Talk:DDT/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

SCIENTIFIC sources

Why are there several sources in an ENCYCLOPEDIA that refer to non-scientific sources? Whether Crichton is right or not is besides the point, the man never researched the sybject, and should not be in this scientific description of a chemical compound and its effects, UNLESS there is a clear distinction between someones opinion and real data. Sikkema 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ppDDT and opDDT

what is ppDDT and opDDT ? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of DDT and eagles

This article is heavily biased in favor of suggesting that DDT was responsible for the decline in the bald eagle population despite the fact that scientists predicted they would be extinct in the 1920s! There is a lot of evidence to refute the claims that DDT thins eggs shells and it is given no credibility in this article. Abacab 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me given that the vast majority of scientists who have worked in this matter think that DDT had a large roll. If you can back up your position with reliable sources and avoid original research material might be added. But you need to be more specific about what you object to and why. JoshuaZ 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Second JoshuaZ. Let's see this "lot of evidence" then. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the debate begin. Just as a random sample without mustering up a serious effort, I see

this abstract "Shell thickness and shell thickness index of eggs from treated adults were reduced 5.0% (P < 0.0001) and 4.8% (P < 0.0001), respectively, from those of controls." from Eggshell modifications in captive American kestrels resulting from aroclor® 1248 in the diet [1]

and this graph [2] associated with this abstract By examining eggs in museum collections, scientists have been able to establish that eggshell thinning started soon after 1947, when DDT was first widely used in North America (Anderson and Hickey 1972). Chickens, quail, and songbirds are less sensitive to the effects of DDT than ducks, gulls, and pigeons. Cormorants, pelicans, hawks, and falcons are among the most sensitive birds. Anderson, D.W. and J.J. Hickey. 1972. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds. Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress 15:514–540.

and The example of a 'new' threat that is discussed in greatest detail is the continuing lower productivity of bald eagles nesting on the shores of the Great Lakes, even though "Eggshell thinning and outright mortality are no longer visible" (Smolen and Colborn 1997:6). The balance of the scientific evidence, however, indicates that this is a remnant 'old' effect; in part, the evidence comes from a population of bald eagles reintroduced to Santa Catalina Island in southern California that continues to suffer from severe effects of contamination by DDE, the environmental derivative of DDT that has been responsible for all, or almost all, of the eggshell thinning documented since 1946. The argument derives from multiple sources.

1) The bald eagle was the first species for which an effect at the population level induced by an environmental contaminant was documented. A retired Canadian banker, Charles Broley from Winnipeg, began to band nestling bald eagles in Florida in 1939. By 1946, he had reached 150 young eagles a year. But in 1947 the number of young eagles dropped sharply and continued to drop in the following years (Broley 1958).

2) Beginning abruptly in 1947, the weights of eggshells and the eggshell thickness of Florida bald eagles dropped by 15-19 % (Hickey and Anderson 1968; Anderson and Hickey 1972), coinciding with the sudden depression of productivity observed by Broley.

3) The eggshell weight and the shell thicknesses of other species of raptorial birds also declined abruptly in 1947 in other areas of North America (Hickey and Anderson 1968; Anderson and Hickey 1972) and in Britain (Ratcliffe 1967).

4) Like the brown pelican and the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), the bald eagle is very sensitive to DDE. Reproduction invariably fails whenever concentrations in the eggs exceed a few parts per million, whether the relationship is expressed logarithmically with a pronounced effect even at the lowest levels of DDE (Wiemeyer et al. 1984, 1993) or by a model that assumes a minimum effect at the lowest levels with a sharp decrease above a threshold (Nisbet 1989).

5) Unlike species such as the brown pelican, whose eggs break above a critical level of thinning thereby accounting for a major portion if not all of the reproductive failures, productivity of bald eagles is, unexpectedly, not related to shell thinning, but is nevertheless strongly related to DDE concentrations (Nisbet 1989). This DDE effect on reproduction is therefore distinct from eggshell thinning.

6) Bald eagles disappeared from the southern California islands during the 1950s (Kiff 1980) when wastes from a DDT factory in Los Angeles, containing many tons of DDT, were taken in barges to sea throughout the 1950s for offshore dumping. Following recovery of the brown pelicans in the mid-1970s, they were reintroduced to Santa Catalina Island beginning in 1980 by David Garcelon of the Institute for Wildlife Studies. The first egg appeared in 1987, but it broke shortly after being laid. Shell fragments with portions of the yolk were retrieved for analysis in my laboratory. The California Bald Eagle Working Team was to meet the following week on Santa Catalina Island; there was a certain urgency to report both the contaminant levels and the degree of shell thinning. On a lipid basis DDE concentrations were five times higher than the threshold level of reproduction effects. On the day of the meeting, Sam Sumida of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, measured shell thickness. It was almost normal. We had no explanation why the egg had broken. In 1988 a second female produced an egg which also broke in the nest almost immediately after being laid. Its shell thickness was also almost normal, and the DDE levels were high (Garcelon et al. 1989; Jenkins et al. 1994).

On the other hand, we have the DDT-huggers' arguments that, since looking at DDT vs thickness of eggshells that didn't break doesn't prove a relationship conclusively, therefore DDT can't be involved in thickness of eggshells that did break; and that, since DDT doesn't affect the eggshells of chickens in captivity, it can't affect the eggshells of raptors in the wild. Gzuckier 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to read through this list of claims against DDT regarding eggshells in particular (as that is the purpose of this particular discussion, since the article is heavily biased in general it would take too long to go through everything). All the claims against DDT and DDE are refuted in these legitimately cited scientific works. Now everyone may say, "Well, this article says that and this other one agrees with me" a la global warming, the DDT article makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the evidence since the pseudo science of Rachael Carson was debunked. [3] Furthermore, there was testimony before congress which is cited here regarding the population of eagles prior to the widespread use of DDT along with rebuking other accusations leveled against DDT. [4] Leftist environmentalists don't have the only word on such matters. You may not like what the website's purpose is for, but that doesn't change the fact that he cites things that leftists here may not like. The disagreement over the bald eagle population and egg shell thinning is not a closed case. This article treats it as such. Abacab 08:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How did I just know you were going to wheel junkscience.com out? From a website which "debunks" global warming, passive smoking and ozone depletion (among other corporate targets), anything said about DDT has to be taken with a "pinch" of salt. And we've been here before : here, here and here. Try again. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How does an article on poultry eggshells and DDT "refute" the finding, frequently mentioned, including above, that raptor eggs are much more sensitive to DDT than poultry? Gzuckier 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Read it, read it and read it. You still didn't respond to my point: this article concludes without any opposing views that DDT is responsible for the decline in the bald eagle population. I brought out the website because I knew it would get every leftist on here worked up. Anyone who has "Vote McGovern" on his user page is probably not a terribly netural point of view on the subject of DDT and its effects on innocent wildlife. The aforementioned places you cited barely refute anything junkscience said other than arbitrarily stating that the research wasn't "comprehensive" enough. I guess when they had the hearings in front of congress (when contolled by the Democrats mind you) it wasn't that comprehensive either. I don't care if this article includes the view that DDT harms eagles and eggshells. What I DO care about is that it allows people who disagree with the left (which there are a LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO) to be included in this article. Right now, it is a shill for McGovernites. Abacab 08:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The bogus nature of both the concept of Junk science and its proponent Steven Milloy are well established. Unless you have something better to offer than this, you might as well cite the LaRouche movement which has published most of Milloy's sources. JQ 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you have to be kidding me - this is EXTREMELY well-studied. Here, eat this review, which lays out pretty fricking clearly the physiological mechanism for eggshell thinning as a result of DDE. Then go away and never return. Graft 15:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another leftyloon chimes in. Again, a seemingly neutral point of view when your user page states the following: "I am a graduate student in biology, but I'd rather be overthrowing the systems of capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy, or else cooking food." Overthrowing capitalism? White supremacy? You wouldn't happen to be of anti-capitalist, secular progressive, anti corporation and therefore anti DDT point of view, would you? What are you so afraid of? Differing points of view? Is science always right? One day I turn on the television and scientists are saying coffee is going to kill me, the next day it's good for me. Please do me a favor, leave Wikipedia and take your fight against capitalism elsewhere - like North Korea. Abacab 04:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Abacab - are you really interested in improving this article at all, or are you just venting political frustration? The latter seems to be the case since everyone else involved here is characterised by you as "anti-capitalist, secular progressive, anti corporation" (and what's with that "secular progressive" tag?). Why? Just because we've looked into the subject beyond JunkScience.com and come to the conclusion that DDT, while certainly offering some public health advantages, has negative consequences as well? You've not offered anything here to support your position beyond JunkScience.com and vitriol so far. We need more than this to improve the article. If I were to push one of your own points a little further, as a lone force battling against the weight of consensus, you appear to be the North Korea here. --Plumbago 07:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it: I am perfectly happy to include links, references, whatever to studies which find no evidence of DDT on raptor eggs, but I am not clear on why studies of DDT vs. poultry eggs would be relevant, given that it's been established that DDT affects raptor eggs more than poultry eggs. Enlarging on that point, putting Junkscience and/or milloy down as a source for reliable countering views buried in there with the poultry science is akin to handing the readers a pile of horseshit and informing them that they are free to sift through there and they may find a pony. If you got what you feel are reliable links, include them, and we can argue them back and forth, and I at least promise the intent of looking at the quality and relevance of the work, not the conclusion, to evaluate it. In that light, you've come up with junkscience and the poultry journals, and I've given you my vote on both, which I do not base on their conclusions. If you wish to propose others, that's more than fine with me, I'm happy to provide balance rather than one sidedness. Gzuckier 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do get it. No one who monitors this page is interested in any opposing view points. They have concluded, with so called research, that DDT and DDE are responsible for the thinning of egg shells. I do not understand why Graft seems to think his link is any more credible than the research CITED by junkscience.com or anyone else who believes that the accusations against DDT are bogus. Junkscience does not engage in research, they merely present testimony and research from other people who do not agree with the left-wing view on DDT. Does that not warrant inclusion as an opposing view point? I am not suggesting that one side is right and one side is wrong (despite my personal opinion). I am asking that other views be included that have, in the eyes of wikipedia I imagine, legitimate backing. Abacab 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It looks like Abacab has given up trying to persuade us. Shall we remove the NPOV tag he/she added to the main page? The grounds for adding it now appear flimsy to say the least. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. Gzuckier 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not given up, rather working on more evidence to warrant sufficent inclusion despite the vehement objections of all the lefties that monitor this page. Don't worry, much to your chagrin, I will be back in short order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abacab (talk • contribs) . 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good - we'd like to see more of this evidence. We've been seeing JunkScience.com here for years - so something actually new would be good. Good luck with your digging. --Plumbago 07:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss the memo where Wikipedia became some sort of contest for "righties" and "lefties" to chagrinify each other, or is the concept of cooperation to produce a better product just that foreign to "righties"? Gzuckier 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it sort of weakens one's argument that everybody is ignoring the ample evidence to support your point of view, when you have said point of view (strongly) but then have to go looking for said evidence. Gzuckier 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring it because of your inherent bias against my view. This is typical of people who are blinded by ideology like Plumbago who is a flaming lefty and monitors this article like it were his child. Anything that might contradict what the Rachel Carsonites think is sacrilege! My argument is not weakened when I go to look for more evidence to satisfy the resident loons. Rather, I'm simply foolish for even bothering to try because no one who protects this article cares to hear another opinion. Abacab 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos Gzuckier on spotting Abacab's cart-before-the-horse gaff. Nice catch.

As an aside, re: this politics memo too - I particularly like the fact that I'm tagged a "leftie" above just because I'm a fan of Andy Warhol. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like arguing on Usenet: "Your theory that 1+1=2 has been widely debunked" "What? Where? by whom?" "Do your own homework!!" "I can't find anything supporting your position" "Well then, I win!"Gzuckier 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fucking yawn, man. Bring back Ultramarine - at least s/he was amenable to reason. Graft 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we trying to decide the issue or just describe it here? Unless it's crystal clear that mainstream science universally condemns DDT as "bad for eagles" then we should not let the article state the "scientific POV" as fact. Say rather that Researcher X criticized DDT and that Researcher Y said it's okay. Give facts and arguments on both sides.

We're trying to stop the article being hijacked - that seems obvious to me from the above exchanges. Abacab just muckraked from JunkScience.com. Nothing new there. --Plumbago 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Same for DDT and malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Let the readers know which scientists or organizations opposed (or no longer opposed) DDT, and especially on what grounds.

Conclusion, be neutral, unless there's a good reason to take sides. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, another week rolls by and nothing new appears. There's a shock. Removing POV flag. --Plumbago 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And a total shock that you couldn't control yourself to remove the POV flag. I find it stunning that you are in any position to argue POV when your user page clearly identifies your political leanings. Now THAT is amusing, if not sad. Abacab 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are operating on the assumption that you are NPOV, or that we all think you are NPOV, or that junkscience is NPOV, you are in error. Gzuckier 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Abacab : put-up or shut-up - you were supposed to away be digging up "evidence". Other than rake up the half-truths propagated by JunkScience.com you've brought nothing to the table. Most of what you have contributed consists of simple insults (that said, it does amuse me that you continue to confuse an appreciation for Andy Warhol for a political stance). When you add a POV flag to an article it's expected that you justify it. We are here to improve the article, what are you here to do? --Plumbago 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You are here to improve the article? I am here to point out that you are an utterly biased partisan hack who has nothing to contribute beyond whining and quibbling with facts you don't like. Though, I should ask myself why I care about a dopey wikipedia article. Perhaps because I fear more loons such as yourself will be convinced by the garbage and distortions this article propagates. Also please note, that I am a giant douchebag. Sorry for sucking at life so much, and trying to prove something right, when clearly it is wrong.Abacab 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Abacab, you're back! Have a look at WP:NPA while you're here. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was taught this in my school. The freaking textbook said it was doing it... And that textbook is right. Because DDT does thin shells. -Anonymous User Who has book Marked This

Bed bugs

I've seen some article which indicate that the banning of DDT is, in part, responsible for the resurgence in bed bugs in some urban areas. Any word on this?--Rotten 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an indication of the way in which DDT has come to be seen as a cure-all in certain circles. AFAIK, DDT was never used in US urban areas to control bedbugs, and certainly hasn't been for many years. But, thanks to the campaigns of Milloy, Bate and othes, every time an insect does something we don't like, the ban on DDT gets the blameJQ 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; it should be fairly obvious that just because DDT stops being sprayed in houses in the US and several decades later bedbugs appear as an epidemic is not particularly supportive of cause and effect, considering the multiplication rate of bedbugs. I recall we stopped doing polio shots about the same time, perhaps that's equally to blame. In any event, growing up while DDT was still popular for yard sprays, etc., I do not recall anybody even suggesting it needed to be sprayed around inside the house. And yet; we had no bedbugs. Gzuckier 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaign to ban DDT

Since environmentalists who want to ban DDT also want to maintain that there has been no "DDT ban", let's choose a better word to describe what happened. If DDT wasn't banned (but its use curtailed by means short of an actual ban), then we need to describe what the anti-DDT campaign managed to accomplish.

I thus propose a new section "anti-DDT campaign" to describe:

• arguments given by opponents of DDT
  • why it's bad for "the environment"
  • why it's bad for people
  • why other ways of fighting malaria are just as good or better
• actions taken by opponents of DDT
  • restrictions on manufacture or sale
  • policies affecting countries which purchase DDT, such as reducing foreign aid
• arguments given by supporters of DDT
  • why it's not bad for the environment
  • why it's good for people
  • why other ways of fighting malaria are not as good
• recent developments
  • statements by scientific organizations partly supporting DDT use against malaria-bearing insects
  • lessening of restrictions on manufacture, sale or purchase

Is this a good outline?--Uncle Ed 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

sure; i wonder if there's any way you could make it any more POV? Gzuckier 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, a total POV, non-starter I'm afraid (hint : the selective use of scare quotes is a dead give-away Ed). And we've been here before re: this "DDT ban". --Plumbago 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Among other things, it would be good if the actual conditions of bans were spelled out. For example, the 1972 ban in the U.S. included provisions for emergency use for health, agriculture, and other purposes, and emergency registrations were issued by EPA to Idaho and Washington to fight the pea leaf weevil, in 1973, and to the US Forest Service to fight the Douglas fir tussock moth, in 1974 (see the history, here: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/02.htm). A simple statement of actual facts avoids the issues of opinion, generally.

Similarly, the provisions of the treaty on pesticides should be listed, especially with regard to DDT. No commentary need be given beyond the actual language which offers waivers from the ban for use against malaria vectors. Edarrell 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Edarrell, I think you are right. Doing what you describe has been on my to-do list for awhile, but I'm much more familiar with the health and environmental aspects of DDT than with the legal side. If you feel up for taking this on, I encourage you to do so.

Your recent edits on main page really improve the article by adding context, but it would great if you could throw in some referencs to support the idea that "generally administrative law under both the Administrative Procedures Act and the EPA's own rules suggest the EPA director should not attend such hearings..." otherwise it appears to be WP:OR and it'll likely be removed. Yilloslime 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

if you can't beat them join them

well, getting tired of reacting to bad science, might as well take a proactive stance: we all know from watching old movies how prevalent giant insects and spiders were during the time when DDT was widely sprayed. Since then, these have not been a problem. It's clear that DDT was the cause of giant insects and spiders terrorizing humanity. The article should point this out.Gzuckier 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

do we need to describe every single study ever done with DDT, pro and con?

I was hoping we could just summarize the summaries of reliable sources, i.e. the EPA and medical journal review articles; maybe the individual studies could be piled into a bibliography. The current cloud of "142 women who stepped in a puddle of ddt were OK[35]. a study in 1957 countered that with 14 men who painted DDT on a horse and died [36]. The authors of the original study countered by noting that the men died because the owner of the horse shot them [37]. However in autopsy they were shown to have prostate tumors [38]." etc. is useless. Gzuckier 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too technical, too long, too wordy

I think this article is too technical; this is supposed to be a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized article for organic chemists, ecologists, doctors, or microbiologists. Take the following sentence: "In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect." This level of detail is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. This article should be made much more concise. There are too many studies listed in many different sections of the article--I think about 50% of the article could be cut out with no real loss. So how about instead of adding more stuff we start intelligently deleting stuff, ok? Cazort 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I see it Wikipedia can be both a general-audience encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia. There's no shortage of room. Instead of deleting useful information because one doesn't understand it, a better solution would be to write a more general introduction that explains that information more accessibly. If the result is a single article becoming unmanageably large, then split out the more detailed subsections into History of DDT and DDT and malaria (for example). Bryan 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear less technical if it were more historical; reference to the controversy over the dwindling numbers of eagles, osprey and other birds should be listed. It might be good to note the first suit against DDT spraying, by a then-brand-new group called the Environmental Defense Fund, on Long Island. They successfully got an injunction against spraying DDT for mosquitoes when the evidence showed little malaria or other disease threat, and significant risk to human health from the spraying. Subsequent studies in the area are classics in biology for their showing how DDT concentrates as it rises through trophic levels, to dangerous levels in predators (Paul Ehrlich's text, Population, Resources, and Environment, circa 1973, has a chart showing the flow of DDT through an estuarine ecosystem, based on these studies).

It would be good to cite advocates of bird protection, such as the Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation, and to cite the actual people who contested the bans, such as cotton growers and pesticide manufacturers, rather than the latter-day critics whose motivations appear suspect at best. Edarrell 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Malaria and cognitive impairments

I added the study that may show a connection between DDT and cognitive impairments. However, there are also studies showing a connection between Malaria and cognitive impairments. This is obviously important for any cost-benefit analysis and NPOV requires that both studies should be presented. This is not an article just for presenting arguments against DDT.Ultramarine 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that this article is about DDT and the specific study in question keeps getting put into the section about "Effects of DDT on human health". The study has nothing to do with the effets of DDT on human health and therefore doesn't belong in that section. The study might be relavent to the debate about using DDT to combat malaria, and therefore if it belongs anywhere in the article, it should be in the "effectiveness against malaria" section.Yilloslime 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. In fact, it doesn't belong in the effectiveness against malaria section, either, unless somebody wants to list every single adverse effect of malaria, every single adverse effect of DDT, and compare and contrast. Gzuckier 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously an article about DDT must also deal with Malaria. It violates NPOV to only list disadvantages of DDT. If you want to add more arguments to the debate for or against, then please do so. Excluding arguments is not allowed by NPOV.Ultramarine 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. My point is just that the study in question shouldn't be in the section where you put it. I think what is really needed is a seperate page for the Malaria/DDT controversy. In the meantime, if the study in question was worked into a more appropriate section of the DDT article (maybe "Criticism of limiting DDT use" or "Effectiveness against Malaria") I wouldn't object.64.81.56.238 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DDT is important for a zillion reasons in addition to fighting malaria. Would you put a paragraph on the health effects of anthrax into the article on ciprofloxacin? Gzuckier 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if ciprofloxacin had some major negative effect on those given it that must be weighted against some major negative effect of the disease. Physicians make these decisions all the time; for example, many treatments for cancer have extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer.Ultramarine 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine; let's look at your example. Methotrexate does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Aminopterin does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Doxorubicin does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Daunorubicin does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Tioguanine does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Hydroxyurea does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Etc. etc., ad inifnitum. Note that Yellow Fever also has bad side effects; you didn't want to mention those as "an effect of DDT on human health"? Gzuckier 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems in other Wikipedia articles does not affect this article. Would a physician who does not tell a young patient with cancer that will kill him that the treatment with best chance of success will also make him/her infertile be giving adequate information? Ultramarine 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I also note that several of these articles mention no side effects or very incomplete description. Does this mean that this should apply to this article? Ultramarine 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So, having shot your logic full of holes with your own example, you suggest we not refer to those examples. In the same vein as the assertion that pediatric effects of malaria come under the heading of "health effects of DDT". I fear you haven't thought your proposal out very well. If anything of the kind is to be added, it should be a piece on the adverse effects on human health of insects eating cotton plants, which is after all where 99% of the DDT was used, and where the controversial ban is in place; DDT use against malaria mosquitos being not banned. Gzuckier 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I only ask that we follow Wikipedia:NPOV. As suggested above, "Criticism of limiting DDT use" or "Effectiveness against Malaria" may be the best place. Exactly why should we not present both costs and benefits? Ultramarine 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

To http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt_%28professional_wrestling%29 should be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.159.78 (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Carson, Rachel; Silent Spring.

I see a lot of claims that Rachel Carson in Silent Spring blames DDT. I have reeread Silent Spring to check these claims and I have found that she never actually blames DDT, mostly she only mentions DDT in connection with other organoclorids and when she actually mentions the causative agent it is usually Dieldrin or Lindan or dioxin. The one cause (New England) when DDT spraying is actually blamed it is mostly blamed for killing off multiyear insects so that salmon spawn died from famine. ( In that case she also mentions that the forrest reeked from the fuel oil used to dissolve the DDT, and it is known that fuel oil is poisinous to most life, the more poisinous the more it reeks from sulfur compounds.) I admit that it needs a close attention to detail to see that she never directly blames DDT so I had to reeread the book to be shure. To see toxic levels documnted see:

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html

http://www.ehs.ucsb.edu/units/labsfty/labrsc/lstoxicology.htm

http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th13(l).htm (Mentions solubiity in different materials, showing that most are more toxic than DDT. Also mentions nontoxic to bees?)

Rachel Carson also mentions that when India tried to change to another pesticide they had to switch back within one month since they had deaths caused by the new pesticide. As far as I know only DDT can be sprayed overall in habitations without toxic effects to warmblooded animals (IF you take care with the solvent, either one of the very few that are nontoxic or one that evaporates fast without beeing really harming in the air concentrations). DDT has the additional good effect of beeing an irritant to insects so that they avoid DDT sprayed surfaces if there are other avaible, meaning they will just leave the houses alone and not be poisined when used against house pests. The low solubility in water and the persistence means that if you dip pine plants in DDT they will be left alone for a few years until they are big enough to survive pets without respraying and with low effect on the enviroment. Seniorsag 11:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

DDT and found enviromental damage

There was once an experiment in Sweden where they had tree groups of seals, one feed with Baltic herring, one feed with North See herring one feed with North See herring spiked with DDT, PCB and dioxin to baltic concentrations. Only the seals with Baltic herring had the diseases typical of the Baltic. When they wanted more money to find out what it was that caused the symptons they did not receive any more money. I THINK that that is a scandal since there was a chance to find out what was causing the problems. Seniorsag 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of Health Effects section

I organized this section to make it more readable. I removed this part:

