Talk:DDT

DDT

DDT archive[?] NPOV

_________________________________________________________________________________ So it was bias on MY part to simply include a link to the NYTimes editorial board's position on this issue?? You removed a link to a New York Times editorial because it opposed your unscientific point of view. I think YOU have just revealed your bias.

Oops, I created an duplicate Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane article by mistake. The two articles should be merged, and one redirected to the other.

I voted for Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane as the main article and the comman abbreviation DDT as the redirect. Ed Poor, Wednesday, June 19, 2002

I disagree. The real name is not spellable or rememberable and redirects are not obvious. Moving. --mav

---

Can we separate the environmentalist advocacy from the chemistry, please? It disturbs the flow of the article.

I propose this outline:

• what it is
• how it was discovered / by whom
• what it's good for
• what's bad about it / and who says so
• efforts to ban it
• opposition to banning

--Ed Poor

Well... DDT is legendary precisely because of the controversy around it. I think that's what the article should focus on primarily not as a footnote. I like the flow of the article as it stands. Graft

---

Removed sentence:<blockquSo it was bias on MY part to simply include a link to the NYTimes editorial board's position on this issue?? You removed a link to a New York Times editorial because it opposed your unscientific point of view. I think YOU have just revealed your bias. ote> The studies showing that DDT is responsible for the thinning of predatory bird eggshells have also been called into question. </blockquote> This is new to me and does need a good citation. --mav

---

So it was bias on MY part to simply include a link to the NYTimes editorial board's position on this issue?? You removed a link to a New York Times editorial because it opposed your unscientific point of view. I think YOU have just revealed your bias. --Anon

Please don't remove So it was bias on MY part to simply include a link to the NYTimes editorial board's position on this issue?? You removed a link to a New York Times editorial because it opposed your unscientific point of view.

I think YOU have just revealed your bias. block your IP. --mav

That was hardly the only change you made; you also sprinkled POV stuff throughout the article, and removed a link to a website critical of your opinion as well. I do know how to use the "diff" function, you know. We've been over this stuff many times before. Bryan

I've temporarily locked the page; please discuss the development of this work like civilized people rather than blanking the whole article and replacing it with rants. --Brion 04:58 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

The article seems unnecessarily slanted on DDT. I think it should be broken into a pure fact about and another article about controversy. It doesn't currently read like an encyclopedia article.. Splitting it might make it easier to balance (these people think this, these other folks think this) -reboot

That sounds more reasonable! No need for environmental advocacy here.

I had to do that because he kept deleting my changes. why did he remove a link to a relevant NYTimes editorial?

Why did he remove relevant info about ACSH's funding?

Why did he say 'nominally' independent??? That is libelous!

Why did he simply REVERT to old version, when the old version was misleading?

If he wants to take out POV stuff, fine, but a clarification regarding funding issues????

Removing a NYTimes editorial that agrees with ACSH?

When even the left wing editorial page of the Times agrees with ACSH, he should probably give up his unscientific advocacy and conceed that there is no longer a controversy--in the scientific community- about this issue.

---

I don't know about any of that, and I don't really care.. Like I said, I didnt' even know DDT was controversial (now). So my whole thing was to read the article as I saw it, and I note that think it is a bit slanted and suggest a remedy (splitting it). You're obviously upset about this, I suggest taking a breather, then saying "how can we make this happen so that it is informative, yet non-biased in a way that everyone can accept".. But I'm new here so this may all be ignorant naieve blather... -reboot

---

I invite anyone who's interested to take a look at the changes 141's talking about, that I reverted: [1] (/w/wiki.phtml?title=DDT&diff=587845&oldid=587834). Personally, I actually do think that DDT's toxicity has been greatly overstated by environmentalists, and that it does more good than harm. But I also recognize that this is a very controversial issue, and therefore that it's important for this article to be neutral. 141's had a history of trying to make this article very one-sided, he seems to come back and make modifications like this every couple of months. The previous state of the article was a compromise hammered out after the last time he was working on it. Bryan

"There is no data concerning how many humans die as a result of thin egg shells in birds." This is argumentative and irrelevant at best, extremely POV at worst. There are many similar edits that were made that have no business in this article. -- mav

