Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
Raids his doctor's office to get his medical records as well.It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
Even worse some people want to keep their tax returns secret when pretending to be president. So Little Donald wants to force everyone else to 'make things public' but he likes to keep his dirty secrets.
The swamp wants mud to be exclusive to the swamp.
It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
Even worse some people want to keep their tax returns secret when pretending to be president. So Little Donald wants to force everyone else to 'make things public' but he likes to keep his dirty secrets.
The swamp wants mud to be exclusive to the swamp.
Higher than Soetero at the same period of his first term....but Soetero received wall to wall media affection and was still in the mid-40's.
It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
Even worse some people want to keep their tax returns secret when pretending to be president. So Little Donald wants to force everyone else to 'make things public' but he likes to keep his dirty secrets.
The swamp wants mud to be exclusive to the swamp.
DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
^This pretty much says it all^LOLIt's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
"Secret Science" is like "Deep State".
It's Right Wing Conspiracy BS.
Every since Trumpov came to office, Infowars/etc is GOP Mainstream.. except for a few sane/moral ones.
`
DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
^This pretty much says it all^LOLIt's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
"Secret Science" is like "Deep State".
It's Right Wing Conspiracy BS.
Every since Trumpov came to office, Infowars/etc is GOP Mainstream.. except for a few sane/moral ones.
`
Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Actually no, there aren't.^This pretty much says it all^LOLIt's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
Michael Bastasch
3/19/2018
Excerpt:
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."
LINK
"Secret Science" is like "Deep State".
It's Right Wing Conspiracy BS.
Every since Trumpov came to office, Infowars/etc is GOP Mainstream.. except for a few sane/moral ones.
`
Your vast ignorance says it all, since there are bucket loads of published papers showing it to be false.
Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.DDT isn't very toxic to humans.I remember when William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, over the objections of the science Board and even the Judge, who all stated that DDT was not a threat to the environment.
He did it for financial, political reasons. Science at the time didn't support a ban.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
You got nothing. If those were real they wouldn't be posted on "junk science dot com" right next to climate denial and a Pruitt puff peice.Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.DDT isn't very toxic to humans.
It is however deadly to birds, damaging the integrity of the shells and making it nearly impossible for them to survive to hatching.
Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
You are a truly stupid fella.
Here is the very first science paper you ignored:
Dietary p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE and Changes in Egg Shell Characteristics and Pesticide Accumulation in Egg Contents and Body Fat of Caged White Leghorns
HELENE C. CECIL, GEORGE F. FRIES, JOEL BITMAN, SUSAN J. HARRIS,
R. J. LILLIE AND C. A. DENTON United States Department of Agriculture1 Beltsville, Maryland 20705
(Received for publication April 30, 1971)
ABSTRACT White Leghorn pullets were fed diets containing 5, 25 and SO p.p.m. of p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE for 28 weeks. The pesticides were then fed at a level of 50, 150 and 300 p.p.m. for the succeeding period of 12 weeks. Egg weight, egg shell thickness and egg shell calcium were unaffected by treatment. Pesticide concentration of the egg contents reached equilibrium at 12 weeks, and was approximately equal to dietary level for the p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT diets. The level of o,p'-DDT in eggs, however, was only 10% of the dietary level. At 2 weeks 87% of the pesticide egg residue in p,p'-DDTfed chickens was p,p'-DDT while 13% was p,p'-DDE. The proportion of p,p'-t)DE increased until 12 weeks when 25% of the pesticide residue was p,p'-DDE and remained at this level thereafter. There was no evidence for conversion of o,p'-DDT to p,p'-DDT in the chickens fed o,p'-DDT. At the end of the experiment, residues in the fat from birds fed o,p'-DDT equaled the concentration in the diet. However, birds fed p,p'-DDT or p,p'DDE had residues in the fat which were 13-14 X that of the diet. Pesticides in the fat were approximately 13 X that of residues in egg contents.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 130-139, 1972
LINK
You got creamed yet again.
You got nothing. If those were real they wouldn't be posted on "junk science dot com" right next to climate denial and a Pruitt puff peice.Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.Ha ha, that was shown to be B.S. decades ago!
Have you read the science research showing that DDT has NOTHING to do with egg thinning?
From Junk Science is a short list of published science papers:
VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. 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.”)]
40. 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)]
41. 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)]
42. 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)]
43. 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)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible...."
LINK
Eggshell thinning reports go back long before DDT ever showed up.
How come warmists are so freaking ignorant on science stuff?
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
You are a truly stupid fella.
Here is the very first science paper you ignored:
Dietary p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE and Changes in Egg Shell Characteristics and Pesticide Accumulation in Egg Contents and Body Fat of Caged White Leghorns
HELENE C. CECIL, GEORGE F. FRIES, JOEL BITMAN, SUSAN J. HARRIS,
R. J. LILLIE AND C. A. DENTON United States Department of Agriculture1 Beltsville, Maryland 20705
(Received for publication April 30, 1971)
ABSTRACT White Leghorn pullets were fed diets containing 5, 25 and SO p.p.m. of p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE for 28 weeks. The pesticides were then fed at a level of 50, 150 and 300 p.p.m. for the succeeding period of 12 weeks. Egg weight, egg shell thickness and egg shell calcium were unaffected by treatment. Pesticide concentration of the egg contents reached equilibrium at 12 weeks, and was approximately equal to dietary level for the p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT diets. The level of o,p'-DDT in eggs, however, was only 10% of the dietary level. At 2 weeks 87% of the pesticide egg residue in p,p'-DDTfed chickens was p,p'-DDT while 13% was p,p'-DDE. The proportion of p,p'-t)DE increased until 12 weeks when 25% of the pesticide residue was p,p'-DDE and remained at this level thereafter. There was no evidence for conversion of o,p'-DDT to p,p'-DDT in the chickens fed o,p'-DDT. At the end of the experiment, residues in the fat from birds fed o,p'-DDT equaled the concentration in the diet. However, birds fed p,p'-DDT or p,p'DDE had residues in the fat which were 13-14 X that of the diet. Pesticides in the fat were approximately 13 X that of residues in egg contents.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 130-139, 1972
LINK
You got creamed yet again.
