Rachel Carson Mass Murderer

[konradv]

You really think people fed varying amounts of poison to a whole lot of Bald Eagles as part of some study? The pushed-nearly-to-extinction Bald Eagles? The national symbol?

Maybe you could show us this study. If it's not just a wingnut urban legend, that should be no problem. After all, we could link to many studies that talk about the eggshell thinning effect of DDT.

Do I really think that? It was the government, of course they did it.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v068n05/p0497-p0502.pdf

That article isn't on point. It looked at spermatogenesis, NOT EGG SHELL THINNING, the usually stated cause for DDT's effects on lowered birth rates. Try..., AGAIN!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really think people fed varying amounts of poison to a whole lot of Bald Eagles as part of some study? The pushed-nearly-to-extinction Bald Eagles? The national symbol?

Maybe you could show us this study. If it's not just a wingnut urban legend, that should be no problem. After all, we could link to many studies that talk about the eggshell thinning effect of DDT.

Do I really think that? It was the government, of course they did it.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v068n05/p0497-p0502.pdf

That article isn't on point. It looked at spermatogenesis, NOT EGG SHELL THINNING, the usually stated cause for DDT's effects on lowered birth rates. Try..., AGAIN!!!

What I said was that DDT was fed to bald eagles and that there were no discernible health affects, you claimed that no one would do that.

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

 

[del]

Do I really think that? It was the government, of course they did it.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v068n05/p0497-p0502.pdf

That article isn't on point. It looked at spermatogenesis, NOT EGG SHELL THINNING, the usually stated cause for DDT's effects on lowered birth rates. Try..., AGAIN!!!

What I said was that DDT was fed to bald eagles and that there were no discernible health affects, you claimed that no one would do that.

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

it would if he had said it, but he didn't

Reading Is Fundamental

 

[konradv]

Do I really think that? It was the government, of course they did it.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v068n05/p0497-p0502.pdf

That article isn't on point. It looked at spermatogenesis, NOT EGG SHELL THINNING, the usually stated cause for DDT's effects on lowered birth rates. Try..., AGAIN!!!

What I said was that DDT was fed to bald eagles and that there were no discernible health affects, you claimed that no one would do that.

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

I claimed no such thing. It was you that said DDT had no effect on birth rates and you have yet to prove it. All you gave us was a study that showed it wasn't spermatogenesis, when studies have shown it's egg shell thinning that's the problem. You're trying to fool us with a red herring.

 

[daveman]

Facts versus fears - DDT

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10

In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts—published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association—reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey—who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline—reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19

In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.20

When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the quail in the study were fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent (a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium). Calcium deficiency is a known cause of thin eggshells.21–23 After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels. The birds produced eggs without thinned shells.24

After many years of carefully controlled feeding experiments, Dr. M. L. Scott and associates of the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed.”23 In fact, thinning eggshells can have many causes, including season of the year, nutrition (in particular insufficient calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and manganese), temperature rise, type of soil, and breeding conditions (e.g., sunlight and crowding).25​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That article isn't on point. It looked at spermatogenesis, NOT EGG SHELL THINNING, the usually stated cause for DDT's effects on lowered birth rates. Try..., AGAIN!!!

What I said was that DDT was fed to bald eagles and that there were no discernible health affects, you claimed that no one would do that.

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

I claimed no such thing. It was you that said DDT had no effect on birth rates and you have yet to prove it. All you gave us was a study that showed it wasn't spermatogenesis, when studies have shown it's egg shell thinning that's the problem. You're trying to fool us with a red herring.

Feel free to show me where I said that.

 

[konradv]

What I said was that DDT was fed to bald eagles and that there were no discernible health affects, you claimed that no one would do that.

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

I claimed no such thing. It was you that said DDT had no effect on birth rates and you have yet to prove it. All you gave us was a study that showed it wasn't spermatogenesis, when studies have shown it's egg shell thinning that's the problem. You're trying to fool us with a red herring.

Feel free to show me where I said that.

You didn't read your own article?!?! The case against DDT has been about shell thinning and you gave us an article about spermatogenesis! FAIL At least Daveman was on-point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I claimed no such thing. It was you that said DDT had no effect on birth rates and you have yet to prove it. All you gave us was a study that showed it wasn't spermatogenesis, when studies have shown it's egg shell thinning that's the problem. You're trying to fool us with a red herring.

Feel free to show me where I said that.

You didn't read your own article?!?! The case against DDT has been about shell thinning and you gave us an article about spermatogenesis! FAIL

The failure here is you showing where I said DDT had no effect on birth rate.

 

[konradv]

Feel free to show me where I said that.

You didn't read your own article?!?! The case against DDT has been about shell thinning and you gave us an article about spermatogenesis! FAIL

The failure here is you showing where I said DDT had no effect on birth rate.

Then what was your point, wasting our time? My red herring comment stands.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You didn't read your own article?!?! The case against DDT has been about shell thinning and you gave us an article about spermatogenesis! FAIL

The failure here is you showing where I said DDT had no effect on birth rate.

Then what was your point, wasting our time? My red herring comment stands.

My point is that the science behind the DDT ban is bogus, the decline in the bald eagle population began long before DDT was invented, and the population was recovering before it was banned.

 

[konradv]

The failure here is you showing where I said DDT had no effect on birth rate.

Then what was your point, wasting our time? My red herring comment stands.

My point is that the science behind the DDT ban is bogus, the decline in the bald eagle population began long before DDT was invented, and the population was recovering before it was banned.

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

 

[daveman]

Then what was your point, wasting our time? My red herring comment stands.

My point is that the science behind the DDT ban is bogus, the decline in the bald eagle population began long before DDT was invented, and the population was recovering before it was banned.

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

Are you going to attempt to refute the studies I linked that showed to eggshell thinning caused by DDT, or are you going to keep flapping at QW?

 

[del]

^

channeling fredo

 

[konradv]

My point is that the science behind the DDT ban is bogus, the decline in the bald eagle population began long before DDT was invented, and the population was recovering before it was banned.

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

Are you going to attempt to refute the studies I linked that showed to eggshell thinning caused by DDT, or are you going to keep flapping at QW?

I gave you props for posting an on-point article. That hardly constitutes proof, however, as a simple search and the reference section of the Wikipedia article I posted provide many articles that say just the opposite.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One article from a source heavily funded by industry and dedicated to "common sense" approaches to environmental problems, code for "scientists don't know what they're talking about", hardly constitutes proof of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then what was your point, wasting our time? My red herring comment stands.

My point is that the science behind the DDT ban is bogus, the decline in the bald eagle population began long before DDT was invented, and the population was recovering before it was banned.

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

The title of the thread is Rachel Carlson, Mass Murderer. Anything that supports the idea that she screwed up the science of Silent Spring is on point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

Are you going to attempt to refute the studies I linked that showed to eggshell thinning caused by DDT, or are you going to keep flapping at QW?

I gave you props for posting an on-point article. That hardly constitutes proof, however, as a simple search and the reference section of the Wikipedia article I posted provide many articles that say just the opposite.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One article from a source heavily funded by industry and dedicated to "common sense" approaches to environmental problems, code for "scientists don't know what they're talking about", hardly constitutes proof of anything.

American Council on Science and Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I posted that Rachel Carlson based her claim that DDT caused cancer on the case of a woman getting cancer after spraying her basement once. If that wasn't absurd enough, she came down with it instantaneously. That was a full 18 hours before you posted your article from Wikipedia.

I think that proves you are the one trying to posting off point. Until you show me how anyone can instantly get cancer I see no reason to address your attempt to deflect this conversation.

 

[konradv]

Are you going to attempt to refute the studies I linked that showed to eggshell thinning caused by DDT, or are you going to keep flapping at QW?

I gave you props for posting an on-point article. That hardly constitutes proof, however, as a simple search and the reference section of the Wikipedia article I posted provide many articles that say just the opposite.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One article from a source heavily funded by industry and dedicated to "common sense" approaches to environmental problems, code for "scientists don't know what they're talking about", hardly constitutes proof of anything.

American Council on Science and Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I posted that Rachel Carlson based her claim that DDT caused cancer on the case of a woman getting cancer after spraying her basement once. If that wasn't absurd enough, she came down with it instantaneously. That was a full 18 hours before you posted your article from Wikipedia.

I think that proves you are the one trying to posting off point. Until you show me how anyone can instantly get cancer I see no reason to address your attempt to deflect this conversation.

How am I deflecting the conversation? You accuse researchers and Carson of bad science and then use sloppy reasoning yourself. I'm sure Carson didn't say the woman got cancer instantaneously. That just your take on the situation. Once again, sloppy reasoning. Nothing you've posted points to Carson being wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I gave you props for posting an on-point article. That hardly constitutes proof, however, as a simple search and the reference section of the Wikipedia article I posted provide many articles that say just the opposite.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One article from a source heavily funded by industry and dedicated to "common sense" approaches to environmental problems, code for "scientists don't know what they're talking about", hardly constitutes proof of anything.

American Council on Science and Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I posted that Rachel Carlson based her claim that DDT caused cancer on the case of a woman getting cancer after spraying her basement once. If that wasn't absurd enough, she came down with it instantaneously. That was a full 18 hours before you posted your article from Wikipedia.

I think that proves you are the one trying to posting off point. Until you show me how anyone can instantly get cancer I see no reason to address your attempt to deflect this conversation.

How am I deflecting the conversation? You accuse researchers and Carson of bad science and then use sloppy reasoning yourself. I'm sure Carson didn't say the woman got cancer instantaneously. That just your take on the situation. Once again, sloppy reasoning. Nothing you've posted points to Carson being wrong.

I am not accusing her of anything, I am saying the science was bad, period. Her claim was that DDT in the food supply were killing birds, she was wrong. The simple fact is that Carlson never linked the thinner eggshells of raptors, which is the one piece of science against DDT, in Silent Spring. Since this discussion is about her, you are completely off topic.

 

[mamooth]

Here's a quick list of some mainstream DDT science.

---
DDT is a moderately toxic substance, but persistant in the environment because it biodegrades very slowly.

DDT bioaccumulates in the food chain.

DDT causes eggshell thinning in raptors and some other birds.

Mass DDT usage in agriculture brought about DDT-resistant mosquitos and the pervasive presence of DDT in the environment, still measurable today.
---

Do you believe any of that is "bad, period"? Do you believe a ban on DDT usage in agriculture (but not for malaria control) killed millions? If so, please present the evidence for such claims, preferably evidence which is not based on an opinion piece from a blog.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a quick list of some mainstream DDT science.

---
DDT is a moderately toxic substance, but persistant in the environment because it biodegrades very slowly.

DDT is so safe that it can be consumed by humans in bulk. It does have some adverse effects on different species of birds, but it varies widely. Calling it moderately toxic implies that it would impact more than a few species of birds. Up to this point, no one has identified exactly how DDE causes eggshell thinning.

DDT and its derivatives: environmental aspects (EHC 83, 1989)

The persistence of DDT in the environment varies widely from 6 months to 30 years. The persistence is a significant problem that contraindicates its use as an agricultural pesticide, but works in favor of it being used to specifically combat mosquito infestations.

DDT bioaccumulates in the food chain.

I think you mean it biomagnifies. Given its low level of toxicity for most species the only real concern would be keeping it away from sensitive species of birds so that they are not adversely affected. That can easily be done by not using it to spray crops.

DDT causes eggshell thinning in raptors and some other birds.

Already addressed this.

Mass DDT usage in agriculture brought about DDT-resistant mosquitos and the pervasive presence of DDT in the environment, still measurable today.

Those were government programs, and were often conducted over the objection of the farmers whose crops were being sprayed. That makes this a good argument for smaller government, not a reason to totally ban DDT.

Do you believe any of that is "bad, period"? Do you believe a ban on DDT usage in agriculture (but not for malaria control) killed millions? If so, please present the evidence for such claims, preferably evidence which is not based on an opinion piece from a blog.

DDT was banned for all use in the United States and many other countries. It was only when it was scientifically proven that nothing else works as well as DDT at controlling mosquitoes that limited use of DDT was permitted in some countries to deal with malaria.

Did that policy kill millions? Yes.

Was it based on bad science and a stupid book? Yes.

I will also point out that everything I have posted has been scientific studies except for one link to the NYT, yet you have not addressed any of it.