... see also this post and the video where he talks to kids.
... here is Crichton himself on Environmentalism as Religion.
So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
And this post provides a video of one of his speeches.
Silent Spring! That's what you meant; and, if it's an open secret, the DDT Bullshittery; then, that's really heartbreaking because it's gutted tourism in Northern Ontario because of WNv and, that's just pukifying.
ReplyDeleteHe can indeed tell us DDT is not carcinogenic and didn't kill birds -- in the U.S., the First Amendment protects all sorts of voodoo science and junk science, even stuff that is so bizarre it is not even wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe couldn't provide a single source to back up the bizarre claims, however. Don't tarnish the memory of a great novelist by bringing up his major goofs, please.
FYI: There was quite a recent discussion over on the Nature Network regarding the role of fiction in shaping the public's view of science. Mind The Gap
ReplyDeleteFrom the Extension Toxicology Network:
ReplyDelete"The available epidemiological evidence regarding DDT's carcinogenicity in humans, when taken as a whole, does not suggest that DDT and its metabolites are carcinogenic in humans at likely dose levels (3). In several epimiological studies, no significant associations were seen between DDT exposure and disease, but in one other study, a weak association was observed (3, 10). In this latter study, which found a significant association between long-term, high DDT exposures and pancreatic cancers in chemical workers, there were questions raised as to the reliability of the medical records of a large proportion of the cancer cases (3, 10)."
I didn't say it is a powerful carcinogen -- however, the Extension Toxicology Network, I believe, does not include the latest studies that show firm ties between exposure in utero and exposure via mother's milk and later cancers (in essence, it skips to the next generation).
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the Network does not disagree with the American Cancer Society, nor the World Health Organization, that DDT is a probable human carcinogen.
Had DDT been banned because it was considered carcinogenic, there would be a point to saying it's not a powerful carcinogen. Since the ban was due to its toxic effects on entire ecosystems, however, there is little point in denying the carcinogenicity of the stuff. It's a misleading statement to claim, against the facts and all cancer fighters, that it is not carcinogenic. It is a definite carcinogen in all other mammals tested. There is no known factor that makes humans exempt -- but neither is there a strong link. So the cancer fighters say it's a "probable carcinogen."
Crichton never offered any evidence to contradict the conclusions of the American Cancer Society, nor did he explain any alternative explanation of the research data. I think he just got carried away on a dudgeon.
In any case, DDT was not banned because it causes cancer in humans. It was banned because it kills wildlife and disrupts ecosystems, letting mosquitoes run rampant, for example, after killing off the predators of the mosquitoes. It's a positive threat to human health in that regard - it spreads malaria.
Consquently, it is also foolish to claim that spraying more DDT would solve the malaria problem.
Incidentally, malaria came roaring back because the parasite became resistant to the pharmaceuticals used to treat the disease in humans, not because DDT was not used.
"I didn't say it is a powerful carcinogen -- however, the Extension Toxicology Network, I believe, does not include the latest studies that show firm ties between exposure in utero and exposure via mother's milk and later cancers (in essence, it skips to the next generation)."
ReplyDeleteYou believe? IMO, I believe you ought to do more than believe if you are engaging in a discussion based, one hopes, on more than belief, considering the scientific basis concerning same. Please, Mr. Darell, provide proof for your statement as Mr. Wilson has done.
"Incidentally, malaria came roaring back because the parasite became resistant to the pharmaceuticals used to treat the disease in humans, not because DDT was not used."
Mr. Darnell? Please explain to me, a woman living in the heart of tourist country in Northern Ontario, Canada, how this applies then, in principle and fact, to the problem with WNv and the effect said problem has had our economy (dependent, to some significant degree, on tourism). And, if you could, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why there still exists no vaccine for this scourge that seems to continue unabated throughout North America, if I am not mistaken.
Didn't realize you were talking about West Nile. DDT is the wrong stuff to use - WNv vectors need to be stopped in the larval stage, in the water. DDT is both more destructive of other life, and less effective in such applications. Check with any mosquito control professional.
ReplyDeleteMr. Wilson provided no proof, by the way. Interesting how you accept his statements at face value, but demand I provide more. You could check this stuff out for yourself, and you'd come to the same conclusions, if you are as careful as you claim to be (I'm assuming you are).
Here are some links to help you out:
General summary of DDT today
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/malariaddt-carnival-addendum/
and
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carnival-of-fighting-malaria-and-ddt/
New study links DDT to testicular cancer:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/ddt-linked-to-testicular-cancers-in-next-generation/
Praise for Rachel Carson:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/deserved-praise-for-rachel-carson/
Discussion of recent research on DDT and breast cancers:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/how-ddt-could-work-in-aggressive-breast-cancers/
Will all those links go through the spam filter?
Also see here: Hysteric for DDT
ReplyDeletehttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/michael-crichton-hysterical-for-ddt/
Dear Mr. Darrell:
ReplyDeleteShort answer (since I am only five-feet tall)?
I deeply appreciate the effort you have clearly taken providing proof for your statements (which I also accept at face value because, IMO, I know only too well many scientifically inclined individuals read our Blog and would call you [or my partner, Mr. Wilson, for that matter] on your citations if they were less than honourable). As I said, a "belief" is not a proven fact, nothing more, nothing less than the obvious point of that statement intended. Can you, BTW, disprove Mr. Wilson's citation (which, to my way of thinking, amounts to more than a "belief," as it were)?
