Rachael Carson was closer to the truth,than she ever realized..the australian army used DDT,Dieldren and other chemicals,to contol weevils and other insects,weekly by spraying,fogging,and washing grains,dried fruit and similar commodities in dieldren,this was done to kill any vermin,that had contaminated the foodstuff,after washing the items,they would be spread to dry,sieved,the vermin removed,then replaced in it's orignal container!this was carried out by all supply depots,and issued to units on a weekly basis!As a member of a Tribunal stated to me,you with a lot of others must have eaten a lot of Anzac biscuits laced with Dieldren!!And I have documented proof that this happened..

I much this assessment of the effects of the countless thousands of toxic chemicals released into the "environment" and the environments of our cells and blood-stream over the past 100 years.
We humans, and indeed all biological life on this planet, have been the unknowing subject(s) of a vast unprecedented experiment in multiple chemical exposure(s).

Pleaase check out http://www.ourstolenfuture.org

And unlike the true believers such as the said Jennifer and her IPA fellow travellers, these people have done their homework by checking the evidence---as any true scientist does.

Thanks for the link Ho Hum. That's an incredible reference source. I've been stuck in there for ages.

How nice of Jennifer to remind us of this great person on her 100th birthday. Good article.

But it seems to fly in the face of her general drift, as presented in numerous articles on this forum.

For example: Beware doomsday forecasts http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2867, The ABC’s environmental statistics reports fail the basic test of rigour http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2098, Drip-fed figures http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3508

“The senator has said that Rachel Carson used junk science and that her “warnings about environmental damage have put a stigma on potentially lifesaving pesticides" like DDT.”

This sounds a lot like the bucketing Ms Marohasy has given several key people and organisations over their warnings of impending environmental damage!

Does this mean she has starting working with us (those who are very concerned about many aspects of looming environmental and social catastrophe) and stopped being a blatant apologist for the business lobby !?

A few years a venerable old sage named Howard Shapiro vistited our shores. There was even a half page article on him in the Oztralian. He is a passionate practitioner of organic gardening and agriculture. He was quoted thus in the Oz. "I will outyield you in any crop you want to grow, in any place. Give me two or three years to build the soil, and I will build paradise, as you build a nightmare."

He also mentioned his farm in New Mexico thus: "It was totally worn out, it looked like a piece of concrete, but in three years it was bountiful. We outyield everybody in the region. Sustainable organic agriculture is the future."

He also pointed out that pesticide use had increased ten-fold in the USA since 1945 and yet we still lose 33% of the crops and have not gained anything.

Preempting an anticipated post by Roskam in the near future re the "benefits" of genetically modified agriculture, Howard Shapiro has no time at all for such hubristic thinking and pracrice.

Shapiro's work can be found via:

1. http://www.seedsofchange.com/cutting_edge/ground_breakers.asp

A site which even features Bill Mollison.

Chemical toxicity is a complex subject. It is not suuficient to state that such and such is toxic. Toxicity depends on such factors as dose,dose rate, mode of administration etc. It is also necessary to discuss metabolites of the compound,the specieces targeted, the genetics of an individual etc.

Jennifer is correct Rachael Carsons failed to provide any convincing eviedence for the toxicity of trace quantities of DDT in particular in the human situation.

As far as I know Rachael did not mention use of DDT in combating typhus in the second world war. Napoleon's Grand Army could have told her about typhus fever.

Surely no reasonable person can doubt the role of DDT in malaria control.

Give over Jennifer,what point are you trying to make?
The use of nasty chemicals are fine because sometimes they have a benificial effect?
As usual Jennifer,long on conjecture and short on fact.
Do you remember Agent Orange? Now there was a fine use of a weed killer if ever there was one.
In Australia Lamba-Cyhalothrin is licensed for use. Have you ever witnessed its effect? Have you ever got a drop on your skin?
Bruce Haigh

Oh dear. I suppose we can be thankful that Jennifer didn't run the "Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler" line. If you want a laugh have a look here http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ where you can play "DDT Ban Myth Bingo".

It seems to me that this campaign has little to do with DDT and even less with malaria. It's all about discrediting Rachel Carson, who remains a powerful figure. I note that Jennifer reproves Carson for having "no institutional affiliation and .... no scientific publications" while approving of the remarks of Senator Dr Tom Coburn, who doesn't either. Double standard anyone?

The World Health Organisation has recommended residual indoor spraying of DDT for malaria bearing mosquitoes in affected countries. That's a miniscule portion of past usage levels to assist in addressing the uncontrolled release of DDT to the environment.

WHO states: "The environmental and health dangers posed by non-recommended use of DDT are real."

Under the WHO recommendations and guidelines, the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POP's) recognizes three important facts:

i) The urgent and immediate need of many of the malaria-endemic countries until viable, effective and affordable alternatives to DDT are found. This will ensure that the Convention does not result in sharp increases in malaria epidemics and deaths.

ii) The need to approach research and development of safe and affordable alternatives to DDT as well as the adoption and use of such alternatives as a medium term goal towards the improvement of the vector control capacity of malaria endemic countries.

iii) A longer term goal of reducing over-reliance of vector control programmes on pesticides in general, to protect the ecosystems and human health from the negative impacts of POP's pesticides (including DDT.)

POP's are the "dirty dozen" man-made organochlorine chemicals recommended by the Stockholm Convention for total global elimination - including DDT.

Jennifer - resorting to using human tragedies for your argument, with the added spiteful criticism on the accurate writings of Rachel Carson and an ignorant endeavour to promote the use of the heinous DDT affords you little credibility.

Your endeavours to use spin to fool those who know better than you, reveals the person you really are - an imposter of the highest order!

Johnj wrote: "I note that Jennifer reproves Carson for having "no institutional affiliation and .... no scientific publications" while approving of the remarks of Senator Dr Tom Coburn, who doesn't either. Double standard anyone?"

Funny isn't it? If i was Ms Marohasy, having sold my soul to The Institute for Public Affairs (the most shameless lie factory for greed-is-good economic rationalism in the country), i would be a little more discrete about throwing mud. But then many working girls think they love their pimp. The IPA got you working on the amazing health benefits of tobacco & asbestos yet, JM?

Most of the above comments misrepresent what I wrote in the article.
And my comment that Rachel Carson "had no institutional affiliation and had no scientific publications in the area of chemical toxicology but she galvinised public and government support for more controls on the use of chemicals" is simply an interesting fact. Furthermore, good on her, in so much as more controls were needed back then on the use of pesticides.

But I think it is sad, that people like Liam need to resort to the sort of personal attack that he and others have in the above thread.

The IPA and I often seek out the contentious. But noone at the IPA has ever told me what to write. The organisation has only ever encouraged me to research and write on the environmental issues that I consider important and to write it as I find it.

I am happy to debate my point of view, but no one should have to put up with the sort of misrepresentation and abuse as dished out in the above thread.

Ms Marohasy, this being the first time i've seen you post to one of your threads i'm shocked into embarrassment at my crudity - I apologise.

You don't tho address any of the criticisms of your article, as you claim you are happy to do. Some posters raise concerns about persistant and active chemical compounds of which DDT is an example. You make no mention of any of the established impacts of DDT, or that the bioaccumulative compound lasts 150 years or that it has known synergistic effects with other common pollutants.

Does you silence on the issue indicate that you believe there are NO problems with DDT at all?

Also, do you have any information JM on the 'African American Environmentalist Association' at http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm ? They're very keen on DDT too, even if appear to be solely an offshoot of the US nuclear industry funded 'Clean and Safe Energy Coaltion'.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_and_Safe_Energy_Coalition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_York_Affordable_Reliable_Electricity_Alliance

Jennifer: Hey some blogs get rough don’t they? What new blog science has it roots in creationism?

Ho Hum: Reading the latest drag on life (Seeds of Change ) from Bill Mollison was quite worth while but I wonder if he’s given up smoking yet.

Liam: All these new alliances have roots in the old US stock exchange.

For the lay person to derive a basic understanding of the man-made chlorine based chemicals requires much intensive study into chemical toxicology. Clearly Jennifer is not au fait with this research.

She has trivialised the ecological, animal and human impacts of DDT -a chlorine based chemical, similar to the persistent organic pollutant, PCDD (dioxins.)

Recently, scientists have discovered a biomagnification of DDT of more than 200,000 times in an estuary on Long Island in the US, despite the fact that DDT was banned in the early 70's.

Only at the end of last year, doctors in Vietnam, warned citizens living near the ignominious Bien Hoa military base not to drink the water, eat the fish or grow fruit and vegetables as a result of the Americans dumping dioxins (agent orange) on the citizens of Vietnam some 40 years ago.

Children are still presenting at Vietnamese hospitials with hideous physical deformities, inherited as a result of parents and grandparents' exposure to agent orange. Washington has advised they will not be compensating those Vietnamese affected by dioxins.

And here in our "developed" nation, the federal government's Product Stewardship (Oil) has seen industry burning uncontrolled, untested waste oil, as a fuel, over unsuspecting communities where dioxins are spewing out ten fold in excess of the international recommended maximum emission, contaminating other states, the atmosphere, soils, waterways and the entire food chain.

The federal government describes its stewardship as "recycling."

Traces of chlorinated chemicals have been discovered in the ice caps and snow in remote areas such as the Arctic and Antartica.

These chemicals are chlorinated hydrocarbons containing chlorine atoms, with the emphasis on CARBON. Get it?

Such is the ignorance of the liberal and labor governments who are culpable of contaminating the masses, where both parties are imbued with the ethos of development and large-scale projects, incapable of grasping the depth of public concern for environmental protection.

There is an interesting article in Saturdays "Good Weekend" supplement The Age SMH.
What DDT supporters don't tell, INSECT RESISTANCE which can become total in 6-7 years. This is well known in rural areas and is a continual problem for farmers and chemical companies, even with modern chemicals and was chronicled by Racheal Carson.
There is evidence that the spraying of DDT and other chemicals has actually increased the potency of malaria, because the weaker strains were killed off by DDT, and now resistant super bugs have built up and the problem which was manageable is now a lot worse.
It is estimated to eradicate malaria, we would have to spray the inside walls in 8 out of 10 houses in infected areas, a logisical impossility, DDT is still used in developing countries through the use of DDT impregnated bednets and has not been banned for use.
Dr Alan Lymbery, a parasitologist at Murdoch Universityand Professor Andrew Thompson wrote " To (solely) blame a reduction in DDT useage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong.

I am still rather dubious about this whole Rachel Carson/DDT/Malaria thing. I did a bit more checking on Senator Tom Coburn's mean-spirited blocking of the bills to honour Rachel Carson. Have a look here. http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=b46c952e-802a-23ad-498f-4406252b12f8 Coburn cites www.rachelwaswrong.com , a website is brought to you by the good folk at the Competititve Enterprise Institute. www.cei.org

I note that the Institute published an anti-Carson article in 1996, one of the earliest I can find http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,01518.cfm I particularly like the Institute's assertion that there are only "hypothetical risks associated with such compounds as dioxin, DDT and PCBs." Mind you, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was still touting for the tobacco industry as late as 1994 (good collection of links here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute ) so obviously they don't let the science get in the way of a good pitch for their clients.

I still contend that there is an orchestrated campaign against Rachel Carson. If you don't want dioxin on your Weet-Bix or PCBs in your coffee, I would suggest a cautious approach to the work of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Junk science indeed.

JJ: SourceWatch sometimes misses the hub of the arguments in the most righteous campaigns for “free” thinking and strictly commercial enterprise. There is another web at work on issues like ‘intelligent design versus natural selection’

“Most of the creation scientists' work consists of criticisms of the data that support evolution or geology” see Wiki

My notes: On ‘theory versus fact’

Claims of bias in science and the media are everywhere particularly right wing blogs.

On ‘quote mining’

Creation “science” is all about selective reuse of good science that dares to understand the more complex relationships in nature. Rarely are they working from direct experience.

IPCC reports are a good case where core climate models are constantly blasted apart.to find the most conflicting senarios. Hey; even “model” evolution in regular science becomes a disgusting practice.

This is an unhealthy mix of business interests and learning.

Quite right, Johnj.

How interesting that the Dr Coburns in this world are out to defame the deceased Rachel Carson.

She had little to do with the International Treaty, signed in May 2001 to ban the following chemicals:

Hexachlorobenzene, PCB's, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, toxaphene, chlordane, aldrin, heptachlor, dioxins/furans and mirex.

Perhaps the "Dr Coburns" are plotting to see how they can posthumously lay the blame for the 2001 bans on Rachel Carson.

Despite the 2001 ban on PCB's, industries in my area were permitted to burn waste oil, containing PCB's up to 50ppm until 2003. "No guidelines in Australia yet", declared the unethical Department of Environment, in its defence of the influential but equally unethical pollutant industries!

And the requirement for the waste oil industry to monitor for PCB's is still not enforced!

During the Basel Convention on hazardous waste, the US, Canada and Australia were the bad guys, behaving badly and protesting at a consensus of some 130 countries for international solutions to the mitigation of hazardous waste.

Australia, a signatory to the POP's convention, requested an exemption, to continue the use of mirex (by-products dioxins and furans.)

The NT growers continue to use this stuff on mangoes - oh yummy! The current extension can also be renewed for another five years. How interesting that other countries have discontinued the use of mirex, but Australia, the "clever country" can't!

Currently there remains some 10,000 tonnes of hexachlorobenzene at Botany bay, lanquishing in sheds and purported to be the largest stockpile in the world. It has contaminated Sydney waters with dioxins etc. and despite some twenty years, solutions for the destruction of this man-made chemical have not yet been realised.

Though I understand that one country alone, Germany, has offered to burn this chemical for a price - so let's dump it on another nation -who cares!

The "Jennifers" of this country wish only to maintain the status quo, representing the recidivist polluter and their zeal for profits, without regard for the already heavily compromised environment and human health.

But we're on to you Jennifer!

alanpoi, could you tell me how the problem was manageable?

Great posts.
Jennifer you have done this before. You put out a piece of provocative rubbish, you get jumped on and you claim to have been misrepresented.
I don't get it, the information is out there why don't you use it?
Anyway who am I to spoil what remains of your fun, your useby date is drawing ever closer.
Bruce Haigh

The locals had been living with malaria for centuries, now since DDT was sprayed all over the place, the mozzies developed resistance it is worse than ever, it affected non locals worse than locals, that probably why it was decided to try to eradicate it, if it only affected black, brown and yellow people nothing would have been done about it.
That is only my opinion I could be wrong, I think that is why we have a big panic about SARS, it is non discrimitry there are worse things than malaria and SARS affecting the Third World but they only affect the Third World, so we don't have to worry about them upsetting our lovely little middle class existance.

Bruce Haigh, perhaps you could tell us your definition of a nasty chemical?