Rethinking DDT - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-01-2008, 07:42 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Rethinking DDT

Rethinking DDT


June 30, 1972 is a date that lives in junk science infamy. That?s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the insecticide DDT. The ban survives 30 years later, even as it has helped kill millions of people, mostly children.

Widespread DDT use began in the U.S. in 1945 to control mosquitoes and cotton, soybean and peanut pests. DDT?s efficacy and low-cost were - and remain - unsurpassed.

Rachel Carson inflamed the public against DDT with her book "Silent Spring." She claimed DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer. But Carson misrepresented the then-existing science on bird reproduction and was dead wrong about DDT causing cancer.

Carson wrote "Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched."

DeWitt's 1956 article in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry actually yielded a very different conclusion.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit "practically 100 percent" of the human population. This prediction never materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout - an outbreak later attributed to aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of certain fungi.

Activists blamed DDT for the disappearance of great birds such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Supposedly, the insecticide harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells.

But the bald eagle and peregrine falcon were hunted to near extinction decades before DDT was first used in the U.S.

Many human and environmental stressors can contribute to thin egg shells. Laboratory experiments purporting to link DDT with egg shell thinning involved massive doses of the chemical, far in excess of what occurred in the wild.

Moreover, bald eagle and falcon populations were already rebounding during the peak years of DDT use - thanks to laws limiting their hunting.

Still, anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge during 1971-72.

After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway.

Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn?t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just "internal memos."

This wasn?t surprising given Ruckleshaus? bias.

Ruckleshaus belonged to the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group formed by the National Audubon Society to lobby for its agenda without endangering the Society?s tax-exempt status. That agenda included lobbying against DDT.

After the ban, Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on personal stationery that read, "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

Another telling part of the DDT saga was unveiled during a lawsuit by scientists claiming the National Audubon Society and the New York Times defamed them as "paid liars" about DDT. Depositions revealed EDF and National Audubon Society leaders plotted to "silence" and discredit scientists who defended DDT.

DDT use has virtually disappeared. Many countries blindly followed the U.S. ban or succumbed to activist pressure. Activists recently succeeded in pushing a virtual world-wide ban in the form of a United Nations? treaty signed by the Bush administration, but not yet ratified by the Senate. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty would permit DDT use only through expensive bureaucratic processes designed to dissuade rather than encourage use.

The activists have done nothing, however, about malaria-causing mosquitoes.


U.S. Government malaria experts wrote recently in the journal Emerging and Infectious Diseases, "Today, DDT is still needed for malaria control. If the pressure to abandon this effective insecticide continues,... millions of additional malaria cases worldwide [will result].... We are now facing the unprecedented event of eliminating, without meaningful debate, the most cost-effective chemical we have for the prevention of malaria. The health of hundreds of millions of persons in malaria-endemic countries should be given greater consideration before proceeding further with the present course of action."

Rachel Carson has been canonized by environmental activists. Ruckleshaus has had a successful business career and advised presidential candidate George W. Bush. The EDF and National Audubon Society raise millions of dollars annually.

They built their "success" on junk science and the bodies of third world children. They are what?s infamous, not DDT.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 08:02 PM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:36 AM
http://www.u2interference.com/forums...dt-181875.html

For the most part, Steven Millroy is usually full of shit and falls on the side of junk science himself...

Like A_Wanderer said in the last thread you made about this, large scale use is dangerous.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 08:18 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
http://www.u2interference.com/forums...dt-181875.html

For the most part, Steven Millroy is usually full of shit and falls on the side of junk science himself...

Like A_Wanderer said in the last thread you made about this, large scale use is dangerous.

Thank you for your comment BonoVoxSupastar,

Steve Millory, he's human, so I guess like all of us, he's full of it.

As for the topic, search the net, there's a lot of info on DDT.

That was the reson I posted the thread.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 08:34 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Thank you for your comment BonoVoxSupastar,

Steve Millory, he's human, so I guess like all of us, he's full of it.
My problem with Steve is he is very obviously agenda oriented, it's not something that bodes well with science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
As for the topic, search the net, there's a lot of info on DDT.

That was the reson I posted the thread.
Yes, I suggest you do the same, for most of the information will show you it's still not a safe option for mass use.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 09:08 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
http://www.u2interference.com/forums...dt-181875.html

For the most part, Steven Millroy is usually full of shit and falls on the side of junk science himself...