Gonna hafta do better.
I give up. Some people can't be tsught.You got nothing. If those were real they wouldn't be posted on "junk science dot com" right next to climate denial and a Pruitt puff peice.Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.Awwww look, the tRumpkin found a RWNJ site that told him what he wanted to hear.
Meanwhile, in reality, we know that I'm right.
You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
You are a truly stupid fella.
Here is the very first science paper you ignored:
Dietary p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE and Changes in Egg Shell Characteristics and Pesticide Accumulation in Egg Contents and Body Fat of Caged White Leghorns
HELENE C. CECIL, GEORGE F. FRIES, JOEL BITMAN, SUSAN J. HARRIS,
R. J. LILLIE AND C. A. DENTON United States Department of Agriculture1 Beltsville, Maryland 20705
(Received for publication April 30, 1971)
ABSTRACT White Leghorn pullets were fed diets containing 5, 25 and SO p.p.m. of p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE for 28 weeks. The pesticides were then fed at a level of 50, 150 and 300 p.p.m. for the succeeding period of 12 weeks. Egg weight, egg shell thickness and egg shell calcium were unaffected by treatment. Pesticide concentration of the egg contents reached equilibrium at 12 weeks, and was approximately equal to dietary level for the p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT diets. The level of o,p'-DDT in eggs, however, was only 10% of the dietary level. At 2 weeks 87% of the pesticide egg residue in p,p'-DDTfed chickens was p,p'-DDT while 13% was p,p'-DDE. The proportion of p,p'-t)DE increased until 12 weeks when 25% of the pesticide residue was p,p'-DDE and remained at this level thereafter. There was no evidence for conversion of o,p'-DDT to p,p'-DDT in the chickens fed o,p'-DDT. At the end of the experiment, residues in the fat from birds fed o,p'-DDT equaled the concentration in the diet. However, birds fed p,p'-DDT or p,p'DDE had residues in the fat which were 13-14 X that of the diet. Pesticides in the fat were approximately 13 X that of residues in egg contents.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 130-139, 1972
LINK
You got creamed yet again.
Gonna hafta do better.
The link I posted for the abstract is from POULTRY SCIENCE
You are veering into trolling zone fella.
Yes it is....
The link I posted for the abstract is from POULTRY SCIENCE
You are veering into trolling zone fella.
I give up. Some people can't be tsught.You got nothing. If those were real they wouldn't be posted on "junk science dot com" right next to climate denial and a Pruitt puff peice.Lol, you are funny.no, I'm not wrong. The rwnj site you dug that up on is feeding you garbage.You can't admit that you were smashed by published science research that disputes your claim.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
You are a truly stupid fella.
Here is the very first science paper you ignored:
Dietary p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE and Changes in Egg Shell Characteristics and Pesticide Accumulation in Egg Contents and Body Fat of Caged White Leghorns
HELENE C. CECIL, GEORGE F. FRIES, JOEL BITMAN, SUSAN J. HARRIS,
R. J. LILLIE AND C. A. DENTON United States Department of Agriculture1 Beltsville, Maryland 20705
(Received for publication April 30, 1971)
ABSTRACT White Leghorn pullets were fed diets containing 5, 25 and SO p.p.m. of p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT or p,p'-DDE for 28 weeks. The pesticides were then fed at a level of 50, 150 and 300 p.p.m. for the succeeding period of 12 weeks. Egg weight, egg shell thickness and egg shell calcium were unaffected by treatment. Pesticide concentration of the egg contents reached equilibrium at 12 weeks, and was approximately equal to dietary level for the p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT diets. The level of o,p'-DDT in eggs, however, was only 10% of the dietary level. At 2 weeks 87% of the pesticide egg residue in p,p'-DDTfed chickens was p,p'-DDT while 13% was p,p'-DDE. The proportion of p,p'-t)DE increased until 12 weeks when 25% of the pesticide residue was p,p'-DDE and remained at this level thereafter. There was no evidence for conversion of o,p'-DDT to p,p'-DDT in the chickens fed o,p'-DDT. At the end of the experiment, residues in the fat from birds fed o,p'-DDT equaled the concentration in the diet. However, birds fed p,p'-DDT or p,p'DDE had residues in the fat which were 13-14 X that of the diet. Pesticides in the fat were approximately 13 X that of residues in egg contents.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 130-139, 1972
LINK
You got creamed yet again.
Gonna hafta do better.
The link I posted for the abstract is from POULTRY SCIENCE
You are veering into trolling zone fella.
Have a nice day.
I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.
