Weeds, weeds, weeds!

Mr. Chips · Apr 25, 2004

Some small talk is nice, gets us more in tune with our shared agreements rather than disagreements and it is good to establish that we are all on the same side, all us humans, but that last post of yours was entirely off subject.

Do you have access to any of the evidence that Dr. Edwards used to draw the conclusion that biological magnification of DDT does not happen?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edufer · Apr 25, 2004

In fact, both of us are entirely out of subject, as "weeds elimination" is the subject.

I think my post was not entirely out of "our" topic, as you mentioned birds extinctions, and I told about some work we did about macaw endangered species, showing a good website that gives incorrect information – at least on the macaw species known by me, and seen by me that there are much more than they claim. If this happened on macaws in Bolivia, then it could happen in other species too, perhaps in a global scale.

It follows that it could be that the number of bird species in the verge of extinction is not as high as they claim. The next consequence of seeing inexactitudes in claims, is that some species claimed extinct could not be extinct, but merely moved to other environment, or most probably, they were not even a species at all, but a work of “splitters”, seeing species where there are not but simple differences in feather colors, distribution of colors, etc.

As to Dr. Laws works, I have tied to get the studies, but they are not online. As I live in Argentina I have not access to the US Department of Agriculture where Dr. Laws worked, nor to Archives of Environmental Health, whose old editions are not in internet. Perhaps getting in touch with Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, in San José University could be a way of getting your hands on Dr. Laws study, or through the US US Department of Agriculture.

Also, there are studies made by renown Dr. Wayland Hayes dating back from 1956 (“Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-896), giving reports of human volunteers ingesting 35 mmg of DDT during a period ranging from 21 to 27 months, without observing deleterious effects then – nor after 30 years of the experiment. It has been medically established that DDT is metabolized in the liver and discarded in urine, and there is no significant “biological magnification”.

Regarding the DDT action on thinning eggshells, Rachel Carson based her 1962 claim in Dr. James De Witt experiment on quails and pheasants, back in 1956, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Here is the table from DeWitt study, and you can see there is something that does not match between observed results and Carson’s claims:

<CENTER>Table 3EFFECTS OF DDT ON REPRODUCTION OF QUAIL AND PHEASANT<TABLE width="90%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#80ffff" bordercolor="#ff0000"><TR><TD align="center">               
Level in diet              
</TD><TD align="center">            
</TD><TD align="center">            
</TD><TD align="center">                                       % Chlcken surviving                                         at end of</TD></TR></TABLE><TABLE width="90%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" bgcolor="#ffffff" bordercolor="#ff0000"><TR><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">In winter (ppm)</TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">During reproduction (ppm) </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> Number of blrds </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> Mortality </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> Eggs/hen (Average) </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> Hatch </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> 2 weeks </TD><TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center"> 6 weeks </TD></TR><TR><TD align="center"> Quail</TD></TR><TR> <TD align="center"> 0 (control)</TD><TD align="center"> 0 (control)</TD>
<TD align="center"> 32 </TD><TD align="center"> 6.25</TD><TD align="center"> 52 </TD><TD align="center"> 83.9</TD><TD align="center"> 88.9</TD><TD align="center"> 83.3</TD></TR><TR>
<TD align="center"> 100</TD><TD align="center"> 0 </TD><TD align="center"> 8 </TD><TD align="center"> 0 </TD><TD align="center"> 61 </TD>
<TD align="center"> 75.7</TD><TD align="center"> 86.2</TD><TD align="center"> 64.3</TD></TR><TR><TD align="center"> 100</TD><TD align="center"> 100</TD><TD align="center"> 12 </TD><TD align="center"> 25.0</TD><TD align="center"> 65 </TD><TD align="center"> 75.3</TD><TD align="center"> 67.7</TD><TD align="center"> 7.1</TD></TR><TR><TD align="center"> 0 </TD><TD align="center"> 200</TD><TD align="center"> 12 </TD><TD align="center"> 25.0</TD><TD align="center"> 55 </TD><TD align="center"> 80.0</TD><TD align="center"> 32.3</TD><TD align="center"> 12.9</TD></TR><TR> <TD align="center"> Pheasants</TD></TR><TR><TD align="center">0 (control)</TD><TD align="center">0 (control)</TD><TD align="center">28 </TD><TD align="center">0 </TD><TD align="center">48 </TD><TD align="center">57.4</TD><TD align="center">94.8</TD><TD align="center">89.7</TD></TR><TR> <TD align="center">0</TD><TD align="center">50</TD><TD align="center">10</TD><TD align="center">0</TD><TD align="center">31</TD><TD align="center">58.6</TD><TD align="center">100</TD><TD align="center">86.0</TD></TR><TR> <TD align="center">50</TD><TD align="center">50</TD><TD align="center">10</TD><TD align="center">0</TD><TD align="center">18</TD><TD align="center">80.6</TD><TD align="center">100</TD><TD align="center">93.3</TD></TR><TR><TD align="center">0</TD>
<TD align="center">100</TD><TD align="center">10</TD><TD align="center">0</TD><TD align="center">19</TD><TD align="center">52.0</TD><TD align="center">100</TD><TD align="center">82.4</TD></TR></TABLE> Source: James DeWilt, Joumel of Agricultursl and Food Chemistry, 1956. </center> <BLOCKQUOTE>These is the published data from which Carson characterized the guail and pheasants fed DDT by stating falsely: "... few of the eggs hatched. " The dosage given to the quail was 100 parts per million DDT in all their food every day – about 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of greatest DDT use.

We should acknowledge that there are many studies on both sides of the issue that deserves careful attention and investigation on how these studies were conducted, because DDT is of such importance for fighting malaria, West Nile virus, dengue, yellow fever, and many more insect borne diseases.

Then there is the “circumstantial evidence” (if we could call it that way) about the US Department of Agriculture confirming the results on human exposure to DDT (E.R. Laws, A. Curley, and F.J. Biros, 1967 Environmental health, Vol. 15, pp. 76-775) and Editorial in Agricultural Age, Dec.1983. In Pulikhanuri, Afghanistan, where the population was 5000 before DDT use, it went up to 20,000 in few years. Madagascar population, as an example, doubled from 1947 to 1960, when it had been stationary during previous decades. This is the main problem with DDT, as seen by environmentalists: it contributes to the population explosion, but they had to resort to scaring people from alleged harmful effects on the environment and man for pushing its ban.

I will tell you something that I have been doing since January 1996, (I told this several times in the past in sciforums) after I got rid of a malignant prostate cancer (radiation by lineal accelerator - 5 days of whole-body low doses exposures (for strengthening the immune system) followed by 30 sessions of highly localized irradiation of high level doses, for killing cancer cells. After that, I followed Prof. Gordon Edwards’ example (in his annual opening class on entomology, during the last 30 years) he ingests in front of his students a spoonful of DDT for showing how harmless it is. So I have been ingesting a solution of DDT (15 mg a day) since then, with the following medical results: the prostate gland is smaller than it was in 1995, my prostatic antigen level was kept around 0.1- to 0.8, when a normal level for my age (66) would be above 10.0. My physical condition is excellent, my liver, lungs, pancreas, kidneys, brain, and heart look – according to my doctors – as if I were 30. Which I am not. If DDT was so harmful for humans, and causing cancers and troubles of all types, then it would be showing in me – which is not. And these findings are recorded in the Madame Curie Foundation in Córdoba, where they are amazed by the follow up of my case.

It looks that DDT will make a triumphal return, however. After a long ostracism, people all over the world are asking for its return.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. Chips · Apr 26, 2004

Uh, Edufer, let me ask this again,

Do you have access to any of the evidence that Dr. Edwards used to draw the conclusion that biological magnification of DDT does not happen?

Apparently you did not understand the question or something.

Thank you,

Mr. Chips

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edufer · Apr 26, 2004

All I know about the evidence presented by Dr. Laws, and other studies I have mentioned, was gathered by several articles written on the subject by Dr. Gordon Edwards and famous toxicologist Dr. Thomas Jukes. Both of them took active part in the EPA's hearings on 1971, giving testimony on the lack of harm for humans resulting from DDT, as did the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Institue, the FDA, and many foreign Academies of Science and institutions all over the world. All these peolpe couldn't have been wrong at the time. The overwhelming scientific evidence of that time gave evidence of DDT's lack of harm to humans or the environment, while the prosecution presented only Dr. James DeWitt's work (it didn't show eggshell thinnging!) and Rachel Carson's book! EPA'S Administrator, Ruckelshaus, never attenden a single session, he recognized he never read a single document, and ignored EPA's Judge ruling that DDT was harmelss, and must not be banned.

