DDT Should it be used?

[Mercedes Benzene]

DDT does negatively affect the environment in some pretty substantial ways. It IS an extremely effective pesticide, so if we could figure out a way to use in a very limited and controlled manner.
It doesn't really affect humans however.
My dad told me that when he was a kid, companies would drive by in trucks spraying the DDT everywhere, even in large crowds of people --essentially drenching them in the chemical.

Anyway, my suggestion: develop some better pesticide for the areas that really need it.

[Ganoderma]

Dude, watch the X-Files...

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

DDT

It doesn't really affect humans however.
Anyway, my suggestion: develop some better pesticide for the areas that really need it.

Some say it does affect humans others say it doesn't
Who are you to believe? (see quotes below)

My problem with it is that it is bio-accumulative. It has only been used in large doses since WW2; so we may not know all its long term affects yet

I would prefer to see something organic that breaks down naturally in the environment like Neem, or Pyrethrum or Quassia .
IF there are extra costs these should be paid for by the West whose aid to the developing world has been nose-diving for years

IT DOES AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH
http://www.caps.20m.com/OCFP.htm

WHAT ARE THE ASSOCIATED TOXICITIES OF THE MOST COMMONLY USED PESTICIDES?

1. ORGANOPHOSPHATES & CARBAMATES: Diazanon, Dursban, Basudin, Sevin

Both organophosphates and carbamates bind cholinesterases and block their action in the hydrolysis of the acetylcholine neurotransmitters, thus acting principally in the parasympathetic and central nervous system. These have now become the most widely used agricultural pesticides.

• Infants under 6 months appear to be particularly susceptible because they have incompletely developed acetylcholinesterase systems and their immature livers are unable to detoxify these compounds.1

• It appears that not only is this age group more susceptible to toxicity due to physiological difference but their activity and diets also put them at increased risk. Zwiener and Ginsberg12 investigated 37 children exhibiting moderate to severe organophosphate and carbamate toxicity. Although the majority were the result of accidental ingestion 17% of the patients developed signs and symptoms of moderate to severe pesticide toxicity after playing on sprayed surfaces.

• Visual system damage is linked to dietary exposure to some cholinesterase inhibitory compounds.1

• Neurotoxicity depends on the stage of brain development of those exposed. As different human brain structures have varying peak periods of growth it is felt that, like lead toxicity, prenatal and early childhood exposure is particularly toxic.1

• Sherman (1995) describes 4 children with an unusual pattern of birth defects including defects neurological and genitalia. Exposures had occurred in utero to Dursban an organophosphate pesticide. A review of the literature shows similar defects in test animals and other children exposed to organophosphates.13

IT DOESN'T AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...osquitoes.html

Fortunately, no human beings have ever been harmed by DDT
“Extensive scientific studies have not found any harm to humans, even during the massive overuse of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 60s.” Furthermore, the scientific reports show that there is no indication of DDT use harming people, birds, bird eggshells, or other vertebrate animals.16

[Michaelangelica]

And I used to like pumpkin soup
http://www.naturalnewswire.com/2004/...een_side_.html

The 'Green' Side of Pumpkins — Purging Pollution from Contaminated Soils

While parents and youngsters are busy carving jack-o-lanterns in preparation for Halloween, Canadian scientists are hard at work on another way to use the popular yellow-orange plant. New research shows that pumpkins can clean up soil contaminated with DDT and other pollutants.

In a greenhouse study, members of the Cucurbita pepo species — including pumpkin and zucchini — demonstrated the ability to remove DDT from soil, suggesting a potential "green" technique for cleaning up sites contaminated with DDT, PCBs and other harmful compounds.

The report is scheduled to appear in the Nov. 15 edition of Environmental Science & Technology, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society.

DDT was applied widely as an insecticide in North America until it was banned in 1972. Some developing nations still use DDT for protection against typhus and malaria, and it endures for long periods of time in the environment, posing a potential health threat to humans and animals.

