| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane Thread; (DDT) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 19 2005, 09:08 PM (286 Views) | |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 19 2005, 09:08 PM Post #1 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Source
Source |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jun 19 2005, 10:42 PM Post #2 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
DDT might be banned in Australia and other western industrialised nations because of it toxicity and how it accumulates in the food chain (with diabolical consequences) , it is however widely produced still and used in developing world nations. One reason why you should be cautious when buying food produced in these nations - ie contamination of these foods by DDT. You might find Temporal Trends of Contaminants in Biota and Biological Effects interesting. (These refer to DDT and other contaminants.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jun 20 2005, 06:37 AM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, DDT was banned because of a book, and no actual proof given at the time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jun 20 2005, 07:32 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
That might be your opinion - that is not necessarily a representation of the facts. Talking about facts - care to come up with some that support your opinion on this matter ? From my recallection of the time (if was in highschool then) and remember seeing the local council going around the river suburbs fumigating for mosquitoes in summer, especially in Wallsend, Hexham, Stockton and Warabrook . At the time - I believe it was political pressure that forced the banning of DDT due to concerns about DDT finding it's way into the foodchain and because birth defects leading to miscarriages were linked with it. Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 20 2005, 08:19 AM Post #5 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
^^^ the link in your post directly above was too general, did not give any evidence. I'm not saying that DDT is totally safe, but considering that the W.H.O estimates there are up to 2.7 Million deaths a year worldwide due to malaria and that DDT virtually eliminates that threat. The argument is that 2.7 million VS a much smaller percentage from the effects of DDT, the trouble is links to birth defects or DDT being a carcinogen have not been proven. And thanks to the UN and the W.H.O, DDT use is not widespread, the EU this year threatened trade sanctions against Uganda for wanting to start up a malaria control program using the stuff. We are not talking about all countries, only those in the tropics. I put this thread up cos it shows how extremist enviromentalism in the west can affect society in the developing world. If malaria was the no. 1 killer of children in the US or AUS, how long do you think it would take our governments to do a backflip on DDT? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jun 20 2005, 10:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
The decision would be unlikely to be reversed. See MSDS for DDT and The Impact of Persistent Organic Pesticide Pollutants on Human Health There are more effective materials which have fewer environmental risks that are used (we have nasty mosquito born pathogens here too , especially in mosquito prone areas ). Where did you get the comparision figures ? Is there a cost-benefit or risk analysis ? Mute point if the biological control via the recently discovered fungus proves an effective (and easily deployed by spraying infected areas) mode of decimating the vector. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jun 21 2005, 06:41 AM Post #7 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The book was "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson. In that book, Carson claimed that DDT thinned the shells of eagle eggs. This is a fact. Like it or not. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 21 2005, 08:49 AM Post #8 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
No, there isnt |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jun 21 2005, 09:17 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
more here if anyone wants to find out more. Her findings were proven and vindicated , perhaps you have an alternative hypothesis to offer that explained the observations in the above link ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 21 2005, 09:22 AM Post #10 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
^^^ Why is that link for a google search? You typed some words into google, paste the link and without reading them somehow that proves your point????? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jun 21 2005, 09:25 AM Post #11 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Bioaccumlative toxins are a bit different than your regular toxic substances. They're stored in the fat cells of living things and are not passed through the system. The more times an organism is exposed to a bioaccumulative toxin, the more the effects of the toxin accumulate in the system. Not only that, but if a fish with a high amount of bioaccumulative toxins were eaten by another organism, all the bioaccumulative toxins in that fish are now in the animal that ate it. The toxins accumulate in the body until the organism dies. This is true of DDT and PCBs (Poly chlorinated biphynl) Silent Spring alerted the public to the toxicity of DDT, there had been cases of toxicity but the chemical industry was able to lobby to keep DDT on the market despite the ignorance of the long term effects of DDT on people and animals. Similarly, many other chemicals remian on the market due to industry lobbying without knowing the long term effects or in some cases, even the short term effects of these chemicals on people. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jun 21 2005, 10:06 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
You are welcome to click it to see the links and view as many of them as you like. On the effectiveness of DDT in vector control - you might find it instructive to conduct a search on the development resistance of vectors to DDT , which has the result that DDT is no longer as effective at vector control as it was in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s because the vectors have evolved resistance to DDT. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 21 2005, 10:23 AM Post #13 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Prove it |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jun 21 2005, 10:25 AM Post #14 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
http://www.nd.edu/~chem191/e2.html http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/08-03/b...sts-article.htm http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96...94815.Ag.r.html |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jun 21 2005, 10:36 AM Post #15 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Errr, well that last link seems to support the case for DDT use. And the first two only talk about extended exposure to DDT |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





1:52 PM Jul 11