When publicly announcing the ban, Ruckelshaus said: "This has nothing to do with science, the reasons for the ban are entirely political".

The US Department of Agriculture made its contribution through Dr. Laws' studies, who also participated as a witness in those hearings in favor of DDT. So his studies should be included in the hearing's records at EPA - if they have not destroyed them. Perhaps the EPA keeps those records available in the web, or perhaps you can ask them mailing them your request. Now that I said that, I will try to see if EPA has those testimonies. There were about 9,000 pages of testimonies, so the search will be no joke.

Also in EPA's 1971 hearings were studies by Dr. Wayland Hayes, and some of his studies can be found in the internet, although the ones I remember reading related to very high doses of DDT to rats, and tumors developed in those instances. But at high doses, any chemical will cause "mitogenesis", the uncontrolled proliferation of cells, what scientists call "cancer".

Dr. Laws' studies were performed in the 50s and in the 60s, and journals then didn't keep electronic records then. But surely Dr. Edwards have copies of Dr. Laws studies. I will try to get some very good friends I have in the US to ask Dr. Edwards for a copy of those studies, as they are old and close friends of Dr. Edwards.

Mr. Chips · Apr 26, 2004

If you go to pub med, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=pubmed and enter the terms "ddt egg shells" you find that a very large preponderance of the latest research supports the contention that DDT and its metabolite, DDE lead to egg shell thinning in raptors. The research has gone beyond the causal relationship showing the concentrations of these contaminants directly related to the incidence of egg shell thinning to actual tested mechanisms of how it happens.

When I look at the history of these studies I find the first and subsequent studies found much the same association, especially with DDE, an immediate break-down chemical of DDT. Contrary evidence was the exception.

Science gets sharper and more exact with time. The inconclusive results and contradictory evidence showing DDT as innocuous appear to be explained and understood as to their limitations and errors. Better designed experimentation and many more studies show a better approximation of truth.

If one's concerns are not fueled by a desire to be truthful, then I expect you will see these disingenuous charlatans using only old findings that support the desired opinions. Only those studies contradictory to desired hypothesis that were flawed will be cited amongst the opposing views. The great majority of bonafide research will be ignored by such fraud perpetrators and their cohorts. What do you think, Edufer? Do these methods of someone seeking to fool and cajole rather than inform and find consensus appear suspect to you?

Please realize that I mean you no insult, Edufer. I am only curious as to why you can not use more recent research findings, say, after 1990 and why most studies over the years appear to contradict your claims. Maybe you can cite some cogent data as to why the majority of researchers appear to be mistaken at the least and apparently conspiring against the truth as you see it.

Thanks,

Mr. Chips

Skylark · Apr 26, 2004

Regarding the DDT action on thinning eggshells, Rachel Carson based her 1962 claim in Dr. James De Witt experiment on quails and pheasants, back in 1956, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Here is the table from DeWitt study, and you can see there is something that does not match between observed results and Carson’s claims:

Carson does not use the De Witt paper with respect to thinning eggshells. That's also not "the table" nor is it "Table 3" from the De Witt paper. It is an abbreviated amalgamation of tables 3 and 4. (it's a nit-picky point, but I believe it's important that when you accuse someone of mischaracterizing someone's work, you should be as accurate as possible).

These is the published data from which Carson characterized the guail and pheasants fed DDT by stating falsely: "... few of the eggs hatched. " The dosage given to the quail was 100 parts per million DDT in all their food every day – about 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of greatest DDT use.

Actually in the part of the book where the very famous and oft quoted line "few of the eggs hatched" she's referring to quail only. That one sentence she wrote is glaringly wrong. I find it hard to believe she "stated falsely" and find it more believalbe that she "stated erroneously". The next sentence (the one that never gets quoted) is a direct quote from De Witt concerning chick mortality (not hatching). I believe the sentence should be "few of the chicks survived", and then it would not only fit in with the rest of the paragraph, but also with the de Witt reference as well. Over all it does not dramatically impact the point she was trying to make. I doubt many would argue that a chemical is not toxic if most of the eggs hatched and only 10 percent of the chicks survived the their first 6 weeks of life. Personally I find the mortality rate in adult quails too high in De Witts experiments and would suggest that it would be a confounding factor in the reproduction measurements.

