Environmentalism That Kills!

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

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. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

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.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

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. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning.")]

Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

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. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

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. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet. [Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE. [Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]



Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides. In the fable that began that volume, she wrote: "It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins, catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and scores of other bird voices there was now no sound; only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh." Silent Spring was heavily attacked by the pesticide industry and by narrowly trained entomologists, but its scientific foundation has stood the test of time. Misuse of pesticides is now widely recognized to threaten not only bird communities but human communities as well.

The potentially lethal impact of DDT on birds was first noted in the late 1950s when spraying to control the beetles that carry Dutch elm disease led to a slaughter of robins in Michigan and elsewhere. Researchers discovered that earthworms were accumulating the persistent pesticide and that the robins eating them were being poisoned. Other birds fell victim, too. Gradually, thanks in no small part to Carson's book, gigantic "broadcast spray" programs were brought under control.

But DDT, its breakdown products, and the other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (and nonpesticide chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs) posed a more insidious threat to birds. Because these poisons are persistent they tend to concentrate as they move through the feeding sequences in communities that ecologists call "food chains." For example, in most marine communities, the living weight (biomass) of fish-eating birds is less than that of the fishes they eat. However, because chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulate in fatty tissues, when a ton of contaminated fishes is turned into 200 pounds of seabirds, most of the DDT from the numerous fishes ends up in a relatively few birds. As a result, the birds have a higher level of contamination per pound than the fishes. If Peregrine Falcons feed on the seabirds, the concentration becomes higher still. With several concentrating steps in the food chain below the level of fishes (for instance, tiny aquatic plants crustacea small fishes), very slight environmental contamination can be turned into a heavy pesticide load in birds at the top of the food chain. In one Long Island estuary, concentrations of less than a tenth of a part per million (PPM) of DDT in aquatic plants and plankton resulted in concentrations of 3-25 PPM in gulls, terns, cormorants, mergansers, herons, and ospreys.

"Bioconcentration" of pesticides in birds high on food chains occurs not only because there is usually reduced biomass at each step in those chains, but also because predatory birds tend to live a long time. They may take in only a little DDT per day, but they keep most of what they get, and they live many days.

The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.

Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the British Isles. Fortunately, the cause of the breeding failures was identified in time, and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.

The reduced bird populations started to recover quickly thereafter, with species as different as ospreys and robins returning to the pre-DDT levels of breeding success in a decade or less. Furthermore, attempts to reestablish the peregrine in the eastern United States using captive-reared birds show considerable signs of success. Brown Pelican populations have now recovered to the extent that the species no longer warrants endangered status except in California. The banning of DDT has helped to create other pesticide problems, however. The newer organophosphate pesticides that to a degree have replaced organochlorines, such as parathion and TEPP (tetraethyl pyrophosphate), are less persistent so they do not accumulate in food chains. They are, nonetheless, highly toxic. Parathion applied to winter wheat, for instance, killed some 1,600 waterfowl, mostly Canada Geese, in the Texas panhandle in 1981.

Unfortunately, however, DDT has recently started to become more common in the environment again; its concentration in the tissues of starlings in Arizona and New Mexico, for example, has been increasing. While the source of that DDT is disputed, what is certain is that DDT has been shown to be present as a contaminant in the widely used toxin dicofol (a key ingredient in, among others, the pesticide Kelthane). Dicofol is a chemical formed by adding single oxygen atoms to DDT molecules. Unhappily, not all the DDT gets oxygenated, so that sometimes dicofol is contaminated with as much as 15 percent DDT

Overall, the 2.5 million pounds of dicofol used annually in pesticides contain about 250 thousand pounds of DDT. In addition, little is known about the breakdown products of dicofol itself, which may include DDE, a breakdown product of DDT identified as the major cause of reproductive failure in several bird species. Finally, DDT itself may still be in use illegally in some areas of the United States, and migratory birds such as the Black-crowned Night-Heron may be picking up DDT in their tropical wintering grounds (where DDT application is still permitted). Unhappily tropical countries are becoming dumping grounds for unsafe pesticides that are now banned in the United States. As the end of the century approaches, the once hopeful trend may be reversing, so that DDT and other pesticides continue to hang as a heavy shadow over many bird populations.