"Persistent organic pollutants" like DDT, PCBs and dioxins are difficult to remove from soils because they are not water soluble, and the difficulty increases with the passage of time. To clean up contaminated sites, it is typically necessary to excavate the soil and place it in a landfill or burn it in a high-temperature incinerator.

"Phytoremediation offers a ‘green’ solution to cleaning up contaminated sites," says Ken Reimer, Ph.D., a chemist at the Royal Military College of Canada and corresponding author of the paper.

Phytoremediation broadly refers to the use of plants to take up contaminants from the soil. In the case of pumpkins, rather than being eaten, both the plants and their vines would be cut down after they ripen and then composted to reduce their volume before being disposed of in landfills or incinerated.

"Our research has shown that members of the Cucurbita pepo species, including pumpkins, are particularly effective in this regard," Reimer says.

Reimer and his coworkers, Alissa Lunney and Barbara Zeeb, conducted a greenhouse study of five plant species: rye grass, tall fescue, alfalfa, zucchini and pumpkin. The researchers used soil from a site in the Canadian Arctic where DDT had been sprayed to protect workers from mosquitoes.

"The cold temperatures meant that the contamination was virtually identical to the technical grade DDT mixture that had originally been used," Reimer says. "We could therefore examine the ability of [the plants] to ‘suck’ the DDT out of the soil that had been contaminated with DDT for several decades."

Pumpkins took up the largest amount of DDT, while another member of the Cucurbita pepo species — zucchini — came in second at about half the pumpkins’ accumulation. This success could be due to the large mass and volume found in members of this species, the researchers suggest.

Phytoremediation with pumpkins would be most useful at small sites where cleanup is less urgent, Reimer says. Ideally, the plants would grow undisturbed until they are harvested — for disposal rather than for food — at the end of the season, and the process could be repeated for several planting cycles.

[Ganoderma]

interesting. any idea if the pumpikins actually change ddt into something less harmfull? or is it basically a big DDT baloon that they throw in another spot?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Ganoderma

interesting. any idea if the pumpikins actually change ddt into something less harmfull? or is it basically a big DDT baloon that they throw in another spot?

Most of the chlorinated hydrocarbons arn't known for their biodegradablity.
As I read the article the pumpkins just gathered up the DDT.
DDT does break down to DDE.
Some CH's are said to have half lives of 18 years but no one has shown what they break down into.
Mostly I think they just spread out.
One or two ( toxaphene?)used to not be able to be detected at all
I don't know if that is still the case

(CHS)are relatively safe but the objection to their use stems from the fact that they are not degraded by natural biological processes and become a permanent part of the environment.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...6633--,00.html
also same article:_

Acute toxicity can occur due to either acute exposure or as a result of the utilization of fat containing high concentrations of accumulated DDT during periods of starvation. The DDT which was stored in the fat is suddenly released into the bloodstream and results in signs of acute organochlorine poisoning.

This is what happens to seals when they give birth. The CHs interfere with the maternal response and the seals bash their babies to death.

Same article-
some info on birds -so much for that previous quote about birds no being affected.
Whay are there so many lies about? Who are the lies protecting? Who makes the money?

One of the major effects of organochlorine toxicity in wildlife (avian species) is the decline in eggshell thickness with a resultant decrease in reproductive success.
There is a direct correlation between high DDE (metabolite of DDT) levels in the eggs and thinning of the eggshells.
Contaminated eggs also have a greater incidence of embryonic mortality and there often is decreased survivability of hatchlings partly due to abnormal parenting behavior.


Signs of DDT toxicity in birds include ataxia, wing droop, jerkiness in gait, tremors, and convulsions. When symptoms are prolonged for a few days, acute toxic tubular nephrosis may result.
If the insecticide is eaten, an enteritis will be present and result in dehydration.
Aldrin and dieldrin produce signs of toxicity similar to those of organophosphates due to an inhibition of acetyl-cholinesterase.

Michigan Dept of Natural resources.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...6633--,00.html

If "abnormal parenting behaviour" had been observed on Rats in a Psyc. Laboratory (except, as is the case, in seals and birds) we would be worried. How are we less like seals and birds than rats?

