I am doing a debate on GMOs, I am pro-GMO. If you can please give me websites that would support my stance, and maybe some points that would be effective. Thank you very much; also some sci debate on GMOs would be welcomed..

How can you be pro-GMO if you don't know the sticking points?

Anyways, I've been through this. Everyone knows the basic things, so if you want to do well, brainstorm some unconventional idea's about how modern civilization *needs* GMO's to survive, and the only reason they exist in the first place is to balance the ecosystem.

For example, GMO's are being used in India and other third world countries to save people from famine and prevent blindness.

'GMO's are a natural part of human evolution' --say that.

Its the anti-GMO's that are going against nature.

How can you be pro-GMO if you don't know the sticking points?

I know my points, I just need some websites. From trade, to higher crop yields. I am not an idiot...

I wasn't implying you were, but I can offer you one really good link:

<a href="http://www.google.com">Google</a>

Xerxes

No shit sherlock! Obviously I tried google... I found some good sites, but I was wondering if there are stats, and websites that ppl can give to help out.

Please somebody tell me what GMO. I am not that educated in the Earth Science section.

Genetically Modified Organism.

Does anyone have stats? Please that would really help out. For instance how much more food could be created in states? I know the world bank said 25%, but I was wondering if anyone has more specific stats.

Thank you.

I am not pro anything without reservations and that especially goes for GMOs.

They were and are designed for the profit making potential of a few companies, not the welfare of humanity.

They are now tainting old native genotypes which may be quite difficult to recover. They are also spreading uncontrolled and subsequently being honored in courts as patent violations by farmers who did not even realize their seed crops had been contaminated. The regulations thought wise and passed to control them have been transgressed with no fines or repercussions and potential harm has been noticed to endangered species. Though the company in that instance agreed to abide they did not and it can be argued that they couldn't.

If us humans do tame the information explosion for the benefit of humanity most of the population will choose to live off planet because it offers more freedom and potential longevity. That is when we will and should develop GMOs where we can contain them. This planet will be the conservation zone of the species we will use to seed the colonies we build and we need it to sustain the highest diversity index possible, a real measure of wealth, more than any amount of money.

A major goal of some GMOs has been to foster pesticide use, the Roundup ready plants. The consequences are damaging to many other crops, plants and animals including humans.

You can argue that GMOs are just an extension of humanity's long standing selective breeding for desired traits but when accelerated this way, the possibility to test the repercussions become ever more difficult.

BTW, how come we get biology subjects in the Earth science section?

The anti-GMO part:

Once I had a nightmare that to feed Earth's 12 billion population, scientists genetically enhanced plants to produce very large size fruits and vegetables. In the process, they gave the plants intelligence to produce targeted toxins for pest control. 200 years passby, and suddenly the plants produced the fruits and vegetables highly bitter so that humans could not eat it.....

A little modification may be good....but runaway GMO can kill everybody....think about it.

Here is one stereotype from the green litany, when referring to GM crops:

“They were and are designed for the profit making potential of a few companies, not the welfare of humanity.”

As almost anything on Earth does. From cars, airplanes, home appliances, computers, TV, even medicines, foods, beverages, clothes, toys, cosmetics - you name it – was the idea of someone getting richer, not to contribute to mankind welfare. Many people think as Bernard Shaw did: "What have the future generations done in my behalf, for me to care about them?" Bernard Shaw was an inspiration to the green movement. He was known to say: "The more I know man, the more I love my dog" - the sad part is Shaw hated dogs and little kids, so you can imagine how much he loved his fellow men...

Only some very few benefactors of humanity have devised techniques, methods or processes intended solely for mankind benefit. Pasteur was one that comes to mind immediately, or Fleming, Dr. Salk, Dr. Sabin, or Dra. Inés Allende, discoverer of the Papanicolao test for cervical cancer.

But most noticeable is Dr. Bruce Ames, who devised the Ames Test (salmonella in Petri dishes) for determining teratogenic, mutagenic and/or carcinogenic effects of any chemical substance, but I guess most persons in the forum know about the Ames test and Dr. Ames.

But I wonder if everybody knew that instead of getting a patent on the test, Dr. Ames donated it to mankind, as one of the most useful thing ever devised for improving public health. As the test is used daily all over the world by millions of factories, labs, universities, labs, etc, Dr. Ames could have been now richer than Bill Gates.

But even terrible things devised for wrong uses as the atomic bomb, have developed into useful uses as nuclear medicine, electric generation, and other industrial processes. Technologies born for destruction eventually became useful tools and benefited enormously people all ovr the world. But I am sure there are different opinions on this matter.

"stereotype from the green litany" and then you go about agreeing though intoning that it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am a human being. I do not have green skin. I have no afilliation with Green Peace or the green party.

I find you to be quite rude. Why not just stick to the subject rather than bring in these wide sweeping grandiose philosophical rantings?

I must share that I am not totally against GMOs. Perhaps such could be used to fight the spread of Calerpa taxifolia and I believe I have heard of genetically altered sterile mosquitos that can aid in mosquito abatement. RoundUp ready GMOs I find to be an atrocious abuse of the technique and messing with other common food crops begs the question of how to test the repercussions without using the biosphere as the stage.

Are you claiming GMOs are all good in every context? I am willing to alter my first post here with the idea that they may not be all bad as I share some possible exceptions in this post. In general though, I do think it is quite powerful stuff and would like to see a great deal of wisdom utilized for their release into the environs, more wisdom perhaps than the profit motive alone can allow.

A major goal of some GMOs has been to foster pesticide use, the Roundup ready plants. The consequences are damaging to many other crops, plants and animals including humans.

Roundup ready plants, when used appropiately, result in an overall reduction in the amount of chemicals sprayed on a crop. Yes, Montsano designed them to foster pesticide use, but at the expense of pesticides produced by other manufacturers. This system can benefit the environment by reducing the amounts of chemicals introduced into it by the farmer and can benefit the farmer by reducing the amount of chemicals they have to first purchase and then spend time applying.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Roundup ready plants are damaging to anything. Any real evidence (not hypotheses and hunches) I would like to see.

I hate to do this but.......

I am against GMO's, but this is not the thread to debate. I'll give you something to work with that 'may' help, it has stumped me when I've debated this topic with the pro-GMO crowd.

I always take the position that modifying genetics is unnatural and therefore possibly unsafe or damaging to our natural environment i.e. monsanto has produced certain types of grain that will not germinate therefore threatening natural crops in the same way an invasive species threatens domestic species. This is a valid point but as i've said we're not debating here. Anyhow, I always get stumped when it's pointed out to me that nature has 'repaired' this 'perceived' threat - a perception of the anti gmo crowd - as time passes i.e. how Splake - a gmo - have begun to reproduce amongst their own 'species' and that preliminary studies show that this 'natural' reproduction is increasing with time.

Again, I don't know if that's the sort of thing you're looking for but hey, just trying to help.. But beware, there is a rebuttal to that argument as well.. :)

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Roundup ready plants are damaging to anything.

Roundup is a pesticide. Anything that kills or destroys anything is "damaging to anything". A friend of ours got Cancer from handling Pesticide for several years. The Pesticide makers will say, there is no conclusive proof simply because they could be liable....but we know better. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

Keep in mind, I neither favour nor disagree with the use of GMOs at the moment.

Roundup is a pesticide.
You're right, Roundup is a pesticide (herbicide to be more specific). It's Roundup that damages other plants, not the Roundup ready organisms.
A friend of ours got Cancer from handling Pesticide for several years
I'm very sorry to hear that, but I doubt the pesticide being handled was Roundup. Pesticides are noxious chemicals. The reason Roundup is better is because it doesn't cause any toxic effects to humans.
RoundUp ready GMOs I find to be an atrocious abuse of the technique
Mr. Chips, keeping in mind I don't necessarily disagree with you, why do you feel this way?

Besides the profit motive being formost in Monsanto's eyes, http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ there is virually no way to assure the plants will not cross pollinate resulting in what is called a loss in identity preservation. There is a link at the bottom right concerning a study of the potentials for not being able to keep roundup ready genes out of the general population of similar plants. Does this mean that Monsanto now has patent violation claims to make ad infinitum? So far, according to the Canadian Supreme Court, they do as evident in the link shared in this post.

In general, I am aware that there are many means for controlling weeds and pests. In general I believe fostering a dependence on one chemical predisposes one to use other chemicals. In general I find it wise to foster and help people grow things without dependence on chemicals especially from one specific company as well as seed stock (from that one company again) that leads to contamination of the gene pool of that species.

Roundup is a herbicide and not a pesticide. My mistake in the above post. Most GMOs are designed to be resistant to pests among other things such as more productive, longer cycle, larger fruit etc. Here is an interesting site about Roundup (http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/)

Logically herbicides pose less risk than pesticides to humans. However, since the active ingredient Glyphosate inhibits the production of essential amino acids in the plant and hence it dies - who knows what long tem effect is on humans if it comes in direct contact with children...

Pesticide is a whole different issue. They work on the pest's central nervous system. Whether externally applied or the plant itself produces it - can cause some issues when ingested by humans unless a mechanism can also be developed that neutralizes the toxin when the fruit ripens. That would be really smart engineering. I would vote for that.

Glyphosate inhibits the production of essential amino acids in the plant and hence it dies
Yes, but from my understanding, it acts on a pathway that is used by plants only.
In plants and some micro-organisms glyphosate inhibits the shikimic acid pathway, causing a deficit in aromatic amino acids. (Absence of this pathway may account for its low toxicity in animals).
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest91_e.htm#1.3

Glyphosate

EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 0.7 PPM

Short-term: EPA has found glyphosate to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: congestion of the lungs; increased breathing rate.

Long-term: Glyphosate has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: kidney damage, reproductive effects.

GMO

Here are some examples of GMOs that have been grown in the U.S.:


Rat and human genes in trout
Spider genes in goats
Human genes in corn or rice
Mouse and human genes in potatoes
Fish genes in tomatoes
Cow or human genes in salmon

While it sounds scary, on a second thought, Genes are basically software/hardware programs to express a life form. Copying a good code from one life form to another should not be a big deal - if one knows what one is doing. Imagine, if you can see in the dark (more sensitive to IR!) or grow new teeth when the old one fall off....or keep your black hair.....to the end! :D

kmguru

While it sounds scary, on a second thought, Genes are basically software/hardware programs to express a life form

Okay, that may be a fair analogy if not a good one - and what makes if fair rather than good, in my opinion, is that the context dividing the two (genes v. software) are vastly different, no?

A friend of ours got Cancer from handling Pesticide for several years.
Hi, kmguru!. I know that you are now aware that Roundup is not a pesticide, but a weed killer. But about your friend getting cancer after dealing for several years with pesticides, I wonder if they ruled out about thousands of other factors related to cancer generation.

In other thread (Weeds, weeds, weeds... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34703&goto=newpost) I posted the results of a study made by Dr. Edwards R. Laws, from the US Department of Agriculture back in the 60s, after an epidemiological study (1300 years/man) on workers at the Montrose Chemical Co. in California, producers of DDT, where there was not a single case of cancer among the workers. As Dr. Laws pointed clearly: "This is a statistically impossible event".

As you know, take any human group, at any social level, or activity, race, or whatever, and you'll get a 25% occurrence of cancer cases. The lack of cancer cases in this 1300 years/man study (the biggest epidemiological study ever performed on anything) where they couln't find even one, is quite amazing.

That sent Dr. Laws and other scientists trying to find the reasons of this apparent cancer prevention hability of DDT, and made many surprising discoveries, as 30% of rats in an experiment getting cured from cancer tumors implanted in their brain, while the controls had 100% mortality, or finding no harmul effects on volunteers fed 35mg of DDT daily, during a period of 20-27 months - nor after a check up after 25 years.

In our experience at our ranch in Argentina, where we have been dealing with herbicides and pesticides for over 40 years, (a 2400 acres area) we had no cancer cases among our workers or my familiy members involved in the managing of pesticides. This does not mean that some pesticides, especially those containing phosphorus (we never used them) can be highly toxic and could induce some (but no all) type of cancers.

What we must keep in mind is what Theophilus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known as Paracelsus, told us back in the Renaissance: "Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison. The dose is the poison".

This the Golden Axiom in toxicology.

Hi Edufer:

I beg to differ slightly with the tone of your posting. IMHO:

Certain Pesticides such as DDT may not produce Cancer because their actions are different. At over 200mg/KG body weight DDT will kill you as people have commited suicide using DDT in India. DDT is a fat soluble chemical that causes disruptions in cell communication. The effects sre different depending on the amount present. Human body is adaptive and perhaps breaksdown DDT (C14H9Cl5) to a harmless alcohol and Salt or Cl based Acid. But obviously, too much can overwhelm the body.

Because different Pesticides work differently, some can put a lot of load on the liver to work hard and hence Liver remains inflammed for a prolonged period of time. It is that systemic inflammation that causes Cancer. Certain pesticides that have been taken off the market work fast whereas others take a long time in human body.

While Chlorine and Ethyl Alcohol can also be considered as Pesticides (more like bactericide), they have different non-cumulative effect on human body. Again, a lot could kill you too. But we need to be careful when comparing Chlorine to Malathion to Radio-active isotopes. Some do cause harm in low doses or with long term exposure (cumulative). Knowing the difference can save your life irrespective of what anyone says!

kmguru, like most of the time, you are right. You said the same I said but with elaborating a little more. I was wrong in thinking that by saying “ This does not mean that some pesticides, especially those containing phosphorus (we never used them) can be highly toxic and could induce some (but no all) type of cancers.[/b], you would take for granted that some pesticides will induce different types of cancers – but I should have added [i]“depending on the doses, time of exposure, and accumulation in the body”. As you surely know, different chemicals are metabolized in different ways by the body, and in the special case of DDT, it is metabolized in the liver by the process of hydroxylation and converted to harmless metabolites that are readily excreted in urine.

Quite sure, chemical build-up in the body can lead to many harmful effects. But the other side of the coin is that natural chemicals in the environment constitute about 99,99% of chemicals substances man is exposed in his life, while synthetic substances (among them all pesticides) makes up to 0,01%.

I am sure you would be interested in reading Bruce Ames’ paper on comparative toxicology, in “Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA, “NATURE'S CHEMICALS AND SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS: COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY”, at http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesSynth.html where, besides of being a nice reading, you will see very interesting and useful information.

I find some flat out lies in Ame's paper. Why didn't he cite any more recent studies than 1975 when stating that it has not been found to have any danger to humans? I just went and did another search on pub med and found 21 pages of "ddt cancer" and the reports from before 1990 start on page 12. I see some that purport to find evidence of toxicity to humans. Of course, most of the cogent data is in the more recent studies and again, they do not point to blanket statements such as Ames made. I'm afraid, though the man may have invented a useful tool, his integrity is lax, slipshod enough to become another of the few references you can make, Edufer.

I would like to hear about hose “flat lies” by Dr. Ames. One or two will suffice. I think you are getting into deep waters here, Mr. Chips.

Why Ames does not mention more recent data? Perhaps because as I explained before in the “weeds, weeds...” thread, (but you seem to have missed it, or if you read it you can’t remember what you read, or have a mental blocking), there are no favorable scientific papers showing the lack of human effect of DDT – when used as directed and recommended, and not for suicidal or criminal purposes – because there is no private (from industry) or government funds for exonerating a chemical that did cost too much money to ban, in the first place! But, Mr. Chips, I see you still have your same “tunnel vision” regarding DDT and everything I say.

And casting doubts on Dr. Ames integrity is taking things (and my patience) to intolerable limits.

Why would Ames be lying? For money? For notoriety? For the sake of it? He could be richer than Bill Gates if had not given the patent of the “Ames Test” as a gift to mankind. So money is ruled out. He is the most famous toxicologist in the world. So fame and notoriety are ruled out. For the sake of it? Come on! You are the first person I’ve heard accusing Bruce Ames of being a liar!

Greens have demonized Ames, because they consider Ames as a traitor to the Green Cause – just because he is giving scientific irrefutable facts on carcinogenic substances and saying natural toxins are 99,99% and synthetic only 0,01%. And unlike previous statements by you, that you have not a green skin, you are showing yourself greener than Hulk.

Use your brain, Mr. Chips, it's time for you to break it in.

"Although DDT was unusuaI with respect to bioconcentration, it was remarkabty non-toxic to mammals, saved millions of lives, and has not been shown to cause harm to humans."

I do not buy that all of the or even a significant portion of the research that does not support your extreme exoneration and veneration of DDT are corrupt. Got a problem with that? It is your problem not mine. You can not explain 86% of the reports from 1977 to the present being in disagreement with the handful of researchers you cite basically from studies done in the seventies alone.

Call that tunnel vision ("everything I say too" some more obvious extremist misinformation as is your common practice) if you will but I call your crusade sociopathic. Bruce Ames is the most famous toxicologist in the world? Maybe that is why he went and adopted that extremist position that denies and just plain old ignores any of the volumes of contradictory research. Maybe he was feeling a bit disregarded and wanted to reinforce his limelight, yes, notoreity sounds pretty on the money to me.

Leave your blanket condemnation of "greens" in your garbage view of the world. Each and every person has their opinion and if you have to go and discount some on the basis of their opinions rather than look at their claims that is you being colorful, emotionally discordant.

In other thread (Weeds, weeds, weeds... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...03&goto=newpost) I posted the results of a study made by Dr. Edwards R. Laws, from the US Department of Agriculture back in the 60s, after an epidemiological study (1300 years/man) on workers at the Montrose Chemical Co. in California, producers of DDT, where there was not a single case of cancer among the workers. As Dr. Laws pointed clearly: "This is a statistically impossible event".

As you know, take any human group, at any social level, or activity, race, or whatever, and you'll get a 25% occurrence of cancer cases. The lack of cancer cases in this 1300 years/man study (the biggest epidemiological study ever performed on anything) where they couln't find even one, is quite amazing.

Laws ER, Curley A, and Biros, FJ. Men with intensive occupational exposure to DDT. Arch Environ Health. Vol. 15 pp. 766-775. 1967

This is a clinical study. Basically the researchers went into a DDT plant. They took blood, urine, and fat samples from volunteers and measured DDT levels. They gave each volunteer a physical. They looked over the medical records for each volunteer. They did this for a grand total of 35 men in their 40s.

Finding a group of 35 men in their 40s who have never been diagnosed with cancer is not a statistical impossibility, which Laws did not claim anywhere in this paper. I have no idea what "1300 years/man" is supposed to mean or where it came from. A clinical study of 35 men is not "the biggest epidemiological study ever performed on anything" . This paper is like one of those fishing stories. It gets bigger and bigger everytime someone quotes someone else who quoted someone else who .. etc .. who used this paper as a source.

And herbicides are in fact pesticides. Weeds are pests.

And herbicides are in fact pesticides. Weeds are pests.

Ya, right! Plants are animals. How could we miss that....:D

Chapter 22, Toxic effects of pesticides written by Donald J. Ecobichon p. 643 in Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons (the bible for toxicologists afaic), first paragraph :

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Pesticides may also be described as any physical, chemical, or biological agent that will kill an undesirable plant or animal pest. The term pest includes harmful, destructive, or troublesome animals, plants, or microorganisms. Pesticide is a generic name for a variety of agents that are classified more specifically on the basis of the pattern of use and organism killed. In addition to the major agricultural classes that encompasses insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, one finds pest control agents grouped as ascaricides, larvacides, miticides, molluscides, pediculicides, rodenticides, scabicides, plus attractants (pheromones), defoliants, desiccants, plant growth regulators, and repellents.

DOCTORS FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS NEWSLETTER

November 1999
Vol. XVI, No. 6
DDT BAN - FOR THE BIRDS

Global environmentalism has a long history. In the Aztec Empire, the priests convinced the people that severe weather changes and the deaths of plants and animals could be prevented by ritual human sacrifice (see Access to Energy 8/97).

These days, we are not shedding the blood of identifiable individuals on an altar stone to protect the environment. If you dare to ask a park ranger or environmentalist (as one of our members did) how many human babies should be allowed to die of malaria to save a predatory bird, the reaction will probably be a stunned silence. Yet, such a tradeoff is tacitly approved by today's environmental priesthood, and accepted by scientists who should know what they are doing.

The babies are dying in vain. An article from the DDP archives is highly pertinent as the world elite contemplates a total ban on DDT: "Remembering Silent Spring and Its Consequences'' by J. Gordon Edwards, presented at the 1996 meeting.

Dr. Edwards writes: "In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, and because of my 25 years of nature study I expected to be delighted....It didn't take long to learn that she had filled the book with great numbers of untruthful things. Vice President Al Gore has stated that Rachel Carson turned his life around. She turned mine around, too, but in the opposite direction,...from an 'environmentalist' to a scientist with a desire to keep truth in science and environmentalism.''

"I discovered,'' Dr. Edwards states, "that many 'scientists' were going along with the propaganda in order to get paid for tendentious 'experiments' that would support untruthful allegations.'' Audubon refused his offer to write "the other side of the DDT story.'' Philip Abelson, editor of Science, informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that the journal would never publish any non-antagonistic article about DDT. The New York Times and the Audubon Society asserted that Edwards and Jukes, among others, were "paid by the pesticide industry to lie about the Christmas Bird Counts showing increased numbers of birds during the DDT years.'' The scientists won a libel suit in federal court.
These are some of the lies that Dr. Edwards refutes:

• DDT caused birds to drop out of the sky or fall out of trees. Just not so. Bird counts in 1960 (after DDT) vs. 1941 (before DDT) showed 12 times more robins, 21 times more cowbirds, 38 times more blackbirds, 131 times more grackles, etc. Possible protective effects: increasing plant yields; increasing protective cover; eliminating mosquito- borne bird diseases; and inducing liver enzymes that break down naturally occurring environmental toxins and carcinogens.

• DDT was especially damaging to predators. Some predators were endangered before DDT and began to recover afterward. Any population declines were likely to be attributed to DDT, when another cause was obvious to a knowledgeable scientist: an oil spill with high mercury levels; egg predation by biologists; disruptions by humans and helicopters; and an epidemic of Newcastle Disease. The bald eagle was on the verge of extinction in the 1920s, long before DDT was discovered. Eagles were shot on sight to collect a bounty or feathers; trapped accidentally; killed by impact with buildings; electrocuted by power lines; or p o i s o n e d by PCBs.

• DDT caused eggshell thinning. In a successful effort to convince people that DDT causes thinning of eggshells, scientists also exposed their DDT-fed birds to conditions known to cause this effect, including starvation, reducing dietary calcium to very low levels, water deprivation, decreasing illumination from 16 to 8 hours per day, or mixing dieldrin with their food. When Bitman and coworkers repeated the experiment published in Nature 1969;224:44 and in Science in 1970, this time feeding the birds sufficient calcium, there was no difference in shell thickness in DDT-fed birds. Science rejected this article, which was then published in Poultry Science 1971;50:657- 569.

• DDT undergoes ``biological magnification in food chains.'' The theory is that if a fish eats a large number of crustaceans, the fish will have a higher concentration of DDT than any one crustacean, and the duck that eats many fish, and the hawk that eats many ducks, will have higher and higher concentrations of DDT. To "prove'' this, propagandists analyzed the DDT levels in hawk brains (where they are highest) and duck fat, which has levels lower than hawk brain but higher than fish muscle. In fact, if one compares the level in muscle from crustacean, fish, duck, and hawk, there is no biomagnification at all. In fact, most of the DDT in fish comes through the gills; most DDT in food passes through the gut and is eliminated.
Biomagnification of DDT allegedly killed cats in North Borneo, allowing multiplication of rats and threatening an outbreak of plague. Sensational news stories told of cats being parachuted in. But it was dieldrin that killed the cats, not DDT.

• DDT persists in the environment. Dr. Edwards can cite more than 140 articles demonstrating breakdown of DDT. In one experiment, a large amount of DDT was added to sea water in a glass container, which was closed and suspended in the ocean. After 38 days, 92% of the DDT and its metabolites were gone. The persistence myth was based partly on inaccurate measurements by gas-liquid chromatography. Many substances interfere with the analysis, including PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts or in the plastic tubing within the instrument. GLC, for example, "showed'' five kinds of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in soil samples, even though none existed until 30 years after the samples were sealed.

Dr. George Woodwell wrote in 1971 that six billion pounds of DDT had been used, but only 12 million pounds could be accounted for in all the earth's plants, animals, fish, and birds. That was less than 1/30 of one year's world production in the mid-1960s. Woodwell theorized that "most of the DDT has either been degraded into innocuousness or sequestered in places where it is not freely available'' (Science 1971;174:1101). However, he did not include that article in his testimony at the EPA hearings, on his lawyers' advice, lest his entire statement be disallowed.

• DDT causes cancer. In EPA testimony, Dr. Samuel Epstein stated that "DDT-fed mice developed cancer,'' and a summary of his remarks was published in the News and Comment section in Science. He avoided mentioning the fact that the mice that were not fed DDT developed more cancers (83 vs 68)! Although the omission was criticized, Science never published a clarification or retraction.

Workers at the Montrose Chemical Company absorbed 400 times as much DDT as the average American, yet 1300 man-years of exposure resulted in not a single reported case of cancer (Arch Environ Health 1967;15:766-775). Dr. Edwards is so convinced of DDT's safety that he used to eat a tablespoon of DDT powder at the beginning of every speech. In 1971, Robert and Louise Loibl took a capsule of 10 mg of DDT (a full year's intake for an average American) every day for 3 months without ill effect. As a preventive measure against cancer, I have been taking a daily 15 mg dose of DDT since January 1996 with not clinically observable adverse effects on any or my organs.

Rachel Carson dedicated her book to Albert Schweitzer, who said "Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.''

"Miss Carson knew,'' Edwards states, that "he was referring to atomic warfare when she quoted that, but she implied that he meant there were deadly hazards from pesticides such as DDT. I got a copy of Schweitzer's autobiography to see if he really mentioned DDT. He did, writing (p. 262): 'How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us...but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us'.''

Skylark, it seems you have a copy of Dr. Laws study. Good. Is there a way I can get a copy of it (either html, a word document, a pdf file, a weblink?). According to Gordon Edwards, Dr. Laws didn't make the statement in his paper, but during the EPA hearings back in 1971-72. I guess Dr. Edwards' reference to the 1300 year/man epidemiological study was mistaken with another study made by the US Department of Agriculture in the late 60s. It refers directly to the Montrose Chemical Co. long list of medical records at the factory (workers x time worked = 1300 year/man). I would like to check with Dr. Gordon about this.

I will tell you later the outcome of this research.

EPA's definiton of pesticides should include "man" as a pesticide and Amish and Menonites as "endangered species". :D

And we should remember that Russel Train, EPA's former administrator, a tax lawyer, redefined the concept of "cancer", without consulting any scientist. He did it in order to apply EPA's most stringest regulation to any chemical substance. Another triumph of politics over science.

Well, Mr. Chips, and Skylark: you asked for some studies supporting the idea that DDT is not as bad as they have pictured it. I am sorry if here are some more than those 17 studies appearing in Pubmed website, but life is not easy.

This is a long, long list, so I will be posting here in episodes, so you will have the opportunity to refute all of them. I am sure you can do it. After all, “science” is on your side. The subjects are: 1) Human Exposure, 2) Cancer, 3) Eggshell Thinning, 4) Bald Eagles, 5) Peregrine Falcons, 6) Brown Pelicans, 7) Bird Population Increase (or Decrease?) during DDT years, and finally, 8) Erroneous Detection. Enjoy the reading - and your Google search….

1. Human exposure

Actual human exposures have always been far lower than the "acceptable" level.

1. Human ingestion of DDT was estimated to average about 0.0026 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) about 0.18 milligrams per day. [Hayes, W. 1956. J Amer Medical Assn, Oct. 1956]

2. In 1967, the daily average intake of DDT by 20 men with high occupational exposure was estimated to be 17.5 to 18 mg/man per day, as compared with an average of 0.04 mg/man per day for the general population. [IARC V.5, 1974].

3. Dr. Alice Ottoboni, toxicologist for the state of California, estimated that the average American ingests between 0.0006 mg/kg/day and 0.0001 mg/kg/day of DDT. [Ottoboni, A. et al. California's Health, August 1969 & May 1972]

4. "In the United States, the average amount of DDT and DDE eaten daily in food in 1981 was 2.24 micrograms per day (ug/day) (0.000032 mg/kg/day), with root and leafy vegetables containing the highest amount. Meat, fish, and poultry also contain very low levels of these compounds." [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

5. The World Health Organization set an acceptable daily intake of DDT for humans at 0.01 mg/kg/day.

6. "Air samples in the United States have shown levels of DDT ranging from 0.00001 to 1.56 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3), depending on the location and year of sampling. Most reported samples were collected in the mid 1970s, and present levels are expected to be much lower. DDT and DDE have been reported in surface waters at levels of 0.001 micrograms per liter (ug/L), while DDD generally is not found in surface water. National soil testing programs in the early 1970s have reported levels in soil ranging from 0.18 to 5.86 parts per million (ppm)." [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

Let's hear your remarks.

I think I'll retain my faith in human nature and stop reading any of your garbage, Edufer. I have placed you on my ignore list. Bye lunatic.

Here is what Mr. Chip said about me in the “Weeds, weeds, weeds!” and “GMO” threads:

*********************************
Edufer is the champion of truth
I think you are quite sick.
I continually downgrade my opinion of your integrity, Edufer.
Appears to be married to his psychological make-up which must be fairly twisted and convoluted to be such a spokesperson of misguidance.
Please realize that I mean you no insult, Edufer.
It is a lot easier and more reasonalbe to consider your foaming and few selective citations to be corrupt.
…but I call your crusade sociopathic.
I consider you to be one sick puppy.
I think I'll retain my faith in human nature and stop reading any of your garbage, Edufer.
I have placed you on my ignore list.
Bye lunatic.
***********************************

I knew Mr. Chips had placed “science” in his ignore list, so my inclusion in his list will not make me lose my sleep. I whish him a happy journey in the huge mattress of ignorance he has chosen as a safe place to live. He shows a clear case of the ostrich syndrome.

Did somebody say something? My opinion is that the guy who hijacked this thread does not have anything to say and in many words. I will not pretend to discuss things with him, I'd be more successful talking to a brick. Science indeed. Ever read "Data Smog" by David Shenk? Science gets buried in the spins and biased selective reporting of those who feel that just brute force gives their opinion more weight.

Undecided, look into BT crops. There is a lot of disatisfaction with their effectiveness, cost and long term results.

"Science gets buried in the spins and biased selective reporting of those who feel that just brute force gives their opinion more weight."

That's true. But what kind of "brute force" are you referring to, Mr. Chips? If I were chief of NATO or president of the US you would be right - but where is the "brute force" in words typed in a keyboard and sent via internet?

OK, then, I know you are sore and feel bad. I will get off your back. Sleep well.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines pesticide as any substance .....plus attractants (pheromones), .... and repellents.

Wow...looks like ....foul breath or sweat is pesticide too. how about humans as a pest to the pristine earth environment before man showed up?

Human Pheromones? I am speechless....!!!

There is no communicating with you, Mr. Ed.

You forgot crazy glue and sticky paper: insects get stuck and die. Slippers also are pestices. My wife uses them to kill spiders and scorpions. BB guns too: my sons uses one to get the tarantulas (he suffers from arachnophobia). In the wilderness spiders are a pest. You can find about 20,000 spiders by acre. :p

Mr. Chips and one of his dumb statements: "There is no communicating with you, Mr. Ed." - You just did that. Sleep well.

"what kind of 'brute force' are you referring to, Mr. Chips?"

The brute force of useless words, ignoring any data or dismissing it entirely if it does not agree with your beliefs. Lots and lots of words with lots and lots of spin, for example, to claim that the reports you have just started giving here compare to the fourteen I got on Pub Med on the specific search concerning egg shells. When I expand the search to include your general stated intent, I find 916 results. You make a non-analogous comparison. You slant truth to support your beliefs. You use subterfuge. Others have caught you doing this in other instances. You haven't made any direct rejoinder only repeated the same outrageous claims.

You still haven't answered my question as to why you can have firm beliefs that you purport to be from scientific evidence when you claim that scientific research is mostly corrupt.

Your brute force is the ability to spew nonsense, lots of it, while avoiding any real questions that express serious doubts about the validity of your adamant and extreme opinions. I see from your web site's statistics and your audience here, especially for threads you have started yourself (hence the hijacks?), you are not altogethor very successful in your crusade. That is good. I'm getting more than a thousand hits a day on my web site. You may be able to appeal to those who feel that the amount of words is more important than the content but they are not many. The apparent lack of success for your efforts is reassuring. :)

Ok, back to GMO's NOW! Honestly, if you are going to argue and make low blows (that goes for EVERYONE), do it in a PM. These post are simply reserved for Debate (a little heated maybe) and sharing of opinions. Somwhere, somone got angry for some one else's belief. The important thing here is that we keep an OPEN mind. First case and point: ABOUT 95% of the INTERNET IS GARBAGE! so I wouldnt suggest using it as a reliable source of information when presenting an argument... unless you get it from a well known, well respected source. And im not refering to one individual.

Quite frankly, there is not a single person responsible for this thread. There are TWO who are equally responsible.

Get over it and Make intelligent comments. Dont make crude comments that are made for the sole purpose of angering or discrediting the other person.

Imagine that you are writing an informative speach. NOT a persuasive one. Therefore, attacking the other person is not highly recommended because all it does is discredit you. This goes for everyone too!

Ah, check this out, GM yeasts increase ethanol production from biomass http://www.humanapress.com/ArticleDetail.pasp?issn=0273-2289&acode=ABAB:114:1-3:403

Now as long as it can be contained so native gene pools don't become tainted and altered I might just be able to be entirely for this little GMO.

