DDT BAK

CAPT

DDT124

POSTER FOR DEREGULATION? LIBTARD?

see acsh offit miller

DREISSEN

PATRICK MOORE INNIS NIGER CORE

GOT ALL THE THINKTANKS AND SOME OF THE STINKTANKS

FUNDING Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

BAK 1 24

2004

DDT has become subject to revisionist history, as it was an early and major victory for 2nd wave/ of environmental movement (cf Entine et al as latter day versions) proof that regulations work and are necessary (Along with Montreal protocol, rightwing ideas)

export of ddt never banned; USAID refused to give it away?

Carson as hero, thus target (vandana, van jones: green collar is capitalist!)

420 daily wire covid cve epa dereg eg cafe mercury:

how Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Rachel Carson is, and should be, a revered environmental icon. But her crusade against one pesticide cost millions of people their lives.

Paul A. Offit

:{Updated Apr. 11, 2017 4:07PM ET / Published Feb. 04, 2017

Alfred Eisenstaedt

On Jan. 24, 2017, PBS aired a two-hour special on Rachel Carson, the mother of the environmental movement. Although the program crossed the line from biography to hagiography, in Carson’s case, the unbridled praise was well deserved—with one exception.

Rachel Carson was an American hero. In the early 1960s, she was the first to warn that a pesticide called DDT could accumulate in the environment, the first to show that it could harm fish, birds, and other wildlife, the first to warn that its overuse would render it ineffective, and the first to predict that more natural means of pest control—like bacteria that killed mosquito larvae—should be used instead.

Ads by Teads

Unfortunately, the PBS documentary neglected to mention that in her groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, Carson had made one critical mistake—and it cost millions of people their lives.

On Nov. 1, 1941, Rachel Carson published her first book, Under the Sea-Wind. Although written for adults, the book had a child-like sense of wonder. Under the Sea-Wind told the story of Silverbar, a sanderling that migrated from the Arctic Circle to Argentina; Scomber, a mackerel that traveled from New England to the Continental Shelf; and Anguilla, an American eel that journeyed to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. “There is poetry here,” wrote one reviewer.

On July 2, 1951, Carson published her second book, The Sea Around Us. Two months later, The Sea Around Us was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, where it remained for 39 weeks: a record. When the dust settled, The Sea Around Us had sold more than 1.3 million copies, been translated into 32 languages, won the National Book Award, and been made into a movie. Editors of the country’s leading newspapers voted Rachel Carson “Woman of the Year.”

In October 1955, Carson published her third book, The Edge of the Sea, a tour guide for the casual adventurer. The New Yorker serialized it, critics praised it and the public loved it: more than 70,000 copies were sold as it rocketed to #4 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Today, most people under the age of 40 have probably never heard of Rachel Carson. But in the early 1960s, almost every American knew her name.

On Sept. 27, 1962, Rachel Carson changed her tone. Her next book, Silent Spring, which she called her “poison book,” was an angry, no-holds-barred polemic against pesticides: especially DDT.

The first chapter of Silent Spring, titled “A Fable for Tomorrow,” was almost biblical, appealing to our sense that we had sinned against our Creator. “There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings. Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change… the cattle and sheep sickened and died… streams were lifeless… everywhere there was the shadow of death.” Birds, especially, had fallen victim to this strange evil. In a town that had once “throbbed with scores of bird voices there was now no sound, only silence.” A silent spring. Birds weren’t alone in their suffering. According to Carson, children suffered sudden death, aplastic anemia, birth defects, liver disease, chromosomal abnormalities, and leukemia—all caused by DDT. And women suffered infertility and uterine cancer.

Carson made it clear that she wasn’t talking about something that might happen—she was talking about something that had happened. Our war against nature had become a war against ourselves.

In May 1963, Rachel Carson appeared before the Department of Commerce and asked for a “Pesticide Commission” to regulate the untethered use of DDT. Ten years later, Carson’s “Pesticide Commission” became the Environmental Protection Agency, which immediately banned DDT. Following America’s lead, support for international use of DDT quickly dried up.

Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed—and continues to kill—more people than any other: malaria. By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from eleven countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth. Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.

RELATED IN ARTS AND CULTURE

"Radio host Laura Ingraham delivers remarks during the Value Voters Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, U.S., October 14, 2017. REUTERS/Mary F. Calvert - RC1D8207F690"

Twitter Deletes Ingraham’s Post Touting Coronavirus Cure

Dr. Oz: Coronavirus ‘Worry’ Will Be ‘Worse’ Than Disease

Fauci Won’t Budge as Ingraham Goads Him on Trump-Touted Drug

After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:

• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.

Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed. Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented—far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.

Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses. An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.

In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.

Paul A. Offit, MD is a professor of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the author of the forthcoming book Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong (National Geographic, April 2017

==

http://www.safechemicalpolicy.org/rachel-was-wrong/

CEI

cutpaste thwarted but usual suspects

60 plus, acsh, indep inst , heartland, wa policy...

http://www.safechemicalpolicy.org/coalition/

==

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25913568

Exposure to a once widely used pesticide, DDT, may increase the chances of developing Alzheimer's disease, suggest US researchers.

A study, published in JAMA Neurology, showed patients with Alzheimer's had four times as much DDT lingering in the body as healthy people.

Some countries still use the pesticide to control malaria.

Alzheimer's Research UK said more evidence was needed to prove DDT had a role in dementia.

DDT was a massively successful pesticide, initially used to control malaria at the end of World War Two and then to protect crops in commercial agriculture.

However, there were questions about its impact on human health and wider environmental concerns, particularly for predators.

It was banned in the US in 1972 and in many other countries. But the World Health Organization still recommends using DDT (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_HTM_GMP_2011_eng.pdf?ua=1) to keep malaria in check.

Not clear

DDT also lingers in the human body where it is broken down into DDE.

The team at Rutgers University and Emory University tested levels of DDE in the blood of 86 people with Alzheimer's disease and compared the results with 79 healthy people of a similar age and background.

The results showed those with Alzheimer's had 3.8 times the level of DDE.

However, the picture is not clear-cut. Some healthy people had high levels of DDE while some with Alzheimer's had low levels. Alzheimer's also predates the use of DDT.

The researchers believe the chemical is increasing the chance of Alzheimer's and may be involved in the development of amyloid plaques in the brain, a hallmark of the disease, which contribute to the death of brain cells.

Prof Allan Levey, the director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centre at Emory, said: "This is one of the first studies identifying a strong environmental risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.

"The magnitude of the effect is strikingly large, it is comparable in size to the most common genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's."

Fellow researcher Dr Jason Richardson added: "We are still being exposed to these chemicals in the United States, both because we get food products from other countries and because DDE persists in the environment for a long time," .

Dr Simon Ridley, the head of research at the charity Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "It's important to note that this research relates to DDT, a pesticide that has not been used in the UK since the 1980s.

"While this small study suggests a possible connection between DDT exposure and Alzheimer's, we don't know whether other factors may account for these results.

"Much more research would be needed to confirm whether this particular pesticide may contribute to the disease."

==

BASF fungi bees

4/16

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/this-is-your-brain-on-fungicides/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/the-truth-about-the-republican-war-on-caterpillars/255522/}:

In a statement widely taken as a metaphor, the chairman of the Republican National Committee on Thursday said (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-05/priebus-says-gender-battle-as-fictonal-as-caterpillar-war) his party is no more trying to hurt the nation's females than it is larval butterflies and moths.

"If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we'd have problems with caterpillars," Reince Priebus told Bloomberg Television, in response to a question about the party's supposed "war on women." "It's a fiction."

But the war on caterpillars and other innocent insects, it turns out, is not a fiction at all.

Under the guise of aiding the agriculture industry, Republicans and their allies in Washington have been waging a long-running campaign to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting bug-killing pesticides. Last year, GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas authored a letter (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/06/113841/some-fear-that-epa-is-going-too.html), signed by several others in his party, calling on Democrats to "address the continued regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency that is a growing concern of farmers, ranchers, foresters and agribusinesses throughout the nation" by bringing up their bill to ease pesticide regulations. This obvious attempt to run roughshod over the rights of many-legged herbivores everywhere was laughably justified as a matter of "public health as we enter mosquito season."

In a similar gesture of outrageous insensitivity to the feelings of Creepy-Crawly-Americans, some conservatives also want to get the controversial insecticide DDT unbanned by the EPA (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/08/conservatives-blame-environmentalists-for-bedbugs.html). The free-marketCompetitive Enterprise Instituteruns a website, RachelWasWrong.org (http://rachelwaswrong.org/), devoted to beating the drum for bringing back DDT, whose banning it terms the "dangerous legacy" of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. But for the liberals and their "tree-hugging political correctness," one NewsMax commentator wrote (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/08/25/nyt-article-admits-ddt-ban-cause-bedbug-outbreak), bedbugs -- largely voiceless in this whole debate -- might be eradicated.

Republicans may claim that they have no anti-caterpillar agenda -- that they're just trying to protect people and plants from being bitten, that they're merely the victims of a liberal media that sympathizes with the radical bugs'-rights lobby. But the truth is clear, and it's nothing new: Republicans just don't care about caterpillars.

Need any more proof? How about this: Tom DeLay, the onetime leader of the GOP House majority, began his career as an exterminator.

While Republicans are actively trying to bring back DDT (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/the-truth-about-the-republican-war-on-caterpillars/255522/) to please big agriculture, concern is growing about other pesticides and fungicides that are already out there. In your food. In your body. In your brain (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/04/what-are-these-widely-used-fungicides-doing-us).

==

11/15

http://www.alternet.org/environment/pesticide-exposure-linked-abnormal-sperm

==

deltoid says ddt not cheapest: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/24/ddt-in-uganda/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393672/why-un-more-dangerous-ebola-henry-i-miller

hi level officials of the United Nations are not known for their perspicacity, competence, or scientific acumen, but the head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Margaret Chan, is a particular embarrassment. With so much attention focused on the Ebola-virus outbreak in Africa, her exaggerations and petty scolding have made her a high-profile liability. In a speech at a regional conference in Benin last month, she warned that the Ebola outbreak “is the most severe acute public-health emergency seen in modern times” and bashed pharmaceutical companies for not developing Ebola vaccines — products that could not possibly be profitable. “A profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay,” she said — a truism if there ever was one. “WHO has been trying to make this issue visible for ages. Now people can see for themselves.”

refs

A Big Step Forward towards a DDT-Free World

Countries move toward more sustainable ways to roll back malaria ahead of Millennium Development Goals

4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNEP-Linked Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Geneva/Nairobi/Washington DC, 6 May 2009 - The United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, in partnership with the Global Environment Facility, today announced a rejuvenated international effort to combat malaria with an incremental reduction of reliance on the synthetic pesticide DDT.

Ten projects, all part of the global programme "Demonstrating and Scaling-up of sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management", involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia are set to test non-chemical methods ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.

The new projects follow a successful demonstration of alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central America. Here pesticide-free techniques and management regimes have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60 per cent.

The success of the five year-long pilot indicates that sustainable alternatives to Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) are emerging as cost effective solutions that may be applicable regionally and globally.

The Integrated Vector Management (IVM) strategy promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) provides the framework to include these measures in combinations of interventions adapted to differing local circumstances.

Allied to measures such as improved health care, monitoring and education the findings could set the stage for meeting the twin aims of achieving the health-related and environmental Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 while also ridding the world of the persistent organic pollutant DDT.

The initiatives come amid long-standing and growing concern over the use of DDT and evidence that in many countries there is increasing mosquito resistance to the pesticide.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=585&ArticleID=6148&l=en

==

2600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, 7a Washington DC, 20037, USA

Phone: 202 331 2282

Africa Fighting Malaria is a not-for-profit health advocacy group based in South Africa and in the United States. They research and comment on the political economy of diseases and disease control in developing countries, focusing primarily on malaria. 

AFM promotes short term solutions to the malaria problem, and criticizes expenditures on mitigating climate change as having benefits too far in the future to be useful. They advocate spending money on quick-fixes for problems which could be solved in the future by successfully combatting things like climate change. Along with groups like TheCompetitive Enterprise Institute and the Liberty Institute,AFM promotes the use of DDT as an effective means of combatting malaria in the developing world. AFM formed a coalition called Save Children From Malaria in 2000 and campaign to preserve the use of DDT.

FUNDING

Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

2004

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=125#src0)

SOURCES

ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments Public Information and Policy Researchhttp://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4380

BS

The environmentalist assault on the chemical DDT has come at an extremely high cost in human life. It is impossible to know how many people have died needlessly from malaria, yellow fever, leishmaniasis, dengue fever and other insect-borne diseases in the absence of DDT, but it must be millions.

Many environmental groups cut their teeth pushing for bans on agricultural uses of DDT. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) was the starting point for much of this, although Carson is certainly not to blame for the environmental crusade that occurred against the chemical after her death in 1964. Silent Spring made important points about the dangers of overuse of agrochemicals, of which DDT was a major component. But it was short on good medical science. For example, Carson led the reader to believe that in one instance, after spraying DDT, a housewife developed leukaemia and died within three months. Such a claim has no scientific validity; in terms of danger to humans, DDT is one of the safest insecticides ever developed.

But while there were serious concerns about the bioaccumulation of DDT up the food chain, and it was rightly phased out for use in agriculture, it still had a valid role in combating public health menaces, notably disease-bearing mosquitos. Not satisfied with having DDT outlawed for agriculture, environmentalists increased pressure for a total ban in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

By 1997, the World Health Assembly had bowed to this pressure, passing a resolution to restrict the use of insecticides in public health, and the United Nations Environment Programme was beginning negotiations towards what would become the Stockholm convention to phase out global use of DDT and 11 other chemicals. Several major environmental organisations were demanding a total ban on DDT by 2007. I attended the negotiations in Geneva in 1999 and Johannesburg in 2000, and recall the change in the position the more responsible green groups took when several hundred malaria scientists, including three Nobel laureates, and some ministries of health from southern African nations demanded that DDT remain available for public health use.

John Quiggin andTim Lambert (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/article_details.php?id=10175) purport to restore Rachel Carson’s reputation, trashing me and an organisation I helped found, Africa Fighting Malaria, in the process. Their article amounts to ahalf-baked conspiracy theory that breaks down with a cursory review of the facts. The authors’ hope is that by branding me a tobacco lobbyist and claiming the tobacco industry is bankrolling the campaign for DDT, they will convince others to dismiss DDT advocates as industry stooges. They are sadly mistaken.

First, the tobacco industry never established the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF). That allegation was addressed in the Lancet in 2000. ESEF was formed in late 1994 to debate climate change. The vast majority of its funding came from two foundations: the Marit and Hans Rausing Foundation, and the May and Stanley Smith Charitable Trust. The latter became interested in the DDT debate and provided funding through ESEF for the US chapter of Africa Fighting Malaria in 2003.

Second, I was never a tobacco lobbyist. After I wrote two articles on tobacco-related topics in 1996 and 1997, I consulted for Philip Morris, at their request, on international health for a total of about a month in 1998. I never lobbied for the company or promoted cigarettes in any way. I subsequently wrote to Philip Morris asking them to provide funding for a campaign to rehabilitate the use of DDT. This letter, which is now on the web, is the source of nearly all Quiggin and Lambert’s suppositions. Yet I never even had the courtesy of a reply. Philip Morris never funded the campaign, and I haven’t spoken with the company in at least seven years.