[HydrogenBond]

DDT may be harmful but it gets the job done. In areas where the mortality rates are higher than those created by DDT, there is net gain. On the other hand, where it creates harm beyond discomfort it should be banned. There is not just one answer.

Back in the 1950-60's there was wide scale spraying of DDT, before all the risks were know. The spraying would occur while children ran to watch. As far as I know, the life expectancy increased for that generation with respect to previous generations. DDT didn't caused assured mortality and lower life expectancy, although such did indeed occur at some level.

What one needs to keep in mind is that our ability to measure substances at lower and lower levels, often creates a misunderstanding of the data. It is the old axiom, " out of sight out of mind". For example, at one time mercury could only be measured down to PPM. If it was below detection nobody was afraid. When the tools got better, it could be measured to PPB. What couldn't be seen was now seen, making the problem appear worse, because it was now in sight and therefore in the mind. As equipment gor better still, it could be measured to PPT. Now we can't hide from mercury anywhere, making almost everybody paranoid at mercury levels that should have little impact on the vast majority. But science will attempt to correlate even the trace and using the marvel of statistics, come up with a misleading relationship that drives social policy. One has to find 1 out of 1,000,000, it market it as the rule instead of acception.

Let give an example of accurate but misleading statistics. If we look at the terrorists, most are Muslum. In that religion, drinking alcohol and doing recreational drugs is taboo and is treated harshly. As such, people who do not drink alcohol and/or do not do recreational drugs are far more likely to become terrorists. One could do an accurate study to get hard numbers, but the result, as stated, although true, will be very misleading. One may conclude that we need to have national beer blasts, regularly, to help lower the risk of home grown terrorists. The tea totter metality, that favors the behavior of Muslum terroorist, may also be a partial cause of home grown terrorists. It also suggests the way to deal with terrorist is to bring them to bars, get them drunk so they can vent and bar room brawl, and then form friendships with their new found drinking buddies.

The point I was making is that science needs to be able say this person will have an affect at a certain level of DDT, but a different person is good to a higher level of DDT. This will avoid the one-size fits all mentality created by statistical studies that be be quite misleading. This latter is called rational sicence while the former is fuzzy statistical science that allows one to draw subjective instead of objective conclusions.

[Michaelangelica]

US agency not supporting reintroduction of DDT


Publication Date: 08/15/2006

Bernard Muthaka, in his article in the Nation entitled, "Americans to fund DDT programmes" (Horizon magazine, August 10), claimed that USAID will fund indoor spraying with DDT in Kenya.

He also implied that USAID is encouraging Kenya to reintroduce the banned insecticide into its mosquito control programme. This is not accurate.

Malaria is the largest killer of children in Kenya. And the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), supports any activities meant to eliminate this disease. The agency thus helps the Ministry of Health to implement several components of the National Malaria Strategy.

These components in the ongoing campaign against the disease include case management, insecticide treated nets, and treating malaria during pregnancy. With increased funding from Washington, USAID/Kenya will now be able to assist the ministry more in its mosquito control efforts.

This assistance will be strictly in line with Kenyan Government regulations concerning chemicals permitted in spraying programmes. Kenyan regulations do not allow the use of DDT, so USAID-supported projects will not use DDT.

It is a fact that USAID is not encouraging Kenya to reintroduce DDT into its malaria programme. However, the agency does support efforts by Kenya to use the best, most cost-effective chemicals available, balancing public heath and environmental concerns as it battles this killer disease.

Stephen M. Haykin,
Director, USAID Kenya,
Nairobi.

http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynati...3&newsid=79305

[Michaelangelica]

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/515422

DDT ban was scientific fraud

Wednesday, 16th August, 2006

By Adyeri Kanyaihe

In the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Vol 9, No 3, 2004), Prof J. Gordon Edwards dismisses the much-acclaimed Silent Spring by Rachel Carson as a scientific fraud. It is on the strength of this book alone that DDT was banned by order of one man � the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. In his paper, �DDT: A case study in scientific fraud� Edward observes that fraud in science is a major problem. He came to this conclusion after reading a 2002 report published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

It is good to know that God approves of DDT
(I hope he likes all the other CHs too)
http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/...tioncare2.html

Evangelical?
Emergent?


