Talk:DDT/Archive 2

message: Anyone want to remove the NPOV tag and see what happens? The article seems fairly stable. It shouldn't sit in the NPOV file unless there are ongoing disputes, right? (Bracing myself for an onslaught here). Feco 23:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV tag? 

message: Some of these external links are appalling.  I'm taking out the ones that have absolutely no scientific merit and are pure polemic—The Malaria Clock of Death is a good example, accusations of a "Green Eco-imperialist legacy of death" and nonexistant causal links are bandied about. Also the Kristof article is no longer freely available, so I linked to a possibly illegal copy.  This one is missing it seems.--203.173.6.36 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Well, I hope this satisfies your perceived problem with "obsolete or non-existing references". As for your statement that "environmental groups have tried to ban all use": even if true, that is basically irrelevant, since all use is not banned, no matter whether or not environmental groups have tried anything of the kind. Whelan et al are not stating how many deaths they would estimate might happen if such a ban was in effect, they are stating it as fact. When mosquitoes are susceptible, DDT is indeed effective; I hope you have enough biological understanding to see how the current treaty, banning agricultural use while freely allowing use only for disease prevention, will REDUCE deaths, by reducing the rate at which the mosquito population are selected for resistance. Gzuckier 05:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, this isn't intended to be exclusively POV, although I do obviously have a strong one, so I didn't change/delete the Whelan et al section, and in fact added some references to others who agree with her. I'd have added more of the logic behind their position if I could find any (dig dig) but if anyone else can find said logic or give a reasonable explanation, that would be great. Gzuckier 14:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ddt and malaria. 

message: This article seems way skewed towards some kind of insane view that DDT is harmless, and seems to imply that enviromentalists are all out to harm people by banning DDT for no reason. Someone should go through this article and fix it.
:Please be more specific about what parts of the existing article are "insane", as it currently stands your claim isn't particularly helpful. Bryan 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues.  This is the current view of most countries, environmental groups, aid agencies, etc. and it makes sense, since regular usage of any Persistent Organic Pollutant is going to accumulate in the environment, and bioorganisms.  This article focuses on environmental bashing, often without much evidence.  The statement (one among many) Donor organizations have often refused to fund public health DDT programs, perhaps due to pressure from environmentalist groups is POV, how do they know this?  What about pressure from chemical companies?  If anyone is willing to do a bit of research, and find out why Greenpeace et al opposed the health exemption clause from their point of view that would be a valuable addition.  I'll be back when I have time.  Tedneeman 23:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that statement by removing the speculation on motivation, since the reference linked with it doesn't give any support for it or even a notable source for the speculation. However, your own initial statement here ("Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues.") also isn't supported, Stockholm Convention is a stub with just one external link that doesn't provide any information about who the "interested parties" are. Do you know where a list could be found? Expanding the Stockholm Convention article would be quite useful in this regard. Bryan 00:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple of days, any further specific problems to point out? If nobody presents more after a while, I'm going to remove the NPOV notice. It's not useful if nobody can explain any details of what they think needs to be done. Bryan 15:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues. - this statement is a bit of a tautology, since the only use of DDT these days is for public health issues. And there's little agreement on THAT issue. Graft 17:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a rough copyedit which I think makes the issues clearer.  Actually, that statement isn't a tautology if environmental groups supported a ban regardless.  I found something from the WWF's perspective on the matter, but I'll wait for responses to my edit before I add it in.  Tedneeman 00:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit. I'm happy with it. Graft 05:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, the WWF is a bit fanatic on the subject - leading the charge to ban - and isn't representative. Graft 05:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV stuff 

message: I would like to see a heading on the dangers of DDT in terms of how it affected the food chain, that would solve the neutrality issues in my opinion, DDT was useful, but it was also harmful, more harmful than useful and that's why it was banned. iSzabo 00:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
:It sounds like a good idea, so long as you keep in mind that "more harmful than useful" is your own POV and is in dispute with many people. Do you plan to work on this, or is this just a general wish for others to follow up on? Bryan 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangers of DDT 

message: Ultramarine - if you agree Whelan is a strawman, why is that in there? Can we junk it? I think it's pointless and stupid - we all agree her numbers are totally off-base, her argument is ridonkulous, and her motivations are suspect.
Also, on a COMPLETELY SEPARATE note, total unattributed speculation is NOT appropriate. How do you know this? Given the strength of the environmentalist campaigns against DDT, the WHO and the UNEP could conceivably prematurely ban all use. On what basis is this being included? It just doesn't fly. Graft 17:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation and strawmen 

message: i'm deleting information that is ridiculous neo-con bs. DDT is FUCKING dangerous. This page is hideously skewed towards the lie that DDT is harmless. Wake up people. Don't let them brainwash us again. --81.135.160.27 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but you're also deleting stuff like "DDT and DDE have no observable effect on non-apex predators, like chickens," which is simply true and confirmed in many studies. I agree this page is littered with neo-con BS, but that doesn't mean you should remove correct information. And based on what you deleted, I really question your ability to tell what is neo-con BS from what is not. Graft 21:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You fix it then. --81.135.160.27 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasons 

message: R3m0t, why did you remove the limerick? I think it adds a touch of lightness to an otherwise unpleasant topic. I came here today to copy the limerick for my colleagues, and found it's just been removed. Why? --Eirinn 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limerick 

message: I'm tempted to remove the reference to this "journal" as it doesn't appear to be a "normal" scientific journal (at best having only a single study per issue).  It's mostly opinion pieces, complaints about the MMR vaccine and the Canadian healthcare system, and reviews of books that are usually consigned to the "right-wing nutjob" bin.  Furthermore, the "study" cited, while ostensibly an "analysis", appears an intemperately written (suspiciously so), partisan piece rather than a scientific study.  Have a look at their website .  Anyway, will delete if no-one objects.  --Plumbago 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NCBI doesn't index it... I'd agree with you on those grounds. Graft 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Removed.  Having now looked more at the Journal, it perhaps merits an entry in Wikipedia.  More politics dressed up as science.  A rather disturbing trend these days, especially in the US.  --Plumbago 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Object. Legitimate organization. State objections to the paper in the article. Why delete this when this article now has many unreferenced claims by DDT opponents? Ultramarine 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  But I think it's debatable that the JAPS is a scientific journal.  I've gone through all of its volumes and it's really an opinion magazine that occasionally publishes a little study (about one per issue).  That would be alright it itself, but its opinion pieces are quite often ridiculous, especially on subjects such as MMR.  In these areas it's deviating so far from the scientific consensus that one could quite rightly question the veracity of the rest of its pieces.  That it's often cited by strongly political organisations or individuals as "evidence" for this or that hobbyhorse makes me (at least) very suspicious of it.  I'd be much happier if less rabid sources could be provided (e.g. from the scientific mainstream; there are hundreds of more appropriate journals).  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hat is your opinion. Give links supporting your view otherwise it is original reserach. Note that the article cites extensivly from the literature. Attack the arguments, not the persons. Ultramarine 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I was having a go at the journal itself, it's clearly a politically motivated talking shop that at times publishes fringe science.  But I take your point.  I'll see what I can dig up.  Incidentally, just because a publication cites the literature, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has either cited it accurately or in good faith.  Cheers, --Plumbago 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is misleading; JAPS is neither a scientific journal, nor is Edwards' 2004 article a "study". It's an opinion piece written for an advocacy magazine. It's no more a "study" than a Sy Hersh article in the New Yorker is. Graft 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But with many references. I see no problem with quoting the statement which is true. For example, the claimed relation to cancer was false. "Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated." Ultramarine 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. On closer thoughs, probably the same author to this article and the LaRouche. Seems best to remove it.Ultramarine 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 

message: DDT is also a russian well known rock band with Yuri Shevchuk as its leader
:See DDT.  --Plumbago 12:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DDT, the Russian band

message: Hi people,
It's all well and good to argue about substance, but the STYLE of the page has taken a real downturn. Why is the lede now two pages long and covering all sorts of relatively insignificant details? This is really ugly. Does anyone have a good reason for this? Specifically, Ultramarine, why did you revert to this hideous form? Graft 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm partially responsible for this.  After Ultramarine's recent reverting spree the article lost its chemical description infobox.  I replaced it by cutting and pasting, but I should probably have reverted to get the old structure back and then added in Ultramarine's changes (not that I agree with them).  My apologies.  --Plumbago 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the old form, I hope without disturbing any new changes. Graft 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crap organization 

message: Re: JQ's requested cite, I found this Lancet review, from which I quote the relevant passage:
:Toxic effects of DDT
:Toxic effects of DDT and its analogues have been extensively studied in laboratory animals. Acute exposure to a high dose of DDT can cause death.12 Exposure to DDT or DDE increases liver weight, induces liver cytochrome P450 CYP) 2B and 3A and aromatase,21, 22 and 23 and causes hepatic-cell hypertrophy and necrosis.12 DDT is insecticidal  because of its neurological toxic effects. In laboratory animals, DDT causes hyperactivity, tremor, and seizures. DDT is carcinogenic in mice and rats, mainly causing liver tumours,12 although negative results are also seen,24 and the compound is carcinogenic in non-human primates.25 The o,p′-DDT isomer is the most oestrogenic component of the DDT complex (having a relative binding affinity to oestrogen receptors of 2·9×10−3 relative to 17-β oestradiol),26 with p,p′-DDT being much less oestrogenic than its o,p′ isomer. The p,p′-DDE isomer is anti-androgenic by inhibitive binding to androgen receptors (with a relative binding affinity to androgen receptors of 3·1×10−3 relative to dihydrotestosterone).27 and 28 Prenatal exposure to DDT in early pregnancy in rabbits can reduce overall fetal bodyweight and brain and kidney weight in offspring.29 Immunosuppressive effects of DDT have been shown in rats and mice.30 and 31
:In people, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning.12 Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people.12 Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades.
Also on cancer:
:Although extensively studied, there is no convincing evidence that DDT or its metabolite DDE increase human cancer risk. Mainly on the basis of animal data, DDT is classified as a possible carcinogen (class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)35 and as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program.
:Breast cancer has been examined most closely for an association with p,p′-DDE. In a study in 1993,37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11·8 μg/L) than controls (7·7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association.38, 39, 40 and 41 However, large epidemiological studies13, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses50, 51 and 52 failed to confirm the association.
That should do. Graft 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think DDT is actually still used in soap in Ecuador or Peru. Actually I think I remember Slrubenstein mentioning it once. You might ask him... Graft 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: Here is what I read on the article: "...Silent Spring were ultimately scientifically inaccurate." Is there proof of this?
:If you mean "the evidence available at the time probably didn't bear them out", then, yes, this is almost certainly true. Graft 07:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: On the whole - nice work.  Your copyediting has definitely improved weaker sections of the article.  However, in one or two places, you've toned down statements, even ones which are statements of fact.  For example, "DDT is considered a persistent ..."; "had a tendency to become".  The original statements had nothing wrong with them, and these edits might be misconstrued as attempts to dilute them.  Furthermore, there are a few statements I'd definitely question : "Studies have shown there is no link between DDT and cancer in humans" - this is better phrased "Studies to date have not found a link between DDT and cancer in humans", since a study that doesn't find something can't rule it out (and, let's not forget, DDT has been observed to cause cancer in other mammals).  Also, "ban has a racist tinge", erm, where did that come from?  Might need to clarify this one, it seems a bit POV.  Anyway, I don't want to downplay your good work, but just wanted to flag up my concerns.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm easy.  If you see anything that doesn't smell right, I'd be happy to change it.  As far as the reference to the "racist tinge," it seemed to be the train of thought that was being alluded to, but not directly stated, in the paragraph in question.  I'll certainly remove it if it's offensive, however. Mary Read 08:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I think my complaints are minor, but given the politics that often intrude on DDT, I just wanted to flag up the dilution thing.  As for the racism, I sort-of see what you mean.  It's not offensive (well, to me anyway), but it's not clear that it's a neutral addition.  Anyway, I'll try to edit around my concerns, but feel free to haul me up if I reword things badly.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that I particularly like "racist," looking at it again.  I've tweaked that paragraph in an attempt to make it more accurate and less POV by suggesting that the ban might be construed as showing a lack of compassion toward the suffering in Third World nations. Mary Read 08:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Mary Read's edits 

message: I've added text distinguishing between the scientific controversy over the appropriate role of DDT vs alternative pesticides and the popular claims of Crichton, AFM and others. I think this should help to clarify the debate
:Yup, I agree.  It also draws attention to the origins of the "debate" and to its tactics.  It's not dissimilar to other "debates" in areas of environmentalism, public health and science education.  Is there an overarching page bringing these sorts of things together?  If not, there maybe should be.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astroturfing.Gzuckier 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I have just come to this article and read it straight out and thought I would point this out:
* The article makes contradictory claims, sometimes saying DDT does cause cancer, other times saying that it doesn't. If there is uncertainty, then world like 'might' would make it consistent.
*The article claims at one point it has lots of damages to fertility and pregnant women and babies, at another point saying it's mostly safe for humans.
--komencanto 12:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health inconsistencies 

message: 100 things you should know about DDT 
Use of DDT was:
*Demagogued 
*Banned by an EPA administrator who ignored his law judge
*Actual Human Exposures have been "acceptable" level
*Cancer Studies inconclusive
*Myth of Egg Shell Thinning
Also addressed are the issues of declining bird populations and faulty detection methods.
:It's not a debate, it's an article.  And JunkScience.com is hardly a comprehensive and entirely trustworthy source of unbiased information (just look at the article on Steven Milloy and here).  It certainly makes some good points re: DDT, but it's not the last word on the subject (to say the least).  By all means edit the article, but please use sources appropriately (i.e. primary sources are best).  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article covers most of these objections well enough; it discusses Ruckelhaus's ban and claims of his not reading the text (despite my qualms about that being taken out of context); it discusses risks to humans and cancer studies; and it points out that egg shell thinning only occurs in some bird species, e.g. not in chickens but in raptors. Graft 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth reading Junk science. This is a term invented by tobacco lobbyists, and is not a useful starting point for debate on scientific issues JQ 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Milloy is absolutely not a reputable authority, but he isn't used as one. The references to his site link back to the controversy section. It's appropriate to quote him there, since he's played an active role in the controversy. JQ 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, as regards scientific claims, but it's important not to accept Milloy's summaries at face value. Before using one of his references, it's important to go back to the original source and check it. As regards the controversy section, what I said before.JQ 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. Sometimes I think Wikipedia scientific articles should allow peer-reviewed journals only.--Rotten 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Debate is Full of Junk Science

message: Article says DDT was banned in the U.S. Was it also "banned" overseas? How much of a restriction resulted? 
I read somewhere that USAID at one point adamantly refused to fund any program that used DDT to kill mosquitoes - insisting instead that people try to sleep under cumbersome, uncomfortable (and expensive) nets. The source (which I'll try to google up again) said that an application of DDT to interior dwelling walls is effective for six months.
Similar sources (pro-DDT advocates) attribute tremendous increases in malaria deaths to anti-DDT restrictions (not to say "bans"); they blame the US and the UN specifically. Is there any truth to the claim that malaria was almost wiped out in some countries, but that zero population growth advocates wangled the DDT restrictions with the intent of killing Africans and Asians? (That's a rather extreme claim, on the order of accusing Mao Tse-Tung of murdering 60 million Chinese civilians to build Communism.) --Uncle Ed 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, sources like these are linked in the article. As you imply, their claims are not  credible, and I think the article does a good job. On your first question, agricultural use of DDT has rightly been banned globally (at least AFAIK). The US ban did not include "essential public health use", but DDT has been displaced by less persistent, but more expensive, alternatives in developed countries. As regards bednets, most reputable authorities regard them as essential. Bear in mind that the idea of globally eradicating malarial mosquitoes was abandoned by the 1960s, well before the US ban, because of the rise of resistance. House spraying is at best partially effective.JQ 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Bednets expensive? Sources I've seen have them arguably cheaper than spraying, DDT included; both absolutely and in terms of lives saved per $. As for uncomfortable, I haven't seen reference to that before. Gzuckier 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of ban

message: Any opinions on whether this should qualify as an FA? DS 12:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?