Thus without tobacco industry funding, Richard Tren and I set up Africa Fighting Malaria in 2000 in South Africa. Neither of us have had any contact with the tobacco industry since its formation, other than to criticise it. The tobacco industry has publicly opposed the use of DDT for malaria control, largely because of concerns that contaminated plants would not be accepted for production in the EU and other developed countries. AFM led the public outcry against British American Tobacco in 2006 when it opposed the use of DDT in Uganda, absurdly worrying about contamination of its product.

Quiggin and Lambert probably found this information when Googling for “Africa Fighting Malaria” and “tobacco.” It is readily available on AFM’s website (http://www.fightingmalaria.org/), along with a list of the organisation’s funders. AFM does not accept money from malaria control industries—drugs, insecticides or mosquito net manufacturers—nor any governments. Further, a quick look there will show that far from saying that DDT is a panacea, as Quiggin and Lambert assert, AFM continues to explain how complex a disease malaria is, requiring all available techniques to combat it.

Quiggin and Lambert claim that I have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of mainstream journalists, a backhanded compliment. In fact, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Nature have all reported correctly on DDT, based on credible and available scientific evidence. As these publications pointed out, although DDT was granted an exemption for public health in the Stockholm treaty and the World Health Organisation (WHO) approved its use for malaria control, no aid agency was purchasing it and some, such as the World Bank and the US government, were actively discouraging its use.

While Chinese and Indian government-backed companies continue to produce DDT for their own public health programmes, and for export, no western company has produced DDT for over a decade. Major chemical companies such as Bayer, Dow Chemical, Du Pont and BASF produce alternative products, and have incentives to see DDT phased out. Bayer actually agitated against the use of DDT, abusing its position as private sector delegate to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, as reported (http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?ct=0&id=050929000439&nclick_check=1) in the Financial Times. AFM was alone among advocacy groups to raise this as a concern.

The reality is that DDT is probably the most useful insecticide ever used for public health. Despite what Quiggin and Lambert say, the public health provisions of the 1972 US delisting of DDT have been used several times after 1972 in the US to combat plague-carrying fleas, in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. DDT still has a place in malaria control, one that has expanded because of sensible recent policies from WHO, the Global Fund and the US government. Quiggin and Lambert are wrong to dismiss WHO’s 2006 support as a restatement of old policy. While DDT has been a WHO-approved insecticide for decades, for many years WHO officials did not promote its use, instead tending to push for insecticide-treated nets. Following WHO statements supporting DDT, some developing-country governments, such as Uganda, have been emboldened to say they want to spray the chemical, even in the face of opposition from local business lobbies.

The environmental movement is not entirely to blame for preventing sensible uses of DDT, but it’s not surprising that it is trying to cleanse history. Its reputation has been dented because of its apparent callousness against the use of a life-saving chemical. Its line, repeated by Quiggin and Lambert, is that environmental groups dropped total opposition to DDT during the Stockholm negotiations. This is misleading. To their credit, some groups, such as the Sierra Club, have come forward with guarded support for DDT. Other groups, such as the South Africa-based Endangered Wildlife Trust, have provided admirable practical assistance to malaria control programs using DDT so that environmental contamination is minimised.....

roger bate (https://app.thebrain.com/brain/a3da3270-50e8-4c2f-9149-39599085693e/51a6a5ea-c471-50c4-89f2-6d693ea33760) 2008

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/ddtworks

see africa fighting malaria bs exxon to ~ agw?

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/ddts-toxic-legacy-continues

Last month's groundbreaking DDT study (http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2015-1841) — linking exposure in the womb to increased risk of breast cancer — represents more than an interesting footnote in the story of this legacy pesticide.

Not only is DDT still in our environment more than 40 years after it was banned in the U.S., it also continues to be sprayed inside homes in many African countries as part of malaria control programs — a practice that could be quadrupling the risk, it turns out, of breast cancer among daughters of women exposed to the chemical during pregnancy.

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, looked at breast cancer incidence among daughters of women who were exposed to DDT in the 1960s, when use in the U.S. was widespread. Researchers found that when mothers had higher levels of DDT in their blood, their daughters' risk increased by nearly four times — regardless of family breast cancer history.

Dr. Barbara Cohn, PhD, Director of Child Health and Development Studies at the Public Health Institute in Berkeley, California — and one of the study's authors — describes the significance (http://www.phi.org/news-events/774/prenatal-ddt-exposure-tied-to-nearly-four-fold-increase-in-breast-cancer-risk) of the findings:

"This 54-year study is the first to provide direct evidence that chemical exposures for pregnant women may have lifelong consequences for their daughters' breast cancer risk. Environmental chemicals have long been suspected causes of breast cancer, but until now, there have been few human studies to support this idea."

DDT was "Safe"

The study is also significant as a cautionary tale. In the U.S., we have a long and storied history of approving widespread use of pesticides before we fully understand the risk they pose to our health. DDT is the first example in a series of "safer" pesticides that includes organophosphates like chlorpyrifos (http://www.panna.org/blog/dpr-too-little-too-slow-chlorpyrifos) ("they don't last long in the environment, must be better"), pyrethroids ("the original version was made from flowers!") and neonicotinoids (http://www.panna.org/blog/neonic-harms-go-well-beyond-bees).

[vid]

In every case, dramatic health or environmental harms came to light many, many years after millions of pounds of the chemicals were applied in fields and communities across the country.

The most recent example is Monsanto's flagship herbicide, RoundUp. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization announced that glyphosate, the main ingredient in the most popular pesticide products on the planet, probably causes cancer. (http://www.panna.org/blog/roundup-cancer-future-food) Since its introduction, Monsanto marketed RoundUp as the "safer" alternative to more toxic herbicides like atrazine or 2,4-D.

RELATED: How Monsanto Could Get Even Bigger and More Powerful (http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-monsanto-could-get-even-bigger-and-more-powerful)

The lesson? Chemicals designed to kill weeds or insects are not likely to be healthy for humans. It's time to find a better way (http://www.panna.org/blog/agroecological-farming-for-the-win) to manage pests.

Mosquitoes, Too

Even when they carry diseases like malaria, insects are better managed without reliance on health-harming pesticides. Malaria is a deadly disease that remains a serious challenge in many countries in Africa. Experience around the world shows that the most effective malaria control programs directly involve the community in addressing the challenge with "integrated vector management" approaches, and tackle the underlying issues — like poverty and lack of access to health care.

Relying on "silver bullet" solutions like spraying DDT inside people's homes is not only less effective, but it also needlessly threatens the health of future generations. My colleague Dr. Abou Thiam of PAN Africa (http://www.panna.org/blog/guest-blog-toward-safer-malaria-control-solutions) shared his perspective on World Malaria Day this year:

"Significant progress is being made in many African countries in the fight against malaria, without the need to use DDT. It’s high time for a full-fledged transition toward safe, sustainable malaria control. Our children deserve nothing less."

Dr. Cohn's recent study underscores the importance of making this transition sooner than later, for the health of both this generation and those to come.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

EU Dropped Pesticide Laws Due to U.S. Pressure over TTIP, Documents Reveal (http://www.alternet.org/environment/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal)

Is Monsanto's Notorious Herbicide in Your Body? Now You Can Find Out (http://www.alternet.org/environment/worlds-first-public-testing-monsantos-glyphosate-launched)

Monsanto Herbicide Faces Global Fallout After World Health Organization Labels It a Probable Carcinogen (http://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-herbicide-faces-global-fallout-after-world-health-organization-labels-it)

Is the Federal Govt. Harassing and Censoring Its Own Scientists for Studying Ties Between Pesticides and Bee Deaths? (http://www.alternet.org/environment/usda-silencing-its-own-scientists-bee-killing-pesticide-research)

6 Natural Ingredients for Cleaning Your House Without Making It Toxic (http://www.alternet.org/environment/you-only-need-these-6-common-kitchen-ingredients-give-your-house-amazing-spring-cleaning)

Are You Ready for GMO Mosquitoes? (http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-mosquitoes-may-be-released-us-first-time)

deltoid tim l

From the people who gave you “CO2: We call it life (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/linking_and_laughing.php)“, we now have a website: “Rachel Carson: we call her a baby killer (http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/)“. They have pictures of children they allege Carson killed on every single page of the site.

And while they have several pages and thousands of words on DDT and on malaria, nowhere do they mention that mosquitoes can evolve resistance to DDT. And they conceal what Carson wrote about DDT and malaria (http://timlambert.org/2005/06/ddt10/):

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story – the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. …

What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. … Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. …

Practical advice should be ‘Spray as little as you possibly can’ rather than ‘Spray to the limit of your capacity’ …, Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

And she was right. Because DDT was widely used, mosquitoes evolved resistance. In Sri Lanka, for example, this lead to a worsening epidemic and hundreds of thousands of cases of malaria (http://timlambert.org/2005/02/malaria/)as DDT became ineffective. The ban on the agricultural use of DDT that Carson inspired saved lives by slowing the development of resistance (http://timlambert.org/2005/10/chapin-2/).

In conjunction with their Carson hate-site the CEI are also offering (http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05930.cfm) their expert, Angela Logomasini (she has a degree in politics, not malariology) for interviews about Rachel Carson’s legacy. You just know that some lazy reporters will balance their stories about Carson by quoting an environmentalist about great Carson was and then quoting Logomasini screeching about how Carson killed millions of people. And you just know that they won’t check Logomasini’s claims for accuracy.

Meanwhile lcv 9% Senator Tom Coburn has blocked a resolution to honour Rachel Carson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201574.html), accusing her of causing the death of millions of people. And CEI alumnus Ron Bailey joins the chorus with a post blaming Carson (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120362.html) for the deaths of millions from insect-borne diseases like malaria. In his post and in his articles he links, nowhere does he mention insecticide resistance or what Carson wrote about it. What a surprise.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/23/rachel-carson-kills-babies-org/

==

google suggests; "rachel carson ddt hoax"  note hoax key to climate denialism too

About 82,600 results (0.30 seconds

Search Results

1. ### Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/print/

www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/.../rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/

Sep 5, 2012 – The legacy of Rachel Carson is that tens of millions of human lives – mostly ... Exposing And Eradicating The Dark World Of Fake Pharmaceuticals ... Her observations about DDT have been condemned by many scientists.

2. ### Rep. Ed Markey: 50 Years After Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/50-years-after-rachel-car_b_1919597.html)

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../50-years-after-rachel-car_b_1919597.ht...

Sep 27, 2012 – Today marks the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. ... The product of four years worth of labor, Carson's Silent Spring carefully and ..... EXCLUSIVE: Man Allegedly Behind Joel Osteen Hoax Speaks Out ...

3. ### The Straight Dope: Was Rachel Carson a fraud and is DDT actually ... (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2428/was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actually-safe-for-humans)

www.straightdope.com/.../was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actua...

Dec 13, 2002 – Was Rachel Carson a fraud and is DDT actually safe for humans? According to Marjorie Mazel Hecht and [San Jose State University] professor ...

4. ### Setting the record straight on Rachel Carson, malaria and DDT ... (http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/setting-the-record-straight-on-rachel-carson-malaria-and-ddt/)

timpanogos.wordpress.com/.../setting-the-record-straight-on-rachel-c...

Jun 19, 2007 – Setting the record straight on Rachel Carson, malaria and DDT. The contemptible campaign of hoax and calumny against the work and ...

5. ### The American Spectator : DDT, Fraud, and Tragedy (http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy)

spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy

Feb 25, 2005 – Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about ...

1. ### The Spring is Silent on DDT - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily (http://mises.org/daily/2236)

mises.org/daily/2236

Jun 28, 2006 – A book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published in 1962, and it eventually created a fantastic backlash ... Indeed, it was a hoax.

2. ### The Lies of Rachel Carson (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html)

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring, I was delighted. ... I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is ...

3. ### How Important Was Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in the Recovery ... (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

www.scientificamerican.com Energy & Sustainability (http://www.scientificamerican.com/energy-and-sustainability) › EarthTalk (http://www.scientificamerican.com/section.cfm?id=earthtalk)

Aug 31, 2012 – Rachel Carson's seminal 1962 book, Silent Spring, told the real-life story of how bird populations across the country were suffering as a result ...

4. [PDF]

Gordon Edwards, Rachel Carson, and DDT - Nature and ... (http://www.new-cue.org/quetchenbach%20thoreau%20ASLE.pdf)

www.new-cue.org/quetchenbach%20thoreau%20ASLE.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VLZPKtC_HccJ:www.new-cue.org/quetchenbach%2520thoreau%2520ASLE.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjg-R9br6sNi6MvVS0FvyXcZub-Ms0cgD29iFpirCRjQiXe-1547l3chTUxw_Jd957A6ZcKQBdnsNhmcJHQHfgOinn8K_VW5EL43Ske6PC0Z_uEZgdHjezhBmvptfwq4bZLV4ko&sig=AHIEtbRnL-HUahcpY1so0JDdQWOwhGIlYg)

Gordon Edwards, Rachel Carson, and DDT. The late J. Gordon Edwards is the most initially appealing, substantial, and longest-standing of Carson's post-1962 ...

am thinker:

J.R. Dunn, consulting editor, has been involved in several fields of business including real estate, infotech, and PR. He managed a real estate corporation in Northern New Jersey for a decade beginning in the late '70s (think Glengarry Glen Ross). During the dot-com epoch, he worked at a pioneering Wall Street business database firm until 9/11 wiped out many of the company's clients. In recent years, he has worked for Novita, a New Jersey political PR agency.

As a writer, J.R. has published three critically acclaimed novels: This Side of Judgment (1994), Days of Cain (1997), and Full Tide of Night (1998). He has also published a number of shorts and articles in various magazines and anthologies.

Additionally, J.R. worked on the academic encyclopedia The International Military Encyclopedia (1992- ) as associate editor for twelve years.

His first book on politics deals with the inexplicably overlooked fact that liberal policies (criminal justice "reform," the CAFE standards, the DDT ban, etc.) tend to kill Americans by the tens of thousands. Provisionally titled Death by Liberalism, the book will be appearing later this year.

Op/Ed (http://www.forbes.com/opinions)

9/05/2012 @ 12:07PM |11,611 views

Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies

By Henry I. Miller (http://blogs.forbes.com/henrymiller/) and Gregory Conko

We recently passed the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s best-selling book, “Silent Spring. Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement, it was an emotionally charged but deeply flawed denunciation of the widespread spraying of chemical pesticides for the control of insects. Today, the book is still revered by many, but its legacy is anything but positive.

As detailed by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet very readable analysis, “Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic,” Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize “positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking.”Carson “encourages some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world.

Carson’s proselytizing and advocacy raised substantial anxiety about DDT and led to bans in most of the world and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides.  But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious academic misconduct.  Her observations about DDT have been condemned by many scientists.  In the words of Professor Robert H. White-Stevens, an agriculturist and biology professor at Rutgers University, “If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”

In 1992, San Jose State University (http://www.forbes.com/colleges/san-jose-state-university/) entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and a fellow of the California (http://www.forbes.com/places/ca/) Academy of Sciences, offered a persuasive and comprehensive rebuttal of “Silent Spring. As he explained in “The Lies of Rachel Carson,” a stunning, point by point refutation, “it simply dawned on me that that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about \pesticides] and that I was being duped along with millions of other Americans.”  He [demolished (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html) Carson’s arguments and assertions, calling attention to critical omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications.

