Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Who Really Are the Life Savers?

By Rich Kozlovich

Man's method of survival – transforming nature to meet his needs – must be defended against environmentalism's attack. - Onkar Ghate.

The spraying of pesticides is not needed because they don’t work! How many times have we heard one of the green activists spout this kind of nonsense?

Chikungunya fever is a crippling mosquito transmitted disease that was rapidly spreading on islands of the Indian Ocean. As of February 4, 2006 the French island of Reunion had 50,000 cases of this viral disease with 15,000 in the previous week.

So, what did the local officials do? Did they call Greenpeace to ask their advice and get some financing to help with this growing health problem? Perhaps they contacted Earth Liberation Front, The Sierra Club, Earth Wildlife Federation or Friends of the Earth? Maybe they called the the first head of EPA, Bill Ruckelshaus, the man who banned DDT; or his friends at Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) and ask them what should be done?

Wait! I just had a thought.  These groups collectively claim that their anti-pesticide positions are based on a concern for human health.  If so, how many of these environmental groups contacted them? They seem to have all the answers. Why weren’t they on the scene helping to eliminate this problem with some Integrated Pest Management scheme or some natural remedy such as garlic and bay leaves?

The reason they aren’t called by those who actually have the responsibility to solve problems; and the reason Greenies don’t call them is because Greenies are only good at finding fault. They are terrible at finding solutions! Especially solutions that eventually they themselves will find fault with at some later date; which is an important point, since all of their solutions seem to cause a lot more problems than they solve.

What was left to do then? The island government activated the army to spray pesticides to kill the mosquitoes. When it is all said and done there is only one conclusion, one view that bears the weight of science, one action that can stand unashamedly in the spotlight of history and bear the weight of time. The extensive use of pesticides! Pesticides are needed and must be sprayed because pesticides work! Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Let’s say this again. Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Those societies that have flourished are societies that have been heavy pesticide users. This bodes well the question: who are the killers here; pesticide applicators or environmental activists?

When are we going to stop listening to these people? In England they complain that there are too many drugs on the market that have not been child tested. These are the same people that go ballistic when the thought of finding out what the impact pesticides actually have on children through passive testing. Passive testing means that they would just watch the health of children where pesticides are already being used in their homes. What’s wrong with that?

It doesn’t help them to attain their goal, which is to create havoc, not find out whether pesticides, drugs or anything else are safe for children. The most frightening thing for the activists would be that it would be discovered there was no negative health impact on children’s lives as a result of appropriate applications of pesticides. Worse yet, they fear it might show that their health is better than children in homes of the same socioeconomic group where pesticides are not used.

Why do they fear this? They fear it because they know it to be true. If these kinds of studies are allowed they will be out in the cold because nothing appeals to the emotions more than protecting children. Out go their claims of disaster. Out goes their influence in the media. Out goes their ability to sway an uninformed and gullible public. Out goes their influence with government officials. Worse yet, out goes their ability to scare the people, and along with that; out goes their income because funding will dry up. This leaves the worst case scenario for them. Now they would be faced with a real and legitimate disaster. They would actually have to go out and get a real job.

Many of their claims regarding pesticides and good health have been studied and have already been dismissed because these claims were shown to be junk science. Yet they continue to spew them out via the media. It is important that we know in our own minds that most of what we see on the news and read in the newspaper are lies. Not necessarily lies of commission, although they have been guilty of that also, but mostly lies of omission. They have the tendency to leave important information out.

We simply cannot blindly accept what we are told! We cannot blindly go along with the greenies! We cannot blindly follow those in leadership positions who tell us we have to go along with the greenies either. Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind. Let me repeat that so they you will know this isn’t a slip of the tongue. “Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind”. With the toll of death, sickness and misery they have exacted around the world, why should we believe anything they have to say regarding what constitutes good health for society?

History is clear as to the multiple benefits pesticides provide. History is also replete with tales of what happens when pesticides are withdrawn. This bodes well the questions; where is the moral compass of those who attack pesticides? Where is the moral compass of those within the industry who go along with the greenies? Pesticides and pesticide applicators are what save lives! Not greenie mysticism!

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Sunday, June 13, 2010

What is Integrated Pest Management?

by Rich Kozlovich

All too often we hear pest control professionals claim that we must follow the methodologies of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to meet modern structural needs.  There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because it is based on threshold limits and the threshold limits for the pests we deal with in people's homes and businesses is zero.  The reality is that IPM exists in structural pest control because some government agency says is exists.  That doesn't change the facts, we may be stuck with it, but we need to understand the reality of it.   IPM is an agricultural concept, where it can actually be scientifically defined.    Definitions of IPM on the Web:

Here - The use of different techniques in combination to control pests, with an emphasis on methods that are least injurious to the environment and most specific to the particular pest. For example, pest-resistant plant varieties, regular monitoring for pests, pesticides, natural predators of the pest, and good stand management practices may be used singly or in combination to control or prevent particular pests.

Here  -A combination of biological, cultural, and genetic pest control methods with use of pesticides as the last resort. IPM considers a targeted species' life cycle and intervenes in reproduction, growth, or development to reduce the population. Land use practices are examined for possible change; other animals, birds, or reptiles in the ecosystem are used as natural predators.

Here - A systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production practices with careful monitoring of pests and their natural enemies. IPM practices include use of resistant varieties, timing of planting, cultivation, biological controls, and judicious use of pesticides to control pests. These IPM practices are used in greenhouses and on field crops. IPM systems anticipate and prevent pests from reaching economically damaging levels.

Here - The control of pests or diseases by using an array of crop production strategies, combined with careful monitoring of insect pests or weed populations and other methods.

Here - An approach to pest control that includes biological, mechanical and chemical means. The goal of IPM is to produce a healthy crop in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner.

Here -A system integrating a range of methods of pest control to produce healthy crops economically and to reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment.

Here -The procedure of integrating and applying practical management methods, to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels while minimizing potentially harmful effects of pest management measures on humans, non-target species, and the environment, incorporating assessment methods to guide management decisions.

Here -A pest management strategy that includes using traps to monitor for pests on the farm, using sanitation and beneficial insects to control those pests, and applying pesticides in such a way that they pose the least possible hazard, and are used as a 'last resort' when other controls are inadequate.

Here -IPM begins with a set of guidelines. The grower monitors pest populations and develops statistical ceilings for the numbers of each pest species that is acceptable for specific crops. The first method of control is preventive -- or cultural (growing healthy plants). Physical (traps, handpicking insects, row covers) and biological (beneficial insects) controls are applied next. If none of these is effective, the grower resorts to chemical controls (such as insecticides).

Here -A system of controlling insect and diseases by a thorough understanding of the life cycle of the pests and the plants. Chemical controls are used as a last resort.

Here -A pest management strategy that uses field monitoring of pest populations, established guidelines, and economic thresholds to determine if and when pesticide treatments should be utilized. Emphasizes the use of a number of crop management techniques including the conservation of natural enemies and the use of resistant varieties to manage pests.

Here - Maintaining pest populations below a level at which economic damage results by using the least toxic methods.

Here -An ecologically based pest-control strategy that relies on natural mortality factors, such as natural enemies, weather, cultural control methods, and carefully applied doses of pesticides.

Here -A decision making process for managing pest populations that uses a combination of techniques; it includes preventing pest problems, identification, monitoring, use of injury thresholds for decisions, a combination of controls (cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, etc.) and an evaluation step.

