I am wary, however, of a persistant organic pollutant such as this. From Wikipedia: "DDT is very highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure." So that's an okay product to use? It seems to me there are other alternatives that could be sought. Decreasing the cost for those would be an answer. I ask you, do you use a Teflon pan for your frying needs?
the Wikipedia? This excerpt just echoes the eco-drivel that got DDT banned in the first place.
The truth is DDT can be safely ingested by humans without any known ill effects. The environmental effect has been enormously exaggerated.
Furthermore, the WHO classifies DDT as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means there is insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity. On the other hand, estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives, the most popular prescription contraceptive, is definitely a carcinogen, but continues to be peddled.
Read about it here, and follow the referenced studies.
Funny that the source you linked also quotes the Wikipedia... I like Wikipedia because if you think it's wrong, you can change it. I don't have the time to read the detailed chemical studies that have been done on DDT, but I think the answer is here to be had. I found a couple links here and here that give a pretty good, and seemingly fair, rundown. My personal opinion is that it should remain outlawed here in the States and anywhere there is not a malaria problem. It seems to me that any chemical that builds up so quickly as DDT does should be used with extreme care, especially when there ARE some detrimental side effects. However, those side effects are largely not directly taking life, and so in places such as Africa and elsewhere, DDT should be used to end the malaria scourge. That does not, however, mean that it should be used with reckless abandon. It should be used very carefully so the mosquitoes don't continue to develop resistance and the fish (and thus the ecosystem) are affected as little as possible.
The Wikipedia is only useful for learning widely accepted, uncontested information. That is funny that the article I linked to refers to it, but the reference has to do with a figure that is not central to the issue.
I'm not sure if by including your two links if you're saying that the references from my link are untrustworthy.
>>It seems to me that any chemical that builds up so quickly as DDT does<<
This is what's being debated. All the clamor about DDT harming aquatic life has shown to be overblown.
Every resource has a cost and benefit. The example of DDT being banned reveal yet another instance of economic foolishness.
westy, I generally agree with your proposed course of action for the use of DDT. What deserves deeper probing is the motives behind the DDT ban, which may be to be the disturbing practice of human eugenics.
ariel, I'll put some D5 shots up this week, fo sho.
9 comments:
I am wary, however, of a persistant organic pollutant such as this.
From Wikipedia:
"DDT is very highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure."
So that's an okay product to use? It seems to me there are other alternatives that could be sought. Decreasing the cost for those would be an answer.
I ask you, do you use a Teflon pan for your frying needs?
the Wikipedia? This excerpt just echoes the eco-drivel that got DDT banned in the first place.
The truth is DDT can be safely ingested by humans without any known ill effects. The environmental effect has been enormously exaggerated.
Furthermore, the WHO classifies DDT as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means there is insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity. On the other hand, estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives, the most popular prescription contraceptive, is definitely a carcinogen, but continues to be peddled.
Read about it here, and follow the referenced studies.
Let me know what you think.
Funny that the source you linked also quotes the Wikipedia...
I like Wikipedia because if you think it's wrong, you can change it.
I don't have the time to read the detailed chemical studies that have been done on DDT, but I think the answer is here to be had.
I found a couple links here and here that give a pretty good, and seemingly fair, rundown.
My personal opinion is that it should remain outlawed here in the States and anywhere there is not a malaria problem. It seems to me that any chemical that builds up so quickly as DDT does should be used with extreme care, especially when there ARE some detrimental side effects.
However, those side effects are largely not directly taking life, and so in places such as Africa and elsewhere, DDT should be used to end the malaria scourge. That does not, however, mean that it should be used with reckless abandon. It should be used very carefully so the mosquitoes don't continue to develop resistance and the fish (and thus the ecosystem) are affected as little as possible.
The Wikipedia is only useful for learning widely accepted, uncontested information. That is funny that the article I linked to refers to it, but the reference has to do with a figure that is not central to the issue.
I'm not sure if by including your two links if you're saying that the references from my link are untrustworthy.
>>It seems to me that any chemical that builds up so quickly as DDT does<<
This is what's being debated. All the clamor about DDT harming aquatic life has shown to be overblown.
Every resource has a cost and benefit. The example of DDT being banned reveal yet another instance of economic foolishness.
Do you disagree w/ the conclusion I reached in my prior comment?
And yes, I did feel like Lifesite may have only been presenting their side of the issue. Just like the enviro-libs only present their's.
Confession # 1: I posted the article to my del.icio.us page, because it looks fascinating, but I haven't read it yet.
#2: The ulterior motive for this comment is to ask when you'll bust out the Nikon D5 and start posting shots?
There. Feel like I can breath easier now.
westy, I generally agree with your proposed course of action for the use of DDT. What deserves deeper probing is the motives behind the DDT ban, which may be to be the disturbing practice of human eugenics.
ariel, I'll put some D5 shots up this week, fo sho.
I don't really know what it's about, but this discussion is making me think of the new movie "The Constant Gardener". I think I'll have to go see it.
Post a Comment