Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Facts versus fears: DDT

  1. #1
    Registered User sukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,208
    Thanks
    667
    Thanked 830 Times in 557 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    8
    ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Donate

    Facts versus fears: DDT

    As a child I remember the campaign to ban DDT. We were saving the Bald Eagle!!!! There was talk of cancer in humans and soft egg shells of the eagle and peregrine falcons... Oh the horror. Glad the EPA banned it!

    Or was it such a noble act?

    Facts versus fears: DDT
    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

    Background 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

    Conclusion

    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

    http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C...icals/ddt.html
    Last edited by sukie; 12-26-2012 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Registered User sukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,208
    Thanks
    667
    Thanked 830 Times in 557 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    8
    ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT


    Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!

    The 1972 U.S. ban on DDT is responsible for a genocide 10 times larger than that for which we sent Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg. It is also responsible for a menticide which has already condemned one entire generation to a dark age of anti-science ignorance, and is now infecting a new one.

    The lies and hysteria spread to defend the DDT ban are typical of the irrationalist, anti-science wave which has virtually destroyed rational forms of discourse in our society. If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda.
    Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...umm02/DDT.html

  3. #3
    Registered User jimmifli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,645
    Thanks
    2,787
    Thanked 2,123 Times in 1,037 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    14
    ZoneBux
    32,287.22
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    32,287.22
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    You find the strangest causes to support.

  4. Post thanked by:

    Historian (12-27-2012)

  5. #4
    Registered User EricStratton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Cranford, NJ
    Posts
    18,288
    Thanks
    456
    Thanked 1,782 Times in 904 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    65
    ZoneBux
    33,405.52
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    33,405.52
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    Are you sure you can't find any articles older to support your position?

  6. #5
    This will all end in tears. ParanoidAndroid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hyattsville, MD
    Posts
    7,540
    Thanks
    637
    Thanked 702 Times in 425 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    27
    ZoneBux
    23,544.60
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    23,544.60
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    DDT is currently used to fight outbreaks of malaria in developing countries. The "ban" in the UK, Canada, and the US has not led to any resurgence of the disease.

    DDT accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals that feed on prey exposed to DDT and it mimics estrogen which causes reproductive issues in many species.

    What is being advocated here might be the release of DDT for widespread agricultural use which is unnecessary and is evidenced to cause problems.

    Have we not learned anything about pesticides? Are we not attempting to reduce the toxicity of our food and our natural food chains?

  7. Post thanked by:

    Mouldsie (12-26-2012)

  8. #6
    Registered User sukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,208
    Thanks
    667
    Thanked 830 Times in 557 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    8
    ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    My reason for bringing this up at all is that the ban on DDT was proliferated by money. DDT was produced by 14 companies and it was cheap. One of the producers was Monsanto. There was no patent on DDT therefore no money in it.

    Bayer: the world's biggest agrochemical company is also the world's seventh biggest seed company.

    Syngenta: the world's second largest agrochemical company is also the world's third largest seed company.

    Monsanto: the world's biggest seed company is the world's fifth largest agrochemical company.

    And DuPont: the world's second biggest seed company is also the world's sixth largest agrochemical company.

    All of these companies profit from patented sales. How can you profit when a cheap alternative is readily available? Get the cheap product banned.


    World's Top 10 Pesticide Firms

    Company - Agrochemical Sales 2007 (US$ millions) - % Market Share

    1.Bayer (Germany) - $7,458m - 19%
    2.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $7,285m - 19%
    3.BASF (Germany) - $4,297m - 11%
    4.Dow AgroSciences (USA) - $3,779m - 10%
    5.Monsanto (USA) - $3,599m - 9%
    6.DuPont (USA) - $2,369m - 6%
    7.Makhteshim Agan (Israel) - $1,895m - 5%
    8.Nufarm (Australia) - $1,470m - 4%
    9.Sumitomo Chemical (Japan) - $1,209m - 3%
    10.Arysta Lifescience (Japan) - $1,035m - 3%
    Total $34,396m - 89%
    Source: Agrow World Crop Protection News, August 2008

    The top 10 companies control 89% of the global agrochemical market.

  9. #7
    Registered User EricStratton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Cranford, NJ
    Posts
    18,288
    Thanks
    456
    Thanked 1,782 Times in 904 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    65
    ZoneBux
    33,405.52
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    33,405.52
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT


    I said you need to strive to better than everyone else. I didn't say you needed to be better than everyone else. But you gotta try. That's what character is. It's in the try.

  10. Post thanked by:

    sukie (12-27-2012)

  11. #8
    Registered User sukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,208
    Thanks
    667
    Thanked 830 Times in 557 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    8
    ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    48,669.64
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    My apologies for the omission

  12. #9
    Registered User jamze132's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiesbaden, Germany
    Posts
    20,078
    Thanks
    804
    Thanked 461 Times in 285 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    68
    ZoneBux
    52,187.77
    Bank
    0.00
    Total ZoneBux
    52,187.77
    Donate

    Re: Facts versus fears: DDT

    I thought you were referring to Jake "The Snake" Roberts with the DDT reference.

  13. Post thanked by:

    sukie (12-27-2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •