Talk:DDT/Archive 3

message: Why are there several sources in an ENCYCLOPEDIA that refer to non-scientific sources? Whether Crichton is right or not is besides the point, the man never researched the sybject, and should not be in this scientific description of a chemical compound and its effects, UNLESS there is a clear distinction between someones opinion and real data. Sikkema 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCIENTIFIC sources

message: what is ppDDT and opDDT ? —Pengo  talk · contribs 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ppDDT]] and [[opDDT]] 

message: I've seen some article which indicate that the banning of DDT is, in part, responsible for the resurgence in bed bugs in some urban areas. Any word on this?--Rotten 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an indication of the way in which DDT has come to be seen as a cure-all in certain circles. AFAIK, DDT was never used in US urban areas to control bedbugs, and certainly hasn't been for many years. But, thanks to the campaigns of Milloy, Bate and othes, every time an insect does something we don't like, the ban on DDT gets the blameJQ 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah; it should be fairly obvious that just because DDT stops being sprayed in houses in the US and several decades later bedbugs appear as an epidemic is not particularly supportive of cause and effect, considering the multiplication rate of bedbugs. I recall we stopped doing polio shots about the same time, perhaps that's equally to blame. In any event, growing up while DDT was still popular for yard sprays, etc., I do not recall anybody even suggesting it needed to be sprayed around inside the house. And yet; we had no bedbugs. Gzuckier 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bed bugs 

message: well, getting tired of reacting to bad science, might as well take a proactive stance: we all know from watching old movies how prevalent giant insects and spiders were during the time when DDT was widely sprayed. Since then, these have not been a problem. It's clear that DDT was the cause of giant insects and spiders terrorizing humanity. The article should point this out.Gzuckier 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if you can't beat them join them 

message: I was hoping we could just summarize the summaries of reliable sources, i.e. the EPA and medical journal review articles; maybe the individual studies could be piled into a bibliography. The current cloud of "142 women who stepped in a puddle of ddt were OK[35]. a study in 1957 countered that with 14 men who painted DDT on a horse and died [36]. The authors of the original study countered by noting that the men died because the owner of the horse shot them [37]. However in autopsy they were shown to have prostate tumors [38]." etc. is useless. Gzuckier 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: do we need to describe every single study ever done with DDT, pro and con?

message: I think this article is too technical; this is supposed to be a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized article for organic chemists, ecologists, doctors, or microbiologists.  Take the following sentence: "In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect."  This level of detail is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  This article should be made much more concise.  There are too many studies listed in many different sections of the article--I think about 50% of the article could be cut out with no real loss.  So how about instead of adding more stuff we start intelligently deleting stuff, ok?  Cazort 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as I see it Wikipedia can be both a general-audience encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia. There's no shortage of room. Instead of deleting useful information because one doesn't understand it, a better solution would be to write a more general introduction that explains that information more accessibly. If the result is a single article becoming unmanageably large, then split out the more detailed subsections into History of DDT and DDT and malaria (for example). Bryan 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical, too long, too wordy 

message: I added the study that may show a connection between DDT and cognitive impairments. However, there are also studies showing a connection between Malaria and cognitive impairments. This is obviously important for any cost-benefit analysis and NPOV requires that both studies should be presented. This is not an article just for presenting arguments against DDT.Ultramarine 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have is that this article is about DDT and the specific study in question keeps getting put into the section about "Effects of DDT on human health".  The study has nothing to do with the effets of DDT on human health and therefore doesn't belong in that section.  The study might be relavent to the debate about using DDT to combat malaria, and therefore if it belongs anywhere in the article, it should be in the "effectiveness against malaria" section.Yilloslime 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen to that. In fact, it doesn't belong in the effectiveness against malaria section, either, unless  somebody wants to list every single adverse effect of malaria, every single adverse effect of DDT, and compare and contrast. Gzuckier 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously an article about DDT must also deal with Malaria. It violates NPOV to only list disadvantages of DDT. If you want to add more arguments to the debate for or against, then please do so. Excluding arguments is not allowed by NPOV.Ultramarine 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point.  My point is just that the study in question shouldn't be in the section where you put it.  I think what is really needed is a seperate page for the Malaria/DDT controversy.  In the meantime, if the study in question was worked into a more appropriate section of the DDT article (maybe "Criticism of limiting DDT use" or "Effectiveness against Malaria") I wouldn't object.64.81.56.238 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: DDT is important for a zillion reasons in addition to fighting malaria. Would you put a paragraph on the health effects of anthrax into the article on ciprofloxacin? Gzuckier 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if ciprofloxacin had some major negative effect on those given it that must be weighted against some major negative effect of the disease. Physicians make these decisions all the time; for example, many treatments for cancer have extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer.Ultramarine 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fine; let's look at your example. Methotrexate does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Aminopterin does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Doxorubicin does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer."  Daunorubicin  does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Tioguanine   does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Hydroxyurea   does not contain any information on the adverse health effects of cancer, despite having "extermely bad side effects that must be weighted against the effects of the cancer." Etc. etc., ad inifnitum. Note that Yellow Fever also has bad side effects; you didn't want to mention those as "an effect of DDT on human health"? Gzuckier 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems in other Wikipedia articles does not affect this article. Would a physician who does not tell a young patient with cancer that will kill him that the treatment with best chance of success will also make him/her infertile be giving adequate information? Ultramarine 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also note that several of these articles mention no side effects or very incomplete description. Does this mean that this should apply to this article? Ultramarine 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, having shot your logic full of holes with your own example, you suggest we not refer to those examples. In the same vein as the assertion that pediatric effects of malaria come under the heading of "health effects of DDT". I fear you haven't thought your proposal out very well. If anything of the kind is to be added, it should be a piece on the adverse effects on human health of insects eating cotton plants, which is after all where 99% of the DDT was used, and where the controversial ban is in place; DDT use against malaria mosquitos being not banned. Gzuckier 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only ask that we follow Wikipedia:NPOV. As suggested above, "Criticism of limiting DDT use" or "Effectiveness against Malaria" may be the best place. Exactly why should we not present both costs and benefits? Ultramarine 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaria and cognitive impairments 

message: To http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt_%28professional_wrestling%29 should be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.159.78 (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: I see a lot of claims that Rachel Carson in Silent Spring blames DDT. I have reeread Silent Spring to check these claims and I have found that she never actually blames DDT, mostly she only mentions DDT in connection with other organoclorids and when she actually mentions the causative agent it is usually Dieldrin or Lindan or dioxin. The one cause (New England) when DDT spraying is actually blamed it is mostly blamed for killing off multiyear insects so that salmon spawn died from famine. ( In that case she also mentions that the forrest reeked from the fuel oil used to dissolve the DDT, and it is known that fuel oil is poisinous to most life, the more poisinous the more it reeks from sulfur compounds.) I admit that it needs a close attention to detail to see that she never directly blames DDT so I had to reeread the book to be shure. To see toxic levels documnted see:
: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm
: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html
: http://www.ehs.ucsb.edu/units/labsfty/labrsc/lstoxicology.htm
: http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th13(l).htm (Mentions solubiity in different materials, showing that most are more toxic than DDT. Also mentions nontoxic to bees?)
: Rachel Carson also mentions that when India tried to change to another pesticide they had to switch back within one month since they had deaths caused by the new pesticide. As far as I know only DDT can be sprayed overall in habitations without toxic effects to warmblooded animals (IF you take care with the solvent, either one of the very few that are nontoxic or one that evaporates fast without beeing really harming in the air concentrations). DDT has the additional good effect of beeing an irritant to insects so that they avoid DDT sprayed surfaces if there are other avaible, meaning they will just leave the houses alone and not be poisined when used against house pests. The low solubility in water and the persistence means that if you dip pine plants in DDT they will be left alone for a few years until they are big enough to survive pets without respraying and with low effect on the enviroment. Seniorsag 11:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carson, Rachel; Silent Spring. 

message: There was once an experiment in Sweden where they had tree groups of seals, one feed with Baltic herring, one feed with North See herring one feed with North See herring spiked with DDT, PCB and dioxin to baltic concentrations. Only the seals with Baltic herring had the diseases typical of the Baltic. When they wanted more money to find out what it was that caused the symptons they did not receive any more money. I THINK that that is a scandal since there was a chance to find out what was causing the problems. Seniorsag 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDT and found enviromental damage 

message: I organized this section to make it more readable.  I removed this part:
*The central claim of the above article, that DDT was theoretically estimated to cause more pregnancy and infant deaths than it saves, has been criticized by using actual data from countries with malaria, for example with data from Guyana, where in 2 to 3 years DDT caused near elimination of malaria and halved maternal deaths and reduced infant deaths by 39%.  This criticism is disputed by the authors of the original study who state "We do not believe that causality has been demonstrated for the relationship between dichlordiphenylethylene (DDE) and shorter period of lactation or preterm birth. However, we think the evidence is sufficiently strong that the possibility of causality cannot be dismissed and testing this hypothesis will require data from appropriately designed studies in areas where dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is used.".
because it obviously no longer refered to "the above article" which was about pancreatic cancer.  If someone knows what article it goes with, please stick it back it.Yilloslime 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of Health Effects section

message: These subsections: 
*Criticism of a supposed international ban
*Criticism of limiting DDT use
are currently part of the History section.  It seems to me that a more logical ordering of the article would put these subsections in the Effectiveness against malaria section.  Any thoughts? Yilloslime 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since no one has objected, I'm going to move these sections into the malaria section. I think there already is a lot of redundancy in this article as a whole, and this rearrangement while make it even more obvious.  Hopefully we can cut out some of the this redundance and make the whole article more concise and a better read, without sacraficing any actual content. Yilloslime 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" sub-sections 

message: Am I in the minority in prefering the old way the References section looked, i.e. no scroll bar, just a big long list?Yilloslime 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: I believe this line in the Restrictions on usage section is original research and will remove it unless someone has a source that confirms it: 
"Both statements confirmed existing policies, but with a greater emphasis on the benefits of DDT."
--Theblog 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and unsupported statements 

message: The entire Criticism of a supposed international ban section is very poor.  The following is original research and I will remove it unless someone has a source:
"In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides. Furthermore, insects were becoming resistant to DDT at the time that its use was rolled back."
This line:
"In fact, DDT has never been banned for use against malaria in the tropics."
is unsupported by the source.  Additionally, I don't believe the source to be suitable, it is a blog quote of a letter the editor by a professor.  The original letter is unavailable, and I'm not sure if letters the the editor are acceptable.  Regardless of that, the blog could have just made the whole thing up and we'd have no way of knowing.  Regardless of that too, the source does not support the statement, what the source in fact says is:  
"The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals." 
It is an unacceptable leap between the two statements.  It is also not clear what worldwide ban the author is refering to.  If that claim is to be made, a more specific source is needed, preferably one not a letter to the editor on a blog. I will change the line to something more accurate if no one has another source.  --Theblog 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the heads-up. i've added the missing refs.Yilloslime 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported statements in Criticism of a supposed international ban