DDT not so bad after all?

N

Nasor

Valued Senior Member
I was surprised to find this article explaining that DDT was banned for no apparent reason. I'm a pretty skeptical person about this sort of thing, but I checked out (some of) his facts and they are apparently all true.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
...
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus' "Opinion and Order on DDT."
...
Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

DDT was blamed for the decline in the bald eagle population.Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT. After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."

DDT was blamed for the decline in the peregrine falcon population.
The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. During the 1960's, peregrines in northern Canada were "reproducing normally," even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals.
Click to expand...
And it goes on like this.
 
I don't believe any of this.
I've seen the affect ddt has had on new born peregrine falcon chicks. They are born with sores around that close their eyes and make them blind, in fact their whole bodies are covered with these sores.
Imagine being BORN with extreme burning pain.
I know this source claims its not true but it is, I have seen it with my own eyes and heard from the scientists that did the tests to discover why these chicks were like this. It was undoubtedly due to ddt. You don't need widespread use. The stuff circulates rapidly through the food chain. It still isn't out of the food chain despite the fact it isn't used anymore.
DDT was one of the biggest blunders in history.
 
Do you know of any studies that link DDT use with the kinds of sores that you're talking about?
 
bio-accumulation

If the reports posted by Nasor are true, they are faulty and misleading because they do not account for bio-accumulation, where the organisms at the top of the food chain (pyramid) accumulate pollutants.

Bio-accumulation is a well documented phenomenon.
 
Re: bio-accumulation

Originally posted by paulsamuel
If the reports posted by Nasor are true, they are faulty and misleading because they do not account for bio-accumulation...
Click to expand...
Actually the studies did account for bioaccumulation. You'll note that it said "Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate."

I think it's very disturbing that they banned DDT despite an EPA panel determining that it isn't hazardous, then refused to release the data that they used to justify the decision.
 
Last edited:
What, you think it was a conspiracy or something?
I don't know any of the studies but I know of people who do know of the studies.
I read about them a long time ago, before I could really understand them.
A better question is why do you want the continued use of ddt?
If indications are suggesting it is hazardous to wildlife and the eco-system than that is enough to get rid of it. Its not that important.
 
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think it's a crummy way to determine public policy.
 
Dr Lou Natic; I must say that I was abashed after reading what you wrote. I do not know that field it is that you have obtained a doctorate in, but I dearly hope that it is not one related to a field of science. In your argument, every "evidence" that you presented was based off of sensationalism ("Look at the sores on the eyes of the poor chick! How would YOU like to have sores on your poor eyes!") and not any formal evidence, which is exactly what true scientists despise most whenever they see this in journalism of any sort. (Well, no, the worst is having your own words altered by a biased perception, but this is a close second nonetheless.)
A second very fundamental error that you made was immediately saying that correlation = causality. ("There happened to be DDT. Thus, this is UNDOUBTEDLY caused by DDT.") This is the equivalent of saying "There are less pirates than decades ago, and average global temperatures have been increasing in this time. Thus, if we increase the number of pirates, temperatures will drop".

What you presented was not factual evidence of any sort; it was anecdotal evidence, at best. The reason that DDT is spoken of again is because we are now presented with more and more proofs that DDT is NOT, in fact, harmful to birds or their reproductive cycle. What you told us of was one isolated occurrence where an animal was born with a birth defect, something which could be attributed to a hundred other causes at least. Well, anyhow, I think I've spoken long enough about this. But if you are actually a scientist, then I would hope that before expressing any opinion, you would at least go to the length of reading peer reviewed articles released by teams of scientists who experimented in this specific field, and that when you hear about a new discovery or new results, you would actually find an interest in learning why it is now believed that the old information was wrong, instead of immediately dismissing the new facts.

paulsamuel, you are most likely also wrong in your assumption. Bioaccumulation is a concept that has been very well known in the realm of scientists for many decades now, and I assure you that ANY team of scientists would be aware of it and take it into consideration if they were testing the effects of DDT, especially considering that this is one of the major things that Rachel Carson stated in defense of her opinion when she first sounded the alarm on DDT. What scientists would do in such a situation is experiment on the concentration of DDT that would be expected to be found in a bird of prey due to all possible factors, then increase that value by quite a bit (often they double that quantity), and then test that new quantity on bird over a period of many years, which seems to be exactly what has been done in this case. Hence, yes, bioaccumulation was accounted for.

And now that this is all said and done, the only thing that remain a concern related to DDT is the fact that it is extremely efficient. Thus, although it would take a few decades, the risk that insects develop a resistance to it over extended exposure is a very troubling one and one that cannot be dismissed. If things go well, then soon enough this issue should be the only one that remains to be discussed, where DDT is concerned.
 
paulsamuel said:
If the reports posted by Nasor are true, they are faulty and misleading because they do not account for bio-accumulation, where the organisms at the top of the food chain (pyramid) accumulate pollutants.

Bio-accumulation is a well documented phenomenon.
Click to expand...

WE call this the stacking effect . It can happen with environments too and not just the bodies of animals . Toxic ponds , lakes , human habitations and what have you
 
Nasor said:
Actually the studies did account for bioaccumulation. You'll note that it said "Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate."