Mission
Doctrine
History
Contact


Other Issues

Michael Francisco
Keith Miller
Derek Muller
Jeremy Rein
James Sherk
Dave Talcott
Chris Walker
Guest Authors


1 August 2005
Responsible Creation Care II:
Lessons from Past Environmental Crises

by James Sherk| email | print version
Many environmentalists believe human activity and development is morally evil. Consequently, they are predisposed to want to believe these activities also destroy the earth. If they did, that would give them the rationale needed to outlaw these activities. Historically, many environmentalists have embraced scientifically unsound arguments - intentionally or otherwise - without proper skepticism because these arguments reinforce what they already believe: that the government must dramatically curtail human activity. Thus most environmentalists embraced the acid rain, Ozone Hole, and DDT causes without the proper skepticism they should have displayed.

Christians do not share these presuppositions - we do not believe in the moral evil of human development - and so Christians should be skeptical of environmentalist claims which are motivated by profoundly non-Christian moral convictions about the evil of human activity itself. A rush to regulate human development often does nothing to care for God's creation and may interfere with other Christian responsibilities - such as our obligation to help the poor. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and similar organizations have an agenda that leads them to rush to judgment, no matter how weak the science. Christians do not share this agenda and should not promote it when it conflicts with other Christian duties.

I can't find
"American Physicians and Surgeons Vol 9 No 3 2004 Prof J Gordon Edwards"
anywhere on the web

[Michaelangelica]

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons make a sweetner?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=70890

Another Country Finds Splenda Ads are Misleading Consumers; Australian Ad Authority Upholds Complaint Against Johnson & Johnson

8/17/2006 11:39:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Lauren Poplawski, 202-496-1000 or lpoplawski@qorvis.com

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Advertising Claims Bureau of Australia has upheld a complaint against Johnson & Johnson for misleading consumers about the artificial chemical sweetener Splenda. According to the ruling, the advertisement "is likely to mislead or deceive consumers" because "reasonable members of the public viewing the advertisement are likely to conclude that a significant portion of the SPLENDA(r) products are comprised of a modified form of sugar."

With this decision, Australia joins New Zealand in finding Splenda ads to be misleading, thus deceiving consumers. In July 2005, the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority determined that a Splenda ad deceived consumers into thinking Splenda is all natural like sugar. Both the New Zealand and Australia rulings recommended the misleading ads be discontinued. Moreover, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. challenging Splenda's misleading advertising slogan "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

The Australian decision validates yet again concerns that consumer advocates in the United States have been voicing for years. In a statement made in February 2004, Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a leading consumer rights group, remarked, "'Made from sugar' certainly sounds better than, say, 'made from chlorinated hydrocarbons.' He went on to say, "Splenda's artificiality may present a marketing challenge, but that's not an excuse to confuse consumers and lead them to believe that Splenda is natural or in any way related to sugar."

In fact, Splenda does not contain any sugar whatsoever. It is manufactured in a chemical plant in a process that uses chlorine. The sweetness of Splenda is due to the chlorocarbon chemical (sucralose) that contains three atoms of chlorine in every one of its molecules. Splenda is a chemical artificial sweetener; however, Johnson & Johnson would like consumers to believe it is somehow more natural than other artificial sweeteners…which it is obviously not.

"Consumers have the right to know what artificial sweeteners are in the foods they are buying at the grocery store and feeding their families," said Andy Briscoe, President of the Sugar Association. "Splenda ads are not honest about its chemical composition. Splenda is not natural in any way. There is no sugar in the final product of Splenda. Johnson & Johnson is spending millions of dollars to falsely advertise their product and they are responsible for misleading consumers. Just Google 'Splenda' and you will see consumers and doctors alike are speaking out about how they have been misled."

To learn more about the truth about Splenda, please contact Lauren Poplawski at Qorvis Communications at 202-496-1000 or lpoplawski@qorvis.com or visit the website http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/