All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Nov. 2, 2010 - Skeptoid
18:00
Skeptoid #230: DDT: Secret Life of a Pesticide

DDT can be both a killer of birds and a savior against malaria. Rarely is a question as black and white as we'd like. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
DDT: A Nuanced Defense Against Malaria 00:14:56
It'd be nice if every question was a black and white one with a simple answer, but sadly, most are confoundingly nuanced.
One such question is the use of DDT in preventing malaria in developing nations.
It's unquestionably harmful to certain wildlife and unquestionably effective at saving the lives of children.
Where do we draw the line on this most controversial pesticide?
DDT is coming up next on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
DDT, the secret life of a pesticide.
Put on your respirator and hazmat suit because today we're pointing the skeptical eye at the claims on both sides of the DDT question.
DDT is an insecticide in use since the 1930s.
At first, its basic use was to kill mosquitoes that transmit malaria, lice that transmit typhus, and other insect disease vectors like tzitzi flies, at which DDT is extremely effective.
It was so successful in World War II that its discoverer was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1948.
Subsequently, it was used in agriculture to protect crops from a variety of pests, and once again, it's highly effective in doing so.
But a few decades later, DDT became a two-sided issue, with detractors pointing to health effects on humans and animals, most notably eggshell thinning in various bird species, and a number of potentially severe health effects in humans.
In response to these concerns, DDT has now been banned, for the most part, in many countries.
But the controversy continues.
While the ban has been credited with the rebound of bird species, it has also been criticized as overzealous, with many now saying the detrimental effects were overblown and did not outweigh the many lives saved from malaria in the third world.
It is in fact making a comeback, with production increasing today in China, India, and North Korea for both agricultural and anti-malaria uses.
And so we ask the question, is one side completely wrong and one side completely right?
Or do we equivocate and conclude that DDT has its place, albeit a limited one?
DDT is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
It's a completely synthetic compound that does not exist in nature.
It's a white, powdery, waxy substance that's hydrophobic.
It doesn't dissolve in water and so does not contaminate it, but readily dissolves in solvents and oils.
It's applied as a white smoky mist.
DDT kills insects by chemically enhancing the electrical connections between their neurons, short-circuiting them into spasms and death.
DDT's hydrophobic nature is both a blessing and a curse.
It can't contaminate water sources, which is good, but it also doesn't get dissolved away by them and diluted into virtual nothingness, so it hangs around for a long time.
DDT probably never would have been banned if it were not for the 1962 publication of Silent Spring, the title of which alluded to dead birds.
Author Rachel Carson was a much-beloved nature writer who died only two years after the book came out.
She'd been a marine biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, then called the Bureau of Fisheries, but was able to retire with the publication of a trilogy of books about the sea.
All became bestsellers in the 1950s, with the public enamored by her poetic presentation of all things pertaining to beaches, islands, the deep sea, and the creatures living there.
Following this trilogy, her writing turned toward environmental issues and became increasingly critical of industry, government, and the effect of humans on the planet.
Silent Spring was serialized in The New Yorker before its publication, and it was probably the most scathing of her works, though beautifully written.
It charged DDT with being a health hazard and with widespread environmental destruction, particularly to bird populations, and was unquestionably the turning point which resulted in DDT's bans in the United States and other countries.
In fact, as one Environmental Protection Agency writer put it, Silent Spring played in the history of environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom's Cabin played in the abolitionist movement.
Rachel Carson's list of posthumous honors is a long one, showing what deep roots Silent Spring thrust not only into the environmental movement, but also into the public psyche.
President Jimmy Carter awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
She appeared on postage stamps in several countries.
A bridge in Pittsburgh is named after her, as is a government building in Harrisburg.
The number of schools, parks, nature refuges, scholarships, and scholarly prizes named for Rachel Carson would fill a page.
Silent Spring's principal thesis was that DDT harms bird populations through eggshell thinning.
The mechanism by which DDT does this is now largely but not completely understood.
In summary, it interferes with the delivery of calcium carbonate to the eggshell gland, and the eggs that are laid have thinner shells.
Shells that are too thin can lead to the death of the embryo.
This eggshell thinning is the primary environmental concern over DDT.
It's been about five decades since Silent Spring was published, and we've learned a lot in those years.
One thing we've learned is that DDT is only one of many causes of eggshell thinning.
Other culprits include lead and mercury toxicity, oil, phosphorus and calcium deficiency, and dehydration.
Perhaps most significantly, birds in captivity, in order to undergo testing, are under stress, and this stress alone is enough to produce eggshell thinning.
Although DDT's mechanism for eggshell thinning is plausible, many studies throughout the 1970s and 1980s failed to correlate such thinning with high levels of DDT, even extremely high levels.
Other studies have confirmed Rachel Carson's findings.