---

Your changes slant the article in my opinion. I'd like to see a more balanced article.. Your comments here suggest bias. If the article were split into factual and controversy it could escape this. One person could write the pro and the opposing. reboot

You can not have an article about DDT without going into a fair amount of detail about the controversy over its use and the banning of its use. Splitting off the controversy is not the answer and will harm the article, not improve it. --mav

Why remove the NY Times link? why remove info about ACSH which valudates them (peer reviewed, no strings attached funding, scientific advisors?) And why include a link with discreding info about ACSH? Why not inlcude links discreding NRDC type groups? Why call ACSH "nominally" independent?? Thats not POV???

I can't find the talk pages from the previous time we went over all of this, but as I recall I put in the "nominally" independant phrase because you kept adding an increasingly long and tortuous description of how no-strings ACSH's funding was (just like you did at the start of this most recent controversy), so I came up with something short and noncomittal and suggested that you put the details over on the American Council on Science and Health[?] article where they could be debated separately. The link with discrediting info about the ACSH is included because in the interests of neutrality it is good to include opposing viewpoints. Bryan

Color me stupid but what does the opinion of this particular trade group (I'm sorry, but I don't believe in no-strings attached donations.. No-strings attached but if the ACSH changed their minds and said "oops yeah DDT should be banned", would they still get the money? no.. therefore they are not independant) has to do with the issue at hand. It seems to me that it should be noted that some organizations including the chemical industry still dispute the ban of DDT today (although I'm sure less seriously now that their right to produce it exclusively is likely expired). The facts are: DDT was used, it was banned, this is why it was banned, some people disagree including the people who made it. The rest... is POV or hogwash. To me even the reverted artical seems biased or to give insufficient wait to an interested minority. I sure as heck would see this magazine-like article in Britannica, they'd be conservative note its still disputed but leave out the fringe groups. reboot

ok. I'll unprotect it. Play nice everyone. -- Tarquin

---

I see that this page has been protected.

Squabbling over one link is keeping everybody away from writing brilliant prose in DDT.

We should take this time to understand other points of view --- not to be convinced, but to understand how to write an npov article on this topic.

I don't seem to remember mention of :

• bio accumulation of DDT

and should be in any comprehensive entry on DDT.

The first place to start is back on the NPOV page. When it becomes a habit of mind, npov prose will roll off your finger tips.

Remember we're here to write encyclopedia.

I have an idea on how to procced. Two16

---

Recent talk moved from the page of that arch-instigator and Jekyll-and-Hyde personality, the ever-disingenuous Uncle Ed 17:14 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Argh. Well, I'm guessing you're inviting comments on that quote, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it, but, re: DDT, it continues to be used to fight malaria in the most effective way, i.e., in-home usage. This is because it is still legal as an insecticide in most parts of the third world, and is still an important way of fighting malaria. Some groups like the WWF are pushing for a total ban, but are meeting strong resistance precisely BECAUSE of the malaria issue.

However, the use of DDT in the First World, like in the United States, had little to do with fighting malaria - it was used agriculturally, in such massive quantities that the globe continues to be saturated by it. The detrimental effects of this practice were obvious, and stopped for good reasons.

So I'd dispute the "hundreds of millions" figure, because I don't think there was a substantial change in DDT usage to fight malaria as a result of the agricultural ban. Not that you care, since you've obviously decided that anything that reeks of "environmentalism" is bunk. Graft

Au contraire, mon frere! I have made no such decision. Not all environmentalism is bunk -- only the unscientific hype. I love plants and trees and clean air and blue skies as much as you do. But if you do a little research, you'll find out that DDT bans in the last (approx.) quarter century in the Third World (not the US) have resulted in millions of malaria deaths per year? As penance for misjudging me, please research malaria deaths worldwide and correlate with DDT usage vs. bans, and update the malaria article or start a new malaria prevention[?] article. --Uncle Ed