DDT and Birds
 
If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?


Try to answer without resort to "we" or "us."

No, and here's why for starters:

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?: Scientific American

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

Nonsense.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph



You might have missed this query:

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?

My, but you're gullible. Anyone bother to test those "pinches" the good professor was doing? Probably not, but then again no one asked how the good professor's kid's turned out...if he had any:



Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa.

"One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.

Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking.

Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates.

"In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used."

DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes.

In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive.

To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control."

The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker.

His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status.

Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings.

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist
 
Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.

Sad but true and it speaks well for you that you did not edit out the "misuse of DDT"....there are few chemical products that can be misused with impunity and DDT is not one of them. I`m not a DDT proponent but if there were an epidemic linked to insects then I would prefer DDT over Malathion because with DDT it`s a sure kill while Malathion is not even half as effective. We found that out in Winnipeg. It`s been sprayed with Malathion since the 2005 West Nile virus outbreak. West Nile is still with us, with DDT it would be gone.
I love birds but not to the extent that I would put humans at risk in order not to harm the bird population.
DDT is an orphan because the patent has expired a long time ago.
But I`ll paste a few lines in here that speak for themselves, only a little more subtle than what I wrote:
Malathion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malathion itself is of low toxicity; however, absorption or ingestion into the human body readily results in its metabolism to malaoxon, which is substantially more toxic.[16] In studies of the effects of long-term exposure to oral ingestion of malaoxon in rats, malaoxon has been shown to be 61 times more toxic than malathion.[16] It is cleared from the body quickly, in three to five days.[17] According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency there is currently no reliable information on adverse health effects of chronic exposure to malathion.
I guarantee you that the EPA will have "reliable information" that the Malathion metabolite Malaoxon has adverse health effects just as soon as the license expired and say just for the sake of it USTC managed to register a new pesticide...

And the EPA would not consider a book called "Silent Spring" as reliable information.
That`s not how it works. Pesticides are registered and once approved they stay approved for a 15 year period. The EPA does not give a rat`s ass if another Rachel Carson would write a book about Malathion.
The EPA allows some "public input" for a 90 day time period but don`t expect the EPA to have CNN announce such an occasion. Unless you are a lawyer working for a chemical company, a so called "stakeholder" you would be hard pressed to find out how to get in on that.

Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.
That was in 1972 !! In 1972 I could also still light up a cigar right next to you on any airliner.
A lot changed since then and the players have learned how to play the game !
If you believe that since then a book, a blog, quotes from "Wikipedia", demonstrators holding up signs etc are still considered by the EPA as "reliable evidence" then you are still living in 1972.
 
Last edited:
@taichiliberal
If you were born around 1972, how certain are you that you would even exist if DDT never existed. Imagine how many GI`s would have come back from WW2 Europe carrying typhus lice....
images
images


it was DDT that stopped the typhus epidemic that spread from the Soviet Union all over Europe,..and almost overwhelmed Nazi Germany had they not used Zyklon-B ...
images
images



which was not nearly as effective as DDT,... which Nazi Germany could not manufacture for lack of raw material resources.
During WW2 Typhus killed as many people in continental Europe if not more than guns and bombs.
No I`m not going to discuss gas chambers and the holocaust, but the WW2 typhus epidemic and the role DDT played to end it is well documented.
Do you know how many ships overloaded with refugees arrived at New York and were disinfected with DDT during that time period..?
The U.S. would have looked no different than this in no time had there been no DDT:
images
images


Begen-Belsen was infested with typhus to such a degree that the British had no alternative other than burning it to the ground with flame throwers.
images


Maybe that will give you an idea how serious and how vicious this typhus epidemic was...that would have come home to roost in the United States starting with the first ship loads of refugees and the soldiers that returned later...had there been no DDT

Typhus almost wiped out continental Europe before, when Napoleon brought it back from Russia. The only reason that did not happen was because people were not as mobile at that time.
The WW2 typhus epidemic was an entirely different matter, because now there was rapid mass transport, ocean liners, bus lines, trains and cars.
Had it not been for DDT who knows how fast and far it would have spread and what would have happened.
Chemists do the best they can and one has to set some sensible priorities.
Do you honestly think that some sort of novel about a silent spring, dead birds and thin egg shells would have persuaded the U.S. Military from using DDT.
Before you condemn technology you should do a bit more research and get your facts straight instead of always being against everything .
 