Consider, for example, this passage from Edwards’ article: “This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false.  Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse effects.  Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.’ The World Health Organization stated that DDT had ‘killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.’”

In addition, DDT was used with dramatic effect to shorten and prevent typhus epidemics during and after WWII when people were dusted with large amounts of it but suffered no ill effects, which is perhaps the most persuasive evidence that the chemical is harmless to humans.  The product was such a boon to public health that in 1948 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr. Paul M ller for his discovery of the “contact insecticidal action” of DDT.

It is extraordinary that anyone in the mainstream scientific community could continue to embrace sentimental claptrap of “Silent Spring,” so we were surprised to see the commentary, “In Retrospect: Silent Spring,” in the scientific journal Nature in May by evolutionary biologist Rob Dunn.  Science is, after all, evidence-based, but Dunn’s puff piece is a flawed and repugnant whitewash of Carson’s failure to present actual evidence to support her assertions, and of the carnage that she caused.  It also demonstrates that Dunn knows little about the history or toxicology of DDT.

Although the use of DDT is not risk-free, there is a vast difference between applying large amounts of it in the environment — as farmers sometimes did before it was banned in the United States (http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/) — and using it carefully and sparingly to fight mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects, as it is used in a handful of African and Asian countries even today.  It is sprayed or dusted indoors in small amounts to prevent mosquitoes from nesting, so exposures are extremely low. The now well-known problems associated with the thinning of raptor’s eggshells– while always exaggerated – can be completely avoided by using DDT with care exclusively in residential areas, because the chemical remains largely near where it is sprayed.  No study has ever linked DDT environmental exposure to harm to human health. [DDT --> DDE breast cancer]

A basic principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison, and with modern regimens both environmental and human exposures would be very low.  But “Silent Spring” condemned essentially all use of chemical insecticides and rejected the firmly established principle that products with known but small risks can offset far larger risks and provide a net safety benefit.

Carson's disingenuous proselytizing spurred public pressure to ban DDT in many countries, with disastrous consequences: a lack of effective control of mosquitoes that carry malaria and other diseases.  Malaria imposes huge costs on individuals, families and governments.  It inflicts a crushing economic burden on malaria-endemic countries and impedes their economic growth.  A study by the Harvard University (http://www.forbes.com/colleges/harvard-university/) Center for International Development estimated that a high incidence of malaria reduces economic growth by 1.3 percentage points each year.  Compounded over the four decades since the first bans of DDT, that lost growth has made some of the world’s poorest countries an astonishing 40 percent poorer than had there been more effective mosquito control.

It is bad enough that the case against DDT was based on anecdote and innuendo, but Carson and Dunn and the regulators who banned DDT failed to consider the inadequacy of alternatives.  Because it persists after spraying, DDT works far better than many pesticides now in use, many of which are just as toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms.  And with DDT unavailable, many mosquito-control authorities are depleting their budgets by repeated spraying with expensive, short-acting and marginally effective insecticides.

Another advantage of DDT is that even when mosquitoes become resistant to its killing effects, they are still repelled by it.  An occasional dusting of window- and door-frames is extremely effective at keeping mosquitoes out of homes, schools, hospitals, and other buildings. When used in this way, the exploitation of DDT’s repellency also exposes people to lower amounts of insecticide than occurs with the only comparably effective alternative, bed nets soaked in various other pesticides.  Moreover, limited DDT spraying does its work at a fraction of the cost.

The legacy of Rachel Carson is that tens of millions of human lives – mostly children in poor, tropical countries have been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors.  This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century.  It is shocking that Dunn, an assistant professor of biology, remains ignorant of Carson’s shortcomings, and deplorable that university students are exposed to a scientist who manifests such ignorance and failure to respect the norms of science.  Likewise, Nature’s decision to publish Dunn s commentary reflects either an antiscientific bias or a failure of peer-review.

Neither Carson nor Dunn appears to appreciate the observation (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674089235) of political scientist and risk analysis expert Aaron Wildavsky that although it is bad to be harmed, it is worse to be harmed in the name of health.

*Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow of Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.  Gregory Conko is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

This article is available online at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/**

==

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html

c21

The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules   Our Climate (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09.pdf)

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

(Spring 2009) 

Malaysia’s Role in Defying the Coming Ice Age (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Viewpoint.pdf)

Mohd Peter Davis

Sea-level Expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: It's Not Rising! (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf) 

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf) Marjorie Mazel Hecht 

[Ocean Temperature and CO2: Global Climate Change Has Natural

Causes](http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/Natural_Climate_Change.pdf)by Lance Endersbee

(Winter 2007) 

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf)

by Zbigniew Jaworowski

(Spring-Summer 2007) 

True CO2 Record Buried Under Gore (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/True_CO2_Record.pdf)

by Laurence Hecht

The Coming (or Present) Ice Age (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/ComingPresentIceAge.pdf)

by Laurence Hecht(Winter 1993-1994)

An Oceanographer Looks at the (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf)

Non-Science of Global Warming (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf)by Robert Stevenson(Winter 1996

Global Warming: More Hot Air (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/global.html)

Spring 2004

The Ice Age Is Coming! (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf)Zbigniew Jaworowski(Winter 2003-2004)

Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html)’ 

Dr. Robert E. StevensonSummer 2000

The Global Warming Fraud

[Obama's Giant London-to-Chicago Climate Swindle: A Trillion Dollars

Per Fart](http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Climate_swindle.pdf)

IPCC Caught Lying Again—This  Time on Amazon Rain Forest (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Rain_forest_lies.pdf) 

The Banner Tow (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/fcuk_copenhagen.pdf) 

Silent Night—A Copenhagen Story (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Silent%20Night.pdf)

Deepest Solar Minimum in Nearly a Century:  Goodbye Global Warming (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Solar_Minimum.pdf)

Laurence Hecht

The Astounding High Cost of 'Free' Energy (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Energy_cost.pdf)Laurence Hecht

Why Windmills Can't Fly:The Non-Science of Wind Energy (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Windmills_cant_fly.pdf)Gregory Murphy

Is Nature Warning Us of a New Ice Age? (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/warning_ice_age.pdf)

Laurence Hecht

Windmills for Suckers:Pickens' Genocidal Plan (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Windmills.pdf)

How Gore's Solar Policy Kills (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Gore_solar_kills.pdf)

A Critical Review of the Draft U.S. Climate Change Report (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf)

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D, D.Sc.

Why Former Greenpeace Leader Supports Nuclear Energy (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_20-29/2008-20/pdf/58-63_3520.pdf)

A Conversation with Patrick Moore

Polar Bears Are Smarter Than Al Gore (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf)

Global Warming Science vs. Nonsense (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_nonsense.pdf)

Carbon Offsets Are Genocide (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_genocide.pdf) 

Global Warming Won't Spread Malaria (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_malaria.pdf)Interview with Paul Reiter, PhD

Computer Climate Models: Voodoo for Scientists (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_voodoo.pdf) 

r. a. maduro & no ozone problem

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/print/

The Lies of Rachel Carson

by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards [SJSU]

(Full text, without tables and illustrations, from the Summer 1992 21st Century)

A well-known entomologist documents some of the misstatements in Carson’s Silent Spring, the 1962 book that poisoned public opinion against DDT and other pesticides.

Entomologist

J. Gordon Edwards

In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring, I was delighted. I belonged to several environmental-type organizations, had no feelings of respect for industry or big business, had one of my own books published by the Sierra Club, and I had written articles for The Indiana Waltonian, Audubon Magazine, and other environmental magazines.

At the time, I had been engaged in field work at the University of Wyoming research station in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for three summers and I worked as biological coordinator for the National Park Service in Glacier National Park. I eagerly read the condensed version of Silent Spring in the New Yorker magazine and bought a copy of the book as soon as I could find it in the stores. As I read the first several chapters I noticed many statements that I realized were false; however, one can overlook such things when they are produced by one’s cohorts, and I did just that.

As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad.

Birds Vs. Human Deaths

I then took notice of her bibliography and realized that it was filled with references from very unscientific sources. Also, each reference was cited separately each time it appeared in the book, thus producing an impressive array of references” even though not many different sources were actually cited. I began to lose confidence in Rachel Carson, even though I thought that as an environmentalist I really should continue to support her.

I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. When leading scientists began to publish harsh criticisms of her methods and her allegations, it slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans.

As a result, I went back to the beginning of the book and read it all again, but this time my eyes were open and I was not lulled into believing that her motives were noble and that her statements could be supported by logic and by scientific fact. I wrote my comments down in rough draft style, and gathered together the scientific articles that refuted what Carson had reported the articles indicated. It was a most frustrating experience.

Finally, I began to join the detractors of Silent Spring, and when hearings were held to determine the fate of DDT in various states of this nation, I paid my own way to some of them so that I could testify against the efforts to ban that life-saving insecticide. It was gratifying to find that great numbers of scientists and health officials whom I had always held in high esteem were also testifying at those hearings, in defense of DDT and in opposition to the rising tide of antipesticide propaganda in environmental publications and in the media.

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dedication: A Lie

Dedication. In the front of the book, Carson dedicates Silent Spring as follows: “To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’”

This appears to indicate that the great man opposed the use of insecticides. However, in his autobiography Schweitzer writes, on page 262: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.” Upon reading his book, it is clear that Schweitzer was worried about nuclear warfare, not about the hazards from DDT!

Page 16. Carson says that before World War II, while developing agents of chemical warfare, it was found that some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were lethal to insects. “The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents of death for man.” Carson thus seeks to tie insecticides to chemical warfare. However, DDT was never tested as an “agent of death for man.” It was always known to be nonhazardous to humans! Her implication is despicable.

Page 16. Carson says the pre-war insecticides were simple inorganic insecticides but her examples include pyrethrum and rotenone, which are complex organic chemicals.

Page 17. Carson says arsenic is a carcinogen (identified from chimney soot) and mentions a great many horrible ways in which it is violently poisonous to vertebrates. She then says (page 18): “Modern insecticides are still more deadly,” and she makes a special mention of DDT as an example.

This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result.The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.”The World Health Organization stated that DDT had “killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” A leading British scientist pointed out that If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust.”

It is a travesty, therefore, if Rachel Carson’s all-out attack on DDT results in any programs lauding her efforts to ban DDT and other life-saving chemicals!

Page 18. Referring to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides (like DDT) and organophosphates (like malathion), Carson says they are all “built on a basis of carbon atoms, which are also the indispensable building blocks of the living world, and thus classed as organic.’ To understand them we must see how they are made, and how they lend themselves to the modifications which make them agents of death.”

Surely it is unfair of Carson to imply that all insecticides are “agents of death” for animals other than insects.

Page 21. After referring to untruthful allegations that persons ingesting as little as one tenth of a part per million (ppm) of DDT will then store “about 10 to 15 ppm,” Carson states that “such substances are so potent that a minute quantity can bring about vast changes in the body.” (She does not consider the metabolism and breakdown of DDT in humans and other vertebrates, and their excretion in urine, and so on, which prevents the alleged “biological magnification” up food chains from actually occurring.) Carson then states: “In animal experiments, 3 parts per million [of DDT] has been found to inhibit an essential enzyme in heart muscle; only 5 parts per million has brought about necrosis or disintegration of liver cells. ...” This implies that considerable harm to one’s health might result from traces of DDT in the diet, but there has been no medical indication that her statements are true.

On page 22, Carson adds, “... we know that the average person is storing potentially harmful amounts.” This is totally false!

Page 23. Carson says, “the Food and Drug Administration forbids the presence of insecticide residues in milk shipped in interstate commerce.” This is not true, either! The permissible level was 0.5 ppm in milk being shipped interstate.

Page 24. Carson says: “One victim who accidentally spilled a 25 percent industrial solution [of chlordane] on the skin developed symptoms of poisoning within 40 minutes and died before medical help could be obtained. No reliance can be placed on receiving advance warning which might allow treatment to be had in time.”

The actual details regarding this accident were readily available at the time, but Carson evidently chose to distort them. The accident occurred in 1949 in the chemical formulation plant, when a worker spilled a large quantity down the front of her body. The liquid contained 25 pounds of chlordane, 39 pounds of solvent, and 10 pounds of emulsifier (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 13, 1955). Carson’s reference to this as a “25 percent solution” spilled on the skin certainly underplays the severity of that drenching, which was the only account known of such a deadly contamination during the history of chlordane formulation.[so actually 33%?]

Page 28. Carson refers to the origin of organophosphate insecticides like parathion (the insecticide that EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus recommended as the substitute for DDT). She states that the insecticidal properties of organophosphates were “discovered by a German chemist, Gerhard Schrader, in the late 1930s” and that “Some became the deadly nerve gases. Others, of closely allied structure, became insecticides.”

Actually, the insecticides of that nature were not discovered until after World War II (15 years later than Carson implied) and the similarity of insecticides to the dreaded nerve gases was greatly exaggerated by Carson. Carson’s attempt to spread terror about beneficial insecticides becomes even more vicious:

Pages 36-37. Carson says: “Among the herbicides are some that are classed as ‘mutagens,’ or agents capable of modifying the genes, the materials of heredity. We are rightly appalled by the genetic effects of radiation; how then can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment?”

Carson’s comparison between “radiation?" and common herbicides is despicable, for there is a tremendous difference between their mutagenic potentials.

Page 40. Carson claims that “an appalling deluge of chemical pollution is daily poured into the nation’s waterways,” that “Most of them are so stable that they cannot be broken down by ordinary processes,” and that “Often they cannot even be identified.”

These are obviously overstatements designed to worry the reader by using frightening words and intimating that nobody knows what death-dealing chemicals are in the average person’s drinking water. Of course, if they can be detected, they can be identified. The amount of pollutants entering the drinking water of the country was repeatedly analyzed by experts and was found to be below levels that might cause human illness in homes. Carson’s scare-mongering statements would fit more appropriately in the pages of today’s supermarket tabloids.

Pages 50-51. Carson writes that: “Arsenic, the environmental substance most clearly established as causing cancer in man, is involved in two historic cases in which polluted water supplies caused widespread occurrence of cancer.”

I have seen no proof that arsenic causes cancer in humans, and it is known to occur naturally in most kinds of shellfish and other marine life. And, if she were really concerned about public health, Carson should have rejoiced to see that relatively harmless insecticides like DDT were capable of replacing arsenicals and other poisonous inorganic materials!

Page 78. Referring to weeds” (which are such foes of healthy crops that they must be decimated before the crops can mature and be harvested, Carson states: “Presumably the weed is taking something from the soil; perhaps it is also contributing something to it.”

She is obviously correct about weeds taking something from the soil as every gardener knows by sad experience, but it takes a tremendous stretch of the imagination to suggest that weeds are desirable in fields of crops!