Sorry, Ed. I don't understand what you're referring to. Beginning in the early seventies, there was a worldwide effort to discourage the use of DDT in agricultural contexts. This has been mostly successful. However, the use of DDT in the context of malarial control is a very different phenomenon, and involves application in more controlled ways, like use in the home and selective spraying, rather than the wholesale blanketing used in agriculture. This practice has NOT stopped at all, and in fact has been remarkably successful at reducing the incidence of malaria worldwide - in fact, the incidence, thanks to DDT and other insecticides, has dropped dramatically, and remained low, in all parts of the world even after the DDT ban, with the exception of Africa, where malaria incidence rates began low and have been steadily climbing over the years, and is now the . So I don't see any reason why we should consider the agricultural ban on DDT as an act of genocide against the third world, when in fact it has had relatively little impact on the use of DDT to prevent malaria, and in fact the number of cases of malaria have dropped significantly in most parts of the world, even following the agricultural ban. I stand by my original statement. Graft

Gee, Grant, I guess you're the wrong person to assign this to: you have misunderstood me (again) if you think I "consider the agricultural ban on DDT as an act of genocide against the third world". My only concern with DDT and the third world has nothing to do with agriculture; I referred above only to preventing malaria deaths to human beings. If (as I assume), you are interested in preventing human misery, please investigate the following:

• According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about two and a half million people die of the disease each year, again, mostly in Africa, the majority of them poor children. [2] (http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/ddt2002)

However, you apparently fail to understand disease control if you think that this has anything to do with DDT bans, because the WHO has successfully resisted calls for a total ban. It's possible, you understand, that people are dying of malaria despite the fact that DDT is being used? If you are worried about DDT being used to prevent malaria deaths to human beings, you need not worry: this has not been banned, and probably will not be, the efforts of the WWF, Sierra Club, et al, to the contrary. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the ban on DDT (which was agricultural in context, and had nothing to do with disease control) has "caused" 1 million people to die of malaria each year. So, I ask again, why do you think it is appropriate to associate the DDT ban with the incidence of malaria? Graft

Graft, all I know is what I read. For example, the web article I cited above goes on to describe the aftermath of the DDT ban: "The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect." From this article I conclude that its authors blame human malaria deaths on the DDT ban. Let me ask you this: if you found out that relaxing the DDT ban would save 1 million lives a year in Africa, would you be in favor of relaxing the ban? --Ed

---

Hi Ed, I have been following this exchange and want to share my own take on things -- if I misunderstand, please correct me.

The quote you put on your page states: "...the threat of DDT (but not of pandemic malaria)," and reading it in context I undertand this clause to mean three things:

1. That "the threat of DDT" was overstated if not false

2. That "pandemic malaria" is on the contrary a serious threat, and

3. that there is some relationship bewtween these two (otherwise, why put them in the same clause?) and the way I read the clause, it seems to be suggesting some inverse relationship, like, the more seriously you take the threat of DDT, the less seriously you take the threat of malaria; or, the less seriously you take the threat of DDT, the more seriously you take (or the better equiped or prepared you are to deal with) the threat of malaria.

Well, this is my interpretation of that clause. Does it make sense?

Now here is my interpretation of what Graft is saying: the inverse relationship between the threat of DDT and malaria is false, because

1. all the hoopla about the dangers of DDT were in response to the use of DDT as an agricultural pesticide, not the use of DDT in the campaign against malaria

2. The ban on DDT is a ban in non-malarial zones and a ban against use in agriculture

3. that ban has not hindered the war against malaria in any way.

Am I reading this correctly? Ed, are you advocating removal of the ban against the use of DDT as an agricultural pesticide? What would that have to do with malaria? Can you explain to me? Thanks, Slrubenstein

I think the quote meant that (a) DDT isn't nearly as harmful as the environmentalsts claimed and that (b) the ban is especially bad because it results in the deaths of millions due to malaria. It only takes 10 minutes of web research to find articles linking DDT use with malaria prevention, and I'm inclined to think that relaxing the ban on DDT would save millions of lives.

I'm not sure what agriculture has to do with it. All I know is:

• DDT used, malaria cases dwindle -- nearly eradicated
• DDT banned, malaria cases skyrocket -- millions die

Am I missing something? Or are you?

Well, we could of course both be missing something! I lived in Ecuador for three years -- right on the equator, in a malarial zone -- and people used DDT regularly; I saw no sign at all of any ban. You could buy DDT soap (don't ask) in any ag. supply store. Also, I read that there are two major reasons malaria has skyrocketed: first, the parasite evolved an immunity to current prophylaxis. When I first went to Ecuador everyone used chloroquine; now people use Lariam because Chloroquine no longer works. This happens every few years. The use or non-use of DDT wouldn't change this -- but the brilliance of the DDT campaign was to try to control the carrier, not the parasite itself. The other reason I read of is that in many countries the DDT campaign was carried out ineffectively, for example, to save (or embezzle) money, people would dilute the DDT they were spraying, and it simply was not effective. In other words, the failure of the DDT campaign was in a sense political, but not because of any ban, but rather because for the campaign to be effective it would require funding and training of such large quantities of technicians that most third world governments could not afford it, and first world governments were not willing to provide that much more money or technical assistance. This doesn't mean your argument is wrong, but it does offer other factors. Slrubenstein

Ed: You are missing something. Malaria was never "nearly eradicated" - at its lowest point, it was at a little less than 1 million deaths per year. It now stands at a little more than 1 million deaths per year. The few anecdotes I've seen in the pages describing how DDT "nearly eradicated" malaria are just that, anecdotes. They don't reflect a general trend worldwide.

You can read the WHO's own thoughts on the matter, here (http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/archives/1999/en/pdf/Chapter4.pdf). In short, worldwide, maliara rates have plummeted since the beginning of the century, and remain low, with the exception of Africa. According to the WHO, the main reason for the resurgence is that there was an increase in medication-resistant pathogens, as well as the usual living standard effects (for which we can probably thank neoliberalism).

So, in answer to your question above, I might be inclined to favor lifting the ban (despite the well-known associated problems with DDT) if I thought it would save a million lives a year. But there's absolutely no reason to think that it would. A better focus for you and others concerned about fighting malaria might be to get profit-bloated pharmaceuticals to start manufacturing some cheap (and thus, unprofitable) medications for treating people. And, generally, fighting poverty. Graft

And let us make no mistake here - DDT as an agricultural pesticide was a massive disaster - creatures at the top end of the food scale were severely impacted and we very, very nearly lost a good many raptors - I could give you chapter and verse on the Australian species that almost went extinct (one of them is in doubt still) but perhaps it would be better to look closer to home and consider the US national emblem instead, or the California Condor. I'm going from vague memory on these two - I make no claim to expertise on non-Australian birds - but the general disaster that was unrestricted DDT usage is well documented. Not a myth.

The health effect of asbestos is also well-proven. Most asbestos deaths were not in homes or offices, though, but at the other end of the supply chain: miners and factory workers in the asbestos industry had truly horrendous death rates from exposure to it. Death rates which were hushed up and derided by the scientists working for the asbestos companies, by the way, until the word got out.

(Oh, and it's a well-known fact that mobile phones don't cause brain damage. You can see this for yourself: just make a quick count of mobile phone users in key places such as movie theatres, shops and - especially - on the roads: you'll soon realise that the real cause and effect relationship is the inverse of the popularly proposed one: in reality, brain damage causes mobile phones.) (Sorry - couldn't resist adding that last para.)

Tannin 23:43 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

What about these quotes from a Dr. Roberts? They indicated that (A) DDT has nearly eradicated malaria in non-Western countries; (B) there was a ban of sorts; (C) after the ban, malaria deaths went way back up again.

