What was the problem with DDT pesticide?

[eliza61]

New York is in the middle of a horrible bedbug infestation. The Nike store closed today due to infestation and other clothing stores and movie theaters have been closing on and off trying to kill the little buggers.

I read that DDT was the only thing effective in eradicating them but it is no longer available in the US.

Any one remember the reason for banning it? Was it cancer causing?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bed...2930&section=1206852&playlist=11128107&page=1

 

[locolala]

There is suspicion that DDT raises the chances of diabetes and cancer in adults, in infants it causes neurological defects when consumed either through breast milk or when in utero. High levels of DDT can affect the nervous system causing excitability, tremors and seizures. In women, DDE can cause a reduction in the duration of lactation and an increased chance of having a premature baby. Additionally, many insects began to develop a resistance to DDT, so it was no longer very effective. DDT was also causing massive ecological problems, killing fish and other aquatic animals.

 

[mickeywho?]

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

First synthesized in 1874, DDT's insecticidal properties were not discovered until 1939, and it was used with great success in the second half of World War II to control malaria and typhus among civilians and troops. The Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 "for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods."[2] After the war, DDT was used as an agricultural insecticide, and soon its production and use skyrocketed.[3]

In 1962, American biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. The book cataloged the environmental impacts of indiscriminate DDT use in the US and questioned the logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals into the environment without fully understanding their effects on the environment or human health. The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds. Its publication was a signature event in the birth of the environmental movement. It produced a large public outcry that led to a 1972 ban in the US.[4] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but limited, controversial use in disease vector control continues.[5]

Along with the Endangered Species Act, the US DDT ban is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, from near-extinction in the contiguous US

 

[bettymae1121]

I think with birds it caused the shells of eggs to be so thin the nesting parents would crush the eggs before they could hatch. I think that's one of the reasons the Bald Eagle almost went extinct, in fact, though I'm sure many other species had the same problems. It's bad for people too.

While the thought of bed bugs makes my skin crawl, bed bugs aren't harmful, their bites don't itch and they don't spread disease. I'd take them over poision chemicals that harm both people and the enviroment.

 

[punkin]

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Spring...r_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285007975&sr=8-1

Seriously, this book was a major reason DDT was eventually banned.

 

[DawnCt1]

The banning of DDT was based on false science and resulted in the deaths of millions of people through out Africa where malaria is endemic. One of the great crimes of the 20th century is the banning of DDT.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html
Day of Reckoning for DDT Foes?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
By Steven Milloy
PrintShareThis
Last week’s announcement that the World Health Organization lifted its nearly 30-year ban on the insecticide DDT is perhaps the most promising development in global public health since… well, 1943 when DDT was first used to combat insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria.

Overlooked in all the hoopla over the announcement, however, is the terrible toll in human lives (tens of millions dead — mostly pregnant women and children under the age of 5), illness (billions sickened) and poverty (more than $1 trillion dollars in lost GDP in sub-Saharan Africa alone) caused by the tragic, decades-long ban.

Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?

Rachel Carson kicked-off DDT hysteria with her pseudo-scientific 1962 book, “Silent Spring.” Carson materially misrepresented DDT science in order to advance her anti-pesticide agenda. Today she is hailed as having launched the global environmental movement. A Pennsylvania state office building, Maryland elementary school, Pittsburgh bridge and a Maryland state park are named for her. The Smithsonian Institution commemorates her work against DDT. She was even honored with a 1981 U.S. postage stamp. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of her birth. Many celebrations are being planned.


It’s quite a tribute for someone who was so dead wrong. At the very least, her name should be removed from public property and there should be no government-sponsored honors of Carson.

The Audubon Society was a leader in the attack on DDT, including falsely accusing DDT defenders (who subsequently won a libel suit) of lying. Not wanting to jeopardize its non-profit tax status, the Audubon Society formed the Environmental Defense Fund (now simply known as Environmental Defense) in 1967 to spearhead its anti-DDT efforts. Today the National Audubon Society takes in more than $100 million per year and has assets worth more than $200 million. Environmental Defense takes in more than $65 million per year with a net worth exceeding $73 million.

In a February 25, 1971, media release, the president of the Sierra Club stated that his organization wanted “a ban, not just a curb” on DDT, “even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." Today the Sierra Club rakes in more than $90 million per year and has more than $50 million in assets.



Business are often held liable and forced to pay monetary damages for defective products and false statements. Why shouldn’t the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club and other anti-DDT activist groups be held liable for the harm caused by their recklessly defective activism?

It was, of course, then-Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who actually banned DDT after ignoring an EPA administrative law judge’s ruling that there was no evidence indicating that DDT posed any sort of threat to human health or the environment. Ruckleshaus never attended any of the agency’s hearings on DDT. He didn’t read the hearing transcripts and refused to explain his decision.

None of this is surprising given that, in a May 22, 1971, speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshaus said that EPA procedures had been streamlined so that DDT could be banned. Ruckleshaus was also a member of — and wrote fundraising letters for — the EDF.

The DDT ban solidified Ruckelshaus’ environmental credentials, which he has surfed to great success in business, including stints as CEO of Browning Ferris Industries and as a director of a number of other companies including Cummins Engine, Nordstrom, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Ruckelshaus currently is a principal in a Seattle, Wash., -based investment group called Madrona Venture Group.

Corporate wrongdoers — like WorldCom’s Bernie Ebbers and Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski — were sentenced to prison for crimes against mere property. But what should the punishment be for government wrongdoers like Ruckleshaus who, apparently for the sake of his personal environmental interests, abused his power and affirmatively deprived billions of poor, helpless people of the only practical weapon against malaria?

Finally, there is the question of the World Health Organization itself. What’s the WHO been doing for all these years? There are no new facts on DDT — all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s. Moreover, the WHO’s strategy of mosquito bednets and malaria vaccine development has been a dismal failure. While the death toll in malarial regions has mounted, the WHO has been distracted by such dubious issues as whether cell phones and French fries cause cancer.

It’s a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses, but on the other hand, the organization has done too little, too late. The ranks of the WHO’s leadership need to be purged of those who place the agenda of environmental elitists over the basic survival of the world’s needy.

In addition to the day of reckoning and societal rebuke that DDT-ban advocates should face, we should all learn from the DDT tragedy.

With the exception of Rachel Carson (who died in 1964), all of the groups and individuals above mentioned also promote global warming alarmism. If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now? Should we really put the global economy and the welfare of billions at risk based on their track record?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

[punkin]

He is a junk science expert

Obviously.

 

[Pigeon]

Gee, there's an article from Faux News that also doubts global warming. I'm convinced.

 

[NotUrsula]

It really doesn't matter in re: the bedbug issue. Bedbugs had already largely developed immunity to DDT by the time it was banned.

This article from the WHO was published in 1958; the immunity was already building steadily at that time: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537818/

You can grouse about the issue of DDT and malaria-carrying mosquitoes all you like, but it isn't worth debating when it comes to bedbugs.

 

[Pigeon]

Mosquitos have also developed resistance to DDT in some areas of the world.

 

[DawnCt1]

Gee, there's an article from Faux News that also doubts global warming. I'm convinced.

I think you can find any number of articles that talk about the devastating impact of the banning of DDT in Africa. Don't like Fox News? Then join the 11 people watching MSNBC. Its okay.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I always find it interesting when sweeping decisions are made to the benefit of one point of view when so much damage happens on the other side of the equation. I just don't get it, never have and never will, why is there such a demand that things be flat out good or bad? Obviously, there are some situations where the human cost outweighs the damage, and others where the damage outweighs comfort. I think this is a case where things went very badly for too many people to count.

Allowing people to die in Africa because some bird populations were threatened is just ridiculous. On the other hand, endangering an entire species because some folks don't want to be bothered by mosquitoes in an area where they don't spread disease is just as ridiculous. Why can't people just compromise on things and find middle ground?

 

[DawnCt1]

It really doesn't matter in re: the bedbug issue. Bedbugs had already largely developed immunity to DDT by the time it was banned.

This article from the WHO was published in 1958; the immunity was already building steadily at that time: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537818/

You can grouse about the issue of DDT and malaria-carrying mosquitoes all you like, but it isn't worth debating when it comes to bedbugs.

Even the NYT's admits that the ban on DDT contributed to the spread of bed bugs. Since the DDT ban, millions of Africans have died from malaria, dengue fever, etc. Apparently the WHO disagrees with the article that they published in 1958. They have reversed course.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091501012.html

 

[Hoodie]

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Spring...r_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285007975&sr=8-1

Seriously, this book was a major reason DDT was eventually banned.

Ironically, this documentary just came out, largely discrediting Rachel Carson

http://3billionandcounting.wordpress.com/

She's responsible for approximately 3 billion deaths.

 

[mickeywho?]

From what I have read - an opinions certainly vary - the use of DDT to kill mosquitoes and thus prevent the spread of malaria was cheap. Although the effectiveness of DDT was lessening on killing mosquitoes. Using preventive medicines and mosquito nets is much more effective and does not have a negative impact on the health of other animal populations. But it costs more and is therefore not used as much - that is what has allowed the increased spread of malaria over the past couple of decades. Governments see short term loss and can't see the longterm gain.
Use an expensive and effective dart to aim at a target...or drop a cheap bomb that may be effective for some but will have widespread negative effects on others? Well - they took the bomb away and there aren't enough darts being used...so we see the results of poor government decisions once again.

 

[LilyWDW]

The issue of this sort of thing is that you can find arguments for and against.

It was decided that the negative impacts of the use of DDT greatly outweighed the positive impacts. Thus, it was banned.

Unless we want to subject a bunch of people to the chemical in order to do a controlled test, then we will never know 100% what the negative consequences are. I highly doubt that would go over well...

Until then, we are having to base the decision off of the information that was available at the time and, like all science, our understanding of things will change as more information is gathered.

 

[RadioNate]

It really doesn't matter in re: the bedbug issue. Bedbugs had already largely developed immunity to DDT by the time it was banned.

This article from the WHO was published in 1958; the immunity was already building steadily at that time: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537818/

You can grouse about the issue of DDT and malaria-carrying mosquitoes all you like, but it isn't worth debating when it comes to bedbugs.

this!

People think DDT is the solution and it's not.

But as someone who has been effected by bedbugs they got to come up with something!

 

[Muushka]

The banning of DDT was based on false science and resulted in the deaths of millions of people through out Africa where malaria is endemic. One of the great crimes of the 20th century is the banning of DDT.

Even the NYT's admits that the ban on DDT contributed to the spread of bed bugs. Since the DDT ban, millions of Africans have died from malaria, dengue fever, etc. Apparently the WHO disagrees with the article that they published in 1958. They have reversed course.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091501012.html

This is my understanding also. So sad.
Makes me wonder where the rage is over all of these millions who have died because of the ban.

 

[eliza61]

Op here,
thanks guys. I remember reading about the ban but did not pay it much attention. My exterminator mentioned that ddt was the only thing he found that could eradicate them. He didn't mention them being resistant to DDT.

I'll have to read about the chemical before I can make a comment for or against but you guys have given me a lot to read.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

I heard on the news this morning that extreme heat is the safest and most effective way to kill bedbugs. They recommended putting clothes, sheets, pillows, etc. on the high setting in the dryer, and using a high-powered steam cleaner on mattresses, carpets, etc.