Carson then refers to a city park in Holland where the soil around the roses was heavily infested by nematodes. Planting marigolds among the roses resulted in the death of the nematodes, she claims, and the roses then flourished. No reference was cited. Based on this unsubstantiated story, Carson concludes that “other plants that we ruthlessly eradicate may be performing a function that is necessary to the health of the soil.”

So, soil with nematodes was just unhealthy anyway, but fields where weeds have crowded out the food crops had healthier soil even before crops were planted? Everyone who personally grows desirable plants will surely disagree with her!

Page 80. Carson says: Crabgrass exists only in an unhealthy lawn. It is a symptom, not a disease in itself. When the soil is healthy and fertile it is an environment in which crabgrass cannot grow, she says, because other grasses will prevent it from surviving.

Persons who have had crabgrass invade their beautiful lawn will quite rightly object to this wild unsubstantiated statement.

“Astonishing amounts of crabgrass killers” are placed on lawns each year, including mercury, arsenic, and chlordane, she says, relishing the stupidity of nurserymen who have a lifetime of experience. She then cites examples where they “apply 60 pounds of technical chlordane to the acre if they follow directions. If they use another of the many available products, they are applying 175 pounds of metallic arsenic to the acre [highly questionable]. The toll of dead birds is distressing. ... How lethal these lawns may be for human beings is unknown.”

Page 85. Carson says we are “adding... a new kind of havoc—the direct killing of birds, mammals, fishes, and indeed practically every form of wildlife by chemical insecticides indiscriminately sprayed on the land.”

Is it possible that Carson was unaware of the great increases in mammals and game birds harvested by hunters during the years of greatest use of the modern insecticides to which she objects? Is it possible that she was unaware of the tremendous increases in most kinds of North American birds, as documented year after year by participants in the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts? (That abundance was proven by the numbers of birds counted, per observer, on those counts.) The major things that limited numbers of fish during the ”DDT years” was the increasing competition among hordes of fishermen, the damming of multitudes of streams, and the sewage produced by our burgeoning population of healthy, well-fed American people.

Instead of recognizing and appreciating these documented increases of wildlife, Carson says bitterly (page 85): “[Nothing must get in the way of the man with the spray gun. ... The incidental victims of his crusade against insects count as nothing; if robins, pheasants, raccoons, cats, or even livestock happen to inhabit the same bit of earth as the target insects and to be hit by the rain of insect-killing poisons no one must protest.”

Page 87. Carson bemoans the efforts to control the Japanese beetles in Detroit in 1959, saying, “Little need was shown for this drastic and dangerous action.” She then says that a naturalist in Michigan, who she claimed was very well informed, stated that the Japanese beetle had been present in Detroit for more than 30 years. (No entomologist had ever seen one there.) Carson’s naturalist also said that the beetles had not increased there during all that time.

Perhaps she misquoted the naturalist, or perhaps he was just lying, or maybe he simply did not recognize the local Strigoderma beetles that faintly resemble Japanese beetles. Certainly it is impossible that the voracious Japanese beetles were actually present there for 30 years, remaining hidden from all entomologists and home-owners! Everywhere those beetles have invaded they quickly multiplied to a pest status within a few years, causing tremendous damage to flowers, fruits, and (as larvae) destroying the roots of grasses and other plants. Even Rachel Carson should not expect us to believe that in Detroit they displayed entirely different behavior. ...

Page 88. Regarding those Japanese beetles, Carson said that the midwestern states “have launched an attack worthy of the most deadly enemy instead of only a moderately destructive insect.” Thousands of residents of the eastern United States laughed at that ridiculous statement because they had personally experienced the devastation caused by the beetles and their larvae. Incredibly, Carson insisted (page 96) that the Japanese beetle by 1945 “had become a pest of only minor importance. ...”

Page 97. Carson discusses the use of spores of milky disease” placed in the soil to kill the beetle larvae, and expresses tremendous confidence in the ability of that bacterium to eradicate them there. As to why they did not fight the epidemic in Michigan by simply using these spores, she explains that it was considered too expensive.

Carson reveals with pleasure the fact that they infect at least 40 other species of beetles, but expresses no concern for environmental harm caused by such a broad-spectrum killer of native insects. To the contrary, on page 99 she attacks the use of pesticides because they “... are not selective poisons; they do not single out the one species of which we desire to be rid.” Evidently she felt that it was all right for bacteria to be broad spectrum poisons, but that pesticides must affect only a single target.

Birds Vs. Human Deaths

Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”

Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”

Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.

Page 106. In Lansing, Michigan, a spray program began in l954 against the bark beetles that were transmitting Dutch Elm disease. Carson states “[With local programs for gypsy moth and mosquito control also under way, the rain of chemicals increased to a downpour.” She expresses no concern for the survival of the magnificent elm trees, the dying oak trees, or the torment of people who lived near hordes of blood-sucking mosquitoes, but has tremendous pity for a few birds that had disappeared from the sprayed areas. These positions brought her very little support from the residents.

Carson praises Michigan State University ornithologist George Wallace, who had theorized that robins on the campus were dying because they had eaten earthworms containing DDT from the soil. Many other areas sprayed with DDT did not have dying robins, but Carson studiously avoids mentioning that. Wallace also did not mention the high levels of mercury on the ground and in the earthworms (from soil fungicide treatments on the Michigan campus), even though the symptoms displayed by the dying robins were those attributable to mercury poisoning. Instead, Wallace (and Carson) sought to blame only DDT for the deaths.

The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.

In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages on unfounded allegations about DDT and various kinds of birds.

Page 109. Carson alleges that because of the spray programs, Heavy mortality has occurred among about 90 species of birds, including those most familiar to suburbanites and amateur naturalists. ... All the various types of birds are affected—ground feeders, treetop feeders, bark feeders, predators.”

Carson provides no references to confirm that allegation. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, in fact, continued to reveal that more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest “DDT years,” including those types that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. When marshes were sprayed with DDT to control the mosquitoes, a common result was a population explosion of birds inhabiting the marshes. The increases evidently occurred because of a reduction in bird diseases that were formerly transmitted by local blood-sucking insects, greater abundance of available food (less plant destruction by insects), and increased quantities of hepatic enzymes produced by the birds as a result of ingesting DDT (these enzymes destroy cancer-causing aflatoxins in birds and other vertebrates).

The flocks of birds—such as red-winged blackbirds—that were produced by the millions in marshes that had been sprayed with DDT caused tremendous damage to grain crops in Ohio and elsewhere. Such destruction was not desirable, and if Carson had complained about that nobody could have criticized her for it. Instead, she attempted to convince the readers that spraying the marshes caused the death of the birds nesting there, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Page 111. Carson says: “All of the treetop feeders, the birds that glean their insect food from the leaves, have disappeared from heavily sprayed areas. ...

Insecticides temporarily eliminate some insects from sprayed areas, and before others can move in the insectivorous birds cannot find much food there. Carson said the birds had disappeared, and not that they had been killed. She later even admitted that their scarcity could be caused by “lack of insects because of spray.”

Page 118. Carson writes: “Like the robin, another American bird seems to be on the verge of extinction. This is the national symbol, the eagle.”

In that very same year, 1962, the leading ornithologist in North America also mentioned the status of the robin. That authority was Roger Tory Peterson, who asked in his Life magazine Nature library book, The Birds, “What is North America’s number one bird?” He then pointed out that it was the robin! The Audubon Christmas Bird Count in 1941 (before DDT) was 19,616 robins (only 8.41 seen per observer)—see Table 1. Compare that with the 1960 count of 928,639 robins (or 104.01 per observer). The total was 12 times more robins seen per observer after all those years of DDT and other “modern pesticide” usage. Carson had to avoid all references to such surveys or her thesis would have been disproved by the evidence.

Page 119.: Carson spends two pages discussing the Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, counts of migrating raptorial birds. Table 2 summarizes the actual total counts of raptors made there during the years before and during the greatest usage of DDT in North America. Obviously, very few of them decreased in numbers during those years. The numbers of migrating hawks (and eagles) increased from 9,29l in 1946 to 16,163 in 1963, but with considerable fluctuation in intervening years.

Page 120. Carson explains the lack of young birds by saying: “... [The reproductive capacity of the birds has been so lowered by some environmental agent that there are now almost no annual additions of young to maintain the race. Exactly this sort of situation has been produced artificially in other birds by various experimenters, notably Dr. James DeWitt of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments on the effects of a series of insecticides on quail and pheasants have established the fact that exposure to DDT or related chemicals, even when doing no observable harm to the parent birds, may seriously affect reproduction. ... For example, quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched [emphasis added].

Carson gives no indication of how many might be considered as “few eggs hatching.” Perhaps she thought that her readers would never see the rather obscure journal in which DeWitt’s results were published in 1956, the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Otherwise, she surely would not have so badly misrepresented DeWitt’s results! The dosage he fed the quail was 100 parts per million in all their food every day, which was roughly 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of the greatest DDT use!

The quail did not just hatch “a few” of their eggs, as DeWitt’s data clearly reveal (Table 3). As the published data from DeWitt’s experiments show, the “controls” (those quail with no DDT) hatched 83.9 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed quail hatched 75 to 80 percent of theirs. I would not call an 80 percent hatch “few,” especially when the controls hatched only 83.9 percent of their eggs.

Carson either did not read DeWitt’s article, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt s experiments on pheasants, which were published on the same page. The “controls” hatched only 57.4 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed pheasants, (dosed with 50 ppm of DDT in all of their food during the entire year) hatched 80.6 percent of theirs. After two weeks, the DDT chicks had 100 percent survival, while the control chicks only had 94.8 percent survival, and after 8 weeks the DDT chicks had 93.3 percent survival while the control chicks only had 89.7 percent survival. It was false reporting such as this that caused so many leading scientists in the United States to take Rachel Carson to task.

Page 122. Carson says various birds have been storing up the DDT in the tissues of their bodies. “And like the grebes, the pheasants, the quail, and the robins, they are less and less able to produce young and to preserve the continuity of their race.”

According to DeWitt’s work, which Carson cited as her source, the birds that were fed exceedingly high levels of DDT every day hatched nearly as many of their eggs (in quail) to 27 percent more of their eggs (in pheasants). The great increases in the numbers of robins were documented in the comments above, in reference to page 118. Carson’s claim, therefore, that those three kinds of birds are less and less able to produce young is remarkably false—and insulting to the reader.

Page 125. Carson writes: “‘Pheasant sickness’ became a well-known phenomenon: birds seek water, become paralyzed and are found on the ditch banks and rice checks quivering,’ according to one observer” [emphasis added]. “One observer” is not very credible as a source of scientific information. Is this the best source a science writer like Rachel Carson could supply?

Carson cited Robert L. Rudd and Richard E. Genelly, in an article in The Condor magazine, as the source for the information that follows: “The sickness’ comes in the spring, at the time the rice fields are seeded.” This statement is misleading. The sickness may have come in the spring, but it was not in the rice fields. Instead, it was in outdoor pens where the birds were held captive, and all of their food contained rice “treated at the rate of one and one-half pounds of DDT per 100 pounds.” Rudd and Genelly state in The Condor (March 1955): “This value is equivalent to 15,000 parts per million DDT in the diet.”

This amount represents the highest dosage of DDT I have ever heard of in any experimental animal, and I cannot understand why they would use such an extreme concentration. This means that 1.5 percent of every bite of food was “poison.”

And what were the results of this remarkable feeding experiment? As reported in Condor, page 418, four of the birds died “after four or five days” with severe tremors. One died on the tenth day, but never showed any symptoms prior to death. The remaining seven pheasants survived and five of them showed no symptoms. One of the survivors had “slight tremors” and the other had “slight incoordination.” This is a remarkable lack of poisoning, considering the astronomical amount of DDT in their food! I could only surmise that the survivors must have eaten very little of the poisoned food. (Rudd did not measure the amounts ingested, but simply placed the food in the pen.)

Carson writes that “the concentration of DDT used [in the fields] is many times the amount that will kill an adult pheasant.” In his article, Rudd concluded that it was “clear that DDT-treated grain is or can be lethal to grain-eating birds,” but he also stated, “This mortality may be entirely eliminated by applying chemical and seed separately” (emphasis added). It appears that Carson’s misleading report of Rudd’s conclusion was designed to deceive the reader regarding DDT hazards in the environment.

The text continues in this vein for another 172 pages, with chapter heads such as “Rivers of Death,” ”The Human Price,” “The Rumblings of an Avalanche,” and “Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias.” I trust that this partial analysis of Carson’s deceptions, false statements, horrible innuendoes, and ridiculous allegations in the first 125 pages of Silent Spring will indicate why so many scientists expressed opposition, antagonism, and perhaps even a little rage after reading Carson’s diatribe. No matter how deceitful her prose, however, the influence of Carson s Silent Spring has been very great and it continues 30 years later to shape environmentalist propaganda and fund-raising as well as U.S. policy.

J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 43 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.

Read Editorial: Bring Back DDT!

Purchase Special DDT collection: 4 21st Century articles

MILLOY obit: 

Millions in the third world die from malaria every year in large part because of a virtual ban on the controversial insecticide DDT.

The removal of the unwarranted stigma from DDT and the saving of many future lives is now nearer at hand than it has been in the last 30 years thanks to the efforts of Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, who passed away on July 19 at the age of 85.

Though Dr. Edwards is best known to the general public as the author of the now-classic 1961 book "A Climber's Guide to Glacier National Park," his work as an entomologist and professor at San Jose State University may prove to be his most important legacy.

Dr. Edwards led the opposition to environmental extremist efforts to ban DDT in the wake of Rachel Carson's infamous 1962 book "Silent Spring." The testimony of Dr. Edwards and others during Environmental Protection Agency hearings in 1971 on whether to ban the insecticide led to an EPA administrative law judge ruling that, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Inexplicably — or so it seemed — DDT was nonetheless banned by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus. Dr. Edwards investigated and uncovered disturbing statements and troubling connections between Ruckleshaus and anti-DDT environmental extremist groups.

In a May 1971 speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshausacknowledged being a member of the anti-DDT National Audubon Society and to have "streamlined" EPA procedures so that DDT could be banned even before the administrative hearings had been completed.

After Ruckleshaus left the EPA, he began fundraising for the Environmental Defense Fund, a spin-off of the National Audubon Society and the lead petitioner to have EPA ban DDT.

The probability that Ruckleshaus had made up his mind to ban DDT regardless of the facts is increased by his refusal of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act [ok 1966]and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to turn over the documentation on which the ban was based.

Dr. Edwards subsequently got into litigation with the New York Times and Audubon Society over DDT.

Perhaps the most well-known allegation about DDT was that the insecticide supposedly caused declines in the populations of birds such as the bald eagle.[even HI Miller concedes?!)

Dr. Edwards knew this was wrong. He knew that these bird populations had declined decades before DDT had ever been used. More importantly, the bird populations were actually rebounding during the years of peak DDT use, according to bird counts.

In an April 1972 edition of American Birds, a National Audubon Society magazine, anti-DDT editor Robert S. Arbib, Jr.,accused a "certain paid scientist spokesman" of lyingabout higher bird counts. No scientists were mentioned by name.

On Aug. 14, 1972, the New York Times recounted Arbib's accusations in a story entitled "Pesticide Spokesman Accused of Lying on Higher Bird Counts." At the urging of the Times' reporter, Arbib named five scientists, including Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Edwards and two others filed suit for libel against the National Audubon Society and the Times. In July 1976, a jury decided that, though the National Audubon Society was not liable, the Times was. [logic? times source was audubon]The jury found the Times article's statements were clearly libelous and made with "malice."

The verdict against the Times was overturned in May 1977 by Judge Irving Kaufman on the grounds that the newspaper was justified in reporting the charges because they were "newsworthy" and that it did not matter that the Times had serious doubts about their truth.[hmm]

Kaufman, as it turns out, was also a close personal friend of the then-publisher of the Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger.

An interesting by-product of the trial was evidence that discussions had been held at the Environmental Defense Fund concerning ways to silence and discredit the defenders of DDT like Dr. Edwards.

I met Dr. Edwards in the 1990s while researching the DDT controversy.We collaboratedin 1999 on the fact sheet "100 Things You Should Know About DDT." (http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm)

Since then, there have been growing rumblings of a rehabilitation for DDT. Public health professionals andnon-governmental organizations, notably Africa Fighting Malaria,stepped up efforts to increase the use of DDT.[driessen]EXXON FUNDING

Now, even the New York Times has seen the light, running a pro-DDT editorial on Dec. 23, 2002 ("Fighting Malaria with DDT), a pro-DDT op-ed column on Aug. 7, 2003 (Is there a place for DDT?") and, most recently, a pro-DDT New York Times Magazine article on April 11, 2004. ("What the World Needs Now is DDT").

Dr. Edwards lived long enough to see the New York Times do a "180" on DDT. It's too bad he didn't live long enough to see a more meaningful payoff for his persistence, namely successful malaria control and eradication — and millions of lives saved. It will be up to the rest of us to fulfill Dr. Edwards' legacy.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com (http://www.junkscience.com/), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of " Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930865120/junksciencecom)" (Cato Institute, 2001)

21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041 Phone: (703) 777-6943 Fax: (703) 771-9214

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com 2005

==

2x table

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2013/0413_frankfurt/ross.html

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor-in-Chief 

Jason Ross

Managing Editor 

Marsha Freeman

Associate Editors 

Elijah C. Boyd 

David Cherry 

Christine Craig 

Liona Fan-Chiang 

Colin M. Lowry 

Gregory B. Murphy 

Richard Sanders 

Charles B. Stevens

Art Directors 

Eric Thomas 

Alan Yue

Advertising Manager 

Marsha Freeman

Staff Writers 

Benjamin Deniston 

Creighton Jones 

Meghan Rouillard

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD 

Francesco Celani, Ph.D. 

:{Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. 

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.}:

Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. 

Ramtanu Maitra 

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Ph.D.

21st Century Science & Technology (ISSN 0895-6820) is published 4 times a year by 21st Century Science Associates, 60 Sycolin Road, Suite 203, Leesburg, Va. 20175. Tel. (703) 777-6943.

Address all correspondence to 21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041.

21st Century is dedicated to the promotion of unending scientific progress, all directed to serve the proper common aims of mankind. Opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of 21st Century Science Associates or the scientific advisory board. We are not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts.

--

 is associated with ~9,701,606 domains 

Registrar

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Registrar Status

clientTransferProhibited

Dates

Created on 1999-10-23 - Expires on 2016-10-23 - Updated on 2009-09-09

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Name Server(s)

A.DNS.HOSTWAY.NET (has 122,292 domains)

B.DNS.HOSTWAY.NET (has 122,292 domains)

IP Address

207.150.209.193 is hosted on a dedicated server

(http://reverseip.domaintools.com/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

IP Location

 - Florida - Fort Lauderdale - Affinity Internet Inc

ASN

 AS20401 HOSTWAY-1 - Hostway Corporation,US (registered May 03, 2001)

Domain Status

Registered And Active Website

Whois History

76 records have been archived since 2001-08-25

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

IP History

5 changes on 3 unique IP addresses over 9 years

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Registrar History

1 registrar

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Hosting History

1 change on 2 unique name servers over 5 years

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Whois Server

whois.networksolutions.com

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2013/0413_frankfurt/ross.html

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor-in-Chief 

Jason Ross

Managing Editor 

Marsha Freeman

Associate Editors 

Elijah C. Boyd 

David Cherry 

Christine Craig 

Liona Fan-Chiang 

Colin M. Lowry 

Gregory B. Murphy 

Richard Sanders 

Charles B. Stevens

Art Directors 

Eric Thomas 

Alan Yue

Advertising Manager 

Marsha Freeman

Staff Writers 

Benjamin Deniston 

Creighton Jones 

Meghan Rouillard

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD 

Francesco Celani, Ph.D. 

:{Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. 

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.}:

Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. 

Ramtanu Maitra 

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Ph.D.

21st Century Science & Technology (ISSN 0895-6820) is published 4 times a year by 21st Century Science Associates, 60 Sycolin Road, Suite 203, Leesburg, Va. 20175. Tel. (703) 777-6943.

Address all correspondence to 21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041.

21st Century is dedicated to the promotion of unending scientific progress, all directed to serve the proper common aims of mankind. Opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of 21st Century Science Associates or the scientific advisory board. We are not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts.

--

 is associated with ~9,701,606 domains 

Registrar

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Registrar Status

clientTransferProhibited

Dates

Created on 1999-10-23 - Expires on 2016-10-23 - Updated on 2009-09-09

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Name Server(s)

A.DNS.HOSTWAY.NET (has 122,292 domains)

B.DNS.HOSTWAY.NET (has 122,292 domains)

IP Address

207.150.209.193 is hosted on a dedicated server

(http://reverseip.domaintools.com/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

IP Location

 - Florida - Fort Lauderdale - Affinity Internet Inc

ASN

 AS20401 HOSTWAY-1 - Hostway Corporation,US (registered May 03, 2001)

Domain Status

Registered And Active Website

Whois History

76 records have been archived since 2001-08-25

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/search/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

IP History

5 changes on 3 unique IP addresses over 9 years

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Registrar History

1 registrar

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Hosting History

1 change on 2 unique name servers over 5 years

(http://www.domaintools.com/research/hosting-history/?q=21stcenturysciencetech.com)

Whois Server

whois.networksolutions.com

Judge Irving Kaufman, of Rosenberg Spy Trial and Free-Press Rulings, Dies at 81

By MARILYN BERGER

Published: February 03, 1992

Judge Irving R. Kaufman, who gained national attention in 1951 as thejudge who sentenced Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair and who wrote landmark decisions in First Amendment, antitrust and civil rights cases for more than 30 years on the Federal bench, died on Saturday night in the Mount Sinai Medical Center.

He was 81 years old and lived in Manhattan. Judge Kaufman died of pancreatic cancer, his family said.

Irving Kaufman was appointed to the Federal bench by President Harry S. Truman in 1949 and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. He was chief judge of the circuit court in Manhattan for seven years. He formally retired from his judicial seat in 1987 but was designated a senior judge and remained active on the court until his recent illness.

It was Judge Kaufman's hope that he would be remembered for his role not in the Rosenberg case, the espionage trial of the century, but as the judge whose order was the first to desegregate a public school in the North; who was instrumental in streamlining court procedures, who rendered innovative decisions in antitrust law and, most of all, whoserulings expanded the freedom of the press.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/03/nyregion/judge-irving-kaufman-of-rosenberg-spy-trial-and-free-press-rulings-dies-at-81.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Of the opinions written by Judge Kaufman involving the First Amendment, these were among the most important:

*Edwards v. the National Audubon Society (1977), in which he wrote that a newspaper does not commit libel by fairly and accurately reporting accusatory statements by a responsible public organization, even if the statements are clearly defamatory and false.... DOES THAT MEAN HE FOUND NYT WAS FALSE?

floyd abrams for NYT?

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.

Argued May 10, 1977.

Decided May 25, 1977.

Floyd Abrams, New York City (Eugene R. Scheiman, Ruth D. MacNaughton, and Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant New York Times Co.

Morris Zweibel, Mineola, N. Y. (Gifford, Woody, Carter & Hays, New York City, and Crowe, McCoy, Agoglia, Fogarty & Zweibel, P.C., Mineola, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellant Roland C. Clement.

Thomas A. Rothwell, Washington, D. C. (Arthur H. Berndtson, and Rothwell, Capello & Berndtson, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, CLARK, Associate Justice* (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html#fn-s) and JAMESON, District Judge. (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html#fn-s-s)

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Chief Judge:

1

In a society which takes seriously the principle that government rests upon the consent of the governed, freedom of the press must be the most cherished tenet. It is elementary that a democracy cannot long survive unless the people are provided the information needed to form judgments on issues that affect their ability to intelligently govern themselves. As we said in James v. Board of Education, 461 F.2d 566, 572, "To preserve the 'marketplace of ideas' so essential to our system of democracy, we must be willing to assume the risk of argument and lawful disagreement." In the thirteen years since New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the federal courts have steadfastly sought to afford broad protection to expression by the media, without unduly sacrificing the individual's right to be free of unjust damage to his reputation. See, e. g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 91 S.Ct. 633, 28 L.Ed.2d 45 (1971); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). This important case requires us to return again to this task.

2

We are invited today to affirm a libel judgment against the New York Times for accurately reporting dramatic statements of the National Audubon Society attacking the good faith of prominent scientists supporting continued use of the insecticide DDT. There can be little doubt that the Times reasonably considered these accusations of a leading environmentalist organization to be newsworthy. We are further requested to affirm judgments against Roland Clement, a Vice-President of the Society, despite the absence of any evidence in the record that he endorsed or made the single statement that could be found to have been libelous under the Constitution. We are convinced that the First Amendment requires us to decline these invitations. Accordingly we will reverse and order the complaint dismissed.

I.

3

A brief summary of the facts is indispensable to understanding the difficult legal issues presented by this appeal.

4

The DDT debate. The publication fifteen years ago of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring set off a furious controversy that, even today, continues to rage around the insecticide DDT. Naturalists and environmentalist groups like the National Audubon Society have vigorously opposed DDT because, in their view, use of the chemical endangers bird life. Proponents of the pesticide deny this charge and forcefully urge that, without DDT, millions of human beings will die of insect-carried diseases and starvation caused by the destruction of crops by insect pests.

5

As might be expected when such fundamental questions of value enter the debate, at times the DDT controversy has exceeded the limits of temperance and good manners. Naturalists have insinuated that many proponents of DDT are unduly influenced by the selfish interests of the pesticide industry. On the other hand, such an outstanding advocate of DDT as appellee Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, has characterized a ban on export of the insecticide, supported by the Audubon Society, as "deliberately genocidal."1 (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html#fn1) Accusations of scientific bad faith have unfortunately become almost commonplace on both sides.

6

Arbib's "Foreword" to American Birds. The scientists who advocate continued use of DDT respond to charges that the chemical destroys bird life by citing the annual Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count, which shows a steady increase in bird sightings despite the growing employment of pesticides in the last thirty years. The Audubon Society believes this is an invalid use of its statistics because there are many more bird counters now and because bird watchers have grown more skilful in recent years with better access to observation areas. This dispute over the interpretation of the Society's statistics lies at the heart of the controversy over DDT's threat to bird life.

7

By 1972 the DDT controversy was raging at peak intensity,2 (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html#fn2) and the Audubon Society was acutely alarmed at what it considered the persistent misuse of its Bird Count data. Accordingly, Robert S. Arbib, Jr., a highly respected amateur ornithologist and editor of the Society's publication American Birds, determined to preface his report of the 1971 Christmas Count with a warning against distortion of the results. His foreword to the April, 1972, issue of American Birds, contained the following comment on the Count's significance:

8

We are well aware that segments of the pesticide industry and certain paid "scientist-spokesmen" are citing Christmas Bird Count totals (and other data in AMERICAN BIRDS) as proving that the bird life of North America is thriving, and that many species are actually increasing despite the widespread and condemned use of DDT and other non-degradable hydrocarbon pesticides.

9

This, quite obviously, is false and misleading, a distortion of the facts for the most self-serving of reasons. The truth is that many species high on the food chain, such as most bird-eating raptors and fisheaters, are suffering serious declines in numbers as a direct result of pesticide contamination; [sjsu entomolgist?]there is now abundant evidence to prove this. In addition, with the constant diminution of natural habitat, especially salt- and freshwater marshes, it is self-evident that species frequenting these habitats are less common than formerly.

10

The apparent increases in numbers of species and individuals on the Christmas Bird Counts have, in most cases, nothing to do with real population dynamics. They are the result of ever-increasing numbers of birders in the field, better access to the Count areas, better knowledge of where to find the birds within each area, and increasing sophistication in identification.

11

With increased local coverage by the press of Christmas Bird Count activities, it is important that Count spokesmen reiterate the simple and truthful fact that what we are seeing is result of not more birds, but more birders. Any time you hear a "scientist" say the opposite, you are in the presence of someone who is being paid to lie, or is parroting something he knows little about.

12

Despite the potentially explosive character of the allegation that scientists supporting DDT were paid liars, Arbib does not appear to have had any factual basis for the charge. Indeed, he testified that his comment was never intended to portray anyone in particular as a venal prevaricator; rather, it merely expressed his belief that many supporters of DDT use were spokesmen for the pesticide industry.

13

The New York Times Article. Arbib's general accusations came to the attention of New York Times nature reporter John Devlin in late July, 1972. Devlin immediately realized that the Audubon Society's charges were a newsworthy development in the already acrimonious DDT debate, and he accordingly telephoned Arbib to obtain the names of those the Society considered "paid liars". Arbib was initially reluctant to identify any individuals as the people referred to in his article. But, as a result of Devlin's persistent urging that many eminent persons associated with the pesticide industry might be hurt unnecessarily by the Society's indiscriminate attack, Arbib eventually promised to furnish the names of specific individuals whom he felt were justly subject to the Society's charges.

14

Arbib, of course, did not know of anyone in particular whom he could with assurance call a "paid liar". He turned, therefore, to Roland Clement, the Audubon Society's Staff Biologist and Vice-President, who more than any other official of the naturalist organization had embroiled himself in the DDT controversy and had knowledge of its participants. Arbib testified that Clement strongly emphasized he could not call anyone specifically a paid liar. He could, however, identify those who had most persistently misused Bird Count data, despite the Society's efforts to point out their error. Clement told Arbib he had just completed an article for an environmentalist journal which listed the scientists whose distortion of the Audubon statistics seemed most egregious,3 (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/556/556.F2d.113.77-7034.77-7018.1026.1027.html#fn3) and, in Arbib's words,

15

he believed it would be all right to give the names to Mr. Devlin as long as we qualified this by saying 'We don't have any knowledge of anyone being paid liars, and all we want to say is that they have been consistent misinterpretors of the information in American Birds.'

16

:{:{When Devlin telephoned again for the names, Arbib was prepared with Clement's article. But, Devlin and Arbib sharply disagreed at trial regarding the ensuing conversation. Arbib insisted that he conveyed, in essence, Clement's warning that the scientists discussed in Clement's article were not necessarily "paid liars". Devlin flatly denied that Arbib so cautioned him. He testified that Arbib made it clear that the scientists whose names were furnished to the Times were the persons referred to in Arbib's "Foreword" to American Birds.}:

The list included the names of the appellees Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, Professor of Entomology at San Jose State College in California, Dr. Thomas M. Jukes, Professor of Medical Physics and Lecturer in Nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Robert H. White-Stevens, Professor of Biology at The Rutgers University in New Jersey as well as Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug and Dr. Donald Spencer, a lecturer of the National Agricultural Chemical Association. All of the accused were eminent scientists, though none were ornithologists.}:

17

Upon receiving these names from Arbib, Devlin attempted to secure comments from each of the five accused. He succeeded in reaching three: Dr. White-Stevens, Dr. Jukes, and Dr. Spencer. All of these scientists categorically denied the charges, and Dr. Spencer even referred to them as "almost libelous". Dr. White-Stevens and Dr. Jukes, in addition, sent Devlin voluminous supporting materials setting forth their side of the DDT debate. None of this material, however, responded directly to the Audubon Society's criticism of the use of Bird Count data by these scholars; it dealt almost entirely with the general merits of the pesticide controversy.

18

Having thus in good faith elicited both sides of the story to the best of his ability, Devlin wrote the article which is the sole ground for the libel judgment against the Times and the principal basis for the judgment against Clement. Devlin's story was published in the Times on August 14, 1972.

19

Pesticide Spokesmen Accused Of 'Lying' on Higher Bird Count

By JOHN DEVLIN

20

"Segments of the pesticide industry and certain 'scientist-spokesmen,' " are accused in the current issue of American Birds of "lying" by saying that bird life in America is thriving despite the use of DDT.

21

The publication is sponsored by the National Audubon Society in collaboration with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The delayed current issue is devoted principally to results of the 72d Christmas Bird Count.

22

The accusation against the pesticide industry and some of its spokesmen is contained in the foreword by Robert S. Arbib Jr., editor.

23

He wrote that the reason the Christmas Bird Count showed more birds, as cited by the pesticide industry spokesmen, was not that there were more birds these days but simply "more birders" who go out on the annual counts and thus increase the size of the totals reported.

Accused Men Named

24

The persons under attack were not identified in the publication.

25

However, Mr. Arbibsaid in an interview that they included Robert H. White-Stevens, formerly with American Cyanamid Company, and now in the Bureau of Conservation and Environmental Science, Rutgers University; Thomas H. Jukes, a biochemist at the University of California; Norman E. Borlaug, Nobel Prize winner; Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, a lecturer and professor of entomology at San Jose State College; and Dr. Donald A. Spencer, a retired ecologist and lecturer of the National Agricultural Chemical Association who's now a private consultant and a member of the National Audubon Society.

26

Not all of the men could be reached for comment but those who could ridiculed the accusations as "emotional," "hysterical," and unfounded, and Dr. Spencer said they were "almost libelous."

27

"We are well aware," Mr. Arbib wrote, "that segments of the pesticide industry and certain paid 'scientist-spokesmen' are citing Christmas Bird Count totals and other data in American Birds as proving that the bird life of North America is thriving, and that many species are actually increasing despite the widespread and condemned use of DDT and other non-degradable hydro-carbon pesticides.

AM SPECTATOR

DDT, Fraud, and Tragedy (http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy)

:{By Gerald Sirkin (http://spectator.org/people/gerald-sirkin) & Natalie Sirkin (http://spectator.org/people/natalie-sirkin) on 2.25.05

Why are millions dying of malaria, a disease all but extinct forty years ago?

"Fraud in science is a major problem.” So begins “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud” by the late J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California.

The article was published shortly after his death last July in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall, 2004 (http://www.jpands.org/jpands0903.htm). It is based in part on his 34-page manuscript discussing fraud in acid rain, ozone holes, ultraviolet radiation, carbon dioxide, global warming, and pesticides, particularly DDT.

His publications distinguish Edwards as the leading authority on the environmental science and politics of DDT.

In World War I, prior to the discovery of the insecticidal potential of DDT, typhus killed more servicemen than bullets. In World War II, typhus was no problem. The world has marveled at the effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria, yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice.

Today, the greatest killer and disabler is malaria, which kills a person every 30 seconds. By the 1960s, DDT had brought malaria near to extinction. “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable,” said the National Academy of Sciences.

But the handwriting was on the wall when William Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in an address to the Audubon Society in Milwaukee in 1971, clearly stated his position:

As a member of the Audubon Society myself, and knowing the impact of this chlorinated hydrocarbon in certain species of raptorial birds, I was highly suspicious of this compound [DDT], to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions.

“As you know, many mass uses of DDT have already been prohibited, including all uses around the home. Certainly we’ll all feel better when the persistent compounds can be phased out in favor of biological controls. But awaiting this millennium does not permit the luxury of dodging the harsh decisions of today.

Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about DDT and synthetic pesticides. “For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death, she intoned.

“This is nonsense,” commented pesticide specialists Bruce N. Ames and Thomas H. Jukes of the University of California at Berkeley. (Ames is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, world renowned. Jukes, who died a few years ago, was a professor of biophysics and a leader in the defense of DDT.) “Every chemical is dangerous if the concentration is too high. Moreover, 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural… produced by plants to kill off predators,” Ames and Jukes wrote in Reason in 1993.

[Biologist Thomas Jukes (1906–1999) spent the majority of his career at the University of California, Berkeley, with stints at UC Davis and at Lederle Laboratories, where his work included research on the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry. Jukes advocated for the teaching of evolution in the schools and against bans on the pesticide DDT. He wrote an article about the latter, which was published in the September–October 1963 issue of American Scientist, as well as numerous other articles and a book, Molecules and Evolution (1966).]

[ucb obit 1999: Noted molecular biologist and nutritionist Thomas Hughes Jukes, a scientist who was not afraid to wade into controversial issues, including creationism and the banning of DDT, has died at the age of 93. He passed away at Alta Bates Medical Center in Berkeley on Nov. 1 after a bout with pneumonia.

Jukes, an emeritus research biochemist and former professor-in-residence at the University of California, Berkeley, made significant contributions in two distinct fields: nutritional science and molecular evolution.

While at Lederle Laboratories in New York, a division of American Cyanimid Co., he evolved the idea of giving antibiotics to animals so they could be raised in greater concentrations, and subsequently developed methotrexate as an important cancer therapy.

In 1963, as the DNA revolution dawned, he came to UC Berkeley as a research biochemist and dove into the field of molecular evolution and the origin of life.

"He and Jack King almost singlehandedly originated the concept of non-Darwinian evolution, or the neutral theory of evolution," said Kevin Padian, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology. This was an idea put forward in 1968 and 1969 that some mutations in our genes have neither a positive nor a negative effect, and thus accumulate over time irrespective of natural selection.

For many years, Jukes wrote a column on evolution for the British journal Nature.

Never one to suffer fools, Jukes began to get involved in controversial issues at UC Berkeley, such as the fight to ban the use of the pesticide DDT in the early 1970s. He argued against banning the pesticide, noting that it had saved countless lives in poor countries as a cheap but effective way to kill malarial mosquitoes. Although a long-time member of the Sierra Club, he took on that organization and the American Audubon Society, which led the campaign against DDT.

"He was very feisty and didn't pull any punches," said Bruce N. Ames, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at UC Berkeley. "He wasn't always right, but he was straightforward and made a lot of contributions. I'll miss him."

In the case of DDT, Jukes was vindicated, Ames said. That DDT damaged the egg shells of birds is still in dispute, and there is no documented damage to humans from the pesticide.

As an expert in nutrition, Jukes also publicly questioned quack cancer therapies such as Laetrile,argued that food additives and pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables are harmless, and that the antibiotics and other chemicals used in meat production - including the synthetic female sex hormone diethylstilbestrol, or DES, used to increase production of lean beef - are safe.

Beginning in the 1970s, he repeatedly spoke out against creationists who wanted to remove discussion of evolution from school textbooks. In the 1980s, he was instrumental in getting numerous California school textbooks rejected because of their inadequate discussion of evolution.

"He should be remembered as a crusader," Padian said. "He hated humbuggery, and would take on everyone from Linus Pauling and his claims that vitamin C is a cure-all, to homeopathic medicine and the creationists."

Jukes was born on Aug. 25, 1906, in Hastings, England, and emigrated to Canada in 1924. After receiving his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Toronto in 1933, he moved to California, where he had been drawn by the writings of Mark Twain and Bret Harte.

As a postdoctoral fellow, instructor and assistant professor at the University of California - at Berkeley from 1933 to 1934, and at Davis from 1934 to 1942 - he worked with Samuel Lepkovsky on the B vitamins then being discovered through research on poultry. Among his contributions were the important roles of riboflavin and vitamin B-12 in promoting the growth of chickens, and the first report that the B-vitamin niacin cured pellagra in humans. He also shared a stake in the isolation of pantothenic acid and proving its essential nutrient role in chicks.

In 1942, Jukes joined Lederle Laboratories, where he directed the section on nutrition and physiology research until 1959. He subsequently served as director of biochemistry at the agricultural division in New Jersey. His group discovered the commercially important growth-promoting effect of the antibiotic aureomycin for poultry, and isolated and synthesized the vitamin folic acid. During this period, he also did pioneering work in chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer, synthesizing folic acid antagonists, including methotrexate, that could be used in the chemotherapy of cancer.

After DNA was identified as the source of inheritance in the early 1960s, Jukes transferred his scientific interests to molecular biology and molecular evolution and returned to UC Berkeley as a professor in residence of medical physics. He remained active on the UC Berkeley faculty in biophysics and then integrative biology until his death. Jukes's bibliography contains over 550 publications from 1930 to the present, including three books: "B-vitamins for Blood Formation," "Antibiotics in Nutrition" and "Molecules in Evolution."

Among his awards were the Kenneth A. Spencer Award in agricultural chemistry (1976) and the Agriculture and Food Chemistry Award (1979) of the American Chemical Society; the Cain Memorial Award of the American Association for Cancer Research (1987); the Klaus Schwarz Commemorative Medal of the International Association of Bioinorganic Scientists (1988); and the Borden Award in Poultry Nutrition (1947). He was elected a fellow of the American Institute of Nutrition in 1973.

Jukes was an avid mountaineer, an ardent fan of Cal football, a member of the American Alpine Club, a life member of the Sierra Club, a member of Chit Chat Club and a member of Delta Tau Delta fraternity.

He is survived by his wife, Marguerite Jukes, of Berkeley; their daughter, Dorothy Mavis Jukes, and her husband, Robert Hudson, of Cotati, Calif; their daughter, Caroline Knueppel, and her husband, Nick, of Walnut Creek, Calif; and by his daughter-in-law, Sheila Sylvia, of Cape Cod, Mass. A son, Kenneth Hughes, died several years ago. Jukes also is survived by seven grandchildren.] END

Carson, not very scrupulous, implied that the renowned Albert Schweitzer agreed with her on DDT by dedicating Silent Spring “to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.’” Professor Edwards doubted the implication. He got a copy of Schweitzer’s autobiography. Dr. Schweitzer was referring to atomic warfare. Professor Edwards found on page 262, “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.”

But Miss Carson’s skillful writing was enough to direct a new-born environmental industry looking for a hot issue into a feverish campaign against DDT. “Rachel Carson set the style for environmentalism. Exaggeration and omission of pertinent contradictory evidence are acceptable for the holy cause,” wrote Professors Ames and Jukes.

THE FIRST CHARGE AGAINST DDT was that it causes cancer. No search has ever turned up any evidence, despite massive use of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. Wayland Hayes, U.S. Public Health Service scientist, for 18 months, fed to human volunteers, daily, three times the quantity of DDT that the average American was ingesting annually. None experienced any adverse effect, then or six to ten years later.

Workers without wearing protective clothing, with nine to 19 years of continuous exposure to DDT in the Montrose Chemical Company which manufactured DDT, never developed a single case of cancer. DDT caused no illness in the 130,000 men who sprayed it on the interior walls of mud and thatched huts, nor the millions of people who lived in them. Professor Edwards in his classroom occasionally ate a tablespoon of DDT to illustrate to his students that it is not harmful. Indeed, DDT is so safe that canned baby food was permitted to contain five parts per million.

“There has never been any convincing evidence that DDT (or pesticide residues in food) has ever caused cancer in man,” concluded Ames and Jukes.

In fact, DDT prevents cancer. “DDT in the diet has repeatedly been shown to enhance the production of hepatic enzymes in mammals and birds. Those enzymes inhibit tumors and cancers in humans as well as wildlife,” wrote Professor Edwards in 1992.

Unable to find harm to human health, DDT opponents turned to bird health, alleging a decline of bald eagles and other birds of prey, which they associated with heavy DDT usage. Rachel Carson led the accusation. It has been repeated so often and so passionately that the public is still convinced of it.

The charge is that DDT thinned the shells of eggs. When nesting parent birds sat on the eggs, the shells cracked and no babies hatched. Carson charged that DDT was bringing bald eagles and robins to the “verge of extinction” — while noted ornithologist Roger Tory Peterson was reporting that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America.

Bald eagles between 1941 and 1960 migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, doubled during the first six years of DDT-use. Their numbers increased from 9,291 in 1946 — before much DDT was used — to 16,163 in 1963 and 19,765 in 1968.

Professor Edwards reviews how bald eagles died of non-DDT causes. In Alaska, 128,000 were shot for bounty payments between 1917 and 1956. Between 1960 and 1965, 76 bald eagles found dead were autopsied: 46 had been shot or trapped; 7 had died of impact injuries from flying into buildings or towers. Between 1965 and 1980, shootings, trappings, electrocutions, and impact injuries chiefly accounted for their deaths.

Although some birds declined before DDT, they became much more abundant during the years of greatest DDT-use. But facts have not impeded the endless repetition of Carson’s bird myth.

Scientists tested the popular shell-thinning hypothesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed birds for 112 days on a diet with 100 times as much DDT as they were getting from the environment. No thinning of egg shells was found. The DDT had no effect on the birds.

One experimenter, to demonstrate eggshell-thinning, fed quail a diet with DDT but containing only one-fifth of the normal amount of calcium. His experiment succeeded in producing thinner eggshells, but his deception was exposed.

IN 1969, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (then, three guys with a clipboard; now “Environmental Defense”), Sierra Club, and National Audubon Society petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to ban DDT, claiming it is carcinogenic to humans. He agreed to partially phase it out by December 31, 1970, which did not satisfy the environmentalists.

The Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, to stop exports of DDT to third-world countries, instituted a number of lawsuits, ultimately gaining the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1977.

EPA appointed Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney to evaluate DDT. In 1971-2 he conducted a seven-month hearing. EPA actually participated, testifying against DDT!

Judge Sweeney, after 80 days of testimony from 150 expert scientists, ruled that DDT “is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man” and does “not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wild life. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case.”

The Environmental Defense Fund appealed Sweeney’s decision. The appeal should have been passed to an independent jurist, according to Ruckelshaus’s general counsel, John Quarles, but Ruckelshaus decided to rule on it himself. Not surprisingly, he upheld his own ban “on the grounds that ‘DDT poses a carcinogenic risk’ to humans.” (In 1994, he was to deny that that was the basis for the ban.) He had banned DDT though he had not attended a day of the 80-day hearing nor read a page of the transcript (as he told the Santa Ana Register, July 23, 1972).

