DDT - dangerous to birds? dangerous to humans?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Haunted]
Great idea. Let’s start with this:

…

intention, would you please get a copy of the October, 1956 Journal of the American Medical Association, scan it and post it?
Then, after we’ve all discussed it, we can move on to this:

…

We’re going to need you to get whatever the IARC, V.5, from 1974, and scan it and post it. Then after we discuss that study, we’ll move on to the next ones.
Those would be:

…

They should be easy to find!

Thanks!

Gosh, I wonder why Mr. Milloy didn’t use any “evidence” for his statements that he could link to so we could review it for ourselves? Oh, well, I’m sure it’s not important. I mean, it’s not like we can’t trust the guy.
[/QUOTE]

What Milloy has posted is a history of the banning of DDT. Historians have this ugly habit of preferring contemporaneous accounts and documents when looking at history. I suppose if you were researching the writing of the Declaration of Independence, you’d ignore everything that isn’t on the web …

You’re the one that’s saying that Milloy is wrong, but claiming that his evidence is too old or not available on the web proves nothing. Do you think we should ignore “Silent Spring” because it was written forty years ago, and is not available on the web? …

Finally, a lot of the items he cites are studies such as the following:

This was the result of a scientific study of the time … this study, and many of the others which he quotes, by their very nature cannot be done today. I’m sorry if you don’t like it because it is old, but it’s all we have – we can no longer take samples of the DDT levels of the peregrine falcons of 1968 and compare them to the birds’ reproductive ability.

w.

62

[QUOTE=intention]
Actually, I was referring to her claim that DDT causes cancer when I said “overhyped”. I can’t find any scientific evidence for that at all. But like I said, it’s no matter, she did the world an outstanding service by pointing out the dangers of indiscriminate use of poisonous chemicals.

w.
[/QUOTE]

We agree that Rachel Carson did the world an outstanding service. That’s great.

I’m surprised that you can’t find any scientific evidence for the (it’s not just Rachel Carson who made this claim, after all, so let’s not blame the whole controversy on her) claim that DDT causes cancer. For example, a simple google search will lead you to several studies that show that DDT in the diet causes liver cancer in lab animals.

**I think that Mr. Milloy and some others are taking advantage of the fact that it is not ethical to test pesticides on humans. I don’t think you’re going to get the kind of scientific study you want because of that. I wonder why LS Milloy does not mention this dilemma on his website? Oh, well, just another mystery. **

article from Cornell is a great summary.

63

[QUOTE=intention]
What Milloy has posted is a history of the banning of DDT. Historians have this ugly habit of preferring contemporaneous accounts and documents when looking at history. I suppose if you were researching the writing of the Declaration of Independence, you’d ignore everything that isn’t on the web …

You’re the one that’s saying that Milloy is wrong, but claiming that his evidence is too old or not available on the web proves nothing. Do you think we should ignore “Silent Spring” because it was written forty years ago, and is not available on the web? …

Finally, a lot of the items he cites are studies such as the following:

This was the result of a scientific study of the time … this study, and many of the others which he quotes, by their very nature cannot be done today. I’m sorry if you don’t like it because it is old, but it’s all we have – we can no longer take samples of the DDT levels of the peregrine falcons of 1968 and compare them to the birds’ reproductive ability.

w.
[/QUOTE]

Wait just a second. You suggested that we should review the dozens and dozens of studies Milloy referenced. I said “Great idea.” Then I pointed out that that was more or less impossible to do. What’s the problem? It was your idea that we discuss them. It’s not my fault that we can’t. If you think we should discuss them, please make them available to us.

No, I don’t think we should ignore Silent Spring. Nor should we use it as a reference. We have more recent information to rely on. That is obvious to everyone except those who are using the book as ammunition for a half-baked propaganda campaign.

Sorry, but I believe very little of what Milloy says. If he’s telling the truth, and these are the actual results of the studies he mentions, then he should make these documents available through his website. All he has now is statements with obscure references.

64

Check out this **Malaria Clock ** from LS Milloy.

It says that 14,030,172,695 people have gotten malaria since EPA lost its mind and went on a murderous rampage in 1972.

Actually, by the time you look at it, the number will be larger, because it goes up continuously.

That’s 14 billion, right? Interesting.
What’s the global population again?

65

[QUOTE=Haunted]
Check out this **Malaria Clock ** from LS Milloy.

It says that 14,030,172,695 people have gotten malaria since EPA lost its mind and went on a murderous rampage in 1972.

Actually, by the time you look at it, the number will be larger, because it goes up continuously.

That’s 14 billion, right? Interesting.
What’s the global population again?
[/QUOTE]

And, the EPA only has juristicion over the USA, where Malaria had been 99.99% eradicated already (true, partially with the help of DDT). The EPA cannot stop African nations from bathing in the stuff if they want to.

66

[QUOTE=Haunted]
Check out this **Malaria Clock ** from LS Milloy.

It says that 14,030,172,695 people have gotten malaria since EPA lost its mind and went on a murderous rampage in 1972.

Actually, by the time you look at it, the number will be larger, because it goes up continuously.

That’s 14 billion, right? Interesting.
What’s the global population again?
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your problem is with this. The British Department for International Development estimates 300 to 500 million cases of malaria per year. It’s been 35 years since 1972, giving us a range of 10.5 to 17.5 billion cases of malaria during that time … I know you’re fanging to bust Milloy, but you’ll have to find something else to do it.

w.

67

But are those new cases or is it a statement that each year there are 300-500 million people in the world who experienced symptoms of this chronic disease?

68

From WHO

69

[QUOTE=Haunted]
We agree that Rachel Carson did the world an outstanding service. That’s great.

. . .

article from Cornell is a great summary.
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I am talking about – pulling quotes out of context. The entire article is basically saying that there are no clear cancer risks from DDT.

Here’s a summary of four studies, one of which shows that DDT is connected to lower cancer rates! Of course, all it demonstrates is that the evidence is slim, and we’re at the bleeding edge of statisatical provability.

This is basic science. There has not been a clear link between DDT and cancer. Your own cite says that. And by no clear link, I don’t mean that there are things being swept under the rug, or that positive evidence is ignored. I mean that there have not been any statistically valid repeatable results that show that DDT increases risk of cancer above that of background cancer rates. The scientific method is an incredibly important tool for finding truth. In this case the truth it’s finding is that there isn’t a verifiable link between DDT and cancer.

So in summary:

  1. DDT doesn’t have significant health risks, especially compared to other approved pesticides like Pyrethrins, Pyrethroids, PBO, and others (Some of which are acutely toxic as well).

  2. There is no evidence for environmental effects at the low levels that would occur in IRT mosquito control. (And not a lot of evidence even at higher levels)

  3. Even if it were unbanned tomorrow, no one is likely to spray it in the massive quantities used historically – we don’t spray that way with any chemicals today, because it is inefficient and has PR risks.

  4. Resistance is not an issue with IRT spraying. DDT acts as a repellant as well as an insecticide and IRT spraying does not put enough pressure on the mosquito population to build species-wide resistance.

  5. Mosquito control works best with multiple approaces. Nets help, but are expensive (two dollars is expensive in the extreme poverty of tropical africa). Nets also can be damaged, and if there is a risk of DDT resistance, there is a risk of malathion resistance. IRT spraying helps, but doesn’t lower populations. Habitat reduction helps, but doesn’t protect people from bites.

None of these statements are particularly controversial; the more expensive pesticides we’re using today are not more ecologically friendly or non-toxic. All that’s left is knee-jerk reaction, misconceptions about the science, and lack of understanding of the impact of malaria on poverty-stricken tropical areas.

70

[QUOTE=MoskTheDissenter]

Here’s a summary of four studies, one of which shows that DDT is connected to lower cancer rates! Of course, all it demonstrates is that the evidence is slim, and we’re at the bleeding edge of statisatical provability.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry I forgot to put in the link :

Also from the ribbon

71

Yeah, that’s the kind of person I am. I pull quotes out of context AND provide a link to the article I’m misrepresenting, just hoping that nobody catches me in my web of deceit.

Maybe you should read the article again. You do understand that the one paragraph you posted does not negate all the paragraphs I posted, right?

72

[QUOTE=Haunted]
Yeah, that’s the kind of person I am. I pull quotes out of context AND provide a link to the article I’m misrepresenting, just hoping that nobody catches me in my web of deceit.

Maybe you should read the article again. You do understand that the one paragraph you posted does not negate all the paragraphs I posted, right?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you are misrepresenting on purpose. I just don’t see what you’re trying to show. I can’t show you a study proving that DDT doesn’t cause cancer – that’s impossible. You need to show me a body of evidence that is statisically valid and repeated that DDT does in fact cause cancer, and that it causes cancer when delivered in the amount that we would use for mosquito control.

One study might show a link. If 20 more don’t show that link, the study that does show a link means nothing. So yes, if the majority of the studies show no link to breast cancer, and one study shows a fourfold increase, that study is suspect, and doesn’t prove anything. Every paragpraph in that article says there is no established link.

73

First of all, Mosk, I don’t need to show you anything more than I have already shown you. It’s pretty clear that you’re going to stick to the party line no matter what anybody says, so providing more information to you is just a waste of time. A lot of people have spent a lot of time getting to the truth of this issue in this thread but you continue spouting the same stuff you started with.

Secondly, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, because nobody has ever placed a ban on the use of DDT for mosquito control in other countries. That’s been repeated numerous times.

