Talk:DDT/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:DDT/Archive02. Thank you. &mdash;wwoods 00:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

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: The studies showing that DDT is responsible for the thinning of predatory bird eggshells have also been called into question. 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: . 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. User: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.


 * 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. 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.


 * 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."


 * 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 ---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."

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.html is a good source of general info on use, malaria, info on bio-accumulation and the half life of DDT in lifeforms. User: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 . 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," . 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)

---

This para:

"When present at comparatively low levels in birds, DDT causes the birds to lay eggs with thin shells. Prior to the ban, raptors accumulated enough DDT in their bodies to lay eggs with thin, membraneous shells that would break before hatching. In time, populations declined."

seems to be disputed by the following summary from the WHO report here:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:6.2

It says, for example:

"Galliform species are very resistant to shell thinning whereas birds of prey are particularly susceptible."

--

I started with organizing the pile of links, then added more info found during that task. There is some repetition of similar phrasing around the article. I think some of the repetition could be resolved by grouping those phrases together, probably under a transition section between the present ones. -- SEWilco 11:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding the recent addition, there's a huge body of research demonstrating the prevalence, correlation, and even mechanism of eggshell thinning, as a result of DDE, a DDT metabolite, not DDT itself. For example, this. The paragraph as included misrepresents the current understanding of the science. Can we remove the quote from "Reason" (which I think is bad practice in general, quoting large blocks of someone else's text when our own text will do) and clarify the research? Graft 15:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Err... this bit about DeWitt is also crap. DeWitt's work in 1955 demonstrated eggshell thinning, and his work in 1956 demonstrated mortality effects in chicks from lower doses of DDT. Furthermore, the eggshell thinning is well-demonstrated and not at all scientifically controversial; it's even mechanistically outlined. Can we stop with the FUD, Ed? Or at least do some reading before you include flaming nonsense like Fox News, like try and look up the actual studies in question? Graft 15:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American Council on Science and Health
The anonymous user who went by the IP number 141... two years ago appears to have returned yet again to argue how "no-strings" the money ACSH gets from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries is. I've finally bitten the bullet and created a stub article for the organization itself and moved the external links relevant only to it over there, hopefully that will keep this article relatively clear of these tangental arguments. Bryan 02:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a quick bit of information, the anonymous user in question claims here to be Jeff Stier. According to  Jeff Stier is the Associate Director of ACSH, is responsible for external affairs, including media and government relations, policy, legal affairs and development. If this is true it presents a bit of a dilemma. His editing has sounded rather partisan, but at the same time he's in a position to know these sorts of details. I've brought this up over at Talk:American Council on Science and Health too. Bryan 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (small update: I emailed Jeff Stier to confirm that it is him, and he responded that it was.)

How does DDT damage humans
How does DDT damage humans

Chemistry of DDT
Despite the great pandemic controversy regarding the controversy of DDT that has played out on this page, I changed a minor error (possibly in nomenclature) that DDT was the product of "trichloromethanal" and chlorobenzene. However, the two benzene rings, in the structure of DDT, join to an ethane (hence dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane). Just to be sure I double checked and sure enough, according to the encyclopedias Britannica and Americana as well as other sources it forms between chloral (chloral hydrate or trichloroethanal) and chlorobenzene.

Just giving an explanation to avoid intrigue.

Fertility
Does anyone know where these alligator studies come from? Is this well-founded? Who drew the link between DDT and Scandinavian fertility? Is there any science supporting this? Graft 19:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A number of missing and or incorrect stuff
See this document which is on the history of DDT

http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/HistoryDDTe_EN.PDF

[QUOTE]William Ruckelshaus, defying his science advisors, announced a ban in 1972 on virtually all uses of DDT in the U.S., where it is classified in EPA Toxicity Class II. Despite the U.S. ban on usage, chemical factories in the U.S. continued to manufacture and export DDT to Third World countries for years.[/QUOTE]

As the above link notes, pretty much all countries, including the US allowed DDT usage for disease vector control. Also, it was perfectly legal to manufacture DDT. The above paragraph doesn't make clear whether the exports to 3rd world countries were primarily used for malaria control, or on crops.

The above paper also has an excellent history of DDT in Mexico and Canada


 * Apparently David Horowitz and crew have decided that the banning of DDT was one of the great crimes of the twentieth century leading to the death of "200 million people", in contradiction to all available facts. This Ruckelhaus bit is a result of their polemic. I have no clue what the actual EPA process was like. This would probably involve some actual research... Graft 03:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added a note about POVness. Sorry if I missed something, but just reading it gave me a distinct feeling that the author wanted me to think that DDT shouldn't've been banned and so forth. Tell me I'm missing something, but that doesn't sound like something an encyclopedia should do (Namely, insinuate and push opinion).


 * Could you clarify what it was that made you insert this note? A lot of conservative National-Review reading types feel that DDT should not have been banned for various not-very-convincing reasons, and so it should be reported on... Graft 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And a lot of lunatic tree-hugging hippies think DDT is made out of radioactive kryptonite, for not-very-convincing reasons. :) This article has been the site of some long-running battles in the past, and it's not Wikipedia's place to judge who's right; NPOV requires that we put in the arguments made by both sides. I agree that they seem to be a little jumbled in the current version, though. I don't have time right now, but if nobody else has done it before I get back home I'll try rearranging the text and see if that helps. Bryan 16:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reversion, Bryan, is without foundation. Go read some papers on the subject : there's plenty of solid research showing egg-shell thinning as a result of DDE, if you bother to read the science, instead of reading David Horowitz. Literally dozens of papers. So, 90% of Len's content deserves to be reverted. The rest I'm unsure about, but stuff like "Other species are admitted to be relatively unaffected" has got to go. Does this seriously strike you as NPOV?
 * Finally, I really despise this "present both sides" kind of article-writing. Best illustrated by this bit from the "Daily Show":

Stewart: That's just innuendo and it can't be the only thing in a newstory.

Colbert: Can't it? I ask you, does John Stewart orally pleasure Teamsters for pocket change?"

Stewart: Ummm ... no.

Colbert: Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But I'm sure I can assemble an impressive panel who thinks you do. The truth lies somewhere in between. Let's talk about it for eight weeks and let the public decide.
 * We should present it as a representative opinion, but we shouldn't be shy about presenting the clear scientific evidence that blows the argument out of the water. Which exists. The same goes for tree-hugging hippie crap - there's no need to juxtapose two idiotic versions of reality instead of presenting a cogent array of facts. Graft 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My reversion, Graft, left in place all of the stuff you changed re: DDE. It's all the other stuff you removed that I was disputing the removal of. It included this chunk of text:

Attempts to validate these claims have tended rather to contradict them. One confounding factor is that a large number of influences in the wild will thin birds' eggs, including: oil; lead; mercury; dehydration; temperature extremes; and dietary deficiencies in calcium or phosphorus. Studies have managed to induce birds to produce thinner eggs, but only by administering much larger doses of DDT than can be found in the wild--in one case, as much as 15,000 parts per million. In addition, the thinning that resulted in these studies was less than thinness observed in the wild due to other causes. It has not so far been demonstrated that DDT has caused thinned eggshells in the wild, due to the aforementioned confounding factors, which haven't been adequately controlled for.

The specific claims concerning the bald eagle have fared similarly. In 1960, after fifteen years of heavy DDT use, the Audobon Society estimated that the population of bald eagles had increased by about 25% over their 1941 (pre-DDT) estimate. Conversely, large declines in the bald eagle population occurred before DDT came into use: they became extinct from New England by 1937; an estimated 115,000 bald eagles were killed in Alaska according to that state's bounty records; they were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921, fully 21 years before DDT was first commercially manufactured by Merck & Company.

DDT is not particularly toxic to humans, compared to other widely used pesticides. In particular, no link to cancer has yet been established. Numerous studies have been conducted, including one in which humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for almost two years.


 * which you deleted except for the single sentence "DDT is not particularly toxic to humans, compared to other widely used pesticides." While I agree that some of it could use rewording, and much of it should be moved under the "support" section rather than the "dangers" section, this is a great deal of verifiable factual information that has absoltutely nothing to do with the DDE concern you raised. You may despise it, but IMO deleting it like that without justification is POV. Bryan 00:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it without justification. DDE is the primary DDT metabolite; it is extraordinarily stable in the environment, has an extremely long half-life, bio-accumulates. The fact that DDE causes eggshell thinning directly implies that DDT usage is responsible for raptor populations declining, etc. So the stuff about DDT studies is overblown and misleading, since they're studying the wrong thing. There's also a large body of research tracing the toxicological effects of DDE in bird populations.
 * Some of the stuff is appropriate; the cancer claims definitely need to be balanced, and I would be in favor of retaining those statements. I don't know about the Audubon census - there are certainly studies purporting to show declining populations in raptors, but maybe this is correct. However, the idea that DDT (via its metabolite, DDE) causes egg shell thinning is definitely well-established. Graft 05:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The bit that mentions this agrees with you and is quite strongly worded; "When present at comparatively low levels in some species of raptors, DDE, a DDT metabolite, causes the birds to lay eggs with thin shells." I note that there's no citation for this particular fact, though, as there is for the stuff I brought back. Perhaps you could dig one up for it to give it more weight? Ideally, a study comparing the effects of plain DDT to DDE would be a good way of illustrating this potential gotcha in studies of DDT that don't account for it. Bryan 16:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a comparative one (though it might exist) but there's a fair number of studies tracing the effect. This is a review that's getting dangerously close to a complete mechanistic explanation. Graft 20:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is one that does a straight comparison of various DDE and DDT isoforms. Graft 20:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Those look good, thanks. I'll try working references to them into the article this evening when I get back. Bryan 16:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read this: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm Ultramarine 11:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I did. Junkscience is crap - selectively picking the studies it wants to show the claims its decided in advance are correct. It doesn't prove anything for me. In this case (DDE vs. DDT), they round up studies that bolster their case and ignore all those that don't, as well as eliding fundamental issues (e.g., DDE doesn't act on caged birds like chickens but does act on others like some ducks and some raptors, DDT doesn't do anything but DDE does, etc.). As to the bald eagle population issue (and population decline studies in general), I'd like to see something independent written about the audbubon census. Graft 15:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Documentation
I'm finding some of the claims on this page a little ridiculous. If you want to include spurious claims, PLEASE, PLEASE do some goddamn reading before you rewrite history.

Specifically: the claim that raptor populations did not decline is ahistorical. The claim that DDE concentrations used in laboratory experiments are "many thousands of times" more than concentrations found in the wild is afactual. Etc. If you want to edit this article, please be prepared to do some reading on the subject. Here is a simple site with some references. I also recommend This review if you have access to Science Direct. Graft 18:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, while I'm at it, on the subject of malarial control: sub-Saharan Africa NEVER had any anti-malaria spraying programs prior to the DDT ban. They were deliberately avoided because of the perceived difficulty of implementing them. Graft 18:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do write an response in the article. Some new material would be good since Milloy's material is usually old since it is from the EPA ruling. But cite your sources since this area is controversial. To claim that raptors in general are affected seems dubious, some individual species might very well be. Furthermore, moderna use of DDT is only a small fraction of that previously used in agriculture.


 * What is the source for that sub-Sahara never had any spraying program? Ultramarine 19:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The WHO - see this, page 50, 54. Graft 19:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no statement that they never had an anti-malaria spraying program. Only that they did not try eradicate Malaria.


 * Another important factor that has contributed to the rise in cases in recent years in some countries is the discontinuation of vector control programmes that spray insecticides on the inside walls of houses. According to Prof. Donald R. Roberts, MD, of the U.S. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences: "Although many factors contribute to increasing malaria, the strongest correlation is with decreasing number of houses sprayed with DDT5." The research of Roberts and his colleagues demonstrates a causal link between DDT spraying and malaria rates. The study notes that other factors also appear to play a role, but not to the extent of reduced spraying6. Ultramarine 20:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the WHO eradication campaign consisted mostly of house-spraying. Thus, "no eradication" means "no spraying". Read this, at the bottom. Graft 21:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that there were no use of DDT. On the other hand, this link shows that DDT was used at least in South Africa.


 * But I fail to see the relevance of this historical discussion. South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland have today successfully used DDT to control Malaria. South Africa failed to do so with modern alternatives. The use of DDT today to control Malaria is only a small fraction of that used previously on a large scale in agriculture. Hundreds of millions get sick, millions die each year. How can anyone in the comfy West deny Africa the use of DDT? Ultramarine 03:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely not in that camp. I think efforts to ban DDT are ridiculous and it should absolutely continue to be used in anti-malarial programs. However, I feel like this article is being forced into a dichotomy, where "environmentalism" is being pitted against "saving poor people from malaria". I'd just like to maintain some perspective and keep this article from being overtly POV. Which is what it's becoming. This article shouldn't be about trying to "prove" how bad and evil the environmentalists were for banning DDT. There were real reasons that was done; they should be written about. There are also real reasons DDT should continue to be used in fighting malaria. Those should also be written about. Graft 04:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree on an outline?
A long time ago I proposed this outline:
 * what DDT 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

Anyone like this idea? Any variations to consider? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:18, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm mad
Okay. If you're going to edit this article, please read. Please abide by reasonable standards of literacy and editing. Don't incorporate facts without reading the rest of the article to see if they are there first. If you INSIST on repeating something, make sure it doesn't contradict the rest of the article. Christ. Graft 05:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Have some patience :) I first moved all the scattered pieces to relevant sections. Now I have attempted to remove some of the duplicate information. More pruning needed. And I have included your evidence about eggshells and raptor populatons.Ultramarine 06:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I sympathise with your problem here. You have demonstrated considerable knowledge in this area, and with it a dedication to presenting things in a sensible, measured way that is fair to all parties. Unfortunately, you seem to be dealing with a concerted effort to turn this article into a fact-light, emotion-heavy diatribe. I wish you well with it, but I no longer have the time or patience to deal with this sort of nonsense myself. Life is too short. Best Tannin 06:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: I have no idea where this tale that raptor eggshells were not affected by overuse of DDT comes from: it flies directly in the face of observed and documented facts from many different part of the globe. Tannin 06:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Audubon Census
Okay, I asked the Audubon people about the junkscience claim (regarding "increasing bald eagle population" since the 1940s and 1950s according to the Audubon census). Their answer was that the Christmas Bird Count has steadily increased in quality and coverage over time; in the 40s and 50s the coverage was spotty and unreliable, but improving. Thus, more sites implies and better counts implies higher counts of bald eagles, though the population may well have been simultaneously declining. Unfortunately there are no studies that attempt to project populations back through this period using statistical corrections for changes in count coverage and quality. There might be independent studies for the same period using other data; they were unable to point me to any. However, it's clear that the junkscience claim, that raptor populations were increasing based on the Audubon census, is erroneous and based on false reasoning. Graft 18:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Although Junkscience references many other (old) studies. However, I do not dispute that DDT caused decline in Raptor population since this seems to be the scientific consensus now. Ultramarine 19:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The studies junkscience references are disparate and small; they cover a few samples of a few species here and there. The only comprehensive number they reference is the Audubon census, which is flawed. I think it would be nice if we could find some comprehensive studies on at least a few representative species (e.g. the bald eagle, which is discussed in the text). Graft 00:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Sri Lanka malaria control information
Graft, the link you pointed out says "Anti-environmentalist writers frequently claim that after DDT had all but eliminated malaria from Sri Lanka, environmentalist pressure forced Sri Lanka to ban DDT, leading to a resurgence of malaria". If this is a frequent claim that they make, then discussing it here in this article is not "pointless" - especially if the claim has flaws. The flaws should be pointed out too, of course, which I did when I restored it. Simply deleting something that is frequently claimed by pro-DDT activists strikes me as POV. Bryan 05:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There's nothing POV about it - it's simply highly inaccurate as written. DDT usage in vector control was not "banned" in Sri Lanka, it was stopped. This is standard vector control strategy - kill until the disease has receded, then stop; otherwise, you risk developing resistance needlessly. The eradication strategies were actually VERY minimalist, focusing only on infected houses and stopping once the number of cases had dropped to a level that could be managed by drugs. The idea is to stop malaria, after all, not kill off mosquitos. The passage seems to suggest that DDT use in Sri Lanka was a result of some environmentalist campaign - not at all. It's just routine malaria fighting. So, if you'd like to say that, go ahead. But then what you're describing is how to fight malaria, and probably belongs in malaria, not DDT.
 * But if your intention is simply to point out that the frequent pro-DDT argument made is bunkum, I disagree that that deserves mention. All the stupid lies that have been written about DDT do not need a response here. That's not the way to write an article. Graft 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That inaccuracy could be corrected simply by changing "after it was banned" to "after its use was halted." Other than that one word there's no indication in the paragraph you removed that its cessation had anything to do with environmentalism one way or the other. And I'm not saying that "all the stupid lies" should have responses here, but from what I'm seeing this particular "stupid lie" seems like one of the more common ones. I just did a google search for "ddt sri lanka" and there were huge numbers of references to this both pro- and anti-:, , , (as well as the one you provided earlier, and some pubmed stuff). The info-pollution page in particular has a lot of references to the use of this example in various books. I think someone who's reading up on DDT's banning in depth is almost certainly going to come across this. Bryan 08:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You want to write it specifically as a rebuttal of the frequent claim? Though I think this is "true", it is also possibly POV - I'm unclear on what "NPOV" is when one side is clearly making specious claims. The staid, neutral version you propose has little relevance unless the context of its inclusion is explained. Graft 08:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to write it as a description of the frequent claim, and also as a description of the flaws that have been pointed out in that frequent claim by its opponents. It's not Wikipedia's place to "rebut" something, I suspect that would also be a violation of NPOV, but if a claim is truly specious then by including all the relevant information it should be quite obvious to the reader. Bryan 08:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this:


 * In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka resulting in 80,000 deaths. After an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. The use of DDT was halted in that year due to the success of the program, but malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. This is often cited by proponents of DDT as an example of DDT's value in combating the disease. Spraying with DDT was resumed but many of the local mosquitos had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, and so it was not nearly as effective as it had been previously. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004.

If I've written that right it shouldn't be objectionable either to environmentalists or to environmentalism-skeptics. Feel free to make further suggestions of course. :) Bryan 08:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not objectionable, except that it has nothing to do with what pro-DDT people say. What THEY say is: "DDT was banned in Sri Lanka because of evil environmentalists, which resulted in malaria re-exploding." What YOU say is "Malaria was effectively controlled by DDT in Sri Lanka, but could not be subsequently controlled due to insecticide resistance." I'm unclear on the point of this exercise. This is not an advocacy page; this is not a place to debate fine points, no matter how widely cited they are. Graft 06:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that this is not an advocacy page, I've never said that it was. However, if this is something that's widely cited, then IMO this is the place to put information about it. It's not supposed to be a "debate" of the fine points but rather a description of them. Bryan 08:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tried rewording the paragraph yet again, how about now? And as always, you're more than welcome to try your hand at rewording it too if you think it's still omitting important issues. Bryan 08:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ruckelhaus
Okay, I'm tired of this Ruckelhaus business. I removed those paragraphs for the following reasons: I realize you just want to be prickly, but I'm trying to make this article coherent, somehow, and NPOV. Please work with me, here. If you can provide some clarification on why you think these above points are irrelevant, I'd appreciate it. Graft 06:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) DDT was banned in MANY countries, not just the US. There's no call for tons of paragraphs on the US EPA hearings.
 * 2) The details of the process are NOT clearly established here, and unless you get quotes from a source that isn't obviously biased, it's ridiculous to attribute them in a supposedly NPOV article.
 * 3) The previous paragraph says Ruckelhaus reviewed the details (whether or not he read the actual hearing transcripts, he may very well have read briefings. He was, after all, the head of the goddamn EPA.). We can't include two contradictory paragraphs. Either one or the other is accurate.


 * If there's unusually large amounts of information on the US banning of DDT relative to other countries, then IMO the correct approach to balancing this is either to add more information about other countries or to split off a more specific "DDT in the United States" article (I suspect the former would probably be the better one in this case). Ditto the missing details about the EPA hearing process - better to clarify these things than to delete them. Finally, you're right that there appears to be a contradiction between those two paragraphs, but why did you pick the second one in particular as the one to delete? What if it's the first one that's inaccurate? Bryan 08:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the second one is clearly written to be partisan. For example, it elides the fact that Ruckelhaus first turned down a ban, and only after a court ordered him to did he overturn that decision (that paragraph was added later). Also, it makes much of the fact that Ruckelhaus didn't attend the hearings or read a "single page" of the hearing transcripts, but again, this doesn't imply that Ruckelhaus didn't know anything about the subject, that someone on his staff didn't prepare a briefing for him, etc. Since these things are unclear, I see no reason to include a paragraph whose intent seems to be proving that Ruckelhaus made his decision entirely on the basis of environmentalist pressure. Graft 16:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But that's just a question of wording, which should be fixed by editing rather than deletion. The more important issue is which paragraph is more accurate? If you want to delete one and keep the other, I think it behooves that some sort of evidence should be presented to support the kept one and/or disprove the removed one. Deleting it without even bothering to provide an edit summary isn't likely to go over well (and in this case didn't). Bryan 16:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph contains a pretty thorough summary of the review process. The second paragraph only adds that Ruckelhaus did not read the summary transcripts or attend the hearings. This may be true, but it is not necessarily meaningful (unless he didn't read anything at all on the subject). Since the first paragraph says he DID review the evidence, the circumspect "he didn't read the transcripts" quibble ought to go. I apologize for not providing an edit summary, it was an oversight on my part. Graft 16:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The EPA history page has a good bit on the subject, by the way, including what evidence Ruckelhaus DID review:. (It also indicates that the court decision came before the initial ban, which I will fix right now.) Graft 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a reference for the "didn't attend the hearings or read the transcript" bit too, indicates it was from the Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972. Since it looks like these two paragraphs aren't contradictory at all, I'll merge them together into one that describes what he did and didn't read. I don't think it's a quibble to point out the omission of seven months' worth of commission-watching, IMO. Bryan 01:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wurster quotes
Unless someone can give me a better reason to keep it, I'm going to axe these Wurster quotes, for the reasons outlined here, in the "Notorious hearsay" section. Just goes to show how useful selective quoting is when you don't know its source. Graft 14:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're going to hate me. :) I'm thinking that the same approach I suggested to the Sri Lanka paragraph may be best for this as well; the page you link to above says that this is "One of the most popular "brownlash" quotes", suggesting that someone who's researching the banning of DDT is likely to come across it being used this way. Better to provide the full context of it here than to remove it entirely and have the reader encounter it elsewhere in a less balanced document. If this article gets too large later on the details can be moved over into Environmental impact of DDT or whatever specialized article split eventually happens. The way I see it, someone who's googling around to read about the DDT banning controversy could read this article and then wind up next on ToxiCorp's pro-DDT polemic page. If ToxiCorp has this quote there but we haven't addressed it, said reader might think "Wow, I didn't know that. That stupid encyclopedia omits important stuff." If on the other hand we've given the quote and also given its proper context, said reader might think "Ha! ToxiCorp's gone and used that quote improperly, they're either poor researchers or have an axe to grind." (wrote this yesterday morning, had it in a text file until now :) Bryan 16:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Urgh. Well, I don't hate you, but the idea that all of these "rebuttals" are going to happen in-place in the text seems kind of wrong. Although a separate section might be even more wrong... Maybe a section on anti-EV backlash? Graft 17:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Declining Raptor Population
I worked with my father in his pest control company when DDT was banned. A few years later there was an article in a trade magazine about the banning of a very effective herbacide. In the article it stated that the herbacide was found to be the true cause of the thinning of the raptor egg shells. DDT had ben banned, but the herbacide was continued to be used in many of the same areas. After it was determined that the herbacide was the true cause of the raptor egg shell thinning the herbacide was banned too. My father didn't know what he was going to do because the herbacide worked well against poison ivy and he had a lot of customers with poison ivy problems. I think the National Pest Control Association was the group that published the magazine. I remember that it was from a national organization for pest control professionals that my father belonged to. My father also expressed concern because all the DDT in the local area had been collected in one location and was being stored in metal containers that were showing signs of corrosion. His concern was that all the collected DDT would leak and cause a worse condition in the area that it was being stored in.


 * If you could provide a reference for that article it would be a spectacular addition. However, without a specific reference I suspect it'll be hard to keep this information in here; it's a claim that goes against a heck of a lot of popular thought about DDT. Do you remember which magazine it was, or even better the name of the herbicide itself? Bryan 16:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)