I have yet to see any risk assessor make a case for using effects on avian reproduction as predictive for effects on humans, so I'm not sure there's much use in comparing effect levels of a chemical on quail reproduction to the average human exposure to that chemical.

Edufer · Apr 27, 2004

Mr. Chips, I would agree with you on most things that you say, because they sound reasonable and plain common sense – if you were not leaving out some very important sides of the question: First, as DDT is not made in Occident (only in India and China), why would you think many respected scientists and personalities in the west are claiming for the return of DDT basing their claim in the innocuousness of DDT for human beings and the environment – when used according the regulated measures regarding indoors spraying for mosquito abatement? It is not reasonable to think that highly respected scientists as Dr. Gordon Edward and Dr. Thomas Jukes (former member of the US National Academy of Sciences) are lying. Which reasons would they have to be promoting the return of DDT? Why is South Africa's president Mbeki using it against all pressures from the “civilized” countries in the west to stop using DDT – and let millions die of malaria? Are all these hundred of thousands of people SO wrong or misinformed?

Second, I would like to comment of your paragraph saying: “Science gets sharper and more exact with time.* The inconclusive results and contradictory evidence showing DDT as innocuous appear to be explained and understood as to their limitations and errors.* Better designed experimentation and many more studies show a better approximation of truth. That is true in part. Better designed studies and new instrumentation can give good results – or bad ones, depending in the way they are designed and carried away. Actually, scientists “say” they have found something in their experiments. The horrible fact is we don't know if they are telling the truth. What if Nature magazine hadn't sent Stewart and Randi to see if there was fraud or not behind Dr. Benveniste experiments on homeopathy. They debunked Benveniste's fraud and this “respected” scientists disappeared from the scientific field.

Sound science is based exclusively on “replication” of experiments. But for replicate a study they must appropriate the same amount of money for independent scientists to make the same experiment, following exactly the procedures and methods used in the original. Research money is scarce, especially that coming from the government. Companies fund their own researches (R&D), that are quite costly, but they need no replication, just a FDA approval and registration of their drugs.

So, it follows that most, if not all, of those studies showing DDT and DDE are responsible for eggshell thinning could give different results if they were replicated. But they get away with it because replication is almost absent, especially in a field so politically loaded. The government will never appropriate funds for proving that a chemical or substance is not carcinogenic, simply because the FDA and the EPA accept no negative evidence. This is, any evidence that any substance does not cause cancer in humans or animals is not considered at all. All these kind of studies are rejected. But only one study showing the carcinogenic potential of a given substance will be accepted – even without replication!

These are not my ideas, but of thousands of researchers in the world that feel science is walking down a very dangerous path. In the specific case of studies used to push the DDT ban, history tells a lot to be taken into account. In the first place, EPA should have looked into the poultry industry, where there was ample evidence of eggshell thickness available, but the NRDC and EDF knew that would destroy their arguments. They avoided mentioning of 1949 book by Romanoff and Romanoff, “The Avian Egg”, that contained all necessary information for explaining the problem of “thin eggshells”. A 1969 book by the same authors, “The Avian Embryo”, provided every detail about the amount of calcium taken by embryos during development. “Enviros” never mentioned this book. However, they took the eggs and measured the eggshell thickness after the embryo had taken the calcium for the development of their bones.

Biologists from the FWS, Tucker and Haegele (Bull. Environm.Contam. & Toxicol, 5:19, 1971) fed different groups of quails with diverse levels of calcium. A group got 3% calcium in the diet, and the other only 1%. None of the groups were fed DDT or its metabolite DDE. Eggshells from group the 1% group were 9,3% thinner than the 3% group. Then, with these studies available, ¿How can somebody design an experiment incriminating DDT as the cause of eggshell thinning? Very simple: feed the birds with a diet low in calcium, add DDT to the food and then blame DDT for the thin shells. And that is exactly was done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service scientists!

Bitman and his colleagues at Patuxent fed their quails with half the calcium received by Tucker's pheasants that had received the lowest doses of calcium (0.5%). Tucker's birds had eggshells 10% thinner when only 1% of calcium was in the diet. Then, what would be the result of feeding birds with only 0.5% calcium as Bitman did? It would be expected their eggshells to be even thinner. However, Bitman reported the eggshells were not so thin! Even so, Bitman's study was published by Science magazine, and was the reference most used for “proving” DDT caused the thinning in avian eggshells.

Then, enter Dr. Gordon Edwards. In his testimonies to the US Congress, he presented all the evidence and he was very critical of Bitman's experiment. Bitman was ordered to repeat the experiment and this time he provided the correct amount of calcium to the diets. Birds fed DDT and DDE did not produce thin eggshells! The study was presented again to Science for publication, but Science's editor, Abelman, always refused to print any article that could be favorable to DDT, so he rejected Bitman's article. A proof of the highly political bias present in this issue, then – and now. Instead, the article was published in Poultry Science, and poultry industry and honest scientists applauded the real results. Of course, circulation of that small magazine was not as large as Science's, so many scientists did not have the chance to hear about the reversal in accusations that DDT and DDE produced thin eggshells.

Here is an interesting table on dietary causes for thin eggshells:

<center>TABLE 1

DIETARY CAUSES FOR THIN EGGSHELLS

<table width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" bgcolor="#ffffff" bordercolor="#0080ff">
<tr><td bgcolor="#f9ba37">Chemicals in the diet</td><td bgcolor="#f9ba37">Effects on eggshells</td><tr><td >Lead</td><td >14,5% thinner</td><td > </td></tr><tr><td >Sevin</td><td >8,7% thinner</td><td > </td></tr><tr> <td >Mercury</td><td >8,6% thinner</td><tr><td >Parathion</td><td >4,8% thinner</td><tr><td >PCBs</td><td >4,0% thinner </td><tr><td >DDT operational</td><td >1,5% thicker</td><tr><td >DDT technical</td><td >0,0% (no change)</td><tr><td > DDE</td><td >0,0% (no change) </td></tr></table>

Source: Tucker et al., Utah Science, June 1971</center>

Why did Science reject Bitman's studies*? Philip Abelson had informed previously to Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article that was not against DDT. He even refused to consider for publication a manuscript by the World Health Organization. As a consequence, Science's articles were written always by members of the same brotherhood, and peer-review became a shame. Anti-DDT authors cited themselves and supported their statements among themselves. No other viewpoint was accepted. Wothout the refuge of Science, the DTT case would have been dismissed very rapidly!

M.L. Scott, J.R. Zimmerman, Susan Marinsky, P.A. Mulenhoff, G.L. Rumsley and R.W. Rice, spent many years in Cornell testing different chemical in bird diets for determine the cases of eggshell thinning. They reported that DDT, DDE, and DDD in the diets resulted in thicker eggshells, instead of thinner. the substance that caused the biggest thinning was mercury methyl (Poultry Science, 54:350-368, 1975). The results of years of research of these scientists were also rejected for publication in Science. No wonder you will not find any study in major journals. If Science rejected them, no other would dare to publish them!

Another way to get thinner eggshels were discovered by Tucker et al. In Utah Science, (June 1971) they published the results of careful experiments for finding dietary causes of eggshell thinning: when birds were deprived of water during 26 hours, quails laid eggs with shells 29% thinner in average. How can you prove that anti-scientists were not giving enough water to their birds, and then blaming DDT for the thinning - especially when no replication was done on their studies?

When you evaluate all these things not available to the common people - but written down in history - all those studies blaming eggshell thinning to DDT and DDE become highly suspicious, for saying the least. I don't know if you can find any excuse for the behavior of scientists wanting to “prove” DDT was a terrible thing, but I thing science and peer-review is being conducted in a very corrupted way.

Mr. Chips · Apr 27, 2004

I did a search at pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ on the terms "ddt egg shell thinning" which should contain words in both pro and con reports concerning whether or not it happens.

I got 14 results going back to 1977, one was on chicken eggs and found no correlation. One was on chicken and quail eggs and found no correlations both done in the seventies. One report had no abstract available. Eleven of the fourteen found a strong correlation of the concentration of DDE and egg shