This looks like a movie that need to go on my list to see. Bed bugs were eradicated 
by the use of DDT. Howard Stern is on the case to back up the doctor who made the film to bring DDT back as well. On the topic of Malaria, we also have the Gates Foundation working diligently on a cure too. We might all remember the jar of mosquitos he let loose at his talk last year at the TED convention, video at the link.
Bill Gates from the TED Presentation this week – Malaria and Education
According to what I am reading here the mistake goes back to one person at the EPA making this decision and now it turns out it was wrong. If this is the case and so many are dying when we had a real good handle on malaria, it might be time to bring it back.
With the bed bugs, the Ohio governor is trying to get a waiver from the EPA to use pesticides such as Malathion and Propoxur to get rid of the infestations. We are lucky here it’s bed bugs and not malaria. What I found also interesting was the cocktail from the 40s and 50s that had a splash of DDT in it, so for a short while I guess a few drank it.
From the Website:
“This film follows the journey of Dr. Rutledge (a preventive-medicine doctor who grew up on a farm in Mississippi) as he travels the globe in 40 days to discover why so many women and children are still dying needlessly from malaria — one death every 12 seconds.
He eventually finds himself in Washington DC where it all “went down” during the Nixon ERROR. He discovers that our very own US government, ONE MAN in 
particular, SCAMMED the American people with lies and deceit causing the death of untold millions.
He leaves no stone unturned in this heart felt fact finding mission that is chock full of shocking findings that are sure to open up a virtual BLIZZARD of long overdue debate.”
Did you know?
The Mickey Slim was a drink that had short-lived popularity in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. According to the The Dedalus Book of Absinthe by Phil Baker, it was made by combining gin with a pinch of DDT (also known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), an insecticide that would later be banned in most countries; consumers of this concoction claimed that its effects were similar to absinthe.
You can also follow along on their Facebook Page. William Ruckelshaus, who was the head of the EPA now is a strategic director for a venture capital firm, Madrona. Information from their website below:
“He is currently a director of TVW, Isilon Systems, Inc., and has recently retired from the boards of Weyerhaeuser Company, Nordstrom, Inc., Cummins Engine Company, Solutia, Pharmacia Corporation, and Monsanto. Bill is also on the Board and former Chairman of World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., Chairman of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for the State of Washington, Chair of the Seattle Aquarium Society, former member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In 2004 he was appointed Chairman of The William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a collaborative problem solving institution of the University of Washington and Washington State University. In 2003 he was appointed to serve on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Science Advisory Board. And in 2005, he was appointed by Governor Gregoire to co-chair the Puget Sound Partnership to organize the cleanup of Puget Sound.”
PCBs are the problem according to what I have read here and not the DDT and there was confusion and mix ups on the interpretation. William Ruckelshaus had never attended a session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and admittedly had not read the transcript of the hearings overturned the ruling of an EPA administrative law Judge. Another website, Junk Science called DDA “A Weapon of Mass Survival”, not destruction in this case.
I would certainly like to see both Malaria and of smaller importance the Bed Bugs by comparison go away if this is all it takes, and again the movie is on my list and the trailer is below. BD
NEW YORK, Sept. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The QUAD Cinema, one of New York City's leading art houses, presents the New York premiere of the provocative new documentary, 3 BILLION AND COUNTING (102 minutes), directed and produced by Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor.
Sure to spark outrage, Dr. Rutledge, a California physician specializing in preventative medicine, chronicles the effects of the world-wide ban on the pesticide DDT in 1972, a ban inspired by the first enviro-bestseller, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962). Rutledge's five-year-long effort is driven by his revulsion at millions of deaths, mostly of women and young children, in Africa and South East Asia, by the mosquito-borne disease, Malaria. According to a recent World Health Organization report, Malaria kills one million people annually, a disease, Rutledge confirms, that is wholly and immediately preventable.
3 Billion and Counting TrailerA naturalist and a die-hard advocate of preventative medicine, Dr. Rutledge, in the long tradition of American debunkers, wanted to see first hand the extent of Malaria's worldwide impact, and to discover why policies are still in place that exacerbate the epidemic.
Further, the film adds clarity to the record by showing that the effects of DDT were confused in the public's mind with the undeniably devastating effects on the environment and water ways of PCBs. Because both chemicals were in the news at the same time, the effects of DDT became linked with the harmful effects of PCBs. Environmental activists, medical experts, and advocates of its ban did nothing to eliminate this confusion.
In his dissection of the rise of the environmental movement and the fall of science, he drops one bomb after another -- a reputable scientist is caught manipulating test outcomes to prove the adverse effects of DDT; the man who started it all, William Ruckelshaus, the Administrator of the EPA in Richard Nixon's presidency, reverses his position on the harmlessness of DDT to appease the membership of The Environmental Defense Fund.
The documentary raises fundamental questions: whom can we trust; what do we have to know in order to trust them; and finally, will we make the effort to know it? The film begs us to educate ourselves. 3 BILLION AND COUNTING is instructive well beyond the outrage it inspires.
wow. Thank you so much for posting this film info. I have wondered about DDT for years and years.
ReplyDeleteDDT is a deadly poison. Literally thousands of studies show how it decimates entire ecosystems -- it kills beneficial insects, reptiles, fish, birds and mammals.
ReplyDeleteYou can find what you want to know about DDT, or a link to it, at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub.
So, may I posit a few facts?
1. Fewer people die from malaria since broadscale DDT spraying was used. In fact, since the height of DDT use, malaria death rates have fallen by two-thirds; since the U.S. ban on spraying DDT on cotton, malaria death rates have been cut in half.
2. Bedbugs developed immunity to DDT in the 1950s. DDT was useful early on, but bedbugs were chased away with other chemicals (some of them nasty chemicals, but not DDT).
3. Ruckelshaus was prohibited from attending the hearings on DDT by law, practice, and the lawyers ethical canons. Ruckelshaus was the next level of appeals of decisions -- and consequently, he did not attend the hearings, nor was he expected to.
4. Ruckelshaus's agency was ordered to investigate the use of DDT by two different federal courts, each of which had stayed an order to ban all DDT use and manufacture pending EPA's regulatory action.
5. UN's World Health Organization essentially stopped using DDT in the fight against malaria in 1965, seven years before the ban on agricultural use in the U.S., because overuse of DDT on crops had bred DDT-immune mosquitoes. DDT stopped working to fight malaria.
6. The U.S. continued to manufacture DDT for export after the 1972 ban.
7. DDT use has never been banned in Africa. Even under the 2001 Persistent Organic Pesticides Treaty (POPs), DDT has a special carve out to keep it available, if any nation finds it useful. Most nations have more effective means to fight malaria.
8. No study has ever contradicted Rachel Carson's 53 pages of science references on the harms of DDT. Discover Magazine noted in 2007 that more than 1,000 peer-reviewed science studies after Carson's death confirmed her fears that DDT kills birds indiscriminately.
9. Environmental Defense Fund has advocated use of DDT (in carefully controlled circumstances, under WHO guidelines) for 20 years. George W. Bush's administration didn't allow U.S. USAID money to be used for DDT purchase of DDT, for reasons never stated.
One should understand that DDT is not a panacea against malaria, and never was. Environmentalists fight malaria, not DDT. DDT can't cure malaria, and is of only limited use in the fight against malaria. Complaining about environmentalists draws suckers into movies, but lets kids die from malaria, at least one every minute.
DDT is a deadly poison. It kills ecosystems.
ReplyDeleteRuckelshaus was the first line of appeals in that hearing process -- he was forbidden by law and ethical canons from attending the hearings. There is every indication he read the decision thoroughly -- his own decision was longer than the administrative law judge's decision.
By the way, malaria death rates today are less than half what they were when the U.S. banned DDT spraying on crops (only in the U.S.), and a third what they were when DDT use was at its peak.
Real details on DDT can be tracked down starting here.
Ruckelshaus's action must be backed by scientific evidence, by the EPA's founding act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Were it not, it would be easily overturned on appeal to the federal courts.
In two separate actions, Ruckelshaus's decision was appealed -- both times the federal courts upheld Ruckelshaus by summary judgment.
Rutledge is full of beans.
Do you believe hype or do you believe Science? IT sounds like you have not checked your facts. Assumptions are not facts. YOu really would appreciate seeing this movie. IF you are interested in facts and Science. IF you are only interested in an argument for the sake of it, then you won't be interested in seeing the movie. Have you by any chance read the information available in the government archives? We both know the answer. I would like to see what you would say AFTER you read it all. Also: did you know that one year BEFORE Ruckelshaus banned DDT he praised it to high heavens?Do you also know that his assistant said in the LA Times that Ruckelshaus HAD NOT read any of the findings of the hearing,in which Nobel Prize winners, Top scientists across the world, including New England science of medicine testified that if America, who THEN EXPORTED 80%, (that is a FULL eighty PERCENT) of its production to third world countries, would be DEVASTATED by this ban????? WHY would the USA ban something it was THEN
ReplyDeletemostly EXPORTING??? And I beg your pardon. Have you ever eaten or drank DDT and proved it is POISON? Do you just "believe" it is poison because of what some media told you, some book told you, OR, is your belief an outcome of your OWN investigation and knowledge? I do not mean this ugly in any way, but it is a deep question.
Man,I am so glad this is coming out. I have always felt DDT was the best insecticide ever. I was exposed to it early in life. I NEVER saw or heard ANYONE who had ANY ill effect from it. I have been in a DDT fog several times. It certainly took care of the mosquitoes. We were just sold a bill of goods by a group of people who don't value human life. Study the "One World" government stuff. Really research it. You will see what they have to say about population control.
ReplyDelete@timpanogos (Ed Darrell) writes with an air of authority about DDT, but what are his qualifications? Is he a medical doctor? A biologist? An epidemiologist? Er, no ...
ReplyDeletehttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/why-study-evolution/
[snip]
I am a lawyer. I paid much of my way through undergraduate school working as a botanist in air pollution research. For much of a decade
I staffed the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which deals with education issues; subsequent to my service on Capitol Hill I was for a brief, wonderful time Director of Information Services at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), during the late Reagan administration; my tenure there included responsibility for the redesign of the ERIC Library system, and I had responsibility for the Education Library which includes the largest collection of historic textbooks in the U.S.
[/snip]
So the man who speaks with such authority about DDT is a lawyer (what branch of law?), general-purpose civil servant, amateur historian and, er, librarian. Not a scientist by training, then, except for paying his way through school by "working as a botanist in air pollution research". What does that mean? Could be anything, but, for a 20-year-old paying his way through college probably means "collecting samples of lichen from tree trunks". Should anyone take this man seriously? See also ...
http://uk.asiancorrespondent.com/rwdb-jfbeck/2007/08/ddt-misinformation-clearinghouse.html
http://uk.asiancorrespondent.com/rwdb-jfbeck/lefty-bloggers-bend-the-truth-while-ignoring-the-deaths-of-millions
Interesting-sounding doc, reminds me of some points Michael Chriton made in his novel, State of Fear.
ReplyDeleteMy qualifications have nothing to do with the sources I cite.
ReplyDeleteWhile you would do well to listen to an experienced environmental lawyer and public health policy official, you may choose to denigrate my qualifications if you want to -- I note you offer none of your own.
But don't take my word for it. Check out the sources in the citations.
Why is it that the death toll from malaria has been cut by more than half worldwide, since we stopped DDT use in the U.S.? Why won't the film tell us that the malaria death toll is down, and continuing to drop?
Ed, do you have a link were I can read directly from another source were you got one of the statements you posted
ReplyDeleteEd Darrell said:
3. Ruckelshaus was prohibited from attending the hearings on DDT by law, practice, and the lawyers ethical canons. Ruckelshaus was the next level of appeals of decisions -- and consequently, he did not attend the hearings, nor was he expected to.
Thanks
Do you also know that his assistant said in the LA Times that Ruckelshaus HAD NOT read any of the findings of the hearing . . .
ReplyDeleteAs the first line of appeals from Judge Sweeney's decision, federal law and attorney ethical canons prohibited Ruckelshaus from attending the hearings. It was illegal for him to attend.
His decision indicated a deep knowledge of the content of the 9,000 pages of testimony. On appeals, there is no legal requirement, and no rational expectation, that the appeals officer or judge will try to redo the entire trial. That wasn't Ruckelshaus's job.
You failed to mention that two separate appeals courts reviewed Ruckelshaus's decision, and they ruled that he acted with the full knowledge of science, and accurately according to the law.
Why are you telling false tales about U.S. law, and false stories attempting to denigrate William Ruckelshaus, one of the heroes of the Saturday Night Massacre? Have you no respect for history, nor for heroes?
. . . in which Nobel Prize winners, . . .
But not the Nobel Prize winners of the President's Science Advisory Council, who in 1963 said that Rachel Carson's science was absolutely accurate, except that she was too easy on DDT.
Top scientists across the world, including New England science of medicine [????] testified that if America, who THEN EXPORTED 80%, (that is a FULL eighty PERCENT) of its production to third world countries, would be DEVASTATED by this ban????? WHY would the USA ban something it was THEN
mostly EXPORTING???
If you read Ruckelshaus's order, you know that manufacture for export was not banned.
The only thing that was banned was agricultural use of DDT in broadcast spraying. Use against malaria was legal, and manufacture for export stayed legal.
Did you read Ruckelshaus's order?
Could it be someone has handed you a bill of goods?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteLook at the ethical canons for judges. Appellate judges do not attend trials that will be appealed to them.
Anyone interested in reading more about the facts of DDT might like to visit the following site (http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/sniffing_out_excellent_white_powder/)
ReplyDeletewhere there is a lively, and informed dicussion taking place. Perhaps Ed you might like to post some of your views there and see what response you get from informed readers?
And for another take on DDT, check out the new documentary at www.3billionandcounting.com
But if you're really interested in the facts, you can go here, and read more than three years' worth of posts on DDT, environmental law, malaria, and how to really fight malaria:
ReplyDeleteMillard Fillmore's Bathtub, posts on DDT
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?s=DDT
I can't really argue back and forth on environmental laws and regulations governing DDT, but I can tell you, FOR A FACT, that Dr. Rutledge Taylor is a fraud. He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman who has scammed a bunch of people out of their money. He used that money to fund this project (and jet-set around the world with his girlfriend). He isn't trying to help anyone in these sad, developing countries. He's trying to make CASH. That's his only motive. He's a common con-artist without a conscience. How do I know? Because, unfortunately, I know him personally.
ReplyDelete