posted 06-11-2007 11:21 AM            

quote:

---

If students are going to read “Silent Spring” in science classes, I wish it were paired with another work from that same year, 1962, titled “Chemicals and Pests.” It was a review of “Silent Spring” in the journal Science written by I. L. Baldwin, a professor of agricultural bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin.

He didn’t have Ms. Carson’s literary flair, but his science has held up much better. He didn’t make Ms. Carson’s fundamental mistake, which is evident in the opening sentence of her book:

“There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings,” she wrote, extolling the peace that had reigned “since the first settlers raised their houses.” Lately, though, a “strange blight” had cast an “evil spell” that killed the flora and fauna, sickened humans and “silenced the rebirth of new life.”

This “Fable for Tomorrow,” as she called it, set the tone for the hodgepodge of science and junk science in the rest of the book. Nature was good; traditional agriculture was all right; modern pesticides were an unprecedented evil. It was a Disneyfied version of Eden.

---

posted 06-11-2007 01:48 PM            

Being eloquent is more important than being right. Or being witty. Or being charismatic. Or being funny. Or being charming. Or being good looking. Or being a victim. All of those now are more important than being right.

A guy that used to work around me adhered to the philosophy that perception is reality. I am not so naive as to not understand what he's driving at, but I still steadfastly disagree. He's correct with respect to the public, for "they" are too lazy to root out the truth, but for those of us that aren't that lazy or employed to deliver some semblance of the truth, we need to strive to do just that, even if or especially if it means we have to struggle to change perception. Politicians, to me, are those most charged with the responsibility to present the actual facts, not merely ride popular opinion. On that point I do realize I am mostly delusional.

I blame Roseanne Barr, for the most part, as the obvious starting point where being funny excused all of her other obvious and significant flaws. The lowest common denominator is not a place to aspire to.

More on topic, less ranting, my alma mater has an official Department of Environmental Science now associated with the Biology Department. Almost without fail, they crank out ill-informed graduates that have a strong grounding in scientific mythology and little training in reality or the functioning of the biological world. They believe a Utopian version of nature does exist, if only because they close their eyes watching predatory animals in nature. Never mind the subtler nuances of things smaller than mammals. The Irish potato famine is a myth.

Oh wait, I'm ranting again. Well, here then, I'll lay it out. We're headed back towards the dark ages what with mysticism and snake oils pervading the day. We are on the verge of losing contact with the knowledge gained over the last hundred years, simply because people don't want to let reality affection their perception.

The angry face is not for you KGB, nor for Tierney or Baldwin. It's for the fact that article will be dismissed by large proportions of the public that have had lies foisted upon them by self-aggrandizing and self-supporting activist groups. Ptui.

(man, I need more sleep on Sunday nights)

posted 06-12-2007 05:47 AM            

quote:

---

But Dr. Baldwin did make one mistake. After expressing the hope “that someone with Rachel Carson’s ability will write a companion volume dramatizing the improvements in human health and welfare derived from the use of pesticides,” he predicted that “such a story would be far more dramatic than the one told by Miss Carson in ‘Silent Spring.’ ”

That never happened, and I can’t imagine any writer turning such good news into a story more dramatic than Ms. Carson’s apocalypse in Eden. A best-seller titled “Happy Spring”? I don’t think so.

---

posted 06-12-2007 09:54 AM            

quote:

---

The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring." Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.

---

I don't doubt DDT is useful, but this seems a bit strong. Especially after hearing our own Bugman address the limitations of DDT in past posts.

posted 06-12-2007 05:56 PM            

As I mentioned in another post, the strategy for approaching malaria eradication is a 4-phase one:
1)Planning phase
2)Attack phase
3)Consolidation phase
4)Maintenace phase
The classic example give by the DDT magic-bullet mythologists--that Sri LAnka suffered a resurgence of malaria after DDT was banned was false; the resurgence occurred because health officials, impressed by the reduction in transmission during the Attack phase, did not follow through with effective Consolidation and Maintenance.

The low cost of DDT can also cut both ways; any product that is very cheap is also very likely to be overused, often to the point that it is no longer saving any money, because so much product is being wasted. There currently is a very cost-effective larvicide on the market now which works at dosages so low that it is very cheap to use at label rates; skeptical technicians often apply "just a little more" for good measure, and next thing you know, you are using 3-4 times as what is needed and it is no longer cost effective. With something like DDT, this is even worse, because overapplication will hasten selection of resistance.

Anyway, as I have said before, I support the limited use of DDT as an IRS application for Anopheline control. However, its use must be interspersed with other insecticides of different modes of action to minimize resistance selection, and susceptibility testing of Anophelines must be done periodically to detect any early evidence of resistance in vector populations.

posted 06-13-2007 04:25 PM            

I am interested in asking questions about Sri Lanka though and will formulate my thoughts on those in time, dragging this topic sidewise.

posted 06-13-2007 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Buggo:
I like DDT for assisting with malaria transmission control, make no mistake about that. But it's not a magic bullet. I can say a lot of what [b]gorgas has said in different ways, but there's not much point. I might offer some information up in a slightly different fashion though, but I want to digest it more.

I am interested in asking questions about Sri Lanka though and will formulate my thoughts on those in time, dragging this topic sidewise.

Also in digression, gorgas what is the cost effective larvacide you speak of? [/B]

---

I hope the Sri Lanka example is the correct one, I dredge up stuff from memory too often, and it might be harder for me to document, at least online. Hope I am not inadvertantly misinforming about that, as I have just finished skewering others. However, my intent is not one of deception; I wonder about the ones who generate the "DDT will save us" articles like these.

As for the larvicide of which I write, I am speaking of a product whose trade name is "Agnigue". It is very similar to a product called "AROSURF" that was produced in from the mid-1970's until about 1989.
Both products are predominantly Isostearyl alchohols, which were used as surfactants and wetting agents. AROSURF was derived primarily from rendered animal fats, whereas AGNIGUE is from Toll Oil, which I believe is a co-product from the manufacture of paper pulp. When applied to wter, the product spread rapidly to form a thin film which breaks down the surface tension of the water, causing mossie larvae to drown. At the correct dosage, this film need only be a single molecule thick; hence this product is often advertised as a "monomolecular film". Organic pollution and emergent vegetation may require a heavier application for coverage. Since it is not possible to visualize the coverage, as it is with a larvicidal oil, it is necessary to use an indicator oil to determine if coverage has been achieved or not. Since this indicator system seems to be a little squirrely, some operators apply the stated label rate as per surface area, and periodically recheck to verify a kill.
Others use the indicator system at first, until they get a feel for using the product, and go on faith and periodic post-treatment surveys. One modest-sized program I deal with used a 55 gallon drum of AROSURF for nearly 20 yrs before using it up, and he did manage to treat a lot of sites with it. The problem comes with an inexperienced or careless user, or seasonal tech, who gives each site an "extra squirt" for good measure. Before long, you may find your usage has doubled, and you are killing the same number of mossies for twice the cost. True, higher dosages may last on-site for a somewhat greater time, but probably not reliably enough to do it intentionlly.

ANother highly effective larvicide was DURSBAN 10 CR (controlled release). This consisted of a plastic granule, about the size and appearance of a grain of rice. Used as a larvicide, it would give control for a long period of time at very low rates; so low that applicators were very skeptical of its claims. In certain kinds of habitats, like environmentally sensitive woodland pools, a pinch of granules might give virtual season long control. The granules would also remain potent between cycles of drying and flooding. They could even be used to pretreat some kinds of sites. However, it was very expensive, and the claims of efficacy were so astounding, that many MAD's didn't take to it until the more progressive operators conducted field trials. But Dow got impatient at the slow acceptance, and pulled the product before it really had been given a chance. I seriously think this product might have very widely accepted had it been around a couple more years. But I also wonder if its long residual activity might have selected for resistance pretty quickly. This would have been especially problematic, because at that time (early1980's), our major adulticides were also OP's. (Malathion, Fenthion, Dursban) OP cross-resistance would have been a very bad thing then.

posted 06-15-2007 12:00 PM            

I was not familiar with the larvicide you mentioned, so thank you very much for the information.

Dursban was (and may, I'm not privy to what is actually used and in what amounts) used quite regularly here and may have been the CR formulation, though in recent years it wouldn't have been. The previous entomologist responsible for this area used it about 80% of the time, Bti about 20% of the time but played it up like the converse was happening. The Bti just doesn't last as long so it requires more frequent applications which means more money (plus Bti is more expensive per unit of treatment than Dursban is in the first place).

The new guy came in full bore in a horrible year trying to manage with only Bti and methoprene (which was registered up here only that year) and he was a miserable failure as was his program. He's a very 'green' thinker, but thankfully he's also pragmatic, especially after the media and public kicked his backside around for a couple of months. They are still currently larviciding with mostly methoprene or Bti and in years when it's not wet, it's relatively successful.