• Dr. Roberts criticized the World Health Organization for pressuring malaria-infested countries to quit using DDT. He cited Taiwan, where there were over a million cases of malaria before DDT was used and five years later the number was down to less than 600. He said South Africa had similar results until it banned DDT in 1996. The number of malaria cases skyrocketed, and when spraying DDT was resumed, the number of cases fell by 80 percent. [3] (http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2002/12/24)

• Dr. D.R. Roberts and associates wrote in the July 22, 2000 issue of the British medical journal, The Lancet, "Spraying of DDT in houses and on mosquito breeding grounds was the primary reason that rates of malaria around the world declined dramatically after the Second World War. Nearly one million Indians died from malaria in 1945, but DDT spraying reduced this to a few thousand by 1960. However, concerns about the environmental harm of DDT led to a decline in spraying, and likewise, a resurgence of malaria." [4] (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1140)

That squares pretty closely with my recollection, Ed. (Not so much the ups and downs in malarial infection rates, I'm vague on those, but the pattern of DDT use. There are a couple of points to note here. (1) You don't need DDT to control Anopheles mosquitos. There are much better chemicals available now, and we have learned a good deal about using them more effectively. (2) There is really only one main reason why DDT is still suggested as a cure for malaria - it's cheap. If Western nations were a little less keen on extracting every possible surplus dollar from countries much poorer than they are, those poor countries could maybe afford something better than DDT. (3) The more responsible (in my view) environmentalists are not utterly opposed to the use of DDT. The thing with DDT is that it persists, and builds up in the food chain, with disasterous results if you are not very careful. The huge problem is that, one you take the lid off that particular bottle again and let the DDT genie out, how do you keep it under control? It's like allowing "scientific" whaling - ecocidal maniacs like the Japanese take that as permission to go out and commit slaughter on a vast scale. Also, because it doesn't break down properly, it tends to create as many problems as it solves: the first creatures to be hit by lower levels of DDT are the very predators that we rely on to keep insects in check. It's like a drug: once you start, it's very hard to stop - because the worst-hit species are the ones that (prior to DDT) were the ones that did most of the work of killing pest species. Tannin

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to suggest that when the WHO stopped using DDT in malarial control, it was because of the ban. If this were true, we should have expected a pattern, rather than sporadic stopping and starting. The reality is, this is part of WHO malaria control strategy - after the mosquito population has been eradicated, you stop use of the pesticides and focus on using medications to control cases until a resurgence (which usually cycles anyway, as many biological phenomenon do). Graft

Please don't forget the problem of insecticide resistance. Thomas A. Baughman, Ph.D., an environmental toxicologist, concludes: "The bottom line is that even if we ignore the environmental and potential human carcinogenicity of DDT (which I do not advocate ignoring), DDT is not the panacea for mosquito control that scientists hoped it was back in 1955." source (http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-05-30b.htm) ---Eloquence 16:17 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know anything about a worldwide treaty to ban DDT?

• Will this treaty make it illegal or expensive to use DDT inside one's home?
• Is it only concerned with agricultural use? If so, why?
• Is it only or chiefly concerned with damage to wildlife? If so, what exceptions if any are there for preventing malaria deaths to human beings?

"370 medical researchers in 57 countries who are urging that the treaty allow DDT to be sprayed in small quantities on the interior walls of homes, where it acts as a repellant to the disease-carrying insects. The scientists argue that if the pesticide, which is cheap and effective, must be eliminated, it should be phased out gradually and only if Western countries conduct research on the more expensive alternatives and help pay for them." [5] (http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/0099-08-30.htm)

This quote makes it sound like the treaty will FORBID the use of DDT on the interior walls of homes, even in small quantities. Am I reading the quote correctly? And is that what the treaty will do? --Uncle Ed

http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/ddt/ddt is a good source of general info on use, malaria, info on bio-accumulation and the half life of DDT in lifeforms. Two16

---

I heard on the news recently that women with breast cancer have higher amounts of DDT in their system. Can anyone confirm? -- Tarquin 10:26 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

This is the study [6] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12709520&dopt=Abstract). Of course, there's some on both sides, with contradictory results. A European study found that DDE (a DDT metabolite) concentration was inversely related to breast cancer risk. Difficult to say. Here's a review saying "Don't worry," [7] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12363327&dopt=Abstract). Upshot is, I don't know, but I'm going to stay away from organochloride pesticides and the animal fat they accumulate in in the meanwhile. God willing in another hundred and ten years when industrial society has collapsed and all this foul chemical slurry has decomposed my grandchildren won't have to worry about this shit - but what are the odds of that? Graft 00:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)