Here -IPM is a complete approach to eliminating pest problems. Identifying pests, determining how to avoid or correct problems, and managing pest populations through a variety of chemical, biological and cultural practices are all involved in a successful IPM program.

• Here -Combined use of biological, chemical, storage and cultivation methods in proper sequence and timing to keep the size of a pest population below that which causes an economically unacceptable loss of a crop or livestock animal.

Here -Pest control strategy employing non-chemical means, such as natural predators, to control crop-damaging pests.

Here -A package of alternatives to conventional pest control methods, which often involve frequent and extensive use of pesticides. The package consists of one or more of the following: (1) growing a healthy, genetically varied crop (cultural control); (2) use of pest-resistant crop varieties (host plant resistance); (3) use of natural enemies to crop pests (biological control); and (4) occasional use of pesticides as a last resort (chemical control).

• Here -A holistic or integrated approach to controlling the risks and damage associated with natural predators, diseases and pests. It involves using site-specific information to determine the most effective combination of physical, chemical, biological, or cultural practices to reduce damage while reducing impacts on the environment, biological diversity and human health.

Here -A process (based on scouting) that anticipates and prevents pests from reaching economically damaging levels. Pests are controlled by using all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest resistant plants, mechanical management, and judicious use of pesticides. IPM leads to an economically sound and environmentally safe agriculture. It is a component of ICM and a water quality practice.
Points of importance that can be gleaned from this information are as follows:
1. It is the applicator, farmer, greens keeper or who ever else is responsible for keeping a pest population in control that decides what is to be done and with what, including establishing what the threshold limits are to be.
2. Preventative applications may be necessary in agriculture.
3. Plant varieties are immaterial in structural pest control.
4. Biological controls (other than IGR’s) used in agriculture will not work in structural pest control.
5. There are no natural predators to pests in structures except man.
6. Many of these definitions clearly call IPM pest control. Why then do we have to call it anything other than pest control?
7. IPM is an agricultural concept.
8. IPM is an economic concept.
9. IPM was never presented as an environmental concept first.
10. IPM is a concept that outlines a host of tools and techniques that could be used to manage a pest population.
11. A concept that allows the applicator to determine what tools and techniques would used.
12. IPM was never intended for the structural pest control industry.
This is indicative as to what the problem with IPM really is. It is indefinable — or if you prefer, unendingly definable — according to one’s likes, whims or ideology.  Those who promote IPM in structural pest control are actively promoting an ideology while attempting to disguise it as a methodology; with the ultimate goal of eliminating pesticides.  Those who promote it are known and their track record is clearly anti-pesticide, irrational and misanthropic.  Those in industry who support and promote it are self-serving and short sighted.  That is the reality of it.  Get over it!

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Saturday, June 12, 2010

Ken Cuccinelli v. 810 academics

Academic freedom is not a license to commit fraud

by Paul Driessen

Reprinted with permission.  I would like to thank Paul for his generosity!

Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.

Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”

It’s time to clear a few things up.

Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”

The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis. During his UVA tenure, he employed other statistical tricks to generate an accelerated warming trend of 2-4.5 degrees F per decade (1-2.5 deg C), as shown in his 2002-2003 publications. That extrapolates to as much as 45 degrees F per century!

Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.

This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.

There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.

Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.

If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.

As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.

The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.

No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.

Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China , India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.

The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.

We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.

We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)

It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.

We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Who Are We and How Did We Get Here?

By Rich Kozlovich

Much of this article is based on the book, “The Rat Catcher’s Child” by Dr. Robert Snetsinger, and whole paragraphs are replicated here. The Rat Catcher’s Child is currently published by the publishing company of Pest Control Technology magazine. I heartily recommend ordering this book. I have barely touched the surface on the amount of information and insights available in "The Rat Catcher's Child".  It is impossible for anyone in structural pest control to understand where we are and how we got here without reading this book…or talking to me. RK

Professional structural pest control is the art, science, technology and business that protects the health and comfort of mankind, and preserves his property from harm and destruction by insects, rodents, birds, weeds, wood destroying fungi and related pests.

At one time pest control was “science”! You would mix this with that and apply it according to directions and things died. That has all changed! Pest control has now become more art than science, even though we know more about pests and their biology than ever in all the history of our industry. This requires a great deal of personal knowledge and initiative. They attempt to call this Integrated Pest Management, but it is still just pest control.

Mankind has always been aware of the need to maintain good health and have a sense of well being. Pest Control, as one of the health related professions and traces its origins into antiquity. The Egyptians' used magic spells as a pest control technique in order to protect the mummies of their kings from poisonous snakes. They believed that some snakes spoke the Semitic language of the Canaanites and included the magic spells in inscriptions on two sides of the sarcophagus in an effort to ward them off. In these times pest control and was the domain of diviners, witchdoctors, priests and other practicers of magic. Pest control and related professions eventually emerged from the realms of magic and religion, but the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of the day consisted of spears and spells.

Medicine, in the broad sense, encompasses such professionals as physicians, surgeons, dentists, druggists, barbers, sanitation engineers, pest control operators and undertakers.

The religious text of the Mosaic Code of the ancient Hebrews created a concept of disease prevention that was more far-reaching than the after-the-fact treatments of physicians. Concepts that we easily recognize today, such as washing your hands before eating and washing after contact with the sick and the dead, were instituted for the first time in recorded history. We have a common understanding of all of these things now. Another concept introduced by this code was the elimination of parasites by eliminating certain foods from the diet, meat inspection, disinfection of the quarters of the sick, the elimination of dreck (dreck is dung and other filth, which were popular parts of formulas in ancient times) from the pharmacopoeia of Jewish medicine and recognition that flies were carriers of disease causing agents.

Hippocrates began the separation of religion, philosophy and science by declaring medicine to be “an art, science and a profession” yet he ascribed to the idea that “nature is the real healer of disease.” Since many times medicines merely relieve the symptoms until the body can heal itself there is a degree of truth in this. But by our standards and today’s understanding this was not entirely scientific and carries the taint of superstition to it, which for his time and lack of true scientific understanding that would be expected. But it was a start.

The Romans always felt that the Greeks were on a higher cultural plane than themselves, as a result they admired and mimicked everything Greek, continuing with much of Greek medicine, science, art and culture creating civil engineering feats that still marvel us today. The draining of wetlands, sewerage, indoor sanitation, central heating, the constant flow of fresh water into the cities via aqueducts (sections of which are still standing today) fed the baths playing an important role in good health.

All of this changed with the fall of Rome. The Christian church leaders of the time were as ignorant as the population they led regarding these matters. Church dogma contended that the poor should look forward to delivery from misery and sorrow only in life after death and that sickness and pestilence were punishments for sins and that only through fasting and prayer could health be restored.

The medicines of the Greeks, health codes of the Jews and engineering and planning of the Romans were replaced with paternosters and charms. The Monks and clerics were forbidden to practice medicine and science, and as a result, for all intents and purposes, these disciplines disappeared from Europe. Under those circumstances we can see how some poor woman collecting herbs to be the “healer” for her community would be targeted as a “witch” and burned at the stake. This is one of the many features of that very intellectually dark period know as the Middle Ages. Not only was this a time of intellectual darkness it was a time of personal filth. We could easily redub this period as the “Dirty Ages”, because sanitation and the health related arts were largely dismissed for more than 1,000 years.

Monks and other leaders of the church may or may not have been pious, but they rarely bathed and they stunk. Not only did they smell bad they were vermin ridden. They, like all others of this period in Europe had rotten teeth, vile breath, stomach problems, along with sores on their lice infested bodies. These men and women viewed cleanliness with abhorrence and call lice “Pearls of God”. They considered their presence a mark of saintliness. Some believed that a clean body and clean clothes meant an unclean soul. Others took on lice from the dead or less pious so they could suffer more in this life and insure greater rewards in the hereafter. When Thomas a Becket died it was discovered that he wore a lice infested wool undergarment. We must assume that this was a daily garment, unwashed and filthy. He must have truly stunk. And he was the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Then again…everyone stunk back then.

Some believed that all life was sacred, and since man had the reward of Heaven and the pests did not, the “bugs” should be allowed to enjoy the only life they would have.  Now under the dictates and demands of those enforcing the Endangered Species Act we believe all life except human life is sacred.  Between 1989 and 2002, over five billion dollars was reported spent on individual endangered species.

Life style determines the outcome. No society can avoid the consequences of its way of living. The decline of medicine, the lack of sanitation and a pious cynicism as to the lot of the sick, the poor and the enslaved had its consequences. Famine, wars, epidemics of plague, leprosy, malaria, smallpox and tuberculosis decimated Europe. The Plague or Black Death appeared in China in 1334 A.D. It spread westward along the routes of the caravan and by boat to the Middle East, arriving in Sicily in October 1347 A.D. Within a few years, plague was rampant through out Europe. It is variously estimated that some 25 to 40 million Europeans died of the disease, about 50 % of the population. Needless to say, such carnage debilitated Europe. With the mentality they had regarding the “sacredness” of the lower species is it any wonder?

Pest control during this time was still very hands on. During the 1400’s “beaters” were hired to brush and beat furs and woolens to control moth larvae. Obviously this could only be somewhat effective, but given the vastness of the problem, any improvement probably seemed pretty good. In 1497, following the religious concepts of the time, the Bishop of Lausanne, Switzerland excommunicated June beetles. I don’t think the beetle must have been able to speak Latin.

What was life like in the 1500’s?  I don’t remember from where I got these next few paragraphs, so I can’t accredit the author, but it isn’t my work. RK

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor.

Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children- last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it - hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice rats, and bugs), lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof-hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could really mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's the reason canopy beds came into existence; along with the fact that there was no central heating in those days…just fireplaces. Even the finest homes were cold and drafty in the winter, this allowed them to enclose the bed for heat retention.
This quote appeared in the Blog Café Hayek regarding this letter.  “Consider, for example, Thomas Babington Macaulay's description of life in the 17th-century Scottish highlands -- before anything beyond rudimentary commerce and industry reach there:”
“His lodging would sometimes have been in a hut of which every nook would have swarmed with vermin. He would have inhaled an atmosphere thick with peat smoke, and foul with a hundred noisome exhalations. At supper grain fit only for horses would have been set before him, accompanied by a cake of blood drawn from living cows. Some of the company with which he would have feasted would have been covered with cutaneous eruptions, and others would have been smeared with tar like sheep. His couch would have been the bare earth, dry or wet as the weather might be; and from that couch he would have risen half poisoned with stench, half blind with the reek of turf, and half mad with the itch.”
 Use of poisons has been with mankind from the beginning. Toxic chemicals are part of the make up of our earth. The extraction and concentration of toxic substances gained a quasi-religious dimension for early man. Death was mystery, poisons cause death, ergo those who produce poisons were venerated and probably feared. As the years went by pest control started to take on the outlines of a profession although their efforts were at best haphazard.

As we come down into the 1800’s we find that so many concepts of what constitutes modern pest control came out of Europe, especially Germany. Germany was further advanced with regard to chemistry in general than the rest of the world. As an example, when WW I started aspirin became unavailable because it was produced in Germany only. Bayer is still a major manufacturer of medications and pesticides. The fact of the matter is that pest control became a largely immigrant profession especially amongst the German and German Jewish immigrants.

In 1850 advertisements appeared in New York newspapers selling pesticides such as phosphorus paste, arsenic, strychnine, cyanide, pyrethrum and a number of disinfecting compounds were available. In addition….screening, netting, traps and fly paper were produced by American industry. The technology of the profession was nearly advanced as in Europe, because immigrants were arriving daily bringing additional knowledge with them. On the eve of the American Civil War, we find all elements of the infant pest control industry firmly established in the United States and it was based on effective chemistry.

The evolution of the pest control industry followed the advances in communication and technology. At this time secret formulas, lack of scientific knowledge, suspicion and animosity between competitors was the order of the day; especially since there was no national organization. In 1932 the first national publication for the structural pest control industry appeared, called the Exterminators Log. The name changed as the years went by. In 1938 it was renamed “Pests” and in 1939 became “Pests and Their Control” and then “Pest Control” in 1949 (which it maintained until recent years when it was renamed, Pest Management Professional) and then moved to Cleveland, Ohio; where it remains to this day, along with Pest Control Technology magazine, which was first printed in 1973.

This issue of organizing the pest control industry nationally began to be resolved in 1933 when The Society of Exterminators and Fumigators of New York City elected Bill Buettner. They weren’t the only ones who realized the need for a national association. In that same year The Associated Exterminators and Fumigators of the United States with executive offices in the old Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio agreed to hold a convention in Cleveland to make a very real attempt to form a national association. Clearly there wasn’t room for two national associations and in October of that year the associated Ohio group endorsed the New York group and formed what eventually became the National Pest Management Association. National representation was born.

I do believe this is an important part of the story and cannot be left out. One of the real driving forces for this action was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration which demanded that business, through its trade associations, establish codes of fair trade practices which had provisions for minimum salaries for employees; determine the number of hours per week an employee could work; insure fair prices for an industry; and prevent unfair competition with an industry. It was generally believe that if an industry failed to produce an acceptable code of its own the bureaucrats at NRA would impose one which would be less acceptable.

Eventually the Supreme Court of the U.S. found this to be unconstitutional, but it was too late, many of the socialist policies of the New Deal became the standard, exacerbating the depth of the depression causing it to become the Great Depression. However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the formation of a national organization.

Ohio and New York pest controllers brought this industry together because of the vision of a few good men. There is no doubt that Bill Buettner, the first president of the national association, cast a giant shadow. But that was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants who were willing to put the own interests aside for the good of an entire industry. Those people were from Ohio and New York! Some of those families are still in the structural pest control business in Ohio. The passion and dedication these giants had for our industry was and is shared even now.  It is almost like a form of osmosis amongst Ohio pest controllers and permeates our state association to this day; and we have a very real sense of founder’s rights!

Even our newsletter, The Standard, has received praise from no lesser light than Harry Katz, by saying that;
It is a shame that only Ohioans get it. It is really worthy of national distribution. You did a good job of researching material for the Cancer story. I will use some of it in a cancer story in my column in our Village newspaper. Something special about Cleveland: that is where the son of a Cleveland PCO started the Pest Control Magazine.
In 1962 Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring. Carson’s ability to spin a tale was truly amazing. Even though just about everything she said was either false, misleading or inaccurate the EPA still praises her as an environmental saint, in spite of all the studies that have clearly discredited almost everything she stated or claimed or predicted. EPA’s web site states:
"Silent Spring played in the history of environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played in the abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA today may be said without exaggeration to the extend4ed shadow of Rachel Carson. The influence of her book has brought together over 14,000 scientists, lawyers, managers, and other employees across the country to fight the good fight for “environmental protections.”
Skeptics then and now have accused Carson of shallow science, but her literary genius carried all before it.”
So it was her literary genius and not her scientific genius that did it. At least EPA got that right. However, this book was the basis for the ban on DDT and gave the impetus for the formation of the modern environmental movement, which must be held responsible for tens of millions of deaths and billions of cases of unnecessary afflictions that could have been prevented.

In 1970 Richard Nixon stated that he had taken steps to get rid of DDT and formed the EPA. He did this to strip the United States Department of Agriculture of legislative authority regarding pesticides. They knew the science did not justify a ban on DDT and were against it, hence Nixon’s corrupt actions.

The irresponsible ban on DDT can be blamed not only on Richard Nixon, (although he bears the burden of blame) but William Ruckelshaus as well. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife, President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, a “closet” environmentalist and the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”

It has been claimed that Ruckelshaus was not responsible and that two court decisions required EPA to ban DDT, but Sweeney’s decision vacated those orders and it was Ruckelshaus who ultimately made the decision to ban DDT; which he admitted two years later to an audience of environmental activists by acknowledging that there was no science to justify the ban and therefore made a political decision.

We have come a long way down that road of regulations. “The Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.” As a result we have continued to lose important tools. In 1996 the Food Quality Protection act passed and we lost important organophosphates and carbamates, and now we have bed bugs reaching epidemic proportions. I keep hearing about the increase in ticks. What happens when children start coming down with Lyme disease on a regular basis? What is EPA’s answer to all of this? Integrated Pest Management (IPM)!

IPM was the brainchild of a number of entomologists, who pioneered the concept in the early 1960’s, including Ray Smith, Dale Newsome, Charlie Lincoln and Bill Luckman, according to George Rotramel, PhD. However it would appear that the whole thing was triggered by an article in the agricultural science journal Hilgardia, (Hilgardia 29: 81-101, 1959) which you will find cited and quoted unendingly in papers up to and including the latest papers regarding pest control solutions in agriculture.

One of the authors of that paper Vernon M. Stern wrote and article in 1985 in “This Week’s Citation Classic” commentaries where-in he notes;
“The reason this paper has been widely cited is that, by 1959, the world of pest control needed drastic improvement. This paper was a significant first step and laid the basis for all that followed. An author commented recently, “Economic entomology has had nothing quite so fashionable as integrated control. It gathered momentum from its very breath. It was all things to all entomologists. Above all, it acquired the characteristics of a religious movement, with its own priesthood, faithful following, and body of doctrine. Such, indeed, was its strength.” (Source) Jones D. P. Agricultural entomology (Smith R. F, Mittler T.E. Smith C.N. & eds.) History of Entomology. Palo Alto, California: Annual reviews, 1973, p. 307-32

He went on to say that during the 1960’s “the entomological concept of integrated control was broadened considerably and soon encompassed nematology, plant pathology, and weed science. This entire field now includes not only biological and chemical control, climatic factors, plant growth analysis, and modeling as well as social ramifications and political aspects. As a result the term “integrated pest management” largely replaced our term “integrated control”. Today, BS, MS, and PhD degrees are offered in this subject. About 20 (in 1985) states now require agricultural pest control advisers to be licensed.”
In an article “Renaming (Redefining) Integrated Pest Management: Fumble, Pass, or Play?”, authors Tom A. Royer, Philip G. Mulder and Gerrit W. Cuperus of the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74048. In the American Entomologist "Postmarked: Extension, U.S.A.", Volume 45. Pages 136-139 commenting on the book;
“Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century (National Research Council 1996) stated that the authors “thoroughly examined integrated pest management (IPM) and exposed some valid criticisms regarding its implementation. After reviewing the book, we asked the question: "What compelled the authors to re-invent and rename IPM?" We are convinced that the genesis of ecologically based pest management (EBPM) was predicated on a genuine concern about how IPM is practiced. However, we concur with Kogan's (1998) view that IPM practitioners, educators, and researchers should be troubled by the introduction of "repackaged" substitutes with new acronyms because the identity of this fully developed, already recognizable archetype [IPM] may be undermined.”
It is clear from this article the authors believe “IPM must be able to be defined in a viable framework.” In other words, it first must work to control pests and it must be “economically feasible and socially acceptable.”  Although it appears clear that the authors are in favor of seriously reducing pesticide use, their comments are important because it is obvious from their concerns that IPM was designed for, and is only practicable in agriculture and constantly redefining IPM to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean is counterproductive.

Even those definitions that aren’t clearly agricultural in nature show that it is obvious from the content it doesn’t apply to structural pest control. Most importantly, none of them exclude the use of pesticides, with the determinant factors being the applicators understanding of the problem and his judgment as to what should be done. This may be a good time to list some of the many definitions of IPM.

IPM is based on threshold limits, which establishes an economic basis for the application of pesticides. So many pests in a field do so much damage and when that damage passes an economic threshold of losses it is more economical to apply pesticides. That’s IPM! And even in agriculture where IPM can be scientifically defined it isn’t really practiced because it is time and labor intensive to do the surveys and expensive.

So then, what is the threshold limit for cockroaches in a restaurant or ones home? How about bed bugs, fleas, rats, mice, ticks, ants, termites, etc? They answer is zero. There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control. EPA bureaucrats have another program they push called Green Pest Control, which is ever less definable than IPM. In point of fact there are only two states, Georgia and California have any definition.

APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM.

These states are using a defining term to define a term. They can’t do it any better than they were able to define IPM. There will be no end to the changes or demands. Pest control isn't a methodology, it is a practice. Well, IPM and GPM aren't methodologies either; but neither are they a practice. Both IPM and GPM are ideologies disguised as methodologies and that is why they are so hard to find a single definition, which I believe is a Sisyphean task.

We are replacing science with mysticism when we work to "become one with the biosphere" as the green movements demand.  EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations from its inception. It is clear to anyone who wishes to see that the EPA was born in corruption and operates behind a curtain of lies, just like the Wizard of Oz. Where will all of this take us? I believe that bed bugs are the tip of the iceberg, for no society can avoid the consequences of its way of living.  We cannot continue in this direction without serious consequences.   Mankind must alter his environment in order to survive.  Even those ignorant ancients with their magic spells recognized this as a basic truth.   They at least had an excuse; they were ignorant.

Comment Rules - Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Wednesday, June 9, 2010

DDT - Drinking the Kool-Aid

By Rich Kozlovich

Those in prominent positions who defend Rachel Carson and her acolytes are thoughtless elites who have drunk deeply of the Green Kool-Aid while living in the fever swamps of environmentalism; elitists whose minds are ablaze with enlightenment; an enlightenment that only they can fully understand. They revel in “rhetoric filled with unending deposits of spite, hyperbole, lies and odium” as if they were listening to a symphonic orchestra playing music that is filled with a grandeur and beauty that completely mesmerizes and inspires those who are capable of hearing it.

The reality is that this rhetoric, with the aid of government bureaucrats and a false media, is a symphony of discordant notes that has filled the ears, minds and emotions of the uninformed and misinformed, making it impossible for them to think clearly. Just as with bureaucracies and all their regulations, this discordant symphony constantly expands itself into issues such as animal rights, global warming, genetically modified foods, pesticides, private land ownership and hatred of the rich; destroying practical age-old traditional values, while promoting every form of radicalism as a new enlightenment. Unfortunately this is done without any penalty or consequence for them if they are wrong.

This façade of intellectual and moral superiority is actually nothing more than aesthetic snobbery that carries with it a corresponding lack of concern for the poor who suffer needlessly so their egos can be stroked and feel good about themselves, creating fervor and excitement that can only be described as religious in nature. This symphony of environmental rhetoric is their Kyrie Eleison, and these elites are the clergy and high priests of the secular religion known as environmentalism. This started with DDT and Rachel Carson.

We have come through 60 years where marching, breaking windows, burning buildings, shouting insults and chanting slogans are considered intellectual debate. We have come to accept defamation of character as an intellectual argument and that any science out of harmony with the “Litany” is the work of corrupted sycophants of big business. Unfortunately, as in the Middle Ages anyone from business, government or science who disagrees with them is a heretic who must be purged by an inquisition of condemnatory public humiliation through their acolytes in government and the main stream media. It is clear that “some things are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them”. How will history judge the moralistic ravings of these intellectual elites? How many lives will they destroy?

"There has never been a replicated study published in a peer-reviewed journal showing harm to human health from DDT" after six decades of human exposure, Amir Attaran of the Royal Institute of International Affairs has said.

So why is DDT banned in the U.S.? Blame Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," a book published in 1962 that tried to make a case against man-made chemicals. She made the argument, which has since been discredited, that DDT ingestion caused reproduction problems in birds and caused cancer.

The EPA still lauds her as an environmental saint, in spite of all the studies that have clearly discredited almost everything she stated or claimed or predicted. EPA’s web site states:
Silent Spring played in the history of environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played in the abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA today may be said without exaggeration to the extend4ed shadow of Rachel Carson. The influence of her book has brought together over 14,000 scientists, lawyers, managers, and other employees across the country to fight the good fight for “environmental protections.”

Skeptics then and now have accused Carson of shallow science, but her literary genius carried all before it.”
So it was her literary genius and not her scientific genius that did it!  At least EPA got that right.

Blame, as well, Richard Nixon and William Ruckelshaus. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife. President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”

Those who still defend Carson and the EPA’s decision are legion and desperate. Studies abound to prove that which is un-provable i.e., that DDT and DDE, a metabolite of DDT, is toxic to people and wildlife and causes all sorts of afflictions. One recently released study called the Pine River Statement was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives entitled, “The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use”. Fifteen scientists reviewed almost 500 papers to prove that DDT or DDE caused “cancer, diabetes, fetal underdevelopment, shortened duration of lactation, reduced child growth, reproductive problems and neurodevelopmental problems.

The case they came up with “was weak” and “in order to prove a cause and effect relationship between DDT and human health harm, certain core criteria should be met, such as strength of association, biologic credibility, and consistency with other investigations. Two other important, although sometimes considered weaker, criteria are time sequence (cause must precede effect) and a proportional dose-response relationship. None of the studies presented in the Pine River Statement satisfy these criteria. The studies are un-replicated, contradictory, or statistically insignificant.” Yet the authors conclude that the evidence they present proves that DDT “may” pose a risk to human health.

I find it amazing that they feel compelled to continue spending millions to prove DDT is so terrible. If that was actually so it would have been clear to everyone and settled by now; yet they continue…why? Because everything they have said or written about DDT is a lie and they desperately need to find a way of discrediting this banned product even now. Why? Because their cause against DDT gave them power, influence and money theyhad  never dreamed of before. If their DDT claims are lies then all the claims about all the other pesticides are also lies. and a valid case would be made that the rest of their scares are invlaid also.

Nixon wanted to get rid of DDT but he couldn’t because pesticides fell under the legislative authority of the USDA, and they didn’t agree with the idea that DDT should be eliminated. In order to strip that legislative authority from the USDA he created the EPA and appointed an underground greenie to be in charge. EPA was founded in corruption and has operated, from the very beginning, behind a curtain of lies. Nothing has changed.


Monday, June 7, 2010

Facts versus fears: DDT

This originally appeared at this site and I wish to thank Derek Rose, Director of Publications for the American Council on Science and Health  for allowing me to reprint this.  As a member of ACSH I would like to encourage all to consider joining this fine organization. 

Extract from the American Council on Science and Health publication "Facts Versus Fears"
Edition 3, June 1998. © American Council on Science and Health- all rights reserved.

DDT, 1962


DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was first synthesized in 1877,1 but it was not until 1940 that a Swiss chemist discovered that it could be sprayed on walls and would cause any insect to die within the next six months, without any apparent toxicity to humans.2 DDT’s effectiveness, persistence, and low cost (only 17 cents per pound) resulted in its being used in antimalarial efforts worldwide. It was introduced into widespread use during World War II and became the single most important pesticide responsible for maintaining human health through the next two decades. The scientist who discovered the insecticidal properties of DDT, Dr. Paul Müller, was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.3

The Scare

In 1962 Rachel Carson’s lyrical yet scientifically flawed book Silent Spring was released. The book argued eloquently but erroneously that pesticides, and especially DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment and also endangering human health. The emotional public reaction to Silent Spring launched the modern environmental movement.4 DDT became the prime target of the growing anti-chemical and anti-pesticide movements during the 1960s. Reasoned scientific discussion and sound data on the favorable human health effects of DDT were brushed aside by environmental alarmists who discounted DDT’s enormous benefits to world health with two allegations: (1) DDT was a carcinogen, and (2) it endangered the environment, particularly for certain birds.

In 1969 a study found a higher incidence of leukemia and liver tumors in mice fed DDT than in unexposed mice.5 Soon, too, environmentalists were blaming the decline in populations of such wild bird species as the osprey and peregrine falcon on the contamination by DDT of their environment. A number of states moved to ban DDT, and in 1970 the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a plan to phase out all but essential uses.6

The Reaction

Numerous scientists protested that the laboratory-animal studies flew in the face of epidemiology, given that DDT had been used widely during the preceding 25 years with no increase in liver cancer in any of the populations among whom it had been sprayed. And when the World Health Organization (WHO) investigated the 1969 mice study, scientists discovered that both cases and controls had developed a surprising number of tumors. Further investigation revealed that the foods fed to both mice groups were moldy and contained aflatoxin, a carcinogen.7 When the tests were repeated using noncontaminated foods, neither group developed tumors. In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences declared, “In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.”8

Additionally, the evidence regarding the effect of DDT on eggshell thinning among wild birds is contradictory at best. The environmentalist literature claims that the birds threatened directly by the insecticide were laying eggs with thin shells. These shells, say the environmentalists, would eventually become so fragile that the eggs would break, causing a decline in bird populations, particularly among raptors (birds of prey).

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10

In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts—published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association—reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey—who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline—reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19

In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.20

When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the quail in the study were fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent (a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium). Calcium deficiency is a known cause of thin eggshells.21–23 After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels. The birds produced eggs without thinned shells.24

After many years of carefully controlled feeding experiments, Dr. M. L. Scott and associates of the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed.”23 In fact, thinning eggshells can have many causes, including season of the year, nutrition (in particular insufficient calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and manganese), temperature rise, type of soil, and breeding conditions (e.g., sunlight and crowding).25

In the years preceding the DDT ban, the National Academy of Sciences,26,27 the American Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General,28 the World Health Organization,29 and the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations30 had been among those who spoke out in support of the continued use of DDT as a disease fighter and crop protectant.

In 1971 authority over pesticides was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”31

Two months later EPA head William Ruckelshaus—who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings— overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision. Ruckelshaus declared that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses.32


The ban on DDT was considered the first major victory for the environmentalist movement in the U.S. The effect of the ban in other nations was less salutary, however. In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying was stopped in 1964, malaria cases began to rise again and reached 2.5 million in 1969.33 The same pattern was repeated in many other tropical— and usually impoverished—regions of the world. In Zanzibar the prevalence of malaria among the populace dropped from 70 percent in 1958 to 5 percent in 1964. By 1984 it was back up to between 50 and 60 percent. The chief malaria expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development said that malaria would have been 98 percent eradicated had DDT continued to be used.34

In addition, from 1960 to 1974 WHO screened about 2,000 compounds for use as antimalarial insecticides. Only 30 were judged promising enough to warrant field trials. WHO found that none of those compounds had the persistence of DDT or was as safe as DDT. (Insecticides such as malathion and carbaryl, which are much more toxic than DDT, were used instead.) And—a very important factor for malaria control in less developed countries—all of the substitutes were considerably more expensive than DDT.35

[Insertion: See the human toll of not using DDT here. Ends.]

And what of the charges leveled against DDT? A 1978 National Cancer Institute report concluded—after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats—that DDT was not carcino-genic.36 As for the DDT-caused eggshell thinning, it is unclear whether it did, in fact, occur and, if it did, whether the thinning was caused by DDT, by mercury, by PCBs, or by the effects of human encroachment.16,37 And as recently as 1998 researchers reported that thrush eggshells in Great Britain had been thinning at a steady rate 47 years before DDT hit the market; the researchers placed the blame on the early consequences of industrialization.38

Regardless of whether DDT, exclusive of other chemicals, presented a threat to bird populations, it remains in the news. DDT has a long half-life, and residues sometimes persist for years in certain environments. Also, DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity, but the amounts of naturally occurring estrogens in the environment dwarf the amounts of synthetic estrogens.39 A recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggested that the ratio of natural to synthetic estrogens may be as much as 40,000,000 to 1.40

In addition, Dr. Robert Golden of Environmental Risk Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed the research of numerous scientists and concluded that DDT and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) have no significant estrogenic activity.41

The 1996 book Our Stolen Future speculated on a link between DDT and breast cancer, noting that DDE has been found in some breast tumors.42 Recently, charges have been made associating DDT and DDE with breast cancer—specifically, the finding that women with breast cancer had higher levels of DDE in their blood than did women without breast cancer.43 However, elevated blood DDE could quite plausibly be a result of the mobilization of fat from storage depots in the body due to weight loss associated with breast cancer. Breast cancer thus may be a risk factor for elevated DDE, rather than DDE’s being a risk factor for breast cancer.44

In a 1994 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers concluded that their data did not support an association between DDT and breast cancer.45 The researchers did note that breast cancer rates are higher than the national average in many places in the northeastern United States; but the data also indicated that the higher levels could be accounted for by nonenvironmental factors among women living in these regions—factors such as higher socioeconomic status and deferral or avoidance of pregnancy, both of which increase the risks of breast cancer by up to twofold.45,46

In October 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.47 In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, “weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer.”48 Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer “is not very compelling.”49


1. Whelan E. Toxic Terror. 2nd ed. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1993:100.

2. Desowitz R. The Malaria Capers: More Tales of Parasites and People, Research and Reality. New York: W.W. Norton; 1991:62–63.

3. Edwards JG. Pesticides in Medicine & Politics. Prepared address to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. San Diego, CA. June 14, 1997.

4. Toxic Terror:96.

5. Tarjan R, Kemeny T. Multigeneration studies on DDT in mice. Food Cosmet and Toxicol. 1969; 7:14–222.

6. Toxic Terror:110–114.

7. Edwards JG. Testimony and affidavit: California Department of Food and Agriculture. Los Angeles, CA. March 1978.

8. National Academy of Sciences. The Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press; 1970.

9. Hickey JJ, Anderson DW. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science. 1968; 162:271–273.

10. Bitman J, Cecil HC, Harris SJ, Gries GF. DDT induces a decrease in eggshell calcium. Nature. 1969; 224:44–46.

11. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine. 1942; 44:1–75.

12. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes. 1961; 15(2): 84–300.

13. Taylor JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migration of raptors, 1934 to 1970. Hawk Mtn Assn Newsletter. 1970; 42.

14. Hickey JJ. Guide to Bird Watching. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1943.

15. Hickey JJ. Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940, before DDT. Auk. 1942; 59:176.

16. Beebe FL. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine. North Surrey, BC, Canada: Canadian Raptor Society Press; 1971.

17. Rice JN. Peregrine Falcon Populations. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1969:155–164.

18. Enderson JH, Berger DD. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from northern Canada. Condor. 1968; 70:149–153.

19. Wilson Report. Review of organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by Advisory Committee on Toxic Chemicals. Department of Education and Science; 1969.

20. Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 1969; 83:91–112.

21. Greely F. Effects of calcium deficiency. J Wildlife Management. 1960; 70:149–153.

22. Romanoff AL, Romanoff AJ. The Avian Egg. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1949:154.

23. Scott ML, Zimmermann JR, Marinsky S, Mullenhoff PA. Effects of PCBs, DDT, and mercury compounds upon egg production, hatchability and shell quality in chickens and Japanese quail. Poultry Science. 1975; 54:350–368.

24. Cecil HC, Bitman J, Harris SJ. No effects on eggshells, if adequate calcium is in DDT diet. Poultry Science. 1971; 50:656–659.

25. The Avian Egg:152–156, 266.

26. Handler P. The federal government and the scientific community. Science. 1971; 171(967):144–151.

27. Toxic Terror:112.

28. Steinfeld JL. Surgeon General testimony before EPA. September 9, 1971.

29. The place of DDT in operations against malaria & other vector-borne disease. Official Records, WHO, Geneva: No. 190, April 1971:176–182.

30. Special Report of United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The New York Times. November 29, 1969.

31. Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32).

32. Ackerly RL. DDT: a re-evaluation, part II. Chemical Times and Trends. October 1981:55.

33. Gerberg EJ, Wilcox III H. Environmental Assessment of Malaria and Control Projects–Sri Lanka. Agency for International Development. 1977; 20:32–33.

34. Bast J, Hill P, Rue R. Eco-Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism. Lanham, MD: The Heartland Institute; 1994:100–101.

35. Service MW. Some problems in the control of malaria. In: Ecological Effects of Pesticides (Perring, FH and Mellanby K, eds). New York: Academic Press; 1977:156.

36. Efron E. The Apocalyptics. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster; 1985:268.

37. Jukes TH. Insecticides in health, agriculture and the environment. Die Naturwissensch. 1974; 61:6–16.

38. Milius S. Birds’ eggs started to thin long before DDT. Science News. 1988; 153(17):261.

39. Jukes TH. Chasing a receding zero: impact of the zero threshold concept on actions of regulatory officials. J Amer Coll Toxicol. 1983; 2(3):147–160.

40. Safe S. Environmental and dietary estrogens and human health: is there a problem? Environ Health Perspect. 1995; 103:346–351.

41. Golden, R. Proceedings of the International Environmental Conference, Washington, DC, 1995.

42. Colborn T, Dumanoski D, Myers JP. Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton. 1996:184.

43. National Cancer Institute. DDT and Breast Cancer. NCI CancerFax. National Cancer Institute Office of Cancer Communications; August 1996:1.