In 1979, on April 26, Ruckelshaus wrote the American Farm Bureau Federation that his ban was imposed for political, not scientific, reasons: Science, along with other disciplines such as economics, has a role to play, but the ultimate judgment remains political,” he wrote. But in 1994 he wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, “The scientific basis for the ban was solid then and still stands. DDT is a highly persistent chemical that moves up the food chain, and it accumulates in the fatty tissue of humans.” However, according to Professor Edwards, it does no harm. Professor Edwards says that “DDT residues do not ‘build up’ in animal food-chains, because they are metabolized and excreted by fish, birds and mammals.”

In his March 24, 1994 Wall Street Journal letter, Ruckelshaus wrote that the direct ecological effect, and the basis for his decision, “was its proven impact on the thickness of egg shells of raptors, birds such as the brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. The decision was not based on any claim of human carcinogenicity.” But in 1972, he had overridden Judge Sweeney on the ground that DDT does pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

THE BROWN PELICAN AND the peregrine falcon did suffer declines in population, but not because of DDT, according to Professor Edwards’s article, “DDT Effects on Bird Abundance and Reproduction.”

Brown pelicans suffered, not from fish they ate but from their catastrophic reproductive failure caused by the great Santa Barbara oil spill surrounding their nesting colonies on the island of Anacapa. Federal and California officials ignored the oil spill and attributed pelican difficulties “solely to DDT in the environment.”

In Texas, peregrine falcons declined from 5,000 in 1918 to 200 in 1941, three years before DDT. Around the Gulf of Mexico, they declined from 1918 to 1934 by 82 percent, but the 1935 survey was done 15 years before any DDT appeared.

Likewise, in the East, peregrine falcons declined long before there was any DDT present there, because of egg-collectors and falconers. Falconers “raided every nest they could find” and shot falcons on sight.

Ruckelshaus, besides ruling on the appeal to uphold his own reversal of Sweeney’s decision, refused Freedom-of-Information-Act demands for papers relating to the case — he called them “internal memos” — effectively preventing scientists from refuting his Opinion. He also refused to file an Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of his DDT ban.

In 1970, in a brief supporting the Secretary of Agriculture in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Ruckelshaus praised DDT: “DDT is not endangering the public health and has an amazing and exemplary record of safe use. DDT, when properly used at recommended concentrations, does not cause a toxic response in man or other mammals and is not harmful. The carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproved speculation.”

Subsequently, Ruckelshaus, alleging adverse effects of DDT, signed fund-raising letters on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund. On his personal stationery, he wrote, “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”

In a January 12, 2005, letter to the editor of the New York Times, Ruckelshaus rose to the plight of the poor by urging more spending. “If the world were to invest on an annual basis even a small percentage of the funds pledged to tsunami relief toward improving health care systems, transportation, infrastructure and communications systems, we would improve the quality of life for millions of poor people around the world . . .” He said nothing about how his ban on DDT was causing the death of millions from malaria.

FOLLOWING RUCKELSHAUS’S BAN, the USAID, prodded by a lawsuit by the Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, undertook to discourage other countries from using DDT by threatening to stop foreign aid to any country using it. Its threat spread Ruckelshaus’s ban worldwide.

The effects of giving up DDT were immediately felt in the malarial areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Sri Lanka (Ceylon), reacting to Silent Spring, in the 1960s gave up DDT. Its malarial cases had decreased from 2.8 million down to 17. After Sri Lanka gave it up, malaria shot back up to over 2.5 million.

South American countries gave up DDT and suffered the customary rise in malaria. Ecuador, which manufactures DDT, resumed using it in 1993. By 1995, Ecuador had reduced its malarial cases by 61 percent.

Spraying the inside walls of huts with DDT once or twice a year stops the spread of malaria by repelling mosquitoes from huts. USAID agreed, but it determined that insecticide-treated bed nets are “more cost-effective.”

The search for an effective substitute for DDT continues to fail 30 years after the Ruckelshaus ban. The search for a treatment for malaria continues to fail; the mutations of the malaria virus soon make a drug ineffective. The search for a malaria-vaccine continues to fail.

The environmentalists’ ideological opposition to pesticides has no basis in science. It is a death sentence to millions.

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/KMMN_Decl_Nov06.pdf

Signatories:

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements of the Declaration.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Desmond M Tutu Nobel Peace Laureate (1984), Archbishop Emeritus, South Africa

F. W. de Klerk Nobel Peace Laureate (1993), Former President of South Africa

Norman E.Borlaug, PhD Nobel Peace Laureate (1970), Professor of International Agriculture, Texas

Andrew Spielman, PhD Professor of Tropical Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health

Admiral Harold M. Koenig, MD Former Surgeon General of the US Navy (retired), Maryland

Patrick Moore, PhD Co-founder of Greenpeace and forest ecologist, British Columbia, Canada

Edwin Meese III Former Attorney General of the United States

Rev. Rick Warren Pastor and Author, The Purpose Driven Life, California

Ed Crane President, Cato Institute, Washington, DC

Kenneth D. Christman, MD President, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Ohio

Elizabeth Whelan,ScD President, American Council on Science & Health, New York

Robert S. Desowitz, PhD Professor Emeritus, Tropical Medicine, U of Hawaii and N Carolina

Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap Professor of Entomology (PhD), Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abere Mihrete, PhD Director, Anti-Malaria Association, Ethiopia

M. Fazlur Rahman Former Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Bangladesh

Harry C. Alford President & CEO, Natl Black Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC

Roy InnisNational Chairman, Congress of Racial Equality, New York

The Rev. James Tonkowich President, The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Washington, DC

Rabbi Daniel Lapin President, Toward Tradition, Washington

E. Calvin Beisner,PhD Associate Professor, Knox Theological Seminary, Florida

Rev. Robert Sirico President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, Michigan

Rev. Ren Broekhuizen Retired Pastor and former African Missionary, Michigan and Wyoming

Samuel C Wolgemuth Vice Chair, World Relief Corporation, Illinois

David M. Stanley Chairman, National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC

T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. Former Domestic Policy Advisor to President Ronald Reagan

David M. Beasley Former Governor of South Carolina

Daniel Wolgemuth President and CEO, Youth for Christ/USA

Signatories:

Physicians, infectious disease experts and scientists 1

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Amir Attaran, D Phil, LLB Canada Research Chair, Institute of Population Health; Faculty of Law

University of Ottawa, Canada

Roger Bate, PhD Fellow, American Enterprise Institute,Washington, DC

Norman E. Borlaug, PhD Distinguished Professor of International Agriculture, Texas A&M Univ

1970 Nobel Peace Laureate and Father of the “Green Revolution, Texas

US National Medal of Science laureate, 2005

Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap Professor of Entomology (PhD), Kasetsart University, Thailand

Kenneth D. Christman, MD President, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Ohio

Robert S. Desowitz, PhD Professor Emeritus, Tropical Medicine and Medical Microbiology,

4

Educators and public policy experts 1

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Mattias Bengtsson President, Centre for the New Europe, Belgium

Ed Crane President, Cato Institute, Washington, DC

T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. President, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Delaware

Former Domestic Policy Advisor to President Ronald Reagan

Thomas R. DeGregori, PhD Professor of Economics, University of Houston, Texas

Paul Driessen Senior Policy Advisor, Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, Virginia

Senior Policy Advisor, Congress of Racial Equality

Director, Economic Human Rights Project

Hannes Gissurarson Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Iceland

Former Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister of Iceland

Deepak Lal Professor of International Development, U of California at LA (UCLA)

Professor Emeritus of Political Economy, University College, London

Herb London President, Hudson Institute, New York

Shamim ul Moula, PhD, MBBS Chief Executive, Parallel Force for Development, Bangladesh

Chairman, Safe Life (national Bangladesh NGO)

Benny J. Peiser, PhD Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, England

C. S. Prakash, PhD Director, Ctr for Plant Biotechnology Research, Tuskegee U, Alabama

David M. Stanley Chairman, National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC

Brian S. Wesbury Adjunct Professor of Economics, Wheaton College

Member, Academic Advisory Council: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Talal Abu-Hassan Program Officer, Center for International Private Enterprise, Virginia

John Adams, PhD Emeritus professor of geography, University College of London, UK

Nizam Ahmad President, Free Bangla Market, United Kingdom and Bangladesh

James Ahiakpor, PhD Professor of Economics, California State University East Bay, CA

Paul J. Allen Fisheries Research Biologist, Ball State University, Indiana

Dora Ampuero Exec. Director, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Economia Politica, Ecuador

Abdullahi A. An-Na`im, PhD Charles H. Candler Professor of Law, Emory School of Law, Georgia

Alex AveryResearch Director, Ctr for Global Food Issues, Hudson Inst, Virginia

Dennis Avery Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Virginia

Charles Baird Co-Chairman, Dept.. of Economics, Cal State University at East Bay

Whitney L. Ball Executive Director, Donors Trust, Virginia

Thomas Behr, PhD Professor, Department of History, University of Houston, Texas

George Bennett Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Millikin University, Illinois

Eneas Biglione Latin American Fellow, Atlas Foundation, Virginia and Argentina

Mr. Greg Blankenship Executive Director,Illinois Policy Institute

Karol Boudreaux Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Virginia

Hardy Bouillon, PhD Director of Academic Affairs, Centre for the New Europe, Belgium

Peter J. Brown, PhD Professor of Anthropology and Global Health, Emory Univ, Georgia

David Burgess Adjunct Professor, Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC

Peter Burgess CEO, Transparency and Accountability Network, New York

...?

Educators and public policy experts 2

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

H. Sterling Burnett, PhD Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, Texas

Paul Caprio Executive Director, Family-PAC Federal, Illinois

Kenneth W. Chilton, PhD Director, Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment

Associate Professor of Management, Lindenwood University, Missouri

Paul A. Cleveland Professor of Economics, Birmingham-Southern College, Alabama

Jody Clarke Communications Director, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Virginia

Gregory Conko Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Virginia

Philip Coticelli Researcher, Africa Fighting Malaria, Maryland

Eleanor Craig, PhD Professor of Economics, University of Delaware

Barrie Craven, PhD Reader in Public Accountability, Newcastle Business School, England

John W. Danford, PhD Professor of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago

Karen P. Danford, PhD Adjunct Instructor, University of Chicago

Douglas E Daugherty, Sr. Coordinator, Chattanooga Resource Foundation, Tennessee

Henry L. Deneen Executive Director, Center for Global Strategies, South Carolina

Philip E. Devine, PhD Professor of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island

Thomas DeWeese President, American Policy Center, Virginia

G. Edward Dickey, PhD Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College of Maryland

Vicki Dunne, MLA Member for Ginninderra, Shadow Minister for Education, Australia

Richard T. Dykema Chief of Staff/Legislative Director, Representative Dana Rohrabacher

U.S. House of Representatives, California

Jon Entine Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Ohio

Edwar Escalante President, Andes Libres, Peru

Cesar Fernandez-Stoll President, Ferstoll Management Consultants, Ontario, Canada

Duggan Flanakin Regional Director, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Texas

Michael Fumento Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Virginia

Castle J. Funatake Grad Research Asst, Envir & Molecular, Toxicology, Oregon State U

Glenn Goforth Headmaster, Providence Classical School

John C. Goodman President, National Center for Policy Analysis, Texas

Mark Y. Herring Dean of Library Services, Winthrop University, South Carolina

Peter Holle President, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Manitoba, Canada

Waldemar Ingdahl Director, Eudoxa think tank, Stockholm, Sweden

Lene Johansen Director of US Operations, The Eudoxa Think Tank, Missouri

James L. Johnston First Vice President, Heartland institute, Illinois

Daniel Kahn Research Assistant, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

Robert O. Kalbach, Ph. D Assoc. Professor of Chemistry, Finger Lakes Community College, NY

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, University of Sciences, Philadelphia

Ruth Kava, PhD, RD Director of Nutrition, Amer Council on Science & Health,New York

Drew L. Kershen Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Oklahoma

Piotr Kowzan Teacher, Gdansk, Poland

16Signatories:

Educators and public policy experts 3

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Henry Lamb President, Environmental Conservation Organization, Tennessee

Thomas D. Lancaster, PhD Senior Assoc Dean for Undergraduate Education, Emory Univ, Georgia

Carl Lecher, PhD Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Marian College, Indianapolis, IN

Michael Lee Department of Finance, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland

Leonard P. Liggio Professor and Executive VP, Atlas Economic Research Fdn, Virginia

Christopher Lingle, PhD Senior Fellow, Centre for Civil Society, India

Brad Lips Chief Operating Officer,AtlasEconomic Research Fdn, Virginia

Romulo Lopez-Cordero Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Virginia

Ashley March Director of Foundation Relations, Cato Institute, Washington

Joseph P. Martino, PhD Yorktown University, Colorado

Bob McClure President and CEO,James Madison Institute, Florida

AlisterMcFarquhar, PhD Downing College, Cambridge University, England

Alister Mcfarquhar

 Credentials

Ph.D.

International economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Source: [1 (http://www.desmogblog.com/alister-mcfarquhar#s1)

 Background

Alister McFarquhar is one of 20 economists (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-economists-46011008) who are on SenatorInhofe (http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe-the-senator-for-suspect-science)'s List of 400+ “prominent climate scientists” who deny global warming.

McFarquhar has done work in the past with an organization called the “Adam Smith Institute (http://www.adamsmith.org/).” This UK-based free market think-tank has been a source of climate change “skeptics” in the past.

According to the Institute's website (http://www.adamsmith.org/introducing-the-adam-smith-institute/), it “promotes free markets, limited government, and an open society.”

The Adam Smith Institute has had relations (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fys24e00) with Philip Morris in creating an international center to train journalists that would be “ideologically consistent with PM's issues and interests,” SourceWatch found (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Adam_Smith_Institute).

Stance on Climate Change

McFarqehar is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change which states that “the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.” In summary, “attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.” [2 (http://www.desmogblog.com/alister-mcfarquhar#s2)

Key Quotes

[Pending further investigation.]

Key Deeds

March 4, 2008

McFarquhar signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate change which was promoted by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). The ICSC lists McFarquhar as one of 206 “climate experts (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66)” who are signatories. [3 (http://www.desmogblog.com/alister-mcfarquhar#s3)

The ICSC is a directed by prominent climate change skeptic Tom Harris (http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris) and is affiliated with other high-profile climate skeptic organizations including the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)), Climate Audit (edited by Stephen McIntyre (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre)) and Friends of Science (FoS (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science)).

December 13, 2007

McFarquhar is listed as a signatory to a 2007 open letter (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html) to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. [4 (http://www.desmogblog.com/alister-mcfarquhar#s4)

The open letter describes global warming as “a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages,” and describes CO2 as a “non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.”

April, 2006

McFarquhar signed a 2006 Open Letter (http://www.desmogblog.com/denying-climate-change-urging-inaction) to Prime Minister Stephen Harper recommending that the government stall any action on climate policy because the “climate changes all the time due to natural causes.”

The letter advocates a delay or cancelation of Kyto reductions, and states that “allocating funds to 'stopping climate change' would be irrational.”

