Archives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reveal a long history of trouble with DDT, almost from the first uses of the chemical as an insecticide during World War II. You’ll find extensive links to historic press releases from FWS below the fold.
Critics of the various restrictions on DDT use often claim that DDT is a God-sent chemical that nearly eradicated malaria from the world (absolutely untrue) and which was banned only because of hysteria caused by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring (untrue at both ends, hysteria and the power of Carson’s book). This is history revisionism at its worst, it is bogus history.
A careful study of the history of the use of DDT shows that scientists were concerned about its dangers from the first uses as a pesticide. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported dangers in a press release on August 22, 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan ended World War II (VJ Day was August 15 in Tokyo, August 14 in Washington). In that release FWS noted the beneficial uses of DDT to fight insect and lice infestations that threatened troops and civilians with typhus and other diseases, but cautioned that such use should not become common, that more study was needed:
Praising DDT as an outstanding scientific achievement and a very valuable tool, Dr. Clarence Cottam, Director of Wildlife Research of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that “caution in its use is esssential because of our incomplete knowledge of its action on many living things, both harmful and beneficial.
“Its use by the armed forces in Europe and the Pacific in killing disease-carrying insects was so effective and the need so urgent that its effects on other organisms had to be overlooked. Present information is based largely on single applications of DDT spray. The effects of repeated applications are little known.”
FWS had good reason for concern. Their tests had already shown DDT could kill waterfowl, which started the agency on a long quest for alternatives to DDT spraying of estuaries and swamps, in order to protect migratory waterfowl and the ecosystems that maintain their habitat.
Repeatedly through the next 50 years FWS noted serious problems with DDT and its effects on wildlife. FWS created an on-line archives of their press notices on DDT which traces this history clearly and convincingly.
Teachers can use these documents for document-based questions (DBQ) and exercises. Students can track the history of the ban of DDT through this one series of press releases, or supplement projects they may propose on DDT and its effects.
Policy makers and concerned citizens will notice that in these releases are direct refutations of claims made by pseudo-science groups such as JunkScience.com, that the 1927 EPA ban on most uses of DDT was not fully considered, not based on long-term research, or not based on research at all. These releases directly refute claims that DDT was not found harmful to birds and other wildlife.
The entire press release collection appears below, as FWS presents it at their site — all the links should work directly (let me know if you have problems). [While the table pasted in neatly originally, after posting I discovered the press release titles are being cut off -- if you have a solution, holler; I'm working on it]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated: August 2, 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Time after time, when we check the archives to see what history really says, we find important lessons that would prevent trouble, if we listen. One more demonstration of Santayana’s maxim.
Stumble It!
August 12, 2007 at 8:39 am
Should we be surprised it’s not included in the press release, since the study was published 15 years after the release? That’s one of the points I’m making here: Milloy claims the ban on DDT was rash, hasty and not supported by evidence. This is research 27 years before the DDT ban, showing why a ban on DDT would be a good idea.
That study you cite does not conclude that other factors are involved. It does corroborate the claim that DDT was the chief culprit in the precipitous thinning of eggshells after DDT was introduced into the raptors’ diets in the wild.
But let us assume there are other factors involved: Vilifred Pareto noted that 20% of the causes create 80% of the trouble. DDT is the biggest villain, and reducing its use has provided huge benefits. Can we track down the other sources? Let’s do it. In the meantime, DDT still is indicted and convicted, and gets no time off for good behavior, since there is none.
And while we’re at it, did you bother to read the conclusions of that FWS release?
FWS thought this program a success, showing that when DDE levels dropped low enough, reproductive success of the raptors helped make a case for delisting the species from the endangered list. A triumph of science and politics and policy, really.
While you’re reading stuff in the FWS electronic library (Is it safe to assume you found it from the links I offered? You’re welcome — but read the stuff, will you?), be sure to catch these publications:
Pesticide impacts on birds:
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/contam.html
Migratory birds and contaminants along the lower Columbia:
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/befact.pdf
Reducing pesticide risk to wildlife:
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/pestandwild.pdf
Integrated Pest Management: Reducing risks to pollinators from pest management activities:
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/IPMpol.pdf
See the next post, too — on hormonal mimicry.
August 12, 2007 at 6:44 am
Mr Darrell, raptors feature prominently in the press releases but I’ll bet the following from the FWS isn’t included:
“Analysis of eggs collected during these three periods showed a clear downward trend of DDE concentrations in eggs. In the late 1960s, DDE residues in the range of 20-40 ppm (parts per million) and eggshell thinning in excess of 20 percent were observed for peregrine falcons in Alaska (Peakall et. al 1975). Peakall (1976) reported that DDE residues in eggs in the range of 15 to 20 ppm would likely result in a declining peregrine falcon population. By 1995, DDE levels had declined to 2 to 3 ppm. Eggshell thickness also increased following the 1972 restrictions on DDT, although this increase appears to have leveled off at about 10 to 12 percent thinner than pre-DDT levels. Although current egg shells are still thinner than pre-DDT levels, reproductive success has been good. We are unsure why, with continuing declines in DDE, egg shell thickness has not continued to improve. We will continue to investigate other possible causes, including other contaminants.”
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/examples/AlaskaPeregrine.cfm
So other unknown factors are involved in egg shell thinning. Since these factors are unknown, it’s impossible to know what bearing they have on egg shell thinning. Perhaps they, and not DDT, are totally responsible for the thinning.
Are you still certain it was DDT on the grassy knoll?
August 12, 2007 at 4:44 am
Great find Ed! I will add it to the “Cliffs Notes”