44. Ottoboni MA. Personal communication with Dr. N. Snyderman, 1993.

45. Krieger N, Wolff MS, Haitt RA, et al. Breast cancer and serum organochlorines: a prospective study among white, black, and Asian women. JNCI. April 20, 1994.

46. Sturgeon SR, Schairer C, Gail M, McAdams M, Brinton LA, Hoover RN. Geographic variation in mortality from breast cancer among white women in the United States. JNCI. December 20, 1995.

47. Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Laden F, Colditz G, Manson JE, Willett WC, Speizer FE, Wolff MS. Plasma organochlorines levels and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337:1253–1258.

48. Safe S. Xenoestrogens and breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337:1303–1304.

49. Kolata G. Study discounts DDT role in breast cancer. The New York Times. October 10, 1997:A26


Sunday, June 6, 2010

We Are the World’s Healthiest Chemophobes

By Rich Kozlovich

There is a report published a few years ago called Making Sense of Chemical Stories,  which attempts to point out some very basic concepts that most people are not grasping about chemicals.  We need to see things clearly and not through a telescope of activism which makes it impossible to see the whole picture.  We live in a world where pollution has become “the cause” for celebrities of every ilk. Movies, television and sports notables will come out and take a position on subjects of which they know little or nothing about. We have been inundated by so many articles and television shows regarding chemicals that we in the developed world (which owes so much to chemicals) have become chemophobic.

Malaria in the developed world is thought of as being impossible. Why? DDT largely eliminated it in developed countries! Our economy, which supports a life style that most would not be willing to give up, came about as a result of an innovative chemical industry. Our ability to feed ourselves, and huge portions of the rest of the world, is a direct result of that research. Research that resulted in the Green Revolution, for which Norman Borlaug was largely responsible, literally saved millions of lives with extensive use of high yield varieties of crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Chemistry!

During my young years it was not uncommon for mothers to take their dry foods such as pasta, rice and beans and dump them into a boiling pot of water and wait with a strainer to filter out the dead bugs that would float to the top. We would be outraged now if that happened. The chemical industry provided the answers for that. Pesticides were developed that gave us not only abundant foods, but mostly pest free foods.

Why then do we strive to be kept away from “that stuff”? Why do we have the attitude that all manufactured chemicals must be avoided at any cost? The universe (that includes us by the way) is made up of chemicals. I see advertisements that claim something is chemical free. If it is chemical free it doesn’t exist. We can’t survive without them because we are them. In fact Americans live longer, healthier lives than Americans have ever lived as a result of our chemical rich society and environment.

I have great cartoon in my computer that shows two cavemen sitting in a cave and one of them says, “Something is just not right. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”

In 1840 when everything was “natural” the average life span was approximately 40. Today, when everything that is important in our lives was created by manufactured chemicals the average life span is about 80. What part of that is so hard to grasp? We live longer as a direct result of those chemicals and it is obvious that these chemicals, when properly used, are not damaging the environment or us, no matter what the activists say, the BP oil spill notwithstanding.

A cup of coffee contains 11 chemicals that are considered carcinogenic. You will be exposed to more carcinogens in that one cup of coffee than all the carcinogenic potential of all of the pesticide residue on all of the food you will eat in one year.

City councils all over the country have taken up the cause of banning potentially harmful substances that have already been tested, regulated and approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have to ask; why they have decided to take up this task? Is it because they spent three hundred million on research and came to a different conclusion than did the EPA? Is it because these city councils are filled with toxicologists and chemists who looked at the original research and decided that the scientists who performed the research were lackeys of the chemical companies and their work should be dismissed? Or is it perhaps a case of merely taking the word of anti-chemical activists who may have even less scientific acumen and less qualified to determine the worth of these products than these local politicians. Then again, they may even number themselves among them. Try and picture a society that would elect all of their officials from the Sierra Club or PETA.

A city council in California wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it burns human tissue in its gaseous state and prolonged use in its solid state could cause severe tissue damage. What is dihydrogen monoxide? Water! Were they embarrassed when they found out what it actually was? Probably not, after all, their intentions were good. I would rather their actions were correct.

The EPA is spending a fortune to promote IPM and Green Pest Control. The School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) has been introduced and re-introduced in Congress. Why? Because they “know” so many things that simply aren’t true and they have the power and money to promote these untruths. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. You can’t. It is indefinable and Green Pest Control is even worse. Everyone has his own ideas about IPM. Such foolishness is seen for what is worth in the third world where children are dying because of a lack of pesticides.  Is it our desire to become one with the third world? The actions of anti-pesticide activists indicate that is exactly what they want, and EPA is part and parcel of this outcome.

When we read labels at the grocery store it gives the impression we are being poisoned because we clearly don’t understand the chemical terms. Whether chemicals are naturally occurring or manufactured they have been given names and reading those names do not give most of us any clue as to whether they are safe or not. In short, we don’t know what is good or what is bad. DDT has saved more lives than any chemical naturally occurring or otherwise in human history, and yet we hear how terrible it is. And I will state this again. Everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie. Those who actually read books about the “research” done by Rachel Carson realize that she was not a great scientist. She was a great writer, but it turned out to be science fiction.

(I would like to recommend reading Klaus and Bolander’s 1972 issue of “Ecological Sanity” and Roberts and Tren’s “The Excellent Powder, DDT’s Political and Scientific History”, which just came out. )

If we actually look at the facts we will find that most of what comes from the greenies is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, which they are guilty of, but mostly lies of omission. The end result is the same. For them to satisfy their egos and enact their entire slate of feel good policies people must die. Why? Because their policies kill people! We have the evidence of science and the truth of history, which proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. The “conventional wisdom” of the activists was nothing more than the “philosophical flavor of the day”, and has not become traditional wisdom. Wisdom becomes traditional when it stands the test of time.

Greenie wisdom has not stood against the march of time or the uncovering of the facts, that is why they have to move from one "crisis" to another.  Something must always be on a back burner for them to exploit because it soon becomes obvious that the latest one is a lie, such as anthropogenic climate change AKA Global Warming.   No matter how many times a lie is told (even if everyone believes the lie) it will never become the truth! As Benjamin Franklin said, “truth will very patiently wait for us”. What is of concern is how much damage will be done until we find it. The world has suffered upwards of 90 million deaths from malaria and upwards of 13 billion unnecessary cases as a result of banning DDT in 1972. How much patience can the world afford while truth waits for us?

Recently there appeared a CNN special report called “Toxic America” which falsely claimed “that trace levels of environmental chemicals are causing myriad disease in America, from cancer to diabetes and more. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from the American Council on Science and Health stated “It was worse than I could have imagine. “ She went on to say that “The most shocking part of it was that they recruited people from certain towns who thought that they were harmed by chemicals, and brought them all together to talk about how dangerous these substances are.” ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agreed with Whelan saying that, “Their segment about so-called ‘toxic towns’ was bizarrely unscientific. When a physician bills himself as an expert and gathers people in a room who believe they were sickened by chemicals, taking a show of hands to see who believes they were harmed, there’s no scientific basis to that whatsoever.”

These "chemical scare” specials from the media are a no win situation for real scientists unless the entire scientific community stands up and condemns them. The emotional drama of parents who have lost children to cancer, and who believer trace chemical elements are reasonable for their death, will be so emotionally overwhelming to any viewing audience that no matter how accurately you present the actual science and no matter how logical your arguments are; emotions will triumph over actual science every time. And our corrupt media and the green movement knows it.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to reality. At the end of WWII the world’s population was approximately 2 billion people. Currently we have about 6.7 billion. It took thousands of years to get to 2 billion and yet in less than 75 years we have soared to 6.7 billion and we live in a chemical rich society. When tested, our bodies will show over 2 hundred different chemicals produced by the chemical companies…and we live longer healthier lives than ever in human history. Somewhere there is a serious disconnect between what we see going on in reality and what we are being told. Is it possible that what we are being told is merely the propaganda of an irrational and misanthropic movement with an agenda? Could be!

This additional link was posted 6/8/2010.  Please read my next post Facts Versus Fears: DDT


Thursday, June 3, 2010

Long Range Planning

By Rich Kozlovich

I get a kick out of the talking heads on TV who demand that “something must be done now”! Whether it is Hurricane Katrina or the BP oil catastrophe, I think it’s clear that there doesn’t seem to any coherent plans to handle much of what goes on in life; whether it’s in our private lives, government or business, because life is so complicated.

Even when plans are prepared far in advance they are often managed so incompetently that you come away with the conclusion that maybe it would have been better if everyone just played it by ear and saved a lot of money. And the further down the road the planning is from the crisis that it was supposed to contain the probability that it will carried out competently is even less likely. The original planners aren’t there any longer. The “institutional memory” and the insights are gone; and quite frankly, things change.

I have found that when the originators of any system are out of the picture it leaves a hole of understanding that is filled with the views, values, concepts and conclusions of others...who may not have the same values as those who created the system.

I believe the primary problem is having and defining goals. This is the key to any kind of planning activity. Goals are broken down into three categories.
• Short term goals,
• Medium range goals.
• Long range goals.
What determines what a short term goal is? This can be as short a time as in the next 5 minutes or as long as 1 or 2 years. Often what defines a short-term goal is what the medium range and long-range goals are.

Ordinarily I would keep short range goals within two years, medium range goals from 2 to 5 years and long range goals is anything beyond 5 years.

How does one see past 5 years? Anything past your next footstep is speculative. The farther down the road you go the more speculative it becomes. The only way to plan that far ahead is to have a vision as to what you want and how you want to get there. The vision is the touchstone that keeps you on track. Call it “your truth” if you will. Events will naturally change the planning all along the way. This requires adaptability. The ability to alter goals and plans that have seemingly been well laid is the key to surviving until the vision comes to fruition.

Long range planning requires long range vision. This can only be obtained through a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Having a wide range of knowledge and wisdom is important to tie these things together. Experience in life along with the historical events, along with the consequences of those events is one of the great creators of vision. People throughout the centuries have one thing in common; they are people! People all through the centuries and are pretty much motivated by the same things. These are lessons that can’t be ignored and must be used as a basis for any planning activity including in our private lives.

This requires a depth of thinking. Thinking about great many things (small as well as large) over a long period of time trains the mind. This process goes on automatically. The brain is designed to find patterns. Gathering, storing, filing, analyzing and cross referencing without any real conscious effort on our part, some have this ability better than others, but this ability exists in everyone; but it must be exercised. If we train our mind by thinking deeply on a great many subjects - lo and behold - we get those flashes of insight. How did that happen?

Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. The brain, being designed to find patterns, found that last bit of information that allowed it fill in the missing gaps and organize the information properly. A bit here, a bit there and then all of a sudden… SHAZAM... the answer!
• Wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding. What are the differences?
• Knowledge is easily understood, it is just data although this is where the work really begins.
• Understanding is more complex. To acquire understanding it requires us to meditate and think in an attempt to put all the knowledge together into some coherent pattern in an attempt to see what it all means.
• Wisdom however, is the hardest quality of them all. All the heavy mental lifting has been done acquiring all of that knowledge and diligently meditating and thinking to acquire understanding. Why then is wisdom the hardest? It requires application. Having knowledge and understanding is of no value if it isn’t applied.
• That means someone has to do something.
The chemical industries need to understand that we need to stop appeasing those who despise us. If we as an industry are going to stand up to the forces allied against us, we must develop a common vision. That is the rub. We don’t see the world in the same way. As an example;
• Do we all agree that we need IPM or Green Pest Control?
• Do we all agree what they actually are?
• Do we all agree that they are good for pest control?
• Do we all agree that pesticides do more good than harm or is it visa versa or that IPM or Green Pest Control is better or worse for the public?
• Do we all agree on the direction of pragmatism (also known as appeasement) the industry is taking with EPA and the environmental movement?
• Do we all agree that the universities and extension departments are in harmony with the pest control industry? This includes the large universities we have been in alliance with in past years.
• Do we all really believe that the environmental activists and their allies in government and the media are willing to stop at anything less the total elimination of pesticides, the companies that manufacture them and those that apply them?
• Do we all believe that if we give them what they want everything will work out to our benefit in some Pollyanna way we can’t understand now?
• Do we all believe that what we have been doing over the last 60 years has been beneficial or harmful to the public?
• How many of us think that those in the pesticide manufacturing and application industries should be suing the EPA to force them to prove their decisions are based on actual science and that suppositions are not science?
We can’t even agree on these ten fundamental questions! How are we going to plan for the future of our industry when we don’t seem to even understand who our enemies are? If we are going to start thinking long range, we had better get a realistic vision and not some ethereal Pollyanna feel good attitude that will get us sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism.


Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Regulations and the Economy

By Rich Kozlovich

I know that I am really dating myself, but when I was a kid my grandfather used to love to watch a weekly news show called The Ev and Charlie Show.  It was a bit like Crossfire, except that they understood the concept of good manners.

Everett Dirkson was a gravelly voiced smooth tongued Senator from Illinois who died in 1969.  He made a statement that is still one of the most famous and much quoted statements when it comes to government taxing and spending. He said:  “A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

Dirkson was considered a conservative when it came to fiscal matters, but a liberal when it came to social matters and yet voted consistently to expand regulations. It makes one wonder how anyone can be intellectually honest and think that expanding the size of government and increasing regulations will cost less money, or be spent more wisely on more regulations. Perhaps the statement he should have posed is this:  A few regulations here and a few regulations there and the first thing you know you have tyranny.

It is clear that there are many who have two clearly divergent opinions on the same subject in their heads at the same time and believe they are both correct. Is it any wonder we have so many in the pest control industry think that IPM or Green Pest Control is a good thing? Is it any wonder that so many in pest control believe the Montreal Protocol is based on real science, and believe that the Kyoto Accords are about global warming and not global governance? Worse yet, we have many that believe going along and getting along with the activists will be good for our industry. Talk about having two diametrically opposing views in one’s head at the same time and believing they are both correct, this is certainly the case.

In an article by Bjorn Lomborg regarding regulations, legislators, science and activists he states;  “Among many activists, regulators and legislators, there is a pervasive myth that a little over-regulation never hurt anybody. But a "little" here and a "little" there adds up. The reality is that today regulation exacts societal costs whose magnitude is almost unimaginable. According to a recent analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, U.S. regulatory costs in 2005 were approximately $1.13 trillion, equal to almost half of all of the government's discretionary, entitlement and interest spending ($2.47 trillion), and much larger than the sum of all corporate pre-tax profits -- $874 billion.

To paraphrase Mr. Lomborg; much of the expenditure on regulation is ill-spent on the most expensive cures that do the least good.”

Enormous amounts of money are being wasted on expensive worthless regulations; and efforts to implement IPM and Green Pest Control are among them. We won’t have to wonder and worry about how much longer this will go on though. The money is fast running out.