Last edited:

Nonsense.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph



You might have missed this query:

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?

My, but you're gullible. Anyone bother to test those "pinches" the good professor was doing? Probably not, but then again no one asked how the good professor's kid's turned out...if he had any:



Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa.

"One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.

Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking.

Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates.

"In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used."

DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes.

In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive.

To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control."

The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker.

His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status.

Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings.

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist


So that I may address you correctly, would it be 'the low information voter,' or 'the reliable Democrat voter'?

Which?
Both?


Did you actually post from The Newscientist???

"in September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science".
New Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...they were in a "Classified Advertisements" section with subsections "Official Appointments", "Appointments and Situations Vacant", and "Travel", with a list of coach holidays and prices. The general classified section was dropped in favour of what in 2011 is NewScientist Jobs. In addition to more mundane advertising (cars, computers, airlines), advertisements for things of interest to scientists and technologists are interspersed within the magazine."
Ibid.

Did you happen to get their best-seller " How to Fossilise Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments For The Armchair Scientist."



That sound you hear?
That's me giggling.
 
To bad you believe the myth. A better education could have prevented you being taken advantage of but I am afraid that your leftist bretheren realized decades ago that in order to have a chance at moving the agenda forward, a less educated population would be necessary. As a result, you have been denied the education necessary to see past the myth to the reality.

Rachel carson's book was not classic, and it was not truthful. It was a steaming pile of shit and has resulted in more than 50 million deaths since it was written.
 
Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.

Sad but true and it speaks well for you that you did not edit out the "misuse of DDT"....there are few chemical products that can be misused with impunity and DDT is not one of them. I`m not a DDT proponent but if there were an epidemic linked to insects then I would prefer DDT over Malathion because with DDT it`s a sure kill while Malathion is not even half as effective. We found that out in Winnipeg. It`s been sprayed with Malathion since the 2005 West Nile virus outbreak. West Nile is still with us, with DDT it would be gone.
I love birds but not to the extent that I would put humans at risk in order not to harm the bird population.
DDT is an orphan because the patent has expired a long time ago.
But I`ll paste a few lines in here that speak for themselves, only a little more subtle than what I wrote:
Malathion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malathion itself is of low toxicity; however, absorption or ingestion into the human body readily results in its metabolism to malaoxon, which is substantially more toxic.[16] In studies of the effects of long-term exposure to oral ingestion of malaoxon in rats, malaoxon has been shown to be 61 times more toxic than malathion.[16] It is cleared from the body quickly, in three to five days.[17] According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency there is currently no reliable information on adverse health effects of chronic exposure to malathion.
I guarantee you that the EPA will have "reliable information" that the Malathion metabolite Malaoxon has adverse health effects just as soon as the license expired and say just for the sake of it USTC managed to register a new pesticide...

And the EPA would not consider a book called "Silent Spring" as reliable information.
That`s not how it works. Pesticides are registered and once approved they stay approved for a 15 year period. The EPA does not give a rat`s ass if another Rachel Carson would write a book about Malathion.
The EPA allows some "public input" for a 90 day time period but don`t expect the EPA to have CNN announce such an occasion. Unless you are a lawyer working for a chemical company, a so called "stakeholder" you would be hard pressed to find out how to get in on that.

Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.
That was in 1972 !! In 1972 I could also still light up a cigar right next to you on any airliner.
A lot changed since then and the players have learned how to play the game !
If you believe that since then a book, a blog, quotes from "Wikipedia", demonstrators holding up signs etc are still considered by the EPA as "reliable evidence" then you are still living in 1972.


Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information...as any yahoo can access and edit the "information" to suit their personal agenda/perspective WITHOUT objective verification.

That being said, I agree that the EPA has a LOT to be held accountable for

But

CONSISTENT use of DDT, as with any pesticide, will have a cumulative effect on the environment. Period.
 
Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.