That said, my final 'graph was one directed at what Mr. Crichton (R.I.P.) described as "a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world." By extension, I assumed, and I ought not to have so done, you would understand the logic of my thought's progression from one pesticide to another kind of pesticide, a synthetic one (in terms of BigPharma and spraying generally).
I am well aware DDT is useless in the war against WNv; in fact, I have written extensively on the subject and am completely horrified, not to mention utterly mystified, as to why a vaccine (or spraying) is neither in existence (nor allowed). I will see if I can find an editorial I guest-wrote for the Hunstville newspaper down the road from where I live, the Huntville newspaper that will, of course, be covering the 2010 G-8 Summit at the height of WNv activity as I am sure you also know. If I do, I will post a .jpg of it for you tomorrow; or, if I become restless in a minute or fifty-six, tonight :).
No, DDT will not work against a scourge requiring pyrethroids; and, to its everlasting credit, dusk-to-dawn spraying does take place in NY, NY (among other American locations); however, my objection to your response to Mr. Wilson arose when I read your final 'graph, the one wherein you maintain "the parasite became resistant to the pharmaceuticals used to treat the disease in humans . . ."
My question, and I might have phrased it more precisely, was more directed at the pharmaceutical manufacturers who have yet to produce a vaccine that will save millions and millions of dollars (not to mention countless lives). Why is this not a priority?
And, in order to put my money where my mouth is, allow me to provide you with but one source for my argument Canada ought to be following New York's lead (rather than yielding to the tree-hugger environmental movement that is destroying one of the few viable industries in the northern half of our entire country which happens to be, as you well know, the second largest one dans le monde after Russia):
Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)
Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)
HTH.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that producing a vaccine against West Nile virus is not a priority. On the FAQ at the site you directed me to, it is quite clearly stated that several companies are working to get such a vaccine for humans. One vaccine already exists for horses. (See here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/wnv/wnvfaq1.shtml )
Vaccine development isn't always easy. There are some problems with getting it right for WNv, not the least of which is that so many people simply are not seriously affected by the virus. Did you see this press release of a couple of days ago?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081103091033.htm
Work continues apace on other variants of vaccines; see this from the University of Queensland:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519120154.htm
This public radio story on WNv in California makes the unsupported statement that vaccine development is hampered by the small market size, but I have not verified the claim:
http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/09/19/08_west_nile_treatment_.html (there are links to other stories there, too).
You seem to be concerned about my use of the word "believe." Let me be more forceful now that I have confirmed: The Extension Toxicology Network profile is from 1996 -- it does not include the past decade's work that firmly links DDT to cancers. You can check the year, here:
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm
Crichton, RIP, was a great guy so far as I know. He was dead wrong in his opinions about DDT -- beliefs, not warranted by the research.
Good luck pushing for a West Nile vaccine. Our oldest son lost a friend to the disease just over a year ago. It's definitely a problem.
Thanks for the EDucation, Ed. I was aware of some of the research and L'Inq.s you provided; but, one can never learn enough when it comes to WNv. Deeply appreciated and, can't help thinking about They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (given the fact that horse vaccine does exist and, to me, suggest horses are more of a priority than humans and, yeah, I guess they are, Yowzah, Yowzah, Yech!).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am so sorry to hear about your son's friend. I know how devastating that loss can be, especially for a child. Somehow, given your rationality and civility, I believe you will help him through the grieving process since you seem a responsible and caring parent to me.
Thirdly, I did find the Opinion I wrote; and, upon doing so, was stunned to realise five years have passed since it first appeared! I'm still waiting; the world, in fact, is still waiting. Of course, they're coming close to discovering such a vaccine; but, close only counts with horse/s/hoes, I guess, eh? It doesn't make sent to BigPharma because, in the grand scam of things, people aren't dropping like flies from WNv. Collateral damage, the cost of doing bizthness, yadda-yadda-yikes.
I uploaded two copies of the piece I did pen for The Forester, the town hosting what has already been dubbed the "Black Fly Summit" by my fellow scribe, the incomparable Roy MacGregor (who also writes for The Globe and Mail). I'd like to take credit for that one; but, fair's fair.
Finally, you acquit yourself with class and panache. I appreciate a good discussion and I thank you for indulging me by participating in same; I can see why you would consider Crichton's unsubstantiated claims concerning DDT egregious, particularly given the fact much more work has been done in the field since he and, for that matter, Silent Spring, delivered their respective messages.
My concern, truly, is WNv; and, I think the piece I inked says it all far more succinctly for me. I uploaded two images because I am not sure they can even be read without magnifying same. One tip? Hold down CONTROL while using the mouse's scroller/wheel to enlarge either image (while clicking on it). Other than that, I hope one of the two (very large .jpgs c/ apologies) works for you. I tried optimising; but, it didn't do it, sigh . . .
Have a day as fine as you've made mine and again, condolences to your son and his friend's family; it is precisely because of these victims I am, I guess, on this crusade; and, natch, it is destroying Northern Canada ad mare usque ad mare usque ad mare in terms of one of the few viable industries that does support its population.