Many prominent skeptics signed the letter, including Tim Ball (http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-denier-research-old), David Wojick (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-wojick), Chris de Freitas (http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-dde-freitas), Ian Clark (http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-clark) and Paul Copper (http://www.desmogblog.com/paul-copper).

 Affiliations

Adam Smith Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Adam_Smith_Institute)— Author. [5 (http://www.desmogblog.com/alister-mcfarquhar#s5)

 Publications

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has not published any research articles in peer-reviewed journals. According to Google Scholar, McFarquhar has published some studies on land use policy.

 Resources

1. “20 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Are Economists (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-economists-46011008#ixzz1jxeE7awa),” The Daily Green, January 10, 2008.
2. “THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54),” International Climate Science Coalition. Accessed January, 2012.
3. “CLIMATE EXPERTS WHO SIGNED MANHATTAN DECLARATION (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66),” International Climate Science Coalition. Accessed January, 2012.
4. “Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html),” December 13, 2007. Republished by the Science and Public Policy Institute.
5. Alister McFarquehar. “Planning Rape: Land Use Policy and Local Government Finance in the UK” (PDF (http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/images/uploads/publications/planning-rape.pdf)), Adam Smith Institute, 1999.

Robert and Mary McIntyre The Oakwood School, Virginia

Tracy Miller Assoc. Professor of Economics, Grove City College, Pennsylvania

Steven Milloy Investment Advisor, Free Enterprise Action Fund, Maryland

Publisher, JunkScience.com

Alberto Mingardi General Director, Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy

Barun Mitra President, Liberty Institute, India

Deroy Murdock Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, New York

Sultana Nazneen, PhD Directing Staff, Higher Secondary Teachers Training Inst, Bangladesh

Nick Nichols Crisis Management Instructor, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland

C. R. Nicolaysen University Registrar, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

Juan Jose Ramirez Ochoa Assistant Professor, Universidad Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala

Eric O’Keefe President, Parents in Charge Foundation, Illinois

Gary J. Palmer President, Alabama Policy Institute, Alabama

E. C. Pasour, Jr. Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Sylvia Chafuen de Pasquier President, Instituto de Ciencia, Economía, Educación y Salud, Bolivia

Joel Patrick Admissions Coordinator, Criswell College, Texas

Daniel S. Peters President, Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation, Cincinnati, Ohio

John G. Pierce Adjunct Professor, Modern Languages, Columbus State Comm. College

William S. Pierce Professor Emeritus of Economics, Case Western Reserve University

Daniel D. Polsby Dean and Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University

School of Law, Virginia

Arthur Pontynen, PhD Professor, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Scott A. Pullins, Esq. Executive Director, Consumer Alert, Ohio and Washington, DC

Howard S. Rich President, U.S. Term Limits, Washington, DC

Jay W. Richards, PhD Research Fellow, Acton Institute for Study of Religion & Liberty, MI

Co-author, The Privileged Planet

17Signatories:

Educators and public policy experts 4

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

John H. Riskind, PhD Professor of Psychology, George Mason University, Virginia

Editor, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy

Brooke Rollins President Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas

Jeffrey A. Rosensweig, PhD Assoc Professor, International Business and Finance, Emory U, Georgia

James Roumasset, PhD Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii

Richard O. Rowland President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Craig Rucker Executive Director, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Virginia

D. Eric Schansberg, PhD Professor of Economics, Indiana University at New Albany, Indiana

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism, Washington, DC

Todd Seavey Editor, HealthFactsAndFears.com, New York

Holli A. Semetko, PhD Vice Provost for International Affairs, Emory University, Georgia

Tracie Sharp President, State Policy Network

Thomas R. Simmons, PhD. Professor, Greenfield Community College, Greenfield, Massachusetts

Daniel Mead Smith President, Washington Policy Center, Washington

Carlo Stagnaro Director, Free Market Environmentalism, Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy

Patti Strand Executive Director, National Animal Interest Alliance, Oregon

Suprada Sukonthabhirom PhD candidate in Entomology, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Priscilla Tacujan Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Virginia and Philippines

Jose L. Tapia-Rocha President, Instituto de Libre Empressa, Peru

Steve Ugbah, PhD Professor, College of Business & Economics, California State Univ

Geert van Calster, Dr. PhD Co-director, Institute of Environmental and Energy Law, Belgium

John Valentine Associate, Athena Capital Partners, Florida

Elena Draghici Vasilescu, PhD University of Oxford, England

Mario Villarreal Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. Mexico

Bob Williams President Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Washington

Whitney Tilson Board Member, Fistula Foundation, New York

(supports Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia)

John D. Willis, PhD Director, Graduate Studies in Dispute Resolution, Sullivan Univ, KY

Xu Yiqiao Program Manager, Atlas Economic Research Fdn, Virginia and China

Malgorzata Zielinska Teacher, Gdansk, Poland

For more information, see “Background: Facts about DDT,” following the signatories

To endorse the Declaration, send your personal information to pdriessen@cox.net

18Signatories:

Business, political and government executives, and other people of conscience 1

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements of the Declaration.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

David M. Beasley Former Governor of South Carolina

Zbigniew Jaworowski Former Chairman, UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic

Radiation. Poland

Steffond Johnson CEO, The O’Shea Group, and former NBA basketball player, Texas

Supporter and participant, “Dunk Malaria” initiative

David Keene Chairman, American Conservative Union

Lance Laifer Co-Founder, Hedge Funds vs. Malaria, Connecticut

Tibor R. Machan, PhD Professor of Economics, Argyros School of Business and Economics

Chapman University, California

Edwin Meese III Former Attorney General of the United States

Alan Oxley Chairman, Australian APEC Centre, Monash University, Australia

David M. C. Robertson Drive Against Malaria, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Peter A. Samuelson President, Americans United for Life

Robert Whelan Deputy Director, Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society

London, UK

Amb. Curtin Winsor, Jr. PhD Ambassador to Costa Rica (1983-85), Virginia

Trustee of William H. Donner Fdn and Former Trustee of Africare

Dr. Robert D. Wolgemuth, LHD Wolgemuth & Associates, Inc., Florida

Jennifer Burr Altabef Attorney, Dallas, Texas

Kalajine Anigbogu President, Global Real Estate Services Ltd, Illinois and Nigeria

Ararat Ayob Eritrean-American poet, Virginia

Steven Baer Trustee, Chicago Freedom Trust, Illinois

Doug Bandow Columnist and economic analyst, Virginia

Alexander Barnett, PhD Artistic Director, Classic Theatre International. Maryland

Kalman Lee Benuska Structural Engineer, California

Stuart L. Berman, MSc Steelcase, Inc, Michigan

Richard & Joanne Beyer Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Donovan R. Bigelow, LLM. Psychotherapist and lecturer, Seattle, Washington

Randal & Deborah Birkey Oak Park, Illinois

Brian Bloss Student and member of Western Kentucky University forensics team

Russell Boast Associate Producer, The Malaria Project: 3 Billion and Counting, Calif

Keith W. Boatow Blue Magic Music, Inc., New York

Richard J. Boerner President, Seco Investments, Inc.

Thomas Borelli, PhD President, Free Enterprise Action Fund, New York

George Borgen Political organizer, Hialeah Florida

Sussy Borgen Consultant /Branch Manager, TS Consulting International, California

James T. Brankin CEO NetWeavers, Texas

Matthew J. Brouillette CEO, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, PA

Samuel A. Brunelli Senior Vice President, Team Builders International, Florida

19Signatories:

Business, political and government executives, and other people of conscience 2

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements of the Declaration.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Marcel D. P. Burgler, CCIM Principal Associate Broker, Prime Development Grand Rapids, MI

Wesley Calhoun Student and member of Western Kentucky University forensics team

Jessie Cantrell Administrative Assistant, Pfizer Pharmaceutical, New York

Christina Carroll Murray State University, Murray, KY

Alan Caruba President, The Caruba Organization, New Jersey

Ralph W. Conner Former Mayor, Maywood, Illinois

Phyllis Kurlander Costanza Advocate for children’s health and rights, Atlanta, Georgia

Ann Wilson Cramer Corporate Community Relations and Public Affairs, IBM Company

Mark R. Crovelli PhD candidate, University of Colorado at Boulder

Paolo Cugnasca New York, NY

James M Currin, PE Consulting mechanical engineer, Michigan

John D’Aloia, Jr. Captain, US Navy (retired), Columnist

Crystal A. Daly Computer Technician, Florida

Gene F. Danforth Paralegal and US Marine Corps (retired), Danbury, NH

Philip De Beer Progressive Architect, Self-Sustainable Ecological Housing, London

Michael F. Denny President, American Wine Distributors, San Francisco, California

Michael K. Doane Director, Biotechnology Acceptance, Monsanto Company

John Dziak Graduate student in statistics, Penn State University, Pennsylvania

Timothy M. Egan President, High Park Group, Canada

Randy Eminger Energy and Environment Analyst, Texas

Karl B. Erickson Oregon State Government, Independent Writer, Oregon

Arit Essien Business Mgmt. Account Coordinator. Coca-Cola Company, Georgia

Luis Felipe Student in business administration, Santiago, Chile

Peter Flaherty President, National Legal and Policy Center, Washington, DC

Elizabeth A. Foreman Public Educator, Tucson, Arizona

Angela French Carlisle, Ohio

Maura C. Furey Chicago, Illinois

Gus Gianello Day Trader, Ontario, Canada

Roger and Jeannie Giellis Denver, Colorado

Indur Goklany Environmental Policy Analyst, Virginia

Nancy Watson Good Co-Founder, ChicagoCare Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Illinois

Gary J. Green Consultant, Energy, Environmental, Health & Safety Risk, Arizona

Nancy & Lucien Grimm Frederick County, VA

Roland Gunn Vice President, Peterson Companies, Virginia

Marc Daniel Gutekunst, PhD Co-Founder and CEO, Dekalb International Training Center, Georgia

Ivan Habanec Consultant, London, UK

William Hennen Pre-med, public health student, Utah

Member of Amnesty International

David Hogberg, PhD Senior Research Associate, Capital Research Center

20Signatories:

Business, political and government executives, and other people of conscience 3

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements of the Declaration.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Jenny Hone Editor, Scrip Magazine, United Kingdom

Carl F. Horowitz National Legal and Policy Center, Washington, DC

Devin Hosea Managing Director, Ritchie Capital Management, New York

President and CEO, American Biophysics Corporation, Rhode Island

Barbara Howard Barbara Howard & Associates, Miami Beach, FL

Richard & Barbara L. Hubbard Associate Real Estate Brokers, Cirrus Realty Group, Phoenix, Arizona

Soleman A. Idd Rainforest conservation director, Gabon and New Jersey

Ralph K. Iler, Jr. Architect, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Paul Jacob Citizens in Charge Foundation, Virginia

Alexander Jech Graduate student in philosophy, Notre Dame University, Indiana

Frances Brigham Johnson International Property Rights Working Group, Virginia

James and Ulrike Karanja Bad Endbach-Hartenrod, Germany

Rick Klemm Exec Dir, Hawaiian Alliance for Responsible Technology & Science

Carol W. LaGrasse President, Property Rights Foundation of America, New York

Neal J. Lang Vice President for Information Systems, MWI Corporation, Florida

Johnny Lattner 1953 Heisman Trophy Winner (Notre Dame)

Flo Limehouse Real estate broker, Tyler, Texas

Pierre Little Publisher, Atlantic Business Journal, New Brunswick, Canada

Michael W. Lutke Republic, Missouri

James & Mary Martorana Lakewood, California

Jeff Maslan President, Maryland State Pest Control Association

Mark Mathis Exec. Director, Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy, New Mexico

Don McGuire Information technology architect, Tennessee

Lawrence P. Meriage, PhD VP Communications & Pub Affairs, Occidental Petroleum Corp, Calif

Robert Migliori Boynton Beach FL

Roy Miller Phoenix, Arizona

Henry K. Mngerem Georgia and Nigeria

Martha Montelongo Commentator and radio host, California

Deneen Moore Free Enterprise Action Fund, New York

Charles F. Morton Union City, Michigan

William Nesler CEO, West Coast Aerial Applicators, Liberia

Mark Nichols President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Oklahoma

Diana A. Oleskow Lubich Florida

David Petch CBE London, England

William Pickell CEO, Washington Contract Loggers Association, Washington

Isaac Post Regulatory Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Inst, Washington, DC

Franklin Raff Executive Producer, Network Radio, Radio America, Virginia

Francesco Ramella, PhD. Freelance Consultant, Italy

21Signatories:

Business, political and government executives, and other people of conscience 4

Note: Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply

any formal organizational endorsements of the Declaration.

Name and degree: Title, affiliation(s) and state or country of residence:

Admiral Michael Ratliff Former Director of Naval Intelligence, US Navy (retired)

Ramon Reblora LCDR Ramon B Reblora PCG, Coast Guard, Philippines

Marjorie Ridley Comfort, Texas

Peter Schaefer International Development Specialist, Virginia

Justin Schwab PhD Candidate, University of California at Berkeley

Barre Seid CEO, Tripp Lite, Illinois

Jeffrey C. Silleck Executive Director, Pregnancy Decision Health Centers

John R. Slagle Tech Community College, Indiana

Sebastian Soto Fulbright/APSA Congressional Fellow, Washington, DC and Chile

Chauncey Starr President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA

Louis A. Stock Chemical Industry Engineer (Retired)

Garnett Stover, Dr. President, Stover Chiropractic, Virginia

Dale Stuart CPA, Rogers, Arkansas

Jernej Šuštar, MAE Walsh College, Troy, MI

James E. Swinnen McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Tom Tevlin President & CEO, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd, British Columbia, Canada

John Tillman President, Americans for Limited Government, Illinois

Greg Valentine VP of Business Development, SEEGRID Corporation, Pennsylvania

Michael Vassar Actuary, Aon consulting, New York

Vaclav Venc Partner, Customs Business Solutions, Olomouc, Czech Republic

Sarah Weathersby CEO, JSS Enterprises water purification sytems, california

Christine C. Weber Systems Consultant, Cincinnati, Ohio

Michael R. Wetzel, ACF, CF Forester, Richardson Bell & McLeod, Georgia

Jeffrey Widmann Operations director, West Coast Aerial Applicators, South Dakota

David Williams Forth Worth, Texas

Amy Wombwell Realtor, Louisville, KY

Linda Yarbrough` Widow of American relief worker and malaria victim, New Mexico

Jerry Zandstra, PhD Candidate for United States Senate, Michigan

Taras & Christina Zvir Washington DC

Jeffrey C. Zysik Managing Director, Tax & Administrative Services, Charitable Entity

Administration, Florida

To endorse the Declaration, send your personal information to pdriessen@cox.net

malaria fnd int' looks legit, defunct , funders

Abbott Laboratories

Bayer A.G.

Becton Dickinson Worldwide

Burroughs Wellcome Fund

Digits Corporation

European Commission

Glaxo Wellcome

Malaria Vaccine Initiative (implemented by PATH)

Merck & Co. Inc. USA

Netherlands Organization For Scientific Research (NWO and WOTRO)

NetNode, Inc. (Brad Landers ~ generously started this website for the MFI in 1995)

Pfizer, Inc.

SmithKline Beecham International

UK Department for International Development

US National Institutes of Health

and numerous generous individuals

==