Sad but true and it speaks well for you that you did not edit out the "misuse of DDT"....there are few chemical products that can be misused with impunity and DDT is not one of them. I`m not a DDT proponent but if there were an epidemic linked to insects then I would prefer DDT over Malathion because with DDT it`s a sure kill while Malathion is not even half as effective. We found that out in Winnipeg. It`s been sprayed with Malathion since the 2005 West Nile virus outbreak. West Nile is still with us, with DDT it would be gone.
I love birds but not to the extent that I would put humans at risk in order not to harm the bird population.
DDT is an orphan because the patent has expired a long time ago.
But I`ll paste a few lines in here that speak for themselves, only a little more subtle than what I wrote:
Malathion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guarantee you that the EPA will have "reliable information" that the Malathion metabolite Malaoxon has adverse health effects just as soon as the license expired and say just for the sake of it USTC managed to register a new pesticide...

And the EPA would not consider a book called "Silent Spring" as reliable information.
That`s not how it works. Pesticides are registered and once approved they stay approved for a 15 year period. The EPA does not give a rat`s ass if another Rachel Carson would write a book about Malathion.
The EPA allows some "public input" for a 90 day time period but don`t expect the EPA to have CNN announce such an occasion. Unless you are a lawyer working for a chemical company, a so called "stakeholder" you would be hard pressed to find out how to get in on that.

Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides.
...and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.
That was in 1972 !! In 1972 I could also still light up a cigar right next to you on any airliner.
A lot changed since then and the players have learned how to play the game !
If you believe that since then a book, a blog, quotes from "Wikipedia", demonstrators holding up signs etc are still considered by the EPA as "reliable evidence" then you are still living in 1972.


Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information...as any yahoo can access and edit the "information" to suit their personal agenda/perspective WITHOUT objective verification.

That being said, I agree that the EPA has a LOT to be held accountable for

But

CONSISTENT use of DDT, as with any pesticide, will have a cumulative effect on the environment. Period.


I`m a chemical engineer and and adjunct prof of Chemistry (retired)... I don`t need "Wkipedia" to tell me what was going on in the FDA, the EPA and the Canadian Department of Environment in Canada or in Europe during the years when I worked with them.
I`ll say it again...had it not been for DDT to put an end to the continental European typhus epidemic it may well be that you would not even exist today. DDT has done a good job and continues to do so if properly used.
Instead of bitching about it why don`t you develop and patent a better alternative. I wrote 3 chem patents and was instrumental in 4 other ones while people like you protest in the streets.
Here is a typical example...happened just today.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXq-bAgWDMo&feature=youtu.be"]Manitoba March5 - YouTube[/ame]
Myrna is the biggest loudmouth enviro-activist in our community.
But she could not be bothered to drop the 2 cycle mix oil plastic bottle into the garbage can at the corner of the store....
It took my boy, to pick up that bottle which was still dripping oil to pick it up....and I bet you anything that Myrna as every year, will protest again against aerial Malathion spraying this spring when we have another problem with mosquitos and West Nile virus.
 
Last edited:
Sad but true and it speaks well for you that you did not edit out the "misuse of DDT"....there are few chemical products that can be misused with impunity and DDT is not one of them. I`m not a DDT proponent but if there were an epidemic linked to insects then I would prefer DDT over Malathion because with DDT it`s a sure kill while Malathion is not even half as effective. We found that out in Winnipeg. It`s been sprayed with Malathion since the 2005 West Nile virus outbreak. West Nile is still with us, with DDT it would be gone.
I love birds but not to the extent that I would put humans at risk in order not to harm the bird population.
DDT is an orphan because the patent has expired a long time ago.
But I`ll paste a few lines in here that speak for themselves, only a little more subtle than what I wrote:
Malathion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guarantee you that the EPA will have "reliable information" that the Malathion metabolite Malaoxon has adverse health effects just as soon as the license expired and say just for the sake of it USTC managed to register a new pesticide...

And the EPA would not consider a book called "Silent Spring" as reliable information.
That`s not how it works. Pesticides are registered and once approved they stay approved for a 15 year period. The EPA does not give a rat`s ass if another Rachel Carson would write a book about Malathion.
The EPA allows some "public input" for a 90 day time period but don`t expect the EPA to have CNN announce such an occasion. Unless you are a lawyer working for a chemical company, a so called "stakeholder" you would be hard pressed to find out how to get in on that.

