Cattail Killer, or how to clean up around the pond?

[dave1949]

Around here they'd likely throw you in jail for cutting them as if there's a cattail in a mud puddle it's considered a wetland. On a couple jobs I was on, they even had surveyors ribbon hanging over the roadside ditches that said, "FEDERAL WETLAND DO NOT DISTURB". Pretty hard to clean ditches without disturbing them.

LOL. When I was a kid the fellow who owned the land behind us was a real SOB. We 'seeded' his ditches with cattail heads every year.

It's true, if the Maine DEP see's cattails, its a wetland.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

The best way to get rid of them is to redig. If you can't do that then try to dig as much up as possible from the bank with your BH. I also took a push mower, made a handle to fit my mini excavator and use that to reach out and mow them down.
I'm against chemicals no matter how safe they are labeled. Just check how safe yesteryears chemicals were before they found them to cause some type of under lying problem.

I have a stupid question, you say the pond is part of your septic? What do you mean?

I'm with you on the chemicals. Don't even need to go back to yesteryear, look at the drugs supposedly designed and tested safe for people that have caused problems in the past couple years.

I believe I recently read that the tests required for chemical safety only apply to the active ingredient.

I don't believe or buy anything from Monsanto (although that's probably about impposible). I would rather spend a few tough days doing it the old fashioned way than put one nickel in their pocket.

I have also read that the total ban on DDT maybe a cure worse than the disease. The way it was used in the past sure did a number on Bald Eagles and other raptors. If some of those nasty equatorial diseases make their way north, we will have a whole new set of challenges.
Dave.

 

[20 20]

Dave1949; What concerns me is now they are saying some of these so called "safe" chemicals{of the past} may be the cause of some disorders, autism, retardation etc... My question to myself is allways the same..........Is it worth it and can we really trust the powers to be???? I have children and some day may have grand children. Is their health worth the risk of getting rid of weeds with chemicals? In a perfect world maybe certain plants will only grow in their proper place{according to humans}. I quess as long as I'm hanging out on mother earth her rules are in play. Besides a little work never hurt anyone, just look around at all the fast food joints today.

 

[dave1949]

Dave1949; What concerns me is now they are saying some of these so called "safe" chemicals{of the past} may be the cause of some disorders, autism, retardation etc... My question to myself is allways the same..........Is it worth it and can we really trust the powers to be???? I have children and some day may have grand children. Is their health worth the risk of getting rid of weeds with chemicals? In a perfect world maybe certain plants will only grow in their proper place{according to humans}. I quess as long as I'm hanging out on mother earth her rules are in play. Besides a little work never hurt anyone, just look around at all the fast food joints today.

Well put. I feel much the same way. Is it really worth applying poison for the sake of a weed or a few too many cattails. It isn't like I'm not going to eat if I leave them be. Plus, what the real risk is isn't known, or those who know aren't telling. Its a story that has repeats itself, tobacco, asbestos, etc. You can't drink a glass of water from many public water supplies without ingesting some extra hormones. It's doing funny things to the fish's ****** organs.

It gets tougher with large scale agriculture. It's a big, risky and costly effort to transition to organic growing techniques. I think a person trying to do that has to rethink about everything they have learned. What farmer these days can take a financial hit for 2-4 years while they convert over?

It has to be a regional effort to work well. I saw small (2 acres) vineyards in Germany that were organic, but surrounded by non-organic vineyards for miles up and down the Mosel River valley. It wasn't pretty. Those vines had lots of problems. They studied it there and came to the conclusion it works a lot better if an entire area participates. That's the only way to get nature back in balance. Otherwise the organic vines look like a free lunch to everything around.

Of course, Monsanto has sued farms for patent infringement regarding Roundup Ready GMO seed technology. These efforts also work against farmers wanting to get off the chemicals.
Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers - SourceWatch

Monsanto sued a local Maine dairy for having a label on their milk carton stating the milk came from cows raised without artificial hormones. Guess who the world's largest supplier of agricultural artificial hormones is? Talk about loss of freedoms.

Monsanto is not a good corporate citizen, I don't believe a word they say.
Dave.

 

[WarrenF]

First of all remember that Cattails act just like a noxious weed. If you don't control them they will take over. Digging them up and mowing them down will only lead to them expanding.

Now then IF you let the STATE see them, your "pond" will be classified as a Wet Land....and you will loose your land. That is fact!! You will not be able to do anything with it and you will have to "protect" that wetland area.

If you will mix an ounce of 24D with your mixture of Roundup, you will get a much better kill rate. It is my experience that you must stay on top of it with multiple applications over a couple of years.

Dave1949; What concerns me is now they are saying some of these so called "safe" chemicals{of the past} may be the cause of some disorders, autism, retardation etc... My question to myself is allways the same..........Is it worth it and can we really trust the powers to be???? I have children and some day may have grand children. Is their health worth the risk of getting rid of weeds with chemicals? In a perfect world maybe certain plants will only grow in their proper place{according to humans}. I quess as long as I'm hanging out on mother earth her rules are in play. Besides a little work never hurt anyone, just look around at all the fast food joints today.

And those countries in Africa who have once again begun to spray DDT for insect control, have seen a 30% decrease in the MALARIA INFANT DEATH RATE. I guess it is more important to make sure little babies die from Malaria than it is to control disease bearing insects.

 

[forester2]

Actually, a pond is already considered a wetland. I also mix 2,4d w/ the Roundup and one applications is all that I need. I use the ester formulation of 2,4D because it tranlocates better and fater.

 

[20 20]

First of all remember that Cattails act just like a noxious weed. If you don't control them they will take over. Digging them up and mowing them down will only lead to them expanding.

Not true, I have been working on mine for about 2 years {manual labor} and I am winning the battle. They are disappearing, but I also don't mind having a few around. Cattails are mother natures water fliters, they are also a good source of food.

Now then IF you let the STATE see them, your "pond" will be classified as a Wet Land....and you will loose your land. That is fact!! You will not be able to do anything with it and you will have to "protect" that wetland area.

Once again not true, maybe for some states but not all. Plus I'm sure there are regulations up the canister about this.

If you will mix an ounce of 24D with your mixture of Roundup, you will get a much better kill rate. It is my experience that you must stay on top of it with multiple applications over a couple of years.

So basically your getting the same results as me{couple of years to kill them off} except I don't use chemicals? I also can see the results as soon as I'm done removing them.

And those countries in Africa who have once again begun to spray DDT for insect control, have seen a 30% decrease in the MALARIA INFANT DEATH RATE. I guess it is more important to make sure little babies die from Malaria than it is to control disease bearing insects.

Once again this is false there are other forces at play other then just DDT. There are a lot of different variables at play that has helped in the aid of stopping Malaria. Not sure where your getting your info on DDT but you may want to check into it better, DDT IS NASTY CRAP!!!! If anything it will cause more birth defect.

 

[20 20]

Dave1949; The sad part is, is that there really is no such thing as truely organic grown food anymore. There are so many chemicals in the air ground and water from years past that it is impossible to find true organic farm land. We can be as organic as possible which IMO is atleast worth the try. What gets me is that people and animals have lived just fine for millions of of years but now all of a sudden we can't survive without chemical aids.........WHY? At one time I really believe we had most cures to most ills through natural plants minerals etc.... Thanks to greed, stupidity etc.. we have lost a lot of great knowledge. Our young ladies are become mature before their time because of crap that we add to food. Cancer is on the rise because of chemicals in the food air and water. People's immune systems are becomming weaker because no one wants the common cold so they take a magic pill. The birth defects that have come from "safe" chemicals is still a scary question. The list goes on and on, humans are their own worst enemy!

With all that said I'm NOT SAYING all modern technology is bad. I just think we should be more scientific and a whole lot less GREEDY!!!!!!!!

 

[forester2]

Please check out the term eutrophication. This is the process where a pond becomes over run with plant material and nutrients from their decomposition and eventually depletes the oxygen supply eliminating other forms of life. A pond become a marsh, then a bog. That's fine if that is your management goal but if your intent on maintaining a pond, then aquatic plants must be controlled. Proper construction can go a long ways in that regard (steep slopes) but that can create a dangerous situation for small children and other nonswimmers. Manual removal is a VERY short term solution unless the entire root system is removed. We are also struggling with very difficult to control invasive species such as purple loosestrfe and phragmites. If you have the time EVERY year to get into your pond and dig these things out, great. I have 4 ponds totalin about 6 acres and judicious use of herbicides has been an outstanding control option. Proper maintaince in the area surrounding pond is also very important: don't blow mowing clippings into the pond; keep trees back so leaves dont get into pond etc.

 

[dave1949]

First of all remember that Cattails act just like a noxious weed. If you don't control them they will take over. Digging them up and mowing them down will only lead to them expanding.

Now then IF you let the STATE see them, your "pond" will be classified as a Wet Land....and you will loose your land. That is fact!! You will not be able to do anything with it and you will have to "protect" that wetland area.

If you will mix an ounce of 24D with your mixture of Roundup, you will get a much better kill rate. It is my experience that you must stay on top of it with multiple applications over a couple of years.



And those countries in Africa who have once again begun to spray DDT for insect control, have seen a 30% decrease in the MALARIA INFANT DEATH RATE. I guess it is more important to make sure little babies die from Malaria than it is to control disease bearing insects.

You aren't using the correct chemicals. If you want to use chemicals, at least do your homework.
Cattail Management

It's true cattails will surround a pond in the shallow water at the edge. In a proper pond, that's all the farther they will spread. If all your water is shallow enough for cattails to grow, it was more wetland than pond to begin with.

It's also true, with diligence and getting some exercise, cattails can be controlled by non-chemical methods. You have to do it at the correct time and stage of the cattails life. A little more homework.

Beyond the aesthetic preferences of some folks, the cattails growing along the edge of a proper pond do no harm, they actually do alot of good. I actually find them attractive. If you want to see perfectly mowed grass down to the water's edge, you probably won't like them.

I don't know what rules you have in Idaho about wetlands. In Maine they are protected from development and disturbance. Some of my lot is classified as 'wooded wetland'. I am allowed to dig a pond up to 1/10 acre in that area. I am also allowed to maintain or rejuvenate older ponds within a wooded wetland up to their original size. I had a state DEP representative come and look, and they gave their advice. Nobody took my land or posted any signs or tied on any ribbons. A pond 1/10 acre in size, with the correct water flow, depth, temperature and ph levels is big enough to raise some fish in.

Dave.

 

[WarrenF]

Once again this is false there are other forces at play other then just DDT. There are a lot of different variables at play that has helped in the aid of stopping Malaria. Not sure where your getting your info on DDT but you may want to check into it better, DDT IS NASTY CRAP!!!! If anything it will cause more birth defect.

I can provide tons of anecdotal evidence that you are incorrect. I used to watch my Dad, stand and mark the rows while the spray plane delivered the load of DDT over the top of him. I can tell you about many, many persons who did the same thing. My Dad passed away at age 88....guess the DDT got him. I know that my neighbor used to do the same thing, and he died at age 94.....DDT must have got him as well. I could go on and on, but again that is simply anecdotal evidence.

For those of you who subscribe to this "Soilant Springs" (spelling incorrect) nonsense....be prepared to pay increasingly more and more money for the food you eat. For example, one pesticide that was talked about being banned....for no other reason than the emotional arguments.....potatoes would go from producing an average of 475 sacks per acre to around 200 sacks per acre.

You can make a blanket statement that says I am wrong, however if you will do some rudimentary search you will find that I am correct. 30% decrease in INFANT DEATH RATE due to Malaria is FACT, in African countries that have started using DDT for control of disease bearing insects.

As for your two years of controlling your cattails, I will be willing to wager that you may THINK you have controlled them.....but you will simply be chasing the control for ever. Cattails spread from ROOTS AND SEED. IF you have not gotten ALL THE ROOTS....all you have done is knocked them down for awhile. Don't turn your back on them cause they will come back and back and back.

 

[20 20]

Eutrohication is caused primarily by humans, sewage, fertilizers, etc. runoff. BUT it can happen naturally also{just not very often}. I also don't think anyone is saying we are for plants over taking our ponds.

I also feel construction is the one real keys to plant control. Sorry if the sides are sloped{to deep} to much for children, but were are the parents??I've heard this argumant used before so my question is what about natural rivers lakes or even back yard swimming pools? Manual removal without change to the actual pond may not work???? IMO if your going to the trouble of manual removal why not fix the slope while your at it? Also lets not forget about carp and other fish that will eat plant life. For every chemical used there is/was a natural way to solve the problem. The true problem is that people "want there results and they want them now" oh and of course as easy as possible. If you want to use chemicals then go ahead, I just feel that there is a better way of doing things, even if it means getting ones hands a little dirty. Like I've said a hundred times before, it sure is funny how we learn about the so called "safe" chemicals that we're using!!!!!!!

 

[20 20]

WarrenF; according to what I have read DDT use in africa never stop since WW2 so why all of a sudden the change?

DDT is also absorbed into our food and other plant life, is there a reason you want this? It also has caused problems with cats{in some areas} which inturn helped the rodent population grow out of control. It can also stay in the ground for years, so do we know the full extend of it's power? Lets not forget this discussion is about ponds. Most folks like to have some sort of fish in their ponds. DDT is very harmfull to fish, or atleast from what reports I have read.

Oh and George Burns smoked untill he was 104{I believe} does that mean smoking is good for us?

 

[dave1949]

I can provide tons of anecdotal evidence that you are incorrect. I used to watch my Dad, stand and mark the rows while the spray plane delivered the load of DDT over the top of him. I can tell you about many, many persons who did the same thing. My Dad passed away at age 88....guess the DDT got him. I know that my neighbor used to do the same thing, and he died at age 94.....DDT must have got him as well. I could go on and on, but again that is simply anecdotal evidence.

For those of you who subscribe to this "Soilant Springs" (spelling incorrect) nonsense....be prepared to pay increasingly more and more money for the food you eat. For example, one pesticide that was talked about being banned....for no other reason than the emotional arguments.....potatoes would go from producing an average of 475 sacks per acre to around 200 sacks per acre.

You can make a blanket statement that says I am wrong, however if you will do some rudimentary search you will find that I am correct. 30% decrease in INFANT DEATH RATE due to Malaria is FACT, in African countries that have started using DDT for control of disease bearing insects.

As for your two years of controlling your cattails, I will be willing to wager that you may THINK you have controlled them.....but you will simply be chasing the control for ever. Cattails spread from ROOTS AND SEED. IF you have not gotten ALL THE ROOTS....all you have done is knocked them down for awhile. Don't turn your back on them cause they will come back and back and back.

Warren,

I'm not sure how relevant it is that your father and neighbor lived to a ripe old age. The documented and known effects of DDT are of a much higher impact on birds and fish than people. Ultimately, what affects birds and fish will impact people too. We don't live in a biological vacuum. Sorry, just some of that Silent Spring nonsense that happens to be true.

For the past couple years, I have been paying more and more for potatoes at the supermarket and the quality has been generally poor. I just wish someone would raise decent potatoes or maybe my supermarket chain is not buying the good potatoes to begin with.

I think no matter how you control cattails, they will continue to come back. If you eradicated every trace of them, birds will reseed your water by carrying in the seeds in their feathers. Or a moose wandering around could do the same. Unless you have a very compelling reason, I don't know why you think you need to control cattails.

Getting back to the OP's problem, his cattails are growing in what seems to be a hybrid septic-greywater system. This would be a perfect recipe for eutrophication and I would expect he may have to bite the bullet and rejuvenate the pond portion of that sytem periodically. I am not familiar with that type of system or how much long term maintenance is required or expected.
Dave.

 

[forester2]

Dave: I've had cattails rooted in neck deep water due to rhizome spread- hardly a pond edge problem

20/20 You are incorrect about humans being the primary cause of eutrophication. The only study I'm familar with trying to blame human activitey was in Wisc. on Lake Mendota in Madison. I turned out that 95% of the nutient run off was from forest land. Common sense would show that this is true. How many marshs and peat bogs were created long before the presence of humans? What is the source of the oil you burn in your tractor? Again, marshs are great; they are indeed a natural purification system for water. However, I go back to what is your management objective- a pond (which maybe someone paid big money to create on perfectly dry ground) or a marsh. If a pond is your objective, then plant control is essential. Chemicals or mechanical is your choice. I would agrue that when all factors are considered, chemical control can be the most environmentally prudent approach.

 

[o2batsea]

Here in Maryland, we were wetlands before wetlands became cool. The property is within the designated flood zone and therefore the whole thing is technically a wetland. That didn't stop the recent barn build, the rip rap on the shoreline, the new gravel road....
Farther up the Bay near Baltimore the rich folks are putting in swimming pools, bulkheading, even making new land by dredging and filling. They build houses righ at the water's edge. All this is totally against the Wetlands laws, but does it stop anyone? They have it built first and count on zero enforcement, which is what it is. Don't even go there with doom and gloom about wetlands, there just isn't any policing.
Point is that while wetland preservation is an important part of our environmental strategy, it is not a deal killer when it comes to getting a permit. The pond in question is a sediment and septic field pond. It is not going to be commandeered by Big Brother for all you paranoid types out there. It was put there by the county at our expense. We'd prefer to route our sewage straight into the Chesapeake, but that would be bad form (especially at low tide) Part of the maintenance to keep it doing its thing effectively is to keep the biology out as much as possible. I mean, if you saw it, you'd think it looked pretty bad.
It's supposed to have bluegills and bass in it. Trouble is between the Bald Eagles, the Cormorants, Loons and Blue Herons it's difficult to do. Stock it with fish and they're gone in a few weeks.
I don't live at this place full time. I'm just a weekender. I would like to be able to show it off and not have it look like a swamp.

 

[dave1949]

Dave: I've had cattails rooted in neck deep water due to rhizome spread- hardly a pond edge problem

20/20 You are incorrect about humans being the primary cause of eutrophication. The only study I'm familar with trying to blame human activitey was in Wisc. on Lake Mendota in Madison. I turned out that 95% of the nutient run off was from forest land. Common sense would show that this is true. How many marshs and peat bogs were created long before the presence of humans? What is the source of the oil you burn in your tractor? Again, marshs are great; they are indeed a natural purification system for water. However, I go back to what is your management objective- a pond (which maybe someone paid big money to create on perfectly dry ground) or a marsh. If a pond is your objective, then plant control is essential. Chemicals or mechanical is your choice. I would agrue that when all factors are considered, chemical control can be the most environmentally prudent approach.

Forester2,

In the case of cattails growing 5' of water (assuming you are normal height ) I would think that is about their natural limit. I also think they would have to be growing in a location very conducive to cattail plant health. Maybe due to rich water, just the right soil, or lack of foragers. Sort of like any weed that goes rampant on land.

Cattails in the wild due not often totally colonize lakes and ponds, so there must be natural limiting factors which prevent that. It is very hard to create a totally natural environment that has the usual natural balances. A pond would be a good example of trying to to mimic nature, it's hard to do, and probably one reason why cattails are a problem. You have probably forgotten more than I know about pond management, so if you think I'm on the wrong track here, let me know.

I did some reading on eutrophication, whew, complex subject. What I read supports your statement that natural causes are the leading contributor and some water systems suffer greatly from natural eutrophication sources. But, always a but , adding man-made sources can easily push a given system over the edge where it would not have happened otherwise, or makes a marginal situation into a poorer one. Think of Lake Erie around 1960-1970.

So, I think this is a true statement; Eutrophication is a natural occurence that can be amplified due to the by-products of human activity. Would you buy that?
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

The pond in question is a sediment and septic field pond. It is not going to be commandeered by Big Brother for all you paranoid types out there. It was put there by the county at our expense. We'd prefer to route our sewage straight into the Chesapeake, but that would be bad form (especially at low tide) Part of the maintenance to keep it doing its thing effectively is to keep the biology out as much as possible. I mean, if you saw it, you'd think it looked pretty bad.
It's supposed to have bluegills and bass in it. Trouble is between the Bald Eagles, the Cormorants, Loons and Blue Herons it's difficult to do. Stock it with fish and they're gone in a few weeks.
I don't live at this place full time. I'm just a weekender. I would like to be able to show it off and not have it look like a swamp.

This type of system is not something I am familiar with. Do you know the original (approx.) design as to depth, slope of sides, outlets? How many residences does it serve? Are you using zero phosphate detergents? What do you mean by 'keep the biology out as much as possible'? Maybe some variety of clam or freshwater mussel would also be effective and not easy prey for birds.
Dave.

 

[WarrenF]

Warren,

I'm not sure how relevant it is that your father and neighbor lived to a ripe old age. I was very clear in stating that my evidence was ANECDOTAL. But notice in the reply below other evidence.... The documented and known effects of DDT are of a much higher impact on birds and fish than people. Ultimately, what affects birds and fish will impact people too. We don't live in a biological vacuum. Sorry, just some of that Silent Spring nonsense that happens to be true.

For the past couple years, I have been paying more and more for potatoes at the supermarket and the quality has been generally poor. I just wish someone would raise decent potatoes or maybe my supermarket chain is not buying the good potatoes to begin with.

Dave.

In Africa, DDT Makes
A Comeback To Save Lives



by Marjorie Mazel Hecht

Spurred by the dramatic and life-saving results in a few African nations that persisted in using DDT, a larger group of nations, now malaria-ravaged, want to use the banned pesticide. Marjorie Mazel Hecht reports.

The use of DDT for spraying the inside walls of houses, a proven way to quickly stop the rate of malaria incidence, is making a comeback in African nations where saving lives has been given priority over the fears and lies of environmentalists.

In Uganda, Minister of Health Brigadier Jim Muhwezi has renewed house spraying in the most malarious areas, with the approval of the Ugandan Cabinet. Muhwezi dismissed the critics of DDT, saying, "How many people must die of malaria while these debates continue? If DDT can save lives, why not use it as we wait for the alternatives," as reported in the Kampala newspaper, New Vision, on April 27. Muhwezi also noted that the country of Mauritius was about to be declared malaria free because of its use of DDT.

In Zambia, where malaria incidence and deaths had climbed since the 1980s, the Health Minister is aggressively pursuing the use of DDT to fight malaria, after great success using DDT in the copper mining areas beginning in 2000. When the Konkola Copper Mines began spraying the inside walls of houses with DDT, there was a 50% reduction of malaria in one year. The next year, there was a further 50% reduction, and since then there have been no malaria deaths in that region.

In Zimbabwe, Minister of Health David Parirenyatwa reintroduced DDT because it was "cheap and more effective, with a longer residual killing power." He told the Bulawayo Chronicle in October 2003, "So many people have died of malaria since January and we are doing our best to control it.... DDT is very effective, because it sticks for a long time on the walls and kills a lot of mosquitoes with a single spray.... South Africa and Swaziland are using it, and I don't see why we should not use it."

In Kenya, the DDT fight is still on, with the director of Kenya's premier research institute, KEMRI, taking a strong stand for the use of DDT, and another research institute, the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology, taking the anti-DDT, environmentalist view. Malaria now kills 700 Kenyans a day, and as KEMRI director Davy Koech told the opposition, "Anything that can reduce malaria deaths by 80% should be given another thought."

Kenya had a terrible outbreak of malaria after heavy rains in 2002, with hundreds of deaths. According to the group Doctors without Borders, there are about 8.2 million cases of malaria reported in Kenya per year. The epidemic-prone areas are the highlands, where about 23% of the population lives.

South Africa made the decision to bring back DDT in the year 2000, after a four-year hiatus in its use, during which time the malaria cases and death rates surged in the worst epidemic in the country's history. In 1996, South Africa had substituted a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide for DDT, under pressure from environmentalists. But the mosquitoes became resistant to this pesticide. As a result, between 1996 and 2000, the number of malaria cases in South Africa increased by more than 450%, with an increased mortality rate of nearly 1,000%!

After one year of DDT use, the incidence of malaria in the worst-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, fell by 80%.

The DDT program for malaria control has the support of South Africa's leading researchers, doctors, and malaria control experts, who released a statement in April 2004 backing the indoor spraying program, and slamming the latest permutation in the DDT scare stories, that DDT lowers sperm levels and quality. The statement notes, "We believe that the Department of Health is correct in its choice of DDT in its malaria control program, and as scientists, medical practitioners, and public health professionals, endorse its use."
Killed by the Big Lie

It may seem only rational when people are dying by the thousands, and when malaria kills one African child every 30 seconds, for a country to institute DDT house spraying, which is known to efficiently prevent malaria, and has a proven record of no harm to human beings. But such an assumption overlooks the huge aura of fear and ignorance about DDT, built up by the Malthusian lobby over the past 35 years. The very word "DDT" is enough to invoke terror today among the ignorant and gullibleé*�nd also some of the well-meaning.

DDT was banned in the United States in 1972 on the basis of a big lie, not science (see box). In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held seven months of hearings on the issue, producing 9,000 pages of testimony. The EPA hearing examiner, Edmund Sweeney, ruled, on the basis of the scientific evidence, that DDT should not be banned. "DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man [and] these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms," Sweeney concluded.

But two months later, without even reading the testimony or attending the hearings, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus overruled the EPA hearing officer and banned DDT. He later admitted that he made the decision for "political" reasons.

As a result, just as a few African nations and other tropical countries were on the verge of wiping out malaria, by using DDT to control the mosquito vectors that spread it, those programs were shut down. Countries could not afford to give up the funds for their health and development programs, from donor nations that now would not support DDT. Instead, they gave up DDT. The malaria-carrying mosquitoes were the immediate beneficiaries, and malaria soon became Africa's largest killer, only more recently to be equalled by AIDS. There are an estimated 300-500 million new cases of malaria per year now, 90% of which are in Africa. There are 2.7 million deaths from malaria per year, mostly those of children under 5 years old.

But the toll of malaria is not measured simply in deaths. Malaria is a terrible disease, sapping the strength of those who do not die, making them feverish, chilled, with repeated vomiting, and too sick and weak to work or farm. Malaria overburdens the limited health systems of poor countries, and ruins their economies.
Too Many Lives Saved?

At the time DDT was banned, it was recognized as having saved more lives than any other man-made chemical. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT had prevented 500 million human deaths from malaria, since it came into use during World War II. Millions of troops and refugees would have died from disease at the end of the war, had they not been dusted with DDT to kill the body lice that spread typhus.

The safety record of DDT was excellent. No human harm was ever documented. Health records around the world showed that when malaria incidence was controlled using DDT, populations were healthier, infant mortality decreased, and population growth increased. Why was DDT banned, after such spectacular success? The reason was given bluntly by Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, who wrote in a biographical essay in 1990, "My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Morally, the save-the-environment-and-forget-the-people argument is outrageous. The First Secretary at the Washington Embassy of one large African nation, said, "how can they say this when people are dying of malaria, and we know that DDT will contain the spread?" He recalled the 1960s, when he was growing up in Africa, when DDT was in use and had completely wiped out mosquitoes and malaria in his region. "What is the human cost of not using DDT? Look at the number of lives we are wasting. We should use DDT until there is something better."
In Africa, DDT Makes a Comeback To Save Lives

I have posted the link to the article posted above....please feel free to go there. Plus I must tell you that a simple Google search yielded about 800,000 hits. Have fun reading.

 

[dave1949]

I'm with you on the chemicals. Don't even need to go back to yesteryear, look at the drugs supposedly designed and tested safe for people that have caused problems in the past couple years.

I believe I recently read that the tests required for chemical safety only apply to the active ingredient.

I don't believe or buy anything from Monsanto (although that's probably about impposible). I would rather spend a few tough days doing it the old fashioned way than put one nickel in their pocket.

I have also read that the total ban on DDT maybe a cure worse than the disease. The way it was used in the past sure did a number on Bald Eagles and other raptors. If some of those nasty equatorial diseases make their way north, we will have a whole new set of challenges.
Dave.

WarrenF,
It would help if you would read my posts
Dave.