Skylark, it seems you have a copy of Dr. Laws study. Good. Is there a way I can get a copy of it (either html, a word document, a pdf file, a weblink?).

I do have a copy of it. Our library no longer carries Arch Environ Health and all back issues they do have were removed from the stacks and placed in archives. I had to order my copy from the people at archives. It came with a cover page exclaiming in bold oversized font that I was not to distribute the paper to anyone else by any means per copyright violations. Other than contacting your nearest university, I have little advice for you with regards to obtaining a copy of this study. I hope you find a copy of it and use it to make more accurate statements, though I believe you could find more scientifically rigorous work to cite.

Concerning the statement "Workers at the Montrose Chemical Company absorbed 400 times as much DDT as the average American" , the paper does not quite surport this statement either I'm afraid. The authors estimate that the workers in the high exposure group (n=20) are exposed to 400 times more DDT on a daily basis than the average American based on levels in the fat and metabolites in the urine. They also report the workers had 12 to 32 times the amount of DDT-related material in their fat, 3 to 10 times more DDT-related material in their serum, and 28 to 78 times the amount of DDT-related material in their urine compared to the general population. So I would suggest replace "absorbed 400 times" with "were estimated to have been exposed to 400 times".

As far as DDT is concerned I whole-heartedly surport its use as a malaria control agent as long as it's used in the frame work of risk assessment. That means weighing the costs and benefits of it's usage and application, not declaring any scientific work as corrupt because it does not adhere to your ideology. You've stated before that you view scientific reports with respect to who the results benefit. I would challenge you to instead read scientific papers and judge them on the merits of their science.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines pesticide as any substance .....plus attractants (pheromones), .... and repellents.

As example of an attractant classified as a pesticide would be a chemical used to lure a pest into a trap (though food is not classified as such). A pheromone example would be a biochemical used to disrupt the mating behavior of insects. A repellent would be someone like the mosquito repellent DEET.

Wow...looks like ....foul breath or sweat is pesticide too. how about humans as a pest to the pristine earth environment before man showed up?

If you bottled it up and used it to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate pests, then yes it would be a pesticide. I suspect you would end up only repelling other humans though. That could disrupt mating behavoir and would lead to a lower population of pests in the future. The pesticide definition is, however, not that robust as anyone with common sense can figure out on their own.

You forgot crazy glue and sticky paper: insects get stuck and die.

These are classified as pest control devices, not pesticides.

Slippers also are pestices. My wife uses them to kill spiders and scorpions.

Insert common sense here.

BB guns too: my sons uses one to get the tarantulas (he suffers from arachnophobia).

Firearms are specifically defined not to be a pest control device. One, they are not intended solely for the destroying pests, and two, they are already regulated under a different, much older government agency.

Skylark....as always....good post. Enjoyed much....

Skylark, I was just kidding about the pesticide definition, along with kmguru funny post, so don't take me too seriously on that. However: "These are classified as pest control devices, not pesticides.", we should note that "cide" in pesticide (as in homicide) means "killing". So pest controls, if they kill, are pesticides - although not chemical. Perhaps we forgot that the EPA could be referring to "chemical" pesticides?

And talking about EPA, BT corn and less use of pesticides:

Bt CORN DOES NOT POSE RISKS TO HUMANS

The U.S. EPA announced on October 16, 2001, that "Bt corn has been evaluated thoroughly by EPA, and we are confident that it does not pose risks to human health or to the environment. Consumers should be assured that these corn varieties show no signs of any adverse effects to human health," said Stephen L. Johnson, Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. "The safeguards incorporated into these registrations will ensure that farmers can continue to use an effective, low-risk pest control alternative, which helps to protect the environment by reducing the amount of conventional pesticides used," Johnson added.


"Environment" includes Monarch butterflies.

Tristan: you are absolutely right.

Mr. Chips: "I'm getting more than a thousand hits a day on my web site." Which is its address? I am curious.

According to our two website hit counters our website is between 1000 and 1106 unique visitors a day, with more than 3000 pages read. (602.500 visitors since Jan. 2002). And by the amount of favourable emails we get from high school, college and university students, as well from scientists from all over the world, I would say our crusade is being quite succesfull.

Hmmm, Edufer, I guess the statistics you post at your site are misinformation, no surprise really as you have shown your affinity for such.

You still haven't answered my question as to why you can have firm beliefs that you purport to be from scientific evidence when you claim that scientific research is mostly corrupt.

Mr. Chips said: “Hmmm, Edufer, I guess the statistics you post at your site are misinformation, no surprise really as you have shown your affinity for such

That’s your guess. Statistics on our website can be seen at the bottom in every one of our pages, and in those in Spanish, by making a click on the blue logo at the bottom, you can reach Nedstat.com statistic service, a website from Spain, who positions our website the second in Argentina on “Earth Sciences”, way ahead of Greenpeace’s or the WWF’s website. The service is free, so there is no money involved for putting our website on the top. There is a detailed chart and visitors day by day, where they come from, etc. You are not very good at guessing.

Mr. Chips said: “The brute force of useless words, ignoring any data or dismissing it entirely if it does not agree with your beliefs.”

It seems you feel you are the sole owner of the truth. Those words apply to you as well to anyone with dissenting views. You have taken no pain in checking most of the scientific, peer-reviewed studies I have posted, and you have merely catalogued them a “misinformation”. When I showed you that Dr. Bitman’s study (the one used by the EPA to base its ban), when performed again on request by the US Congress, (replicated) showed totally different results. There was no eggshell thinning, because the experiment was controlled and Bitman could not play his previous tricks.

The same apply of your 915 studies mentioned by you. How many of those studies were replicated? How can we be sure they will not render a different result if replicated under controlled conditions? This is the way science is conducted, and if you don’t believe that replication is the base of scientific research, then the kind of science you are into is “science by press release”.