Like A_Wanderer said in the last thread you made about this, large scale use is dangerous.
Yes, but not a reason for a total ban which costs human lives, DDT should be used more.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 11:13 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Yes, but not a reason for a total ban which costs human lives, DDT should be used more.
Yes, but how do you control the ammount of sale to individuals or companies?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:59 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
*elevation
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 07:07 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Yes, but how do you control the ammount of sale to individuals or companies?
The same way that you regulate other chemicals, permits and controlled means of distribution. The days of blanketing crops with DDT are long gone, but it shouldn't be abolished, especially when it can save lives.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 07:18 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The same way that you regulate other chemicals, permits and controlled means of distribution. The days of blanketing crops with DDT are long gone, but it shouldn't be abolished, especially when it can save lives.
I agree, it's just my understanding that this kind of regulation has been difficult in the past
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 07:20 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:36 AM
It is also a question of use, spraying houses keeps mosquitoes away, this isn't introducing large amounts into the food web.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 07:02 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
AFRICAN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALIST ASSOCIATION

DDT

The Wall Street Journal Endorses Use of DDT

The Wall Street Journal endorses using DDT on its Editorial Opinion page (8/16/07) stating: "Opponents of DDT are only ensuring more misery and death." Great. We have been stating this for years. It is good to know that this respected publication has finally come around to agreeing with us.

Use It To Stop Deaths From Malaria In African Countries

The African American Environmentalist Association believes that DDT (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) insecticide should be used to prevent deaths from malaria in African countries. DDT is an organochlorine pesticide that has been used as an insecticide in agriculture and to combat insect vectors of diseases such as malaria and typhus. Because of its effectiveness at killing insects with few acute effects on humans, DDT had been a mainstay to fight malaria, a parasitic disease that is a growing health threat in Africa and other parts of the world. DDT should also be used in India, Brazil and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur (Mosq Control Assoc, 1998). Malaria afflicts hundreds of millions of people and causes millions of human deaths each year. Swiss scientist Paul Muller was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering (1939) DDT's insecticidal properties.

DDT kills mosquitoes. Malaria is transmitted to humans via mosquito bites. According to U.N. estimates, malaria kills one child every 30 seconds and more than a million people each year.

Kill Malarial Mosquitoes NOW Campaign

Malaria is a serious, sometimes fatal, disease caused by a parasite. Humans get malaria from the bite of a malaria-infected mosquito. When a mosquito bites an infected person, it ingests microscopic malaria parasites found in the person's blood. The malaria parasite must grow in the mosquito for a week or more before infection can be passed to another person. If, after a week, the mosquito then bites another person, the parasites go from the mosquito's mouth into the person's blood. The parasites go from the mosquito's mouth into the person's blood. The parasites then travel to the person's liver, enter the liver's cells, grow and multiply. During this time when the parasites are in the liver, the person has not yet felt sick. The parasites leave the liver and enter red blood cells; this may take as little as 8 days or as many as several months. Once inside the red blood cells, the parasites grow and multiply. The red blood cells burst, freeing the parasites to attack other red blood cells. Toxins from the parasite are also released into the blood, making the person feel sick. (CDC)



Symptons of malaria include fever and flu-like illness, including chills, headache, muscle aches, and tiredness. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea may also occur. Malaria may cause anemia and jaundice (yellow coloring of the skin and eyes) because of the loss of red blood cells. Infection may cause kidney failure, seizures, mental confusion, coma and death. For most people, symptons begin 10 days to 4 weeks after infection, although a person may feel ill as early as 8 days or up to 1 year later. Some malaria parasites can rest in the liver for several months up to 4 years after a person is bitten by an infected mosquito. When these parasites come out of hibernation and begin invading red blood cells, the person will become sick. Malaria is diagnosed by looking for the parasites in a drop of blood under a microscope. Malaria can be cured with prescription drugs. (CDC)

3Billionandcounting promotes a documentary recently filmed on malaria, which advocates the use of DDT in a combination with other methods to help erradicate malaria in developing nations. Dr RutledgeTaylor and his team have travelled the world in an effort to bring the problems of the fight against malaria to light and in so doing have discovered that misinformation about the effects of DDT have led to millions of lives being lost and continues to do so daily. The documentary The Malaria Project will be released to theaters in 2006.

Rachel Carson initiated the movement against the use of DDT in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Of course, by then, DDT had largely eliminated malaria in the United States. It is believed that DDT softens the shells of raptors and other egg laying species. It is thought that the birds are compromised by eating DDT poisoned insects. A ban on DDT, combined with passage of the Endangered Species Act, is thought to have restored raptor populations, particularly eagles. Some researchers dispute this contention. Regardless, DDT was banned in 1972 by the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator William (Bill) Ruckelshaus. It is still used in some countries. Trandional environmental groups are calling for a global ban on DDT production and use. Although 120 countries adopted a treaty to phase out persistent organic pollutants (POPs)(includes DDT) in 2000, the treaty (United Nations' Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants) allows for limited use for control of malaria. About 25 countries including South Africa still DDT. The Malaria Foundation International seems to have some good ideas about DDT. They participated in a campaign to prevent a ban on DDT for malaria control.

American Association of Physicians & Surgeons Resolution on DDT

AAEA believes that DDT should be used in African countries as it was in the United States for decades until malaria is irradicated. Then, use should be limited. Although other groups charge that DDE (from breakdown of DDT) is found in mothers milk, such effects are not comparable to the deadly effects of malaria. Malaria must be eliminated. And DDT is the best way to eliminate the parasite. Kill the insect. Stop the parasite carried by the insect. Then reduce or eliminate use of DDT. During the approximately 30 years that DDT was used in the U.S., almost 700,000 tons wer sprayed onto cotton and other crops. The peak year was 1958, when nearly 80 million pounds of DDT was sprayed onto American farmlands.

DDT is a pesticide used to control insects that carry dieases such as malaria. DDT is a white, crystalline solid with no odor or taste. Numerous studies indicate that DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to humans. However, EPA lists DDT as a 'probable human carcinogen.' DDT affects the nervous system if swallowed in large amounts. Studies conclude that there are no serious effects in people under normal use. According to ATSDR, there are no studies on the health effects of children exposed to DDT. There is no evidence that DDT causes birth defects in people.

Signatories To AAPS Letter To President Bush

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) held a conference in New York in January 2004 to address this issue, among others. The conference, titled, 'Eco-Imperialism: The Global Green Movement's War On The Developing World's Poor.' CORE supports the use of DDT in African countries. CORE spokesmen Cyril Boynes and Niger Innis described how the traditional environmental movement is imposing the views of mostly wealthy, Americans and Europeans on mostly poor Africans. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, described how traditional environmental groups are "preventing needy nations from using the very technologies that developed countries employed to become rich, comfortable and free of disease." Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace and Greenspirit also supports these views. Conference moderator Deroy Murdock eloquently described how traditional environmental groups perpetuate poverty and misery in developing countries through 'eco-centric' policies. Fiona "Fifi" Kobusingye from Kampala, Uganda described her personal battles with malaria and the suffering and deaths it has caused in her extended family. Roy Innis also attended the conference.

Paul Driessen makes a good case for using DDT in his book:

In 2000, say World Health Organization and other studies, malaria infected over 300 million people. It killed nearly 2,000,000--most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Over half of the victims are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day. Since 1972, over 50 milion people have died from this dreaded disease.

Where DDT is used, malaria deaths plummet. Where it is not used, they skyrocket. For example, in South Africa, the most developed nation on the continent, the incidence of malaria had been kept very low (below 10,000 cases annually) by the careful use of DDT. But in 1996 environmentalist pressure convinced program directors to cease using DDT. One of the worst epidemics in the country's history ensued, with almost 62,00 cases in 2000. Shortly after this peak, South Africa reintroduced DDT. In one year, malaria cases plummented by 80 percent. Next door, in Mozambique, whick doesn't use DDT, malaria rates remain stratospheric. Similar experiences have been recorded in Zambia and other African countries.

No other chemical comes close to DDT as an affordable, effective way to repel mosquitos from homes, exterminate any that land on walls, and disorient any that are not killed or repelled, largely eliminating their urge to bite in homes that are treated once or twice a year with tiny amounts of this miracle insecticide. For impoverished countries, many of which are struggling to rebuild economies wracked by decades of disease and civil war, cost and effectiveness are critical considerations. For poor African countries, cost alone can be determinative. Not only do they need their limited funds for other public health priorities, like safe drinking water, but they have minimal health and medical infrastructures. Every dollar spent trying to control malaria is a dollar that's unavailable for other public health needs.

Substitute pesticides are rarely appropriate. While carbamates work well, they are four to six times more expensive than DDT and must be sprayed much more often. Organophosphates are dangeroujs and thus not appropriate in homes. And mosquitoes have built up a huge resistance to synthetic pyrethroids, because they are used so extensively in agriculture. DDT is not a panacea, nor a "super weapon" that can replace all others. Nor is it suitable in all situations. However, it is a vital weapon --often the "best available technology" -- in a war that must be fought against a number of mosquito species (vectors) and constantly changing malaria parasites, in different terrains and cultures, and under a wide variety of housing and other conditions.

Copies of this book may be ordered from Merril Press, www.merrilpress.com.Phone 425-454-7009

Paul Driessen Website: http://www.eco-imperialism.com

Tech Central Station Article: Eco-imperialism: Green Power; Black Death by Roger Bate

AAEA did not come to this position lightly. We recognize that the misuse of pesticides threatens not only bird communties but human communities too. It is for this reason that we do not support gigantic broadcast spraying programs. We also accept the science of bioconcentration of pesticides in birds high on food chains, such as eagles, pelicans and falcons. However, we believe that the benefits derived from eliminating malaria through the use of DDT far outweigh any dangers. We will leave readers with one question to answer in this regard: Would you exchange the life of one child for all the eagles in a country? (Your child?)

DDT
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 08:35 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
*elevation
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 05:31 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 11:36 AM
what's this *elevation business all about? am i missing something?
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2008, 03:27 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:36 AM
I think it's 'elevating' (ie. bumping) the thread, that's all. The goal is soul, guys.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:20 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
I think it's 'elevating' (ie. bumping) the thread, that's all. The goal is soul, guys.

__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com