Today’s Baltimore Sun published this critical assessment of Rachel Carson’s trumped-up case against DDT. The authors are Jeremy Lott and Erin Wildermuth; here’s part of their argument:
Against the backdrop of the great good that had been brought about by
DDT and other pesticides, Ms. Carson painted a bleak, carcinogenic
future.
The book popularized certain fears about DDT by exaggerating them. The
pesticide was said to be decimating bird populations not just because
it cut down on insect populations but also because it thinned
eggshells, which led to far fewer young birds. Worse, what was
afflicting birds might be afflicting humans. Ms. Carson – who would die
of breast cancer shortly after the book’s publication – alleged that
DDT caused cancer in humans and predicted an epidemic if its use wasn’t
drastically curtailed.
Dr. Richard Tren of Africa Fighting Malaria charges that Ms. Carson
"misrepresented some scientific data while ignoring data that would not
support her case." Quite true.
Alleged links between DDT and cancer rates were never strong. In 1972,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency empanelled administrative law
Judge Edmund Sweeney to hold evidentiary hearings to determine the
drug’s dangers. After seven months of hearings, he determined it is
"not a carcinogenic hazard to man." Further, using DDT according to EPA
specifications did "not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish
… wild birds, or other wild life."
….The death toll during the 30-year DDT ban is hard to fix, but evidence
from Sri Lanka and elsewhere suggests that several hundred thousand
graves would not be pushing it.
Why are persons who sell marijuana — a product whose use, as far as I’m aware, is responsible for approximately zero deaths — imprisoned and vilified while Rachel Carson and her "green" compatriots canonized as saints?