• The central claim of the above article, that DDT was theoretically estimated to cause more pregnancy and infant deaths than it saves, has been criticized by using actual data from countries with malaria, for example with data from Guyana, where in 2 to 3 years DDT caused near elimination of malaria and halved maternal deaths and reduced infant deaths by 39%. This criticism is disputed by the authors of the original study who state "We do not believe that causality has been demonstrated for the relationship between dichlordiphenylethylene (DDE) and shorter period of lactation or preterm birth. However, we think the evidence is sufficiently strong that the possibility of causality cannot be dismissed and testing this hypothesis will require data from appropriately designed studies in areas where dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is used.".

because it obviously no longer refered to "the above article" which was about pancreatic cancer. If someone knows what article it goes with, please stick it back it.Yilloslime 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" sub-sections

These subsections:

• Criticism of a supposed international ban
• Criticism of limiting DDT use

are currently part of the History section. It seems to me that a more logical ordering of the article would put these subsections in the Effectiveness against malaria section. Any thoughts? Yilloslime 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, since no one has objected, I'm going to move these sections into the malaria section. I think there already is a lot of redundancy in this article as a whole, and this rearrangement while make it even more obvious. Hopefully we can cut out some of the this redundance and make the whole article more concise and a better read, without sacraficing any actual content. Yilloslime 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

references

Am I in the minority in prefering the old way the References section looked, i.e. no scroll bar, just a big long list?Yilloslime 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

First, I'd like to start by saying that not only am I a democrat, but I'm a flaming liberal. That said, I think this article is ridiculously biased. According to an article in the New York Times, all studies performed about the carcinogenicy of DDT have failed to prove any correlation between DDT and cancer. In fact, over the time that DDT was used life expectancy actually went up. This article not only makes no mention of this, it also treats arguments for the use of DDT as if they were unworthy of consideration. Both sides need to be allowed to make their cases if this article is to uphold the ideals of wikipedia, that is, cooperation, neutrality, and non-elitism. Quodfui 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

the NYT article is wrong on several counts, including the carcinogenicity of DDT. At any rate, it seems to me that the controversy surrounding DDT is well documented in the article: the Effects on Human Health section begins with a sentence about how health effects are disputed; there is not one but 2 sections of critism of restricting DDT use; and throughout the article disputes over DDT's enviromental effects are noted. What more do you want? The article is already way too long. Yilloslime 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a quick response. It doesn't matter whether the article mentions controversy, if those who write about the controversy obviously disagree with it; it's obvious because instead of stating the argument and letting the reader decide whether it's right or not, they take potshots at the argument and try to "disprove" it. We're supposed to talk about opinions, not for or against them. Also, please tell me in exactly what instances the NYT article is wrong. I'm more inclined to believe a major newspaper with money on the line than some Wikipedia article written by a bunch of amateur environmentalists on which no accountability whatsoever is placed. Quodfui 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article provides the evidence for and against cancinogenicity, eggshell thinning, and effectiveness against malaria, etc. The article also summarizes the arguments made by the pro-DDT crowd, and the arguments made by the anti-DDT crowd. So I don't see the POV that you are talking about. Also, if you've been watching this page for a while, you know that "those who write about the controversy" include many more people than just folks who "obviously disagree with it." Plenty of pro-DDT POV pushers have been editing this page for a while. Yilloslime 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions in the NYT article (This is for Quodfui). This isn't an exhaustive list, but for starters:

• Tierney relies heavily on the critical review of Silent Spring by I. L. Baldwin published in Science in 1972, while ignoring the later (1963) findings of Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee which largely agreed with Silent Spring.
• Tierney paints the picture that Carson claimed DDT causes cancer in humans and that claim this has been since disproven. This wrong on two levels:
  • A common misconception amoung people who haven't actually taken the time to read Silent Sping is that she, personally claimed that DDT causes cancer. She didn't. The thesis of the relevant chaprters of the book is that: We know little about the long term effects of DDT and other chemicals on human health. Similar chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, so we're not safe simply assuming that DDT is benign. And at least one doctor believes DDT is in fact a cancinogen. In other words, she doesn't say "I think/know DDT causes cancer." Instead she points out the paucity studies on cancinogenicity and points out that at least one doctor who has studied the issue thinks that DDT does cause cancer. This might seem like splitting hairs, but there is a huge difference between making one's own wild claims and acurately relaying the state of scientific knowledge.
  • The second reason that Tierney is wrong is that the debate over whether DDT causes cancer is far from settled. New studies come out all time that find or fail to find associations between DDT and cancer. In fact, DDT is listed by the EPA as a probable carcinogen.
• "Carson didn’t urge an outright ban on DDT, but she tried to downplay its effectiveness against malaria and refused to acknowledge what it had accomplished." 100% false. Read the book. The book focuses almost exclusively on domestic pesticide use, thus DDT use in malaria control in the developing world was beyond the scope of the book. She cannot be accused of downplaying its effectiveness or ignoring its accomplishments when this was not within the scope of the book. Plus, the only (i believe) time she does mention DDT and malaria control is to say that indiscriminent agricultural use of DDT will promote insect resistence, making it less useful in public health spraying.
• There's more but I'll end with this: "Ms. Carson, though, considered new chemicals to be inherently different." And they are. Tierney ignores what anyone with an advanced degree in chemistry will tell you, including me, and here I go: Many new chemicals are fundamentally different from natural ones. Nature doesn't make molecules that look like DDT (i.e. things with halogens hanging off aromatic rings, trihalomethyl groups, no hydrolyzable groups, etc.), and thus it's reasonable to expect that organisms haven't evolved the metabolic pathways to degrade and detoxify them. Anyone with even a passing familarity with medicinal chemistry or biology can flip through the Merck Index and within seconds identify a structure as natural or synthetic. Yilloslime 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a brief aside, Carson's book is called Silent Spring in reference to the loss of wildlife caused by the indiscriminate use of pesticides - it's not a tract on cancer. Carson was, after all, an ecologist, not a cancer specialist. I heartily second Yilloslime about reading the sources - there's a lot of disinformation about concerning DDT and Carson bandied about, much of it flagrantly false (c.f. anything on Steven Milloy). And, finally, what on Earth have one's politics to do with DDT (c.f. Quodfui's "flaming liberal" remark)? The consequences of pesticide use have objective outcomes, and these should form the basis of this article, not some perception about where DDT occurs on some arbitrary (and non-universal) "conservative" to "liberal" axis. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research and unsupported statements

I believe this line in the Restrictions on usage section is original research and will remove it unless someone has a source that confirms it:

"Both statements confirmed existing policies, but with a greater emphasis on the benefits of DDT."

--Theblog 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported statements in Criticism of a supposed international ban

The entire Criticism of a supposed international ban section is very poor. The following is original research and I will remove it unless someone has a source:

"In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides. Furthermore, insects were becoming resistant to DDT at the time that its use was rolled back."

This line:

"In fact, DDT has never been banned for use against malaria in the tropics.[5]"

is unsupported by the source. Additionally, I don't believe the source to be suitable, it is a blog quote of a letter the editor by a professor. The original letter is unavailable, and I'm not sure if letters the the editor are acceptable. Regardless of that, the blog could have just made the whole thing up and we'd have no way of knowing. Regardless of that too, the source does not support the statement, what the source in fact says is:

"The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals."

It is an unacceptable leap between the two statements. It is also not clear what worldwide ban the author is refering to. If that claim is to be made, a more specific source is needed, preferably one not a letter to the editor on a blog. I will change the line to something more accurate if no one has another source. --Theblog 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The following line in the section on Concerns about environmental effects is also unsupported:

"Concerns about DDT's environmental effects grew out of direct personal observations, usually involving a marked reduction in bird life, later supplemented by scientific investigation."

Seems like the entire line should be stricken. But I ain't gonna do it, given how many guardians of wiki propriety are waiting to pounce on anyone who might dare to touch this article. EvanYares 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. i've added the missing refs.Yilloslime 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Robert Gwadz quote in intro

Yilloslime objected to the inclusion of this quote, saying that criticism belongs in the criticism section. Actually, according to WP:LEAD, a summary of most significant criticism should be included in the lead, and in this case, the Gwadz quote is a remarkably concise summary. But allow me also to point out the almost the entire lead was previously devoted to the views of Rachel Carson, which certainly must be seen as criticism (of DDT itself, not the ban on DDT.) Without the Gwadz quote, the lead is seriously unbalanced. --Don't lose that number 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I also couldn't figure out why the Rachel Carlson stuff is in the intro at all either. --Theblog 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Carson is so tied up with the history of DDT that it would rediculous to not mention her in the intro. Yilloslime 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The views of Robert Gwatz, on the other hand, are markedly less relevant.Yilloslime 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gwatz quote neatly sums up the opposing view, which should be represented. It is also very brief, relative to the Rachel Carson stuff. I agree that Rachel Carson is "tied up with the history of DDT," but there are more than a few that think her role represents a crime against humanity. --Don't lose that number 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a better cite for this figure though? Presumably Gwatz is citing from some scientific paper. If we can track that down it'd make a much better source. It may also clarify what exactly he means by this 20 million figure. For instance, over what time period is he talking about? At the moment it's somewhat devoid of context. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that, as the article states, a total of 1 million people die each year (now, at a peak rate which has been increasing for years), and that DDT has only been banned in the US for 30 years, and the worldwide agricultural use ban is only 5 years old, even if you assigned every malaria death to lack of DDT, you wouldn't hit 20 million. Particularly since, according to the WHO reports on emergency disease suppression after the tsunami,

"Endemic sporadic malaria close to the affected areas transm­itted by An.culicifacies, which has been considered DDT-resistant for­ many years" [6].

So who thinks the Gwadz quote is an appropriate, verifiably nonPOV choice to wind up the introduction with? Hands? Not you Ms. Coulter. Gzuckier 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not me. FYI googling Gwatz malaria ddt the first hit the Larouche website. I only mention this b/c most of the editing Don't lose that number has done is on LaRouche related articles. Yilloslime 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Idle question; since Larouche was a diehard commie when he was Lyn Marcus, and is a diehard rightwing now, does that make him a neocon? Gzuckier 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Certain editors have made a habit of adding stuff to Wikipedia based on the latest articles in LaRouche publications. So this is followed by this. (The LaRouche perspective is that environmentalists, in league with Henry Kissinger et al, are trying to depopulate the planet.) Similar edits followed LaRouche articles: this led to this, this led to this, and this was followed by this. While each WP edit is sourced back to a non-LaRouche publciation, it's not hard to see the connections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article ostensibly about DDT, and the majority of the introduction is criticism of DDT from Rachel Carson. This is severely unbalanced, and I am open to suggestion as to what material might be included in the intro to balance it -- perhaps we could use this quote from Eco-Sanity by Joseph L. Bast, Peter J. Hill. and Richard C. Rue: "...many health experts considered [DDT] to be the greatest lifesaving chemical ever discovered--so great that its inventor, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1948." I'm adding this to the criticism section, but for now I'm restoring the Gwadz quote to the intro, because it is very concise and sums it all up. I ask editors who object to replace it with a similar quote, so that the intro has some semblance of neutrality. --Don't lose that number 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

removed it again. Tell me what's wrong with my compromise edit. Rachel Carson is totally tied up with the history of DDT and needs to be mentioned in the intro. If balance is really your concern, perhaps you'd consider reworking the Carson stuff so there's less of it in the intro, but her contribution to the history of DDT is still clearly summarized. Quoting an obscure US gov't scientist isn't appropriate in the intro of this article. I have tried to sumarize the views of the pro-DDT crowd in as accurate but non-POV way as I can think of. If you can do better, please do, but so far your edits have not been constructive.Yilloslime 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed the Carson stuff, removing a sentence that was clearly advocacy. I have also added a sentence, without a quote, noting that proponents of DDT charge that restrictions on its use have caused many millions of deaths. This is a very serious charge that should not be swept under the rug. --Don't lose that number 15:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug--the crticism of the "ban" on DDT has--not 1--but 2 sections devoted to it in the body of the article, and additional criticism is peppered thoughout.Yilloslime 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." However, I note that my attempt at a compromise in the lead has not been reverted, so I'm satisfied now if you are. --Don't lose that number 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the lead to state that "Paul Hermann Müller" won the Nobel Prize not merely because of its "efficiency... against several arthropods", but because his discover greatly reduced malaria transmission.--Brian 23:20, 08 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would not be. The lead quotes the Nobel citiation exactly, which does not mention malaria, and think we should leave it that. And if you read the Presentation Speech by Professor G. Fischer, you'll see that at the time they viewed DDT's effect on typhus as much more important. Yilloslime 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Crichton quote

The article currently contains 4 versions of criticism that bans/restrictions on DDT have caused millions of deaths:

• Paul Driessen
• Nicholas Kristof
• Michael Crichton
• Robert Gwadz

And this criticism is also alluded to in the intro. While I agree that this line of criticism is notable and should be included, I don't see how the article is improved by basically repeating what is essentially the same criticism several times. I suggest that some condensing is in order, and I think the first thing to go is the long Michael Crichton quote. There's no need to include quotes from fictional characters when real people are already quoted in the article making almost identical charges. I would suggest that we pick out one quote that pretty well sums up this line of criticism (maybe the Gwadtz one) and then we can note that Driessen, Kristof, CEI, Cato, etc, make essentially the same argument. Thoughts?Yilloslime 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Crighton is one of those authors who have picked up a reputation for being anti-science in their works. Particularly in his implication in other books that global warming is a hoax. I've removed the quote.ANTIcarrot 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The allegation that Crichton is "anti-Science" is a bit ridiculous. He is anti-environmentalist, but the environmentalists hardly have a monopoly on science.

That being said, I agree that the quote from him is unnecessary, because there are plenty of other quotes on the subject. I have just completed a major consolidation of the two "criticism" sections, which were sort of a patchwork of random quotes in no coherent order. I have also eliminated a few criticisms that were poorly sourced or redundant -- I hope that I haven't tread on any toes with this, but I think the resulting single section is much more readable. --Don't lose that number 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't lose that number, I haven't had chance to really review what you've done--but what i've seen so far looks good. Rearranging things and merging the 2 criticism sections is something I've been meaning to do for a while. It's hard see in the diffs exactly what's new, what's been deleted, and what has simply been rearranged. Would mind pasting anything that you've totally removed from the article here, on this talk page? That will make it easy for folks like me to review what's happened, and also preserve any info that people might find useful but isn't deemed relevant enough for the article.Yilloslime 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't eliminate much -- I main reorganized it so that, for example, all the stuff about USAID was in the same paragraph. However, I did eliminate this:

• DDT supporters argue that some DDT detractors fear that any use of DDT will lead to overuse, they therefore often blur the use of agricultural spraying with in-home spraying in a disingenuous effort to muddy the science involved.[citation needed] DDT critics have responded that the use of DDT as a pesticide has led to reduced bird populations and that it threatens biodiversity.[84]

--Don't lose that number 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Crichton is not an authority on DDT so his comments should not be included. He puts forward opinion on the science. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Crichton stuff has been excised. Yilloslime (t) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yilloslime 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)