My own conclusion based on a review is that there probably is a correlation, but it's not a strong one, and at best, it's only one of many causes.
Whether DDT is used or not would probably not have a large impact on bird populations.
But despite the likelihood that it would have some impact, it's now known that the species Rachel Carson focused on, most notably bald eagles, were already in massive decline from unrelated pressures even before DDT's introduction.
Habitat loss and hunting had been by far the greater causes of bald eagle deaths.
Hunting had reduced the populations to just a few hundred nesting pairs in the mountains, and lowland eagles were already gone from habitat loss.
Rachel Carson did not ignore these issues in her book, but the popular perception that banning DDT was all that was needed to magically restore bald eagle populations was naive.
In the end, it was the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the bird's 1967 placement on the endangered species list, combined with increased penalties for poaching, that ultimately led to the bald eagles' successful return to remaining habitats.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Brown pelicans are another species often cited as having been decimated by DDT use in the United States, along the Gulf Coast and in California.
Massive declines were indeed correlated with DDT use, but it may have been a coincidence in each case.
Along the Gulf Coast, hunting by angry fishermen had reduced the pelican population in Texas from 5,000 annual births to just 200 in 1941.
The California populations suffered a double whammy in the years following Silent Springs' publication, first with an oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969, and then with an outbreak of Newcastle disease in 1971 that unfortunately required the culling of millions of brown and white pelicans.
DDT certainly didn't help, but it was another case where the bird populations would have dropped sharply whether DDT was in the picture or not.
Of course, it would be completely wrong to overlook DDT's potential for causing harm simply because there are other things that cause harm too.
All we can do is our best to quantify exactly what the risk really is, and then the decision to ban or not becomes a cost-benefit analysis, which is no longer a science question.
Everyone has their right to their own opinion on what's most important, and in the United States, we chose the birds.
Silent Springs' legacy may have been good for the birds, but not so much for human populations in the third world.
DDT is one of the most effective pesticides ever discovered for fighting malaria.
Although DDT remains legal for insecticide use in most areas where malaria is a major killer, the money for fighting the mosquitoes often comes from donors in wealthy countries like the United States.
Such wealthy donors have often had little personal exposure to the issues and can sometimes have a skewed perspective when it comes to bald eagle eggshells in the United States versus the deaths of children in Mozambique.
Writing in the Nature Medicine Journal, malaria advocate Professor Amir Adaran criticized American environmental groups for opposing the public health exceptions of DDT bans.
Environmentalists in rich developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics.
More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT.
As a result of these pressures, many donations now coming from wealthy nations are now contingent upon DDT not being used, which leaves the poor nations with fewer options, often too expensive and less effective, and children die.
Up to 3 million people die of malaria each year, most of them in Africa.
DDT, while it does have environmental and health concerns, like all pesticides, is not known to have ever killed anyone.
If we shelve our most effective tools, hoping that something perfect will come along that has no potential downside, we'll wait forever, and thousands will continue dying every day.
These are the cases where wealthy environmental groups appear to do their best to justify their elitist stereotype, at the expense of brown people.
Rachel Carson absolutely acknowledged DDT's importance to fighting malaria, but was quick to point out another downside, acquired resistance.
After six or seven years, mosquito populations develop resistance to DDT.
However, this is the case with all pesticides.
It is not a reason to avoid DDT per se.
Moreover, we've since learned that it is still effective against resistant mosquitoes, only a little less so.
Susceptibility in resistant strains goes down to 63%, as opposed to 87% in non-resistant strains.
Even among resistant mosquitoes, DDT is an exceptionally effective repellent.
Houses treated with DDT are avoided by all mosquitoes, resistant or not.
But like all synthetic chemicals, DDT has been blamed for virtually any human illness imaginable.
Mosquito Resistance and Skepticism 00:03:00
Some say it causes cancer, diabetes, hyperthyroidism, loss of fertility, that it functions as an endocrine disruptor, and more.
The World Health Organization classifies it only as moderately hazardous, and in response to all the wildly conflicting studies of its cancer-causing effects in animal tests, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as a probable carcinogen.
The claims that DDT definitely causes cancer or anything else are not supported by the data.
But obviously, it's a risky compound that we don't want to expose anyone to if we don't have to.
And so, again, we're outside of science questions and down to risk assessment.
DDT does have its place, and its current usage is probably not too far off of what it should be.
The exception is Africa, where DDT's upside far outweighs the down.
My opinion is that the donors should relax their restrictions against it and leave those decisions to the experts on the front lines in Africa.
For much of the rest of the world, DDT has largely been supplanted by newer and better agricultural pesticides.
and there's insufficient reason to put collateral species under pressure.
A scientific review nearly always produces better focused policy, and our DDT policy is definitely due for a tune-up.
Skeptoid is made possible by financial support from listeners.
Come to skeptoid.com and click on Support Skeptoid.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection