• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Truth About DDT

Mike

Well-known member
For anyone who cares about how this disastrous event (The Banning of DDT) was brought about:

For those who don't, skip it. :lol:



http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Well why doesnt any of the pro ddt people talk about peregrine falcons?
My understanding is that it was the peregrine falcon that was directly effected by ddt. Other birds were effected indirectly when the falcons were decimated. They were effected in some cases when the falcons were gone because a loss of falcons effected the preditors. But they were not directly effected by the ddt so sure you can study some birds in captivity and honestly say ddt did not effect them but thats misleading, isnt it?Everything is inter related. If you take out one species it effects other species.
In Canada the peregrine falcon was almost wiped out when ddt was being used. Since the ban the peregrine falcon has come back. It seems hard to believe that this was a coincidence?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
For anyone who cares about how this disastrous event (The Banning of DDT) was brought about:

For those who don't, skip it. :lol:



http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Mike- Now are we to believe these "sound science" findings of the EPA (our government) that ruled DDT dangerous is incorrect- but the "sound science" findings of the USDA (our government) about the safety of importing beef from BSE countries and the safety of SRM material removal is correct.... :wink: :???:

Sure getting bad when you can't trust anybody in government regarding science...... I wonder which chemical company had a new pesticide and stood to gain from the banning of DDT- I wonder who had the patent on Parathion and how many company shares Rukelhaus owned :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
The New York Times' Jane Brody perpetuates the myth that DDT was responsible for the demise of the peregrine falcon.

But the decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to them as birds that "deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account."
Falconers were blamed for decimating western populations.

In 1966, scientists impaneled by the United Kingdom government concluded: "There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon... and the use of DDT."

Many experiments on caged birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

After seven months of testimony during 1971-1972, an administrative judge in the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that DDT had no deleterious effect on wild birds. He was overruled by EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus. He decided to ban DDT, even though he never attended one minute of the DDT hearings and never even read the hearing transcript.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
For anyone who cares about how this disastrous event (The Banning of DDT) was brought about:

For those who don't, skip it. :lol:



http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Mike- Now are we to believe these "sound science" findings of the EPA (our government) that ruled DDT dangerous is incorrect- but the "sound science" findings of the USDA (our government) about the safety of importing beef from BSE countries and the safety of SRM material removal is correct.... :wink: :???:

Sure getting bad when you can't trust anybody in government regarding science...... I wonder which chemical company had a new pesticide and stood to gain from the banning of DDT- I wonder who had the patent on Parathion and how many company shares Rukelhaus owned :???:

Yup. Always.........."Follow the Money"! :wink:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Well Mike I could provide lots of Canadian links that say the opposite about falcons. Who do we believe?
I believe it was harmfull to the falcons because everybody that was old enough when this all took place told me the falcons were almost eliminated in Canada when they were using ddt.
The peregrine falcon is a major bird in Canada that is very benificial. I cant imagine why anybody would want to eliminate them. Today they are on of the most common birds up here. Im no expert on them but I know they kill an awful lot of gophers.
Anyway my take on the subject is this. I dont think ddt is good for Canada and our enviroment up here.
I dont think it will ever be used up here again. I strongly suspect it wont be used again in the States either.
Now in other parts of the world like Africa the risk might be worth it to combat maliria.
I think there are US companies that want to export ddt to third world countries and it might be bennificial to these countries. Although there are moral issues if you wont use it yourselves but yet you will export it<sell it>.
I personally think africa is always going to be a toilet nomatter what is done. example say ddt saves millions in africa from maliria, then there probable just going to die of aids or starve to death anyway.
Say you cure aids and feed them. Get their economy going. Well then they are probable just going to join alquada or be some other pain in the butt for us.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
I could....
I believe ......told me ...... I cant imagine why ...Anyway my take ...... I dont think ......I dont think....I strongly suspect .........
I think .... might be bennificial
I personally think ... there probable just going to die
Say you cure aids and feed them. Get their economy going. Well then they are probable just going to join alquada or be some other pain in the butt for us.
Not a very positive or data filled post Roper. Show us the scientific data.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
RoperAB said:
Well Mike I could provide lots of Canadian links that say the opposite about falcons.
I'd be interested in seeing them RoperAB.

Robin. There are literally thousands of articles attributing the demise of the peregrine falcon to DDT. Just Google "Peregrine Falcon and DDT".

This is kind of like the reason R-12 refrigerant was banned. The whole world thinks it was because it was harmful to the ozone, but we know it was because the patent had expired and DuPont needs the money.

We are their puppets. Money and Power rules the world. And history along with it.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
RoperAB said:
Well Mike I could provide lots of Canadian links that say the opposite about falcons.
I'd be interested in seeing them RoperAB.

