[Noumenon]

DDT was once thought of as a miracle, since it almost completely eradicated malaria. Yet now malaria is one of the leading causes of death in the world. The number of people it kills annually is equivalent to the number AIDS has killed in the last 15 years combined. The reason? DDT was banned in 1972, due to pressure from environmentalist groups that claimed DDT was harmful to the environment. They based their claims on the 1962 book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, which was full of junk science. Even if DDT was harmful to the environment, how can saving the environment justify killing millions of people? It is justified for environmentalists, who view human life as less sacred than trees in the rainforest. Their lack of concern for humanity and the ignorance of politicians has caused 100 million people to of malaria since the ban of DDT.

Heres some excerpts from an article on Frontpage magazine:

Although DDT "provides the most effective, cheapest, and safest means of abating and eradicating" infectious diseases, all changed with the 1962 publication of Carson's tome Silent Spring. And just as the world's leading scientists predicted 30 years ago, Carson's crusade against DDT has
caused the world's deadliest infectious diseases such as typhus and malaria, which "may have killed half of all the people that ever lived" according to the World Health Organization, to make a deadly comeback that will soon threaten the United States and Europe again.

"Carson and those who joined her in the crusade against DDT have contributed to millions of preventable deaths. Used responsibly, DDT can be quite safe for man and the environment," Koenig said, summing up what many infectious disease experts believe.

Koenig is a former Surgeon General, and current president of the Annapolis Center, a non-profit organization that promotes policy making with a foundation in good science.

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It is estimated that, in little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable," a statement from the National Academy of Sciences said. Before DDT, infectious diseases spread like wildfire, leaving millions dead in their wake. During World War I, typhus epidemics killed 3 million Russians and millions elsewhere in European. But during World War II, before it was blacklisted by Carson and her crew, DDT saved millions of Allied troops from becoming ill and/or dying from infectious diseases such as malaria, typhus and the plague. Plus, DDT also saved the lives of recently liberated Nazi concentration camp survivors by killing off typhus-causing lice.

Other reasons for DDT being hailed as a modern day miracle are legion. For starters, it is extremely cheap to produce, costing $1.44 to spray one house for a whole year. Alternative pesticides being pushed by the U.N. and environmentalists are 10 to 20 times more expensive.

"DDT is the best insecticide we have today for controlling malaria," said malaria expert Dr. Donald Roberts of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. "DDT is long-acting, the alternatives are not. DDT is cheap, the alternatives are not. End of story."

But most importantly, DDT is also not hazardous to humans or the environment -- despite all the propaganda to the contrary. According to tests conducted by Dr. Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Sabine Island Research Laboratory, "92 percent of DDT and its metabolites disappear" from the environment after 38 days. (See Environmental Protection Agency's DDT hearings transcript, page 3,726.) Plus, humans have nothing to worry about small exposures to DDT.

"DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the past 29 years of its existence]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign," said the WHO director in 1969. "Therefore WHO has no grounds to abandon this chemical which has saved millions of lives, the discontinuation of which would result in thousands of human deaths and millions of illnesses. It has served at least 2 billion people in the world without costing a single human life by poisoning from DDT. The discontinuation of the use of DDT would be a disaster to world health."

Koenig -

As far as I know there is no known association between DDT or any other insecticide and cancer. To categorize Carson's work as research is a big stretch. It was really just hysterical speculation."

If you want to read the whole thing ( I have to warn you its long) here it is:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9169

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

simple biology.

As you go higher in the food chain you must eat more food to continue living.

When a cow consume something 90% goes towards living. So a human eats a beef product they will have to eat 10 times as much to equal the amount of energy that the cow got from the grass.

Knowing this lets make a food chain.

Algae
|
small fish
|
large fish
|
Human

theres it is. A lake food chain.

now lets say in this lake there are mosquitos. So they spray DDT in the lake.

Now the Algae get a very small amount of DDT not a lethal dose at all.

however. the small fish eats the algae. so the small fish must consume algae to live.

Now the large fish will have to eat more of the small fishs to equal the energy the small fish got from the algae.

Now the human will have to eat alot more l. fishs to equal the energy orginally gotten from the algae. By that time the human has a leathal or harmful dose. So it may effect the enviroment right away but it would eventually.

[Noumenon]

theres it is. A lake food chain.

now lets say in this lake there are mosquitos. So they spray DDT in the lake.

Now the Algae get a very small amount of DDT not a lethal dose at all.

however. the small fish eats the algae. so the small fish must consume algae to live.

Now the large fish will have to eat more of the small fishs to equal the energy the small fish got from the algae.

Now the human will have to eat alot more l. fishs to equal the energy orginally gotten from the algae. By that time the human has a leathal or harmful dose. So it may effect the enviroment right away but it would eventually.

Your arguement is completely hypothetical and non-scientific. For instance, how do you know that such a chain reaction would deliver a lethal dose to humans?

I can tell you eating more fish which might have some trace of DDT will not be more lethal than having your entire house sprayed with the stuff. Yet, no symptoms of DDT poising has been observed in the 500 million who had their houses sprayed. So one can assume that eating fish with a tiny amount of DDT is harmless, since people who recieved a much higher exposure were not harmed.

If you care at all about the millions of people in Africa, there is only one solution, and thats DDT. You could wait until they develop a vaccine, but they have encountered many obstacles and it may not even be possible. Even if it were possible to create a vaccine, millions of people would die before it could be created. But DDT can be introduced now.

[Buck Williams]

I must agree with the emperor. DDT does harm the enviroment

In the last section, we learned how DDT can kill organisms by interfering with the plasma membrane. Here, we learn some of the specific effects it has on certain organisms:

microorganisms
invertebrates
fish
birds
mammals
human beings

Microorganisms:

Even small amounts of DDT can affect small microorganisms. This is especially true for microorganisms that live in the water (i.e. algae, and plankton), because the aquatic environment can bring more DDT in contact with these organisms.

As an example of this high sensitivity, water that contains only 0.1 (g (micrograms) of DDT per liter can slow down growth and photosynthesis in green algae.


To get an idea of how dilute this water is, think about a paper clip, which weighs about one gram. Take that mass, and divide it by TEN million! Let's say that this tiny amount of DDT was dissolved in a quarter gallon of water. Remarkably, microorganism growth will be affected because of this!


Although affected by DDT, the microorganisms do not usually die. Instead, they tend to keep the DDT within themselves. Considering that microorganisms such as green algae and plankton form the basis of the food chain, how do you think other organisms affected by this?

Invertebrates:

Terrestrial Invertebrates (backbone-less creatures that live on land; examples include molluscs and earthworms) are not affected very much by DDT. In fact, they can tolerate a lot of DDT for long periods of time.

They will, however, retain a lot of the DDT in their bodies (accumulation). This makes it dangerous for those predators who eat these organisms (biomagnification).

Unlike their land-loving relatives, aquatic invertebrates are quite sensitive to DDT, especially while these creatures are still very young. Some problems associated with DDT include reproductive/development impairment and nervous system disorders. At one time, DDT was used to control certain sea crustaceans, because it was so effective against these aquatic invertebrates.

Fish

DDT causes many problems in fish (So many, in fact, that it has been difficult to study DDT in fish. We can't seem to find where the DDT is doing the most damage.) We think that problem probably involves DDT's presence in the fish's plasma membrane, an area where important biological processes are occuring.

There are a few trends that we've noticed with DDT and fish. Smaller fish are usually more sensitive, and for same species of fish, DDT becomes less toxic at higher water temperatures.





Birds

DDT is most famous for its effect on birds. Some research have shown that for certain species, DDT causes the thinning of eggshells.

Some species affected by DDT:
osprey
eagles
pelicans
falcons
hawks

(For a possible explanation to eggshell thinning, click here.)

Mammals

In the past, we have used DDT to control mice, rats, and bats.

Bats are especially sensitive to DDT. Very low doses of DDT can affect them severely. (For an explanation to the high sensitivity in bats, click here.)

A lot of current research deals with DDT's effects on larger mammals.

Human Beings

In the early to mid 1950s, DDT became one of the most widely used pesticides. This was when we thought it was completely harmless to human beings. When we originally used it to control lice, people were unaffected even though they were in direct contact with the pesticides.


One of the reasons why the DDT did not affect people is because it is difficult for DDT to be absorbed through human skin.


Eventually, we realized that some DDT was staying in our bodies. DDT was being used in the environment, on agricultural products, and on livestock. In the 1960's, concern arose about the widespread use of DDT and it's effects on humans.


A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!


When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.


DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.


So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.


For fun, try and calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you.


Currently, there is much debate as to whether DDT can increase a woman's chance of breast cancer. Apparently, some researchers are saying that DDT (and some of its related forms) is an estrogen mimic. (For an in depth discussion of estrogen mimics, click here.)

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... fects.html

However he was wrong with the fish example.

Also DDT can only last so long. When used for long periods of time a few mosquitos will survive and build up and immunity to the toxin. When these mosquitos breed their offspring will also have the immunity. Soon the mosquitos and other pest this posion is meant to stop will not be affected by it. Other animals in the ecosystem however will be.

[Freedom]

100 things you should about DDT: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref4

[Noumenon]

Thanks, Freedom, thats a good site.

Eventually, we realized that some DDT was staying in our bodies. DDT was being used in the environment, on agricultural products, and on livestock. In the 1960's, concern arose about the widespread use of DDT and it's effects on humans.

We have all sorts of chemicals from our environment in our bodies I'm sure. As long as it is kept to a small amount, there is no need to worry. Of course its preferable to not have those chemicals in us, but ask the Africans dying from malaria whether they would choose a small amount of DDT in them or if they would choose death.

Also DDT can only last so long. When used for long periods of time a few mosquitos will survive and build up and immunity to the toxin. When these mosquitos breed their offspring will also have the immunity. Soon the mosquitos and other pest this posion is meant to stop will not be affected by it. Other animals in the ecosystem however will be.

From Freedom's site:

"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."

So in other words, DDT does not work like its more expensive and less effective alternatives. It works by repelling the mosquitoes, not killing them. So building up resistance is not a factor.

[Buck Williams]

Quote:
"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical,

This quote says that some mosquitos devolp a resistance to the toxin. Even if 2 mosquitos devolp an immunity they will breed. There offspring will have the immunity. DDT and other Pesticides can only last so long.

We have all sorts of chemicals from our environment in our bodies I'm sure. As long as it is kept to a small amount, there is no need to worry

So far, we have learned that DDT is an extremely persistent chemical. It gets into the fats of organisms, and it stays there. But what makes it so dangerous to organisms? In this section, we'll discover how DDT works.

The current misunderstanding is that DDT kills by disturbing an organism's nerve cells.

All cells, including nerve cells, have a plasma membrane, which is the cell's outer boundary. Like an egg shell, the plasma membrane separates the inside of the cell from the outside. One important difference, though: The plasma membrane allows special substances to enter and leave the cell, (food, oxygen, water, etc.).



plasma membrane

The plasma membrane is made up mostly of lipids (fats). Remember that DDT is fat soluble, and so it will dissolve easily into the plasma membrane. In order to get into the plasma membrane, the DDT must open up the membrane slightly to make room for itself. DDT, unfortunately, opens up the membrane a little too much and causes the cell to leak.

Two things which will slip through these leaks are sodium ions and potassium ions.
CHEM WINDOW - Ions

For a nerve cell, the concentration of Na+ and K+ inside and outside of a cell are especially important, because they help determine when the nerve cell will fire its signals. After DDT gets into the plasma membrane, nerve impulses (signals) no longer fire when they are supposed to.

If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control).


This completes the Dangers of DDT.

A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!


When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.


DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.


So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.

236 mg of DDT per kg is leathal. Thats a small amount. Even a small amount as you said was harmless can be leathal.

[Noumenon]

This quote says that some mosquitos devolp a resistance to the toxin. Even if 2 mosquitos devolp an immunity they will breed. There offspring will have the immunity. DDT and other Pesticides can only last so long.

But in order for mosquitos to "evolve" into DDT resistant organisms, those with weak resistance must be killed by the DDT. If those with weak resistance survive, then they will reproduce, and all their offspring will have weak resistance to DDT. My quote explained that many mosquitos are not killed by DDT, but are instead repelled by it. So while they are not resistant, they still survive to reproduce. So mosquitos as a whole cannot be DDT resistant, only a fraction of them.

236 mg of DDT per kg is leathal. Thats a small amount. Even a small amount as you said was harmless can be leathal.

I think the use of DDT results in a much smaller amount in humans than 200 or even 20 mg. How else would you explain the fact that no symptoms of DDT related illness were observed in the 500 million people whose homes were sprayed with the stuff?

A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!

Well if we do the math here: in 38 days a person will have accumulated .95 mg of DDT. But we know that in 38 days 92% of DDT disappears. So a person with this "high" level of exposure has at most 1 mg of DDT in his body at any given time. Your sources say you need 6 times that much to begin getting sick.

[Buck Williams]

Ok heres where you are wrong.

But in order for mosquitos to "evolve" into DDT resistant organisms, those with weak resistance must be killed by the DDT. If those with weak resistance survive, then they will reproduce, and all their offspring will have weak resistance to DDT. My quote explained that many mosquitos are not killed by DDT, but are instead repelled by it. So while they are not resistant, they still survive to reproduce. So mosquitos as a whole cannot be DDT resistant, only a fraction of them.

DDT does kill the pests. It does not drive them away. It attacks nerve cell causeing death by paralasis or convultions

Quote:
So far, we have learned that DDT is an extremely persistent chemical. It gets into the fats of organisms, and it stays there. But what makes it so dangerous to organisms? In this section, we'll discover how DDT works. The current misunderstanding is that DDT kills by disturbing an organism's nerve cells. All cells, including nerve cells, have a plasma membrane, which is the cell's outer boundary. Like an egg shell, the plasma membrane separates the inside of the cell from the outside. One important difference, though: The plasma membrane allows special substances to enter and leave the cell, (food, oxygen, water, etc.). plasma membrane The plasma membrane is made up mostly of lipids (fats). Remember that DDT is fat soluble, and so it will dissolve easily into the plasma membrane. In order to get into the plasma membrane, the DDT must open up the membrane slightly to make room for itself. DDT, unfortunately, opens up the membrane a little too much and causes the cell to leak. Two things which will slip through these leaks are sodium ions and potassium ions. CHEM WINDOW - Ions For a nerve cell, the concentration of Na+ and K+ inside and outside of a cell are especially important, because they help determine when the nerve cell will fire its signals. After DDT gets into the plasma membrane, nerve impulses (signals) no longer fire when they are supposed to. If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control).

If it does kill them (which that quote proves) then the mosquitos would evolve an immunity.

Even if the mosquitos were repelled by the toxin (which there not) they could still get an immunity. Do mosquitos travel miles to breed? if DDT did repel mosquitos(again it doesn't) then mosquitos in areas of heavy DDT use would fail to be repeled by the posion.

[Noumenon]

I just read an article which made things a little clearer for me:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... 2/DDT.html

Your arguments are irrelevant because the environment is not affected by spraying houses only. And that is how DDT is used; it is not used to spray all over the countryside. We're talking about small rural villages in Africa here. If you spray those houses only, not only does it protect the people living there from malaria but it does not harm the environment. And it would not cause mosquitos to become resistant, since many would not even go near the sprayed village because they are repelled by the DDT. And even if some do go into the village and get killed, it would be a very small percentage of the entire mosquito population, not enough to cause them to build up a resistance.

So in other words the goal with DDT is not to kill all the mosquitos, but to make villages mosquito-free, and therefore malaria-free. If you did try to kill all the mosquitos with DDT, yes they would build up a resistance. But when DDT is used defensively, it does not affect the mosquito population or the environment. It only saves lives, millions of lives.

[Buck Williams]

So in other words the goal with DDT is not to kill all the mosquitos, but to make villages mosquito-free, and therefore malaria-free.

Again please read this....

All cells, including nerve cells, have a plasma membrane, which is the cell's outer boundary. Like an egg shell, the plasma membrane separates the inside of the cell from the outside. One important difference, though: The plasma membrane allows special substances to enter and leave the cell, (food, oxygen, water, etc.).

The plasma membrane is made up mostly of lipids (fats). Remember that DDT is fat soluble, and so it will dissolve easily into the plasma membrane. In order to get into the plasma membrane, the DDT must open up the membrane slightly to make room for itself. DDT, unfortunately, opens up the membrane a little too much and causes the cell to leak.

DDT is like nerve gas. They both attack nerve cells. Nerve gas kills. It does not repel them. Smae with DDT. DDT is a toxin not a repelent. DDT does kill them. Also you said that DDT is used to spray houses. This is flase. DDT is used to spray large areas, usually wetlands, not houses.

[Noumenon]

I don't think you understand my point. DDT is used to spray small villages. Villages make up about .0001% of the environment in africa. Even if all the mosquitos are killed when they go near those villages, it does not cause them to build up a resitance. Mosquitos can't fly all that far, so 99.9999% of the mosquitos will not come into contact with the DDT in the villages. How can they build up a resistance to DDT when only 1 in a million mosquitos actually comes into contact with it?

Also since the DDT is sprayed on villages only, it does not affect the environment outside the villages one bit. So any arguement you have about how it will disrupt the environment is irrelevant.

The only arguement you can use is that DDT hurts humans. And since no symptoms were aboserved in anyone whose houses were sprayed before the DDT ban, that arguement doesn't work too well. And any damage DDT might do is less than death by malaria.

[Buck Williams]

I don't think you understand my point. DDT is used to spray small villages. Villages make up about .0001% of the environment in africa. Even if all the mosquitos are killed when they go near those villages, it does not cause them to build up a resitance. Mosquitos can't fly all that far, so 99.9999% of the mosquitos will not come into contact with the DDT in the villages. How can they build up a resistance to DDT when only 1 in a million mosquitos actually comes into contact with it?

Also since the DDT is sprayed on villages only, it does not affect the environment outside the villages one bit. So any arguement you have about how it will disrupt the environment is irrelevant.

The only arguement you can use is that DDT hurts humans. And since no symptoms were aboserved in anyone whose houses were sprayed before the DDT ban, that arguement doesn't work too well. And any damage DDT might do is less than death by malaria.

Correct me if im wrong, But isn't Africa mostly desert. As you know mosquitoes need water to breed. In a desert there isnt much water. So not many mosquitoes. Wouldn't Malaria be more of a problem in say, south-eastern asia?

[Noumenon]

Correct me if im wrong, But isn't Africa mostly desert. As you know mosquitoes need water to breed. In a desert there isnt much water. So not many mosquitoes. Wouldn't Malaria be more of a problem in say, south-eastern asia?

I was talking about sub-saharan africa. And yes, it is a very serious problem there, although it is a problem in many other areas of the world. One to two million people die from malaria every year world-wide and about 90% of those deaths occur in sub-saharan Africa. The introduction of DDT would likely reduce those deaths to tiny fractions of what they are now. There were 8 million cases of malaria in Venezuela in 1943. In 1958, after DDT was introduced, that number was reduced to 800.

[Classical Liberal]

Even if DDT was good for getting rid of malaria, it's not good to put into the environment. I stand by everything the emperor and Buck have said. It's simply biological magnification (moving up trophic levels). And DDT is a pesticide, so it will be sprayed all over crops and will seep into the ground water.

[Noumenon]

Using DDT as a pesticide would be banned if it was brought back. And how many times do I have to say it? DDT would not be sprayed everywhere to try to kill all the mosquitos, causing an environmental disaster. It would be sprayed on villages only, causing ZERO effect on the environment.

[Buck Williams]

Using DDT as a pesticide would be banned if it was brought back. And how many times do I have to say it? DDT would not be sprayed everywhere to try to kill all the mosquitos, causing an environmental disaster. It would be sprayed on villages only, causing ZERO effect on the environment.

The DDT would still seep into groundwater. Thereby affecting the enviroment.

[Classical Liberal]

What I really meant was way back when. But even though it may only be used in villages and such, it will still get into the ground water, as Buck said.

[Noumenon]

Don't you realize how ridiculous your arguments sound? Millions of lives are at stake here, and you're worried about a small amount of DDT leaking into the ground water? You might want to think about where your priorities are.

Even if the DDT leaked into the ground water, the amount sprayed is not much to begin with, because its only sprayed on the villages. The effect on the environment through ground water would be VERY minimal. And I wouldn't be concerned with the health effect of having a small amount of DDT in the ground water, because as I posted above, this was never a problem when DDT was used extensively in Africa.

[Classical Liberal]

It would be far worse because DDT seeping into groundwater will affect THE ENTIRE GLOBE! Did you know that one of the animals most greatly affected was, in fact, the American Bald Eagle? The eggs of the bird became soft and weak because of the defects caused by DDT. How would it feel to have that as a natinal animal and say, "Whoops! We killed it."?

If you were to use it to control malaria, you better be very careful or not use it at all.