Mr. Chips said: “You still haven't answered my question as to why you can have firm beliefs that you purport to be from scientific evidence when you claim that scientific research is mostly corrupt.”

When it comes to politically loaded issues, science has shown to become highly corrupted. This is undeniable. One of many examples was Dr. Bitman's flawed study on eggshells. Why do you think the “scientific establishment” is always shouting “there is ample consensus, the issue is settled”? When in truth there has never been “consensus” on any scientific matter. The consensus is only reached after many years of observation of phenomena and seeing there is consistency in the results of the theories. Even so, there was “overwhelming consensus” on Einstein’s general relativity theory – until they discovered particle Omega Minus.

Mr. Chips said: “Your brute force is the ability to spew nonsense, lots of it, while avoiding any real questions that express serious doubts about the validity of your adamant and extreme opinions.”

And you are using the same brute force yourself! All what you’ve said applies to you as well. So if someone dissenting with your blessed truth provides information, he is automatically labeled “missinformer”, “paid liar”, or other degrading labels. I thought we had left the Inquisition behind, but you are bringing back Torquemada’s spirit into the thread.

OK, in order to avoid being sent to the fire I will say, “DDT is bad” – eppur se muove!

BTW, we have not seen any signs of your website. Afraid of letting us know who you really are? Are you ashamed to be what or who you are?

Edufer: "You have taken no pain in checking most of the scientific, peer-reviewed studies I have posted, and you have merely catalogued them a 'misinformation'."

That is a lie.

Mr. Chips “Your brute force is the ability to spew nonsense, lots of it, while avoiding any real questions that express serious doubts about the validity of your adamant and extreme opinions.”

Edufer: "And you are using the same brute force yourself!"

Pitiful. Count the words, if you are so inclined to see the absolute insanity of your claim.

Edufer: "So if someone dissenting with your blessed truth provides information, he is automatically labeled 'missinformer', 'paid liar'"

Ooh, a compound lie, cite the instances. They do not exist.

Edufer: "BTW, we have not seen any signs of your website. Afraid of letting us know who you really are? Are you ashamed to be what or who you are?"

People see my web site as a result of their looking for something. I have no desire or need to prosyletize. You have shown a great lack of integrity. I do not need the comments or opinions of an apparent pathological crusader. Besides, it has no bearing on the subject of this thread.

Moderator Tristan, it is very difficult to not want to respond to the flaming. I suggest you lock down this and the other thread where it is occuring or get this bozo banned.

Tristan: I agree with Mr. Chips. This thread has been a place where I have been constantly insulted, despised and degraded by Mr. Chips, accusing me of any despisable attitudes and intentions - while failing to provide his personal scientifc proofs, relying on google searchs. I have been getting some personal messages via sciforum mail, saying I am losing my time with Mr. Chips. I was trying to give valid information to others readers, but they don't seem to be interested in the subject. So, this Bozo says Adiós.

Mr. Chips, your excuses for not to give your website address is pathetic, and I only show that you have nothing of the sort. We are entitled to think you are a liar. Show us I am wrong.

Yup, that is just what he wants, the lock down of this thread. Typical troll. I have made direct accusation that you have lied numerous times in this thread that any one can go and justify or not. You are free to speculate about me but you have no proof. Flame on if that is all you can do.

Here's a document that lists the observed harm done by Bt corn. Lots of references for you undecided. http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/sactoministerial/geecological/geecologicaleffects.rtf

Edufer, can you point to the post where I used the word "misinformer" or words "paid liar" that you attribute as quotes to myself? Have you no decency sir? I have claimed that you have lied and the evidence should be right here to prove me false. Can you meet the challenge to prove that you have not lied with these examples that should be easy to document. Prove or disprove your propensity to flame with false accusations.

Oh, btw, I still see that page of statistics on your site for the main page of your English section as showing less than a hundred hits per day.

Mr. Chips said: ”I suggest you lock down this and the other thread where it is occuring or get this bozo banned.” Then he says: ” Yup, that is just what he wants, the lock down of this thread. Typical troll.”.

It was you who asked for this thread to be locked, not me. Your lie flies on your face. We are beginning to think you are somewhat insane.

Mr. Chips said: ”I have claimed that you have lied and the evidence should be right here to prove me false.”

Show me where. Prove it. Hard facts, not your usual florid and extravagant syntax for saying nothing.

Mr. Chips said: ”Oh, btw, I still see that page of statistics on your site for the main page of your English section as showing less than a hundred hits per day.”

Our website is intended for Spanish readers, and the English section is seldom updated. Click in the blue logo and see what happens:

<center> <font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Usted es el visitante No.:
<a class=barra href="http://member.bcentral.com/cgi-bin/fc/fastcounter-login?2985917" target="_top"><img border="0" src="http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fastcounter?2985917+5971841"></a>
desde Enero de 2002

<font face="Verdana" size="1"><a class=barra href="http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fc-join" target="_top">FastCounter by bCentral</a></font>

Vea aquí otras interesantes<br>estadísticas de la página<script language="JavaScript" src="http://m1.nedstatbasic.net/basic.js">
</script><script language="JavaScript"><!-- nedstatbasic("AB5n/wttu/wPtlwceecxXuJD8mkA", 0); // --></script>
<a class=barra target="_blank" href="http://v1.nedstatbasic.net/stats?AB5n/wttu/wPtlwceecxXuJD8mkA">
<img src="http://m1.nedstatbasic.net/n?id=AB5n/wttu/wPtlwceecxXuJD8mkA" border="0" nosave width="40" height="40"></a>

¿Desde qué países nos visitan?
¿Quiénes son los visitantes?</b></center></font>

"Nedstat" statistics differ from "fastcounter.bcentral" because it began November 22nd, 2002, eleven months later.

I tried to keep it from coming to this. I was fair. Now im going to be mean.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17461