That was in 1972 !! In 1972 I could also still light up a cigar right next to you on any airliner.
A lot changed since then and the players have learned how to play the game !
If you believe that since then a book, a blog, quotes from "Wikipedia", demonstrators holding up signs etc are still considered by the EPA as "reliable evidence" then you are still living in 1972.


Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information...as any yahoo can access and edit the "information" to suit their personal agenda/perspective WITHOUT objective verification.

That being said, I agree that the EPA has a LOT to be held accountable for

But

CONSISTENT use of DDT, as with any pesticide, will have a cumulative effect on the environment. Period.


I`m a chemical engineer and and adjunct prof of Chemistry (retired)... I don`t need "Wkipedia" to tell me what was going on in the FDA, the EPA and the Canadian Department of Environment in Canada or in Europe during the years when I worked with them.
I`ll say it again...had it not been for DDT to put an end to the continental European typhus epidemic it may well be that you would not even exist today. DDT has done a good job and continues to do so if properly used.
Instead of bitching about it why don`t you develop and patent a better alternative. I wrote 3 chem patents and was instrumental in 4 other ones while people like you protest in the streets.
Here is a typical example...happened just today.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXq-bAgWDMo&feature=youtu.be"]Manitoba March5 - YouTube[/ame]
Myrna is the biggest loudmouth enviro-activist in our community.
But she could not be bothered to drop the 2 cycle mix oil plastic bottle into the garbage can at the corner of the store....
It took my boy, to pick up that bottle which was still dripping oil to pick it up....and I bet you anything that Myrna as every year, will protest again against aerial Malathion spraying this spring when we have another problem with mosquitos and West Nile virus.

Congrats on your credentials...but they DO NOT alter the FACTS that CONTINUED USE of DDT has dire and detrimental effects on the ecology. Period. A matter of history, a matter of fact that has been verified and documented by folks with credentials just as impressive (if not superior) than yours.

That being said, it should be noted that alternatives have been offered....they and the people who offer them DON'T get the publicity and PR that the standard chem corporation products do. If you like, I can post them for you.

Yes, there are enviromentalist who are hypocrits and careless.....that does not change what I previously stated/posted.
 
To bad you believe the myth. A better education could have prevented you being taken advantage of but I am afraid that your leftist bretheren realized decades ago that in order to have a chance at moving the agenda forward, a less educated population would be necessary. As a result, you have been denied the education necessary to see past the myth to the reality.

Rachel carson's book was not classic, and it was not truthful. It was a steaming pile of shit and has resulted in more than 50 million deaths since it was written.

To bad you didn't learn to read carefully and comprehensively all the information offered.

There has been bonafied, documented, peer reviewed scientific proof of the effects of DDT on wildlife and the ecology in general after it's long term use. That you choose to ignore it is irrelevent.

Your silly diatribe is nothing more than a knee-jerk reponse that does not address the key information...you just parrot the "attack the person, don't discuss the details" silliness that is common among willfully ignorant, low information folk with an axe to grind against "liberals" and anyone they perceive as "other". Sad, but not unexpected.
 
Nonsense.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph



You might have missed this query:

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?

My, but you're gullible. Anyone bother to test those "pinches" the good professor was doing? Probably not, but then again no one asked how the good professor's kid's turned out...if he had any:



Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa.

"One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.

Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking.

Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates.

"In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used."

DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes.

In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive.

To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control."

The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker.

His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status.

Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings.

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist


So that I may address you correctly, would it be 'the low information voter,' or 'the reliable Democrat voter'?

Which?
Both?


Did you actually post from The Newscientist???

"in September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science".
New Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...they were in a "Classified Advertisements" section with subsections "Official Appointments", "Appointments and Situations Vacant", and "Travel", with a list of coach holidays and prices. The general classified section was dropped in favour of what in 2011 is NewScientist Jobs. In addition to more mundane advertising (cars, computers, airlines), advertisements for things of interest to scientists and technologists are interspersed within the magazine."
Ibid.

Did you happen to get their best-seller " How to Fossilise Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments For The Armchair Scientist."



