Is DDT dangerous, or was it a fake scare?

[hectorberlioz]

I've heard both sides of this issue: and it would seem that DDT might not be dangerous at all.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...osquitoes.html

Any thoughts on this?

[inked]

DDT was definitely dangerous to mosquitos.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

DDT was definitely dangerous to mosquitos.

Could it be that folks mistook mosquitos for birds, and decided to push for a ban?

[GrayMouser]

Well, if you get your info from lunatic fringe groups sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche, I suppose there might be a question.

From Wiki:

21st Century Science and Technology is a quarterly magazine covering scientific topics from the perspective of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. The magazine was established in 1988 following the federal government's closing down of its predecessor Fusion Magazine (1977 to 1987).

Statement of purpose:

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

21st Century Science and Technology deals with an eclectic variety of issues, including criticism of claims of global warming, promotion of the use of DDT [1] and support for an alternative to the standard atomic theory, based on the "Moon model" of Robert J. Moon.[2]

The last hard copy issue of the magazine published was the Winter 2005-2006 issue. Subsequent issues are available in electronic .pdf format only.

[Earniel]

I'm sorry, but are you serious, hector? It's hard to tell on a messageboard.

You really ARE thinking DDT isn't harmful or are you just trying to generate some response by saying something so silly?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm sorry, but are you serious, hector? It's hard to tell on a messageboard.

You really ARE thinking DDT isn't harmful or are you just trying to generate some response by saying something so silly?

Don't jump on hector; there is a whole industry out there of astroturf right-wing think tanks funded by the chemical and petroleum industries who generate countless scientific-looking articles from an anti-environmentalist viewpoint. These sites often look very impressive and have qualified scientists who promote positions that are rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues; they call themselves things like the "Association of Concerned Scientists" or "Citizens for a Responsible Environmental Policy" and it's only when you look closer that you realize there's nothing there but a website, an office, and a big pile of money from Exxon or Monsanto.

The case of DDT is in fact not as black and white as some people think. The UN and other international health organizations now recommend its use in a controlled low-dose manner i.e, sprayed on inside walls or used on mosquito nets.

The right-wing front groups have jumped on this to push the totally specious idea that the environmental movement has caused the death of millions of people in the Third World, and hence should not be listened when they now complain about things like global warming or GM foods.

In fact, the ban on DDT was mainly directed at widespread high-dosage aerial spraying for agricultural purposes, which, given the economics of the methods, meant largely for the benefit of wealthy landowners and agribusiness.

The problem with those methods is that they rapidly led to mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT- evolution works - which meant more money for the chemical industry in developing substitutes.

Still, there was definitely an overreaction in totally banning the use of DDT, and the current policy is a welcome corrective.

[Earniel]

Consider me baffled. I can understand the controversiality and debate about global warming and a few other items, but I had thought the poisonous nature of DDT was quite clear to every one.

I would say the question whether a complete ban on the pesticide was/is justified is still a very different question from the toxicological effects of DDT. One can discuss in which conditions and under which safety regulations DDT can be useful or should be allowed to be used. We use a lot of harmful and dangerous substances in our daily lives so the use of DDT can definitely be argued.

The fact that DDT is poisonous (hello-o-o it's a pesticide for crying out loud) to environment and men should be - in my opinion- quite beyond doubt.

[hectorberlioz]

Well, what caught my attention was the fact that one of the guys pushing DDT, eats it! Now unless there is some aspect of that that might be trickery, it seems to me that DDT might not be as dangerous as was thought.

I don't know...I really don't.

[Insidious Rex]

Oh its absolutly harmless of course. Yes of course you can eat it. It should be part of every healthy meal.

Oh and weve also recently discovered that Thalidomide is actually a great pregnancy aid and should be directly injected into the fetus as soon as possible.

Silly liberals standing in the way of progress...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, what caught my attention was the fact that one of the guys pushing DDT, eats it! Now unless there is some aspect of that that might be trickery, it seems to me that DDT might not be as dangerous as was thought.

Did you know that in the 40's some people would actually drink radioactive compounds to prove that not only wasnt it bad for you but that it actually had positive benefits...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, what caught my attention was the fact that one of the guys pushing DDT, eats it! Now unless there is some aspect of that that might be trickery, it seems to me that DDT might not be as dangerous as was thought.

Some guy eats DDT... as in...seriously... eating... an organo-chlore pesticide...

*head meets table*

Oh. My. God.

The stupidity of humanity never fails to amaze me. I'm sure the nomination for the Darwin awards for this guy is just waiting for him to kick the bucket. No, now I'm exagerating, DDT is not directly lethal, if I'm not mistaken. Although the mad scientist in me is kind of curious what the actual levels of DDT will be in this guy's fat tissues.... If it's not faked, that is.

But you know, Hector, if I were you, I wouldn't consider finding someone lunatic enough to go eating poisonous stuff as a sound toxicological testing.

Eating DDT... knowingly and voluntarily... no, I still can't get my head around that one.

[BeardofPants]

The problem with DDT is that re: impact on human health, etc, there have been conflicting returns on the study. It's not simply as cut and dried as DDT is teh evil, must banish. There are some potentially positive outcomes to using it against mosquitos in the fight against malaria. It certainly warrants further study. Additionally, WHO only classifies it as 'moderately toxic', and it HAS been used orally as a treatment against barbiturate poisoning. At any rate, much of the brouhaha against DDT has as much to do with the RATE of usage rather than against DDT itself.

[Earniel]

I see someone's been reading the wikipedia pages...

[OldHippie]

My Dad told me about back in his younger days when they used to spread DDT out of a bucket by hand on the farm. It was the wonder chemical back in the 40's. Since the ban Bald Eagles and other birds of prey are finally making a comeback. The DDT in the food they ate caused the shells of there eggs to become too thin and the weight of the mother crushed them.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I see someone's been reading the wikipedia pages...

Not recently. (but saw it debated on another forum so read up about it)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

(but saw it debated on another forum so read up about it)

You mean, I shouldn't feel guilty about bringing it up?

[inked]

No, you shouldn't feel guilty about bringing it up, HB. Look, it revivified BoP!
Ergo, DDT is good.

[brownjenkins]

There are plenty of other chemicals these days that do the same jobs DDT did, so the argument is 'moot.

[GrayMouser]

No, there really aren't, the main reason being most people who get malaria are poor, so there's far more money in developing fat pills and high blood-pressure drugs

Nearly 30 years after safety concerns led to the phasing out of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the United Nations health agency said today it will start promoting this method again to fight the global scourge that kills more than one million people every year, including around 3,000 children everyday.

“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, World Health Organization (WHO) Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

“Indoor residual spraying has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Indoor residual spraying is the application of long-acting insecticides on the walls and roofs of houses and domestic animal shelters.

“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans, the agency said.

Views about the use of insecticides for indoor protection from malaria have been changing in recent years. Environmental Defense, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the 1960s, now endorses the indoor use of DDT for malaria control, as does the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...Cr=malaria&Cr1

[brownjenkins]

It's my understanding that pyrethroids are more commonly used these days because mosquito populations quickly become DDT resistant after a few years of use.