Statement of Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
Committee on Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts
April 26, 2006
I am a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. I worked for 22 years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including two years as a Research Scholar at Harvard. I am a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. I have directed many investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease, and of others such as Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever. I was a Lead Author of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. I am presently Professor of Medical Entomology at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France.
In this brief presentation I restrict my comments to malaria, and emphasise four points:
1. Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease
2. The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.
3. It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to ``predict`` future prevalence.
4. Environmental activists use the `big talk` of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as `sceptics`.
In the early 1990s, malaria topped the list of dangerous impacts of global warming; the disease would move to temperate regions as temperatures increased. This prediction ignored the fact that malaria was once an important cause of morbidity and mortality throughout most of the US and Europe, even in a period that climatologists call the `Little Ice Age`. In the US, as in western Europe, prevalence declined in the 19th century as a result of multiple changes in agriculture and lifestyle that affected the abundance of mosquitoes, their contact with people, and the availability of anti-malarial drugs. Nevertheless, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. The disease persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. Clearly, temperature was not a limiting factor in its distribution or prevalence.
In the mid-1990s, activist emphasis changed to transmission in poorer countries, often referred to as those ``least able to protect themselves``, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet in most of the continent, temperatures are far above the minimum required for transmission, and most of sub-Saharan Africa, transmission is termed `stable`` because people are exposed to many infective bites, sometimes more than 300 per year, so annual incidence is fairly constant. Mortality is highest in ``newcomers``-young children and immigrants. Those that survive acquire a partial immunity that reduces the risk of fatal illness. In other regions, transmission is endemic but `unstable` because annual transmission is variable; the potential for epidemics is great because immunity declines in periods of low transmission. Climatic factors, particularly rainfall, are sometimes-but by no means always-relevant.
In recent years, activist emphasis has shifted to ``highland malaria``, particularly in East Africa. Despite carefully researched articles by malaria specialists, there has been a flurry of articles by non-specialists who claim a rece
40k fewer deaths to the flu, and 40k more to malaria in Ethiopia
That's a myth.
Mosquitoes are very adaptable creatures and can already be found in abundance in temperate climates. Malaria tends to be more common in warmer countries, but that's because warmer countries tend to be poorer. The warmth itself does not cause Malaria.
From Slaughterhouse 5. Billy is having one of his "episodes" whilst watching television:
"American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.
"The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes.
"When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, separating the dangerous contents into minerals.... The minerals were them shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.
"The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids."
Actually, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God because I don't think there is sufficient evidence for his existence. (Well, there's none, to be exact.) See a pattern?
if I obtain a copy of your so and so and had NO intention what so ever to buy it in the first place, you have lost nothing
Absolutely right. It is obvious that the demand for something available for free is going to be much higher than the demand for the same thing available at a price.
Perhaps pop-stars should try and sell CDs for $1000 each. Then they can whine and whine and whine about all the billions (or thousands, in the case of Michael Jackson) they are losing to piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2006 0505/20060505_26.html
Statement of Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
Committee on Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts
April 26, 2006
I am a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. I worked for 22 years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including two years as a Research Scholar at Harvard. I am a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. I have directed many investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease, and of others such as Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever. I was a Lead Author of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. I am presently Professor of Medical Entomology at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France.
In this brief presentation I restrict my comments to malaria, and emphasise four points:
1. Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease
2. The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.
3. It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to ``predict`` future prevalence.
4. Environmental activists use the `big talk` of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as `sceptics`.
In the early 1990s, malaria topped the list of dangerous impacts of global warming; the disease would move to temperate regions as temperatures increased. This prediction ignored the fact that malaria was once an important cause of morbidity and mortality throughout most of the US and Europe, even in a period that climatologists call the `Little Ice Age`. In the US, as in western Europe, prevalence declined in the 19th century as a result of multiple changes in agriculture and lifestyle that affected the abundance of mosquitoes, their contact with people, and the availability of anti-malarial drugs. Nevertheless, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. The disease persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. Clearly, temperature was not a limiting factor in its distribution or prevalence.
In the mid-1990s, activist emphasis changed to transmission in poorer countries, often referred to as those ``least able to protect themselves``, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet in most of the continent, temperatures are far above the minimum required for transmission, and most of sub-Saharan Africa, transmission is termed `stable`` because people are exposed to many infective bites, sometimes more than 300 per year, so annual incidence is fairly constant. Mortality is highest in ``newcomers``-young children and immigrants. Those that survive acquire a partial immunity that reduces the risk of fatal illness. In other regions, transmission is endemic but `unstable` because annual transmission is variable; the potential for epidemics is great because immunity declines in periods of low transmission. Climatic factors, particularly rainfall, are sometimes-but by no means always-relevant.
In recent years, activist emphasis has shifted to ``highland malaria``, particularly in East Africa. Despite carefully researched articles by malaria specialists, there has been a flurry of articles by non-specialists who claim a rece
Boy, that's some hard-core research you've done there.
Try looking beyond the first item in the Google results page - the seventh, for example.
From Slaughterhouse 5. Billy is having one of his "episodes" whilst watching television:
... The minerals were them shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.
"American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.
"The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes.
"When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, separating the dangerous contents into minerals.
"The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids."
Actually, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God because I don't think there is sufficient evidence for his existence. (Well, there's none, to be exact.) See a pattern?
So as well as possibly being stupid you are certainly a liar.
Here is an example of a typographical error:
Teh cat sat on the mat.
Now here is an example of an error made through dumb ignorance:
I am Miss Informed. You, sir, are merely miss-informed.
See how the difference is really obvious and that you're not fooling anyone?
And it's "mistyped", not "mis-typed". Yikes! I hope you didn't go to school anywhere near where my children do.
Absolutely right. It is obvious that the demand for something available for free is going to be much higher than the demand for the same thing available at a price.
Perhaps pop-stars should try and sell CDs for $1000 each. Then they can whine and whine and whine about all the billions (or thousands, in the case of Michael Jackson) they are losing to piracy.
"Bullshit Bingo" is a British term. All you had to do was Google it.
Won't the lasers burn holes in the TV screen and blast to smithereens anyone watching it?