I think it's very disturbing that they banned DDT despite an EPA panel determining that it isn't hazardous, then refused to release the data that they used to justify the decision.
Click to expand...
I tell you it was a big thing when it was banned in California. It had ripple effects. The E.P.A. is some what out of control if you ask Me . Pretty soon we are going to have to pay to exhale if things continue on the path . Did you know for example that Saw Dust is a harmful substance that needs proper considerations when handling . Look out it Might make you sneeze it must be dangerous as hell fire . Don't be sweeping any floors with out your white suit on . M.S.D. reports are just about required on everything you can think of
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
The E.P.A. is some what out of control if you ask Me .... Did you know for example that Saw Dust is a harmful substance that needs proper considerations when handling . Look out it Might make you sneeze it must be dangerous as hell fire . Don't be sweeping any floors with out your white suit on . M.S.D. reports are just about required on everything you can think of
Click to expand...


The chronic health dangers of inhaling fine particulates is well documented and beyond doubt. Depending on the particulates in question, the effects include lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and asthma. A quick check of saw dust particle size indicates that particles can be as small as 50 microns which is small enough to penetrate deep into the small airways of the lungs. That poses a very real health hazard. Of course, fine saw dust is also a combustion hazard and can be explosive under the right conditions.

Saw dust is definitely dangerous.
 
I can never be sure about the people I talk to online-but I suspect sincerity...somebody I know from one of the other forums I go to lost a third of one lung to redwood sawdust...
I guess the natural chemicals in the wood caused his lungs to form a discrete tumor, so they just took the whole lung lobe out?
I think that's what happened.
 
Well I am very skeptical of the article mainly because JunkScience is an agenda driven site. As such I take there articles with a very large grain of salt.

If I ever have time I will look into the article, but in general any site that is not devoted to science but instead to political ends makes me very wary.:rolleyes:
 
DDE is currently affecting the success of the California Condor. People are having to replace thin eggs with nursery eggs since the condors are eating carrion of sea creatures, which is full of DDE (comes from DDT).
 
DDT has never been banned for use against malaria outbreak in particular, or similar spot applications for emergency insect killing.

The people attempting to resurrect DDT by misleading description of its history and effects are doing so in order to return it to industrial agriculture applications, the uses that cause the serious problems. It replaces husbandry and personal management of farmland, the complicated and locally based discouragement of insect pests by knowledgeable farmers with control over their own land (including focused and limited use of insecticide against local problems). Routine and procedural inundation of entire landscapes with poisons is cheaper than expert monitoring and limited application when farming on an industrial scale. DDT has the great advantage of not directly and visibly poisoning people in obvious and distressing ways, when used so.

The resulting problems - resistance and increasing application requirements, the necessity of rotating one's poisons and developing new ones, the removal of all other curbs on insect depredation and resultant dependence ("addiction" is a fair description), the degradation of entire landscapes and all of their beings or uses, etc - are mostly long term and future costs borne by others, while large immediate profits accrue to the agribusiness concern.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
The chronic health dangers of inhaling fine particulates is well documented and beyond doubt. Depending on the particulates in question, the effects include lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and asthma. A quick check of saw dust particle size indicates that particles can be as small as 50 microns which is small enough to penetrate deep into the small airways of the lungs. That poses a very real health hazard. Of course, fine saw dust is also a combustion hazard and can be explosive under the right conditions.

Saw dust is definitely dangerous.
Click to expand...

Yeah I should be dead . Not , don't plan to be , still breathing saw dust . Maybe it is my genetic disposition. Immune, Who knows . My brother back in the 70s had his lungs scraped because the doctors said wood fibers were sticking out of the inside of his lungs like hair was growing . I told him get the hell out of there before the doctors convince you your going to die . Well he had his lungs scraped and had problems for about a year and a half after the scraping , but he stopped going to the doctor. He don't do that anymore nor would I ever . Where a dust mask if you are worried about it . I know all about the combustibility of saw dust. It is massive fun to throw it on a fire let me tell you and the higher you throw it the more fun it is .
Redwood has an oil in it that is very acidic . Could be a problem , purple Heart wood too. It ozzies the supposed toxic oils . I have not had any ill effects and if you use it for smoking meat it leaves a very favorable taste in the meat . Sweet taste of hard woods are very good if you like bar ba qued meat .

Well the Tin Wood Man is made of Wood . You can smell it coming out of my Pours . The wood boy wants to be a real Man some day and then maybe saw dust will get Me, until then I just keep on keeping with breathing the stuff . Lets not mention silica sand . That has caused much debate in mason products . It is true My friend that built Folsom prison died from lung cancer they say was directly related to silica sand dust particles, course they also said it was his smoking . He was about 82 when he bit the big one . He was a mason from the age of about 14 .
Lets not go down the lead paint road , for I am still seething from the hoops of that new enactment. I know it does. Don't lecture Me Mom

OVER Hyped are my words for the day for all you nanny state people .
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
. My brother back in the 70s had his lungs scraped because the doctors said wood fibers were sticking out of the inside of his lungs like hair was growing . I told him get the hell out of there before the doctors convince you your going to die . Well he had his lungs scraped and had problems for about a year and a half after the scraping , but he stopped going to the doctor. .
Click to expand...

How the hell do you get your lungs scraped?
Do you know what lungs are made of? Millions of tiny air sacs. You cannot scrape them out. Sounds like bullsh#t to me.

The banning of DDT was definitely done with minimal data to support the ban, but with major lobbying from people who did not feel the need for proper scientific data.

One result was a resurgence in malaria in nations like Sri Lanka, who followed suit with the DDT ban. Literally millions of human lives have been lost due to that ban. Malaria is way, way, worse than the worst possible toxicological effects of DDT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top