleep well knowing we rid the world of DDT \u2014 and millions of children.<\/p>\n
Guess what?\u00a0 The science was bad.\u00a0 The science was full of half-truths.\u00a0 The science was politically motivated.\u00a0 And millions died.\u00a0 And millions are still dying\u2014over 2,000,000 every year.<\/p>\n
Why was DDT banned?\u00a0 Was it science or was it politics?\u00a0 In the Oct. 5, 1969, Seattle Times, Charles Wurster, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, the activist group behind the ban on DDT, summed it up nicely saying, \u201cIf the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.\u00a0 In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.\u201d\u00a0 Impartial scientist or biased activist?<\/p>\n
DDT is not responsible for many of the evils claimed.\u00a0 Of DDT and breast cancer in humans?\u00a0 Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 stated that the authors found \u201cno evidence that exposure to DDT and (its metabolite) DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n
And what about DDT and the thinning of egg shells of birds of prey, especially eagles?\u00a0 In 1968, Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson claimed \u201cincreased eggshell fragility\u201d in birds of prey was caused by DDT. Years later they admitted the egg extracts they studied had little or no DDT and they were now pursuing other chemicals as the cause.<\/p>\n
What happened?\u00a0 What went wrong?\u00a0 What is still going wrong?\u00a0 The failure of the science was that it set out to prove DDT was the problem; starting with the desired conclusion and then finding only the data that supported it.\u00a0 Bad science.\u00a0 Biased science.\u00a0 Politically motivated science.<\/p>\n
More than 20 years later, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that \u201cafter 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization (WHO) reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria.\u201d\u00a0 The WHO stated, \u201cThere\u2019s no evidence that spraying DDT in the amounts needed to kill mosquitoes imperils crops, animals, or human health.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sadly, this was a short-lived victory.\u00a0 Because of well-placed lobbyists, the WHO quietly did an about face, continuing to promote much more expensive, and much less effective, insecticide-treated nets manufactured by those well-placed lobbyists.\u00a0 DDT, tremendously effective and much less expensive, still mostly sits on the sidelines.<\/p>\n
Also ignoring the evidence, the Pesticide Action Network North America in San Francisco still opposes DDT use, claiming it \u201ccould\u201d cause premature births and developmental delays in children.\u00a0 I suggest the most severe developmental delay is death from malaria.\u00a0 But that\u2019s just my opinion.<\/p>\n