Was DDT ever proven to be harmful?

[Natorgator]

Apparently the WHO just ended its 30 year ban on DDT. Was it ever justified in the first place? Although John Stossel is a douchebag, I read an article by him today on it:

Who says there's never any good news? After more than 30 years and tens of millions dead -- mostly children -- the World Health Organization (WHO) has ended its ban on DDT. DDT is the most effective anti-mosquito, anti-malaria pesticide known. But thanks to the worldwide environmental movement and politically correct bureaucrats in the United States and at the United Nations, the use of this benign chemical has been discouraged in Africa and elsewhere, permitting killer mosquitoes to spread death.

I don't expect any apologies from the people who permitted this to happen. But I am thankful this nightmare is ending.

DDT was banned by President Richard Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1970s, after Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," claimed to show that DDT threatened human health as well as bird populations. But some scientists found no evidence for her claims. Even if there was danger to bird eggs, the problem was the amount of DDT used, not the chemical itself.

Huge amounts of the chemical were sprayed in America. I've watched old videos of people at picnics who just kept eating while trucks sprayed thick white clouds of DDT on top of them. Some people even ran toward the truck -- as if it was an ice-cream truck -- they were so happy to have mosquitoes repelled. Tons of DDT were sprayed on food and people. Despite this overuse, there was no surge in cancer or any other human injury.

Nevertheless, the environmental hysteria led to DDT's suppression in Africa, where its use had been dramatically reducing deaths. American foreign aid could be used to finance ineffective alternative anti-malaria methods, but not DDT. Within a short time, the mosquitoes and malaria reappeared, and deaths skyrocketed. Tens of millions of people have died in that time.

DDT advocates pointed out that the ban amounted to mass murder. But they could not move the rich white environmental dogmatists who reflexively condemn all kinds of chemicals, and presumably lost no sleep when millions of poor African children died.

But now this has changed. Last month, the WHO announced that it supports indoor spraying of DDT and other insecticides "not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa."

"The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment," said Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. "DDT presents no health risk when used properly."

WHO now calls DDT the "most effective" pesticide for indoor use. Some environmental groups have also changed their anti-DDT tune, including Greenpeace, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club. Last year, Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."

That's easy to say now. But what about all the people who died when groups like Greenpeace dogmatically refused to budge on the ban? Might an apology be in order?

Junk-science debunker Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wonders why the environmentalists took so long to change their minds.

"There are no new facts on DDT -- all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s," Milloy says.

Milloy adds: "It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple 'never mind,' except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF [World Wildlife Fund], Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT."

Milloy reminds us that the same people who spread DDT hysteria are now pushing the global-warming scare. "If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now?"

That's a fair question. For now, let's celebrate the coming elimination of malaria in Africa.

So is this a good idea?

[haard]

It's absolutly NOT a good idea. It's a bloody GREAT idea, and about time.

[Shortie]

It's absolutly NOT a good idea. It's a bloody GREAT idea, and about time.

Absolutely.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure that it was shown to be harmful to predators, and by extension to humans (although of course in the places where it's most-needed meat forms a smaller proportion of the diet, so you never know) . OTOH, that's because it was greatly over-used. In moderation it's very useful, and really not too unpleasant.

[Xisiqomelir]

Rachel Carson herself never said DDT should be banned outright, she simply said that chemical pesticides should not be used indiscriminately.

[Alyeska]

Yes DDT was proven to be harmful. It caused massive problems for birds of prey. Its also been proven that overuse of DDT in agriculture removes its effectiveness for urban enviroments.

DDT is incredibly useful, it just needs to be used properly.

[Davis 51]

Milloy reminds us that the same people who spread DDT hysteria are now pushing the global-warming scare. "If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now?"

Suddenly the credibility of Milloy went down the shitter.

The problem was that DDT was widely overused. I think there should still be some restrictions on it's use.

[FSTargetDrone]

Ah, the good old days...

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yes DDT was proven to be harmful. It caused massive problems for birds of prey. Its also been proven that overuse of DDT in agriculture removes its effectiveness for urban enviroments.

DDT is incredibly useful, it just needs to be used properly.

Isn't some of the same chemicles in DDT also used in Agent Orange?

[Alyeska]

I really don't know. Agent Orange did very good jobs at killing plants and screwing with animals. DDT pretty much ignored plants, killed insects, but also mostly ignored animals with a few exceptions.

[Stile]

Yes DDT was proven to be harmful. It caused massive problems for birds of prey. Its also been proven that overuse of DDT in agriculture removes its effectiveness for urban enviroments.

DDT is incredibly useful, it just needs to be used properly.

Isn't some of the same chemicles in DDT also used in Agent Orange?

Not really. DDT is like most insecticides and acts as a sort of nerve gas. Agent Orange is a herbicide that acts as a synthetic plant growth hormone.
Agent Orange was a problem because it has dioxins introduced into it during the manufacturing process.
DDT is water soluble therefore it builds up in the fatty tissues.

[Shortie]

I really don't know. Agent Orange did very good jobs at killing plants and screwing with animals. DDT pretty much ignored plants, killed insects, but also mostly ignored animals with a few exceptions.

DDT is toxic to animals (birds especially) as well, but they (we) need to build up a fairly high dose. Thus the top predators were in trouble, because they ate the things that ate the things that were covered in it, and it was concentrated at each level.

A quick google suggests that Agent Orange was a herbicide and not really harmful to animals as such (though probably not that healthy), but there was a inevitable dioxin contaminant when they made it back then, which was nasty stuff.

[Darth Servo]

I was always told that the main problem with it was it made the bird's egg shells brittle, leading to weak babies that couldn't survive.

[Alyeska]

I really don't know. Agent Orange did very good jobs at killing plants and screwing with animals. DDT pretty much ignored plants, killed insects, but also mostly ignored animals with a few exceptions.

DDT is toxic to animals (birds especially) as well, but they (we) need to build up a fairly high dose. Thus the top predators were in trouble, because they ate the things that ate the things that were covered in it, and it was concentrated at each level.

A quick google suggests that Agent Orange was a herbicide and not really harmful to animals as such (though probably not that healthy), but there was a inevitable dioxin contaminant when they made it back then, which was nasty stuff.

And yet the ONLY animal harm I have ever seen was regards to making bird shells brittle. Where are the other harmed animals? Sure DDT levels might have been high in them, but what about actual harm from it?

[CJvR]

A major problem with DDT IIRC is that it doesn't break down, it lingers for a very long time in the ecosystem.

[Shortie]

I really don't know. Agent Orange did very good jobs at killing plants and screwing with animals. DDT pretty much ignored plants, killed insects, but also mostly ignored animals with a few exceptions.

DDT is toxic to animals (birds especially) as well, but they (we) need to build up a fairly high dose. Thus the top predators were in trouble, because they ate the things that ate the things that were covered in it, and it was concentrated at each level.

A quick google suggests that Agent Orange was a herbicide and not really harmful to animals as such (though probably not that healthy), but there was a inevitable dioxin contaminant when they made it back then, which was nasty stuff.

And yet the ONLY animal harm I have ever seen was regards to making bird shells brittle. Where are the other harmed animals? Sure DDT levels might have been high in them, but what about actual harm from it?

It's also quite nasty for various sea-creatures, but yeah, the evidence for it harming humans is pretty inconclusive. Still, the really high dosing was a bad idea for a number of reasons (not least that you can get resistant mosquito populations), and that's where the limited evidence for it being bad for us comes in as well.

I have to say I thought that the evidence against it was a lot stronger than it seems to be, and I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about it (enough to support it's use). Just goes to show. DYOR.

[Admiral Valdemar]

All the evidence I've seen against it has been from the bio-accumulation of the chemical in higher trophic levels, which means us being the terminator of that cycle in most cases. If it's in high enough quantities by the time a salmon ingests a bug coated in the stuff, then it may become something of a problem years down the line like the ever increasing amounts of pharmaceuticals are today in water supplies.

I'd really look into the chemical more before letting it come into full use again. If we fucked up in analysing its potential for harm, it won't help public relations.

[Alyeska]

The whole problem in the first place came from using it in agriculture. That was a double edged sword. It bread resistance and massively spread it into the enviroment where it built up in the food chain. Agriculture uses were something like 90% of DDT use in the united states. Take away agriculture use and limit its other uses, you have a safe product.