Myth Power
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, Environment, General PoliticsRaise your hand if you think DDT usage was the prime reason for the endangerment of the bald eagle population …
Yep, there are a lot of hands still up in the air despite facts that have proven this fallacy to the contrary.
News of the resurgence in Pennsylvania’s bald eagle population was recently reported, along with the continuing misconception regarding DDT.
Pennsylvania officials just announced success with their program to re-establish the state’s bald eagle population. But it’s a shame that such welcome news is being tainted by oft-repeated myths about the great bird’s near extinction.
In its July 4 article reporting that the number of bald eagle pairs in Pennsylvania had increased from 3 in 1983 to 100 for the first time in over a century, the Associated Press reached into its file of bald eagle folklore and reported, “DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery.�
While the AP acknowledged the fact that bald eagle populations “were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, farmers and fishermen� – spurring a 1940 federal law protecting bald eagles – the AP underplayed the significance of hunting and human encroachment and erroneously blamed DDT for the eagles’ near demise.
How compelling is data against DDT being the primary agent in threatening the bald eagle population?
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,� but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,� according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,� according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.�
The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the U.S. between 1961-1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
Fairly compelling … but what about the theory of DDT causing thinning of egg shells?
One of the most notorious DDT “factoids� is that it thinned bird egg shells. But a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn’t associated with egg shell thinning.
In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment – and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild.
So what causes thin bird egg shells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil; lead; mercury; stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; restraint and nutrient deficiencies.
So, the myths endure and respective interest groups are passionate to the degree where facts are not allowed to get in the way of the story.
A dangerous dynamic, fervor without all the facts …
I have to wonder …
Do “bumper sticker environmentalists” truly understand the damage that can be done when objectivity is foresaken and the cause is allowed to bury competing facts?
BTW … Yes, I did raise my hand to the question posed, so I’m red-faced, but thankfully at least more enlightened, as to the rest of the story regarding DDT and the power of a myth.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 10th, 2006 and is filed under Blogging, Environment, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:06 am
The unwarranted hysteria over DDT will go down in history as one of science’s darkest hours. It is a prime example where a highly motivated wing of the scientific community was able to hijack the entire debate, supress the results pf legitimate research and perpetuate a scientific falsehood for decades. It wouldn’t be such a catastrophe if it hadn’t already cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa alone. When the truth about this lie finally comes out, it’s going to hurt the environmental scientific community big time.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:30 am
and this is the kind of corporate sponsored, right-wing “journalism” famous when it comes to Fox
Consider the source.
The issue is far more complex than Fox would have you believe, and despite some debunking, there is a general scientific concensus that DDT thins the eggshells of sensitive raptors.
Studies cited by those say that DDT thinking egg shells is a myth were performed on chickens and other birds, which do appear to be less sensitive to the effect than raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons, etc)
But, it is duly noted that DDT is not the sole cause of the bald eagle dying off in the latter part of the 20th century, nor even a major cause — but it was certainly a cause.
Now, does that mean I am against DDT? No, truthfully, DDT is perhaps one of the best ways to control mosquitos that carry the malaria virus and a wise, judiciual use can do more good than harm.
While it is true the environmentalists are guilty of skewing the issue based on incomplete science and hysteria, the non-environmental crows is equally guilty of skewing the issue enflamed by their passion of debunking all things environmental.
The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.
p.s.–when did Brian move from MA to Atl?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Since it’s Fox, it can’t be true? I’d appreciate some facts to back up your claim. “General scientific consensus” is kind of vague. You could be referring only to university professors for all we know.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Fair enough, but please remember that my point was dismissing the effects of DDT on egg shell thinning is just as bad as the hysteria that it was the sole cause of the decline of the bald eagle.
I make no such claim–just that I cannot stand it when right wing extremists go 100 percent in the other direction
Here’s one study online
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v096n02/p0268-p0276.pdf
Here are some more, but you will need to pull them from scientific journals at your local library
Lincer, J.A. 1975. DDE-induced eggshell-thinning in the American Kestrel: a comparison of the field situation and laboratory results. Journal of Applied Ecology 12: 781-793.
Porter, R.D. and S. N. Wiemeyer. 1969. Dieldrin and DDT: effects on Sparrow Hawk eggshells and reproduction. Science 165: 199-200.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
There was a recent thread on Dick Cheney’s 1% Doctrine. I tend to have a 1% Doctrine towards the environment — but some environmentalist think that they can’t win their argument with less than 100% certainty. That is just bullshit. Look, what ramifications does DDT have on the environment? Well, with the exception of Brian in Atlanta, the rest of humanity doesn’t seem to really be completely certain, myself included. So when confronted with uncertain environment impact, doesn’t logic (let alone morality) fall on the side of restraint until further discovery.
To bash Fox is stupid, they are as much in business as CNN or other news outlets.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Funny to see this topic come up; just Saturday night, at dinner with Cal, I actually misted up talking about how wonderful it was to see a Bald Eagle in my yard back in Iowa earlier this year, a direct result of marvelous, persistent and devoted efforts to reclaim and nurture their winter nesting grounds along the Mississippi there. When I was a kid, living on the OTHER side of the river (before we moved East for all those years), I never saw one. Not once. I remember being taught about them in elementary school, as part of ecology and especially in connection with the first Earth Day. When we first moved back to the area, more than a decade ago now, you could see them, but the population has certainly burgeoned since then, and, as my “yard” reference demonstrates, gotten more bold, too! Best thing of all, my son takes it for granted (in the good way) that he’ll see them every day in winter on his way to school, something I wouldn’t even have dreamed of as a kid.
Nice to see a success story, isn’t it?
July 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
The suburb I live in has large pockets of wetlands surrounded by tall trees — perfect eagle habitat. We still marvel at the return of the eagles and other raptors. We just never saw them growing up.
We’ve also seen other wildlife rebound, notably pheasants and turkeys.
Reason magazine has a nice summary of the research. The overall conclusion: A DDT metabolite known as DDE causes eggshell thinning, as demonstrated by a well-known 1975 study.
So DDT should be used with caution. But used it should be, to help fight malaria.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I don’t mean to say that DDT has no adverse effects, I merely argue that the advantages overwhelm the risks. Spraying DDT on crops again is probably not a good idea, but banning it entirely was a much worse idea. How many thousands of human lives are worth the banning of DDT?
There’s a disturbing tendency in the environmental movement which tends to discount human life. Hence we see environmentalists foaming at the mouth over DDT when in reality the evidence implicating it in wholesale environmental degradation is very shaky. Yet, these same environmentalists who are so concerned over bald eagles and the like will casually condemn thousands upon thousands of people in Africa to death. It’s the dirty little secret of some branches of the environmental movement that they just don’t care about human life that much. When and if the public becomes aware of this, the backlash may be akin to the one the chemical companies suffered when it was discovered that they cared more about profits than public health. Remember “Better living through chemistry”?
I say this as an environmentalist myself. It worries me to see the wackos hijacking the debates, because it makes it just that much harder for those of us who are trying to find workable accomodations between environment and humanity.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
On that, I think we agree….that said, I see more people condemning “environmentalist wackos” and finding them under every tree and shrub when it suits their agenda, when those “wackos” are really few and far between.
The very reason we are talking about this is because an comment was made about DDT and bald eagles as back story (the point of the story was te resurgence of the bald eagle population), and Fox News decided it was a golden moment to attack the environmentalist movement.
If the original article was guilty of understating the impact of hunters, farmers and the encroachment of development on the eagle habitat, the Fox piece was guilty of overstating the great travesty of DDT. Fox made a mountain of a molehole, to use a cliche, to attack.
The hysterics over DDT in the 1960s was clearly overblown, and if it was done to gain some sort of political gain, then shame on those who did it; and shame on Fox for dredging that up in its own self-serving “journalistic” activism
July 12th, 2006 at 11:13 am
it entirely was a much worse idea. How many thousands of human lives are worth the banning of DDT?
Brian: what are you talking about?
We don’t seem to have much of a malaria problem in the good old US of A. Despite persistent myths to the contrary, DDT is not banned for the purposes of malaria prevention, it is banned for agriculture. Which seems just about right to me. It’s not as important as good old fashioned mosquito nets over beds, but it’s part of the fight against malaria.
Link:
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
November 27th, 2006 at 6:07 am
I think the term used ‘interest in political issues’ is incorrect – we are not interested in politics as such, simply trying to find ways around poor legislation, poor money management (ie: fighting illegal wars when we could use the money better at home) and poor understanding of real issues with petitions, grass roots activism etc. I have become recently active not out of an interest in politics but as a result of politics inability to get it right.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I guess it’s been a while since anyone has responded but Steven Milloy of Wall Street Journal “DDT never caused eggshell thinning and or bald eagle deaths” reported that it isn’t hundreds of thousand of Africans die of malaria, but 2 million a year, half of those children. So, if we’re really unsure about the effects of DDT I’d rather lean towards its use to save those 2 million people a year!