Finally, as I stated earlier, it is unethical to test pesticides on people. That’s actually a good thing. However, I think you know damn well that the only way you are going to get a “statisically valid and repeated that DDT does in fact cause cancer, and that it causes cancer when delivered in the amount that we would use for mosquito control” is to start conducting tests on people. Why don’t you just admit that you are demanding what is not only impossible but unethical?

74

[QUOTE=Haunted]
First of all, Mosk, I don’t need to show you anything more than I have already shown you. It’s pretty clear that you’re going to stick to the party line no matter what anybody says, so providing more information to you is just a waste of time. A lot of people have spent a lot of time getting to the truth of this issue in this thread but you continue spouting the same stuff you started with.

Secondly, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, because nobody has ever placed a ban on the use of DDT for mosquito control in other countries. That’s been repeated numerous times.

Finally, as I stated earlier, it is unethical to test pesticides on people. That’s actually a good thing. However, I think you know damn well that the only way you are going to get a “statisically valid and repeated that DDT does in fact cause cancer, and that it causes cancer when delivered in the amount that we would use for mosquito control” is to start conducting tests on people. Why don’t you just admit that you are demanding what is not only impossible but unethical?
[/QUOTE]

We don’t need human tests. We have plenty of information available, as the multitude of recent studies shows. You haven’t shown a cause and effect relationship that demonstrates that DDT causes cancer. A “fourfold increase” isn’t very strong evidence, even if we ignore the fact that subsequent studies have been unable to duplicate those numbers.

About the scientific method
More

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to understand how causation gets proven, and about burdens of proof. And arguing that the US ban doesn’t affect foreign policy doesn’t make sense, for multiple reasons already cited and discussed, by both sides.

75

The fact that you don’t take me seriously means nothing to me.

The bottom line here is that EPA has banned DDT for the following reasons:
Probable human carcinogen
Damages the liver
Temporarily damages the nervous system
Reduces reproductive success
Can cause liver cancer
Damages reproductive system

In other words, scientists at EPA have decided that the evidence shows that DDT is unsafe. I’m sorry they did not consult you. Perhaps you can talk to them about causation and proof. Be sure to tell them that you don’t take them seriously. But don’t be surprised when they point out that, given their mission, they must proceed with caution.

(Psst: their mission is to protect human health and the environment.)

76

Oops. Forgot the cite.

77

I’m sorry for all the posts, but I thought this might be of interest to some of you.

78

[QUOTE=MoskTheDissenter]
We don’t need human tests. We have plenty of information available, as the multitude of recent studies shows. You haven’t shown a cause and effect relationship that demonstrates that DDT causes cancer. A “fourfold increase” isn’t very strong evidence, even if we ignore the fact that subsequent studies have been unable to duplicate those numbers.

About the scientific method
More

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to understand how causation gets proven, and about burdens of proof. And arguing that the US ban doesn’t affect foreign policy doesn’t make sense, for multiple reasons already cited and discussed, by both sides.
[/QUOTE]

I stopped taking you seriously when you blamed so many deaths on environmentalists, about the only good point that I see coming from you is that the cancer link has little support nowadays, however most of the other effects to health and nature continue to get new support.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/index.html

79

Well, for all the handwringing about how DDT is unhealthy and dangerous, I still have yet to see any scientific evidence. Salon.com isn’t any more or less convincing than the NYT nor are environmental groups more trustworthy than junkscience.com. The EPA’s motives on the DDT ban were also questinable, since the scientific panel recommended against a ban, and was overidden by the politically appointed head of the EPA.

It seems obvious to me that relying on FUD and namecalling is easier than taking a look at the science. That premature births article presented as proof was cited from wikipedia earlier, and if you look at the article itself, the CI is down to 85% or so.

I’ll be glad to discuss scientific findings and policies, but there’s no point in rugurgitating wikipedia and google searches. Let me leave you with this: What WOULD convince you that DDT is safe? If you can’t think of anything, it might be time to re-examine your rationality on the issue.

80

[QUOTE=MoskTheDissenter]
Well, for all the handwringing about how DDT is unhealthy and dangerous, I still have yet to see any scientific evidence. Salon.com isn’t any more or less convincing than the NYT nor are environmental groups more trustworthy than junkscience.com. The EPA’s motives on the DDT ban were also questinable, since the scientific panel recommended against a ban, and was overidden by the politically appointed head of the EPA.

It seems obvious to me that relying on FUD and namecalling is easier than taking a look at the science. That premature births article presented as proof was cited from wikipedia earlier, and if you look at the article itself, the CI is down to 85% or so.

I’ll be glad to discuss scientific findings and policies, but there’s no point in rugurgitating wikipedia and google searches. Let me leave you with this: What WOULD convince you that DDT is safe? If you can’t think of anything, it might be time to re-examine your rationality on the issue.
[/QUOTE]

I’m convinced it is ok to use as recommended by the WHO, as many environmentalists are approving.

So much for the environmentalist bogeyman.