Perhaps you've been following Ken Blanchard's go around with Mr. Schuldt (see this, for example). Now Mr. Schuldt has come after me because I wrote a blog post on DDT that was insufficiently documented for publication in Science magazine. Chad pounces on one thing about which I was sloppy. I never intended to say that DDT was "banned" by everyone for everything, which is certainly not true (anyone who reads the Wikipedia article on DDT, and I did, would know that), but my post is clearly referencing the WHO ban, not a general ban. Perhaps I should have written more clearly so as to avoid just this critique from the unfriendly reader. But then look at my post. Its grandest claim, that restrictions on DDT may have led to more malaria deaths, is put in the form of a question coming from someone else's mouth. I do not know how many deaths have occurred due to restrictions on DDT. My guess is that it is above zero and less than the Hitlerian numbers some have claimed.
So does this justify the vitriol coming from Chad. I am a "hack" and an "idiot" to whom "facts don't matter." Really? This is how Chad dismisses opinions that make him uncomfortable; he simply slanders his opponents. Chad depicts right-winger bloggers as insulated and drawing from a few questionable sources. On this, I happen to think he is correct about some local right-wing bloggers. I will note that in my memory I have never cited Rush Limbaugh (whom I never listen to) or Michelle Malkin (whom I virtually never read). Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, is a respected professor of law and a major institution (University of Tennessee) who can hardly be dismissed as a "hack" in the mode of Limbaugh and Malkin (if they are indeed hacks). Now, a blog is not scholarship and shouldn't be judged so, but one can judge the credentials of the blogger, and Reynolds has pretty good creds. Besides, I just "hat tipped" him, for goodness sakes, as he linked to someone with a thought provoking question.
My post was intended to stimulate the following question: does the environmental movement sometimes make overly alarmist claims that lead to bad policies and greater human suffering? That's a question worth asking, and in the case of DDT the answer, in my opinion, is yes. Environmentalists certainly succeeded in making DDT harder to use, which has certainly led to some number of malaria cases that could have been prevented. It is likely, in my opinion, that the banning of DDT has led to more human suffering than DDT would have produced if left less regulated.
Update: Chad responds. I'll not go into detail, but only note again that Chad is simply unwilling to think unpleasant thoughts. Chad think to even question the environmental movement is a sign of a "smear." My post above is careful. No doubt pesticides are dangerous to humans, which is why we don't sprinkle them on our Wheaties each morning. But pesticides also help grow stronger plants and kill pests that spread disease. The question is not whether DDT poses a health threat, but whether it is a serious enough health threat to outweigh the good that it does.
Recent Comments