That sound you hear?
That's me giggling.

So let me get this straight...you don't address the information, instead you latch onto a sci-fi writer's bitching about advertisement??!!! And from Wikipedia, no less.

:doubt:


And of course you IGNORE my other posts and their links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279646-environmentalism-that-kills-6.html#post6887225

Laugh, clown, laugh!
 
Last edited:
My, but you're gullible. Anyone bother to test those "pinches" the good professor was doing? Probably not, but then again no one asked how the good professor's kid's turned out...if he had any:



Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa.

"One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.

Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking.

Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates.

"In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used."

DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes.

In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive.

To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control."

The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker.

His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status.

Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings.

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist


So that I may address you correctly, would it be 'the low information voter,' or 'the reliable Democrat voter'?

Which?
Both?


Did you actually post from The Newscientist???

"in September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science".
New Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...they were in a "Classified Advertisements" section with subsections "Official Appointments", "Appointments and Situations Vacant", and "Travel", with a list of coach holidays and prices. The general classified section was dropped in favour of what in 2011 is NewScientist Jobs. In addition to more mundane advertising (cars, computers, airlines), advertisements for things of interest to scientists and technologists are interspersed within the magazine."
Ibid.

Did you happen to get their best-seller " How to Fossilise Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments For The Armchair Scientist."



That sound you hear?
That's me giggling.

So let me get this straight...you don't address the information, instead you latch onto a sci-fi writer's bitching about advertisement??!!! And from Wikipedia, no less.

:doubt:


And of course you IGNORE my other posts and their links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279646-environmentalism-that-kills-6.html#post6887225

Laugh, clown, laugh!



Not at all......I'm simply waiting for you to post some "data" from the bazooka comics or the back of matchbook covers.
 
So that I may address you correctly, would it be 'the low information voter,' or 'the reliable Democrat voter'?

Which?
Both?


Did you actually post from The Newscientist???

"in September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science".
New Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...they were in a "Classified Advertisements" section with subsections "Official Appointments", "Appointments and Situations Vacant", and "Travel", with a list of coach holidays and prices. The general classified section was dropped in favour of what in 2011 is NewScientist Jobs. In addition to more mundane advertising (cars, computers, airlines), advertisements for things of interest to scientists and technologists are interspersed within the magazine."
Ibid.

Did you happen to get their best-seller " How to Fossilise Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments For The Armchair Scientist."



That sound you hear?
That's me giggling.

So let me get this straight...you don't address the information, instead you latch onto a sci-fi writer's bitching about advertisement??!!! And from Wikipedia, no less.

:doubt:


And of course you IGNORE my other posts and their links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279646-environmentalism-that-kills-6.html#post6887225

Laugh, clown, laugh!



Not at all......I'm simply waiting for you to post some "data" from the bazooka comics or the back of matchbook covers.

Translation: This Politcal Parrot Chic doesn't have the brains or the guts to discuss the information I produced .... if she had actually read it, she would have noticed references that are NOT some disgruntled sci-fi writer or based on the compromised "data" from Wikipedia.

But do continue to ignore & dodge what you don't like, Chic.....it would be amusing if not sad.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=645&page=360

Laugh, clown, laugh
 
Last edited:
So let me get this straight...you don't address the information, instead you latch onto a sci-fi writer's bitching about advertisement??!!! And from Wikipedia, no less.

:doubt:


And of course you IGNORE my other posts and their links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279646-environmentalism-that-kills-6.html#post6887225

Laugh, clown, laugh!



Not at all......I'm simply waiting for you to post some "data" from the bazooka comics or the back of matchbook covers.

Translation: This Politcal Parrot Chic doesn't have the brains or the guts to discuss the information I produced .... if she had actually read it, she would have noticed references that are NOT some disgruntled sci-fi writer or based on the compromised "data" from Wikipedia.

But do continue to ignore & dodge what you don't like, Chic.....it would be amusing if not sad.

Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving: Concepts and Case Studies

Laugh, clown, laugh




Don't you understand?

The link you provided, and you, are no more than comic relief.

And your whining that you should be taken seriously?
You must be lonelier than a divorced widow woman.
 

Forum List

Back
Top