Well here are links from the Canadian federal government
http://www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroZine/english/issues/55/feature2_e.cfm

At the most southern point on the Canadian mainland is Point Pelee National Park, home to more than 70 species of trees, 27 species of reptiles, and 20 species of amphibians. The Park is celebrated as the best location in inland North America to observe the northward migration of songbirds, and every autumn, thousands of migrating monarch butterflies gather here to begin their flight to central Mexico. The marsh, which makes up about 70 per cent of Point Pelee, supports a tremendous diversity of life, and is a wetland of international significance.

Recently, scientists have discovered that the Park's well-being is threatened by mid 20th century pest control practices. The unwelcome trespasser at the Park is DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), a pesticide banned in Canada in the early 1970s.

The History

Point Pelee National Park was established in May 1918, but commercial, agricultural, and residential activities continued for a long time after that. Apple orchards and vegetable fields occupied a large proportion of the south and central area of the Park until the late 1960s, when Parks Canada bought and restored the agricultural lands to natural areas.

Between 1948 and 1970, DDT was used for mosquito control in recreational areas and pest control in agricultural areas. It was applied as a spray over wide areas and also as "toss bombs" at specific sites and open ponds of water within the marsh. With the passage of time, it was thought that DDT would no longer be found there. However, recent studies of wildlife have proved this idea false.

In the 1990s, scientists from the University of Windsor detected high levels of DDT in some of the Park's amphibian and reptiles, and tracked its origin to the shallow soil within the Park. Even after 35 years, DDT was found to persist in the soil – and at very high concentrations. In the shallow soil (0 to 10 cm below ground surface) concentrations have been measured as high as 316 micrograms per gram. This exceeds the Canadian Soil Guideline for Recreational/Parkland land use of 0.7 micrograms per gram – set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for the protection of the environment and human health.
Fast Facts

The marsh at Point Pelee National Park has been named a RAMSAR site.

DDT, found to have toxic effect on most animals, was banned in Canada in the early 1970s.

The last application of DDT in the agricultural areas of Point Pelee National Park was about 35 years ago.

Concentrations in the soil in the former agricultural areas range from 0.32 to 316 micrograms per gram. Micrograms per gram is also known as parts per million (ppm).

How Widespread is the Problem?
When this was discovered, Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) began to investigate the extent of DDT contamination and the reasons for its persistence. Research scientist, Dr. Allan Crowe uncovered a good news – bad news story. The good news is that the soil contaminated by DDT at levels above the Canadian Soil Guidelines is confined to the former agricultural areas; the bad news is this is about one quarter of the land in Point Pelee National Park.

Because DDT has an extremely strong tendency to bind to organic matter, it is confined to the upper several centimetres of the soil profile. Unfortunately, this upper several centimeters is the biologically active zone, where many animals live, burrow, and obtain their food - insects, earthworms, and roots. This is why some of the amphibians, reptiles and birds within the Park have elevated levels of DDT and increased levels of mortality.


http://www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/nature/endspecies/peregrine/index.en.html
Once gone from the Prairies, their numbers are now steadily increasing thanks to an intensive re-introduction program. A ban on the pesticide DDT, which caused their egg-shells to become thin and break, was critical in recovering populations.

http://www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/community/ecoaction/fp-pf/page.asp?lang=en&id=MB-02013
Peregrine Falcons were nearly wiped out over much of their North American breeding range primarily because of the use of pesticides such as DDT. Even though the use of DDT was banned in the U.S. and Canada in the early 1970s, it is still being used in several countries from Mexico to South America where Peregrines winter. Although the Peregrine Falcon has responded well to recovery efforts, the species is still endangered and in need of assistance.
 

don

Well-known member
seems to me it defies logic to expect dumping volumes of synthetically made poisons into the environment will have a benign effect. kind of like using soil sterilant; kill more than the target and have residual effects.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
How about deworming your cattle? Vaccinate your children? Paint your house?

Point is don, by your "logic" we couldn't do anything without impacting the environment. I might agree with that to some extent but the whole DDT argument is based on lies we were sold by environmental wackos 40 years ago . There is no solid evidence. DDT is a very old and very common chemical. If it was harmful, they would have evidence (not opinion) running out their ears.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
don...just wait...they'll be blaming Bill Clinton in about 2 or 3 more posts!!
Go play in the street sweet heart. Why don't you , since you are so well educated , show don, roper , etc all the solid evidence of the DDT dangers and explain in your best georgia drawl how the kids in Africa are better off dying like Roper did.
 

don

Well-known member
rr: Point is don, by your "logic" we couldn't do anything without impacting the environment.

exactly. so we should consider the impact before we act. might be a better option than ddt. it was easy to get away with crap when populations were low and thin. you hit 300 million yesterday so naturally there is a bigger impact than 200 years ago. if you could work this back to some clinton deficiency it would be entertaining.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
don said:
rr: Point is don, by your "logic" we couldn't do anything without impacting the environment.

exactly. so we should consider the impact before we act. might be a better option than ddt. it was easy to get away with crap when populations were low and thin. you hit 300 million yesterday so naturally there is a bigger impact than 200 years ago. if you could work this back to some clinton deficiency it would be entertaining.
Don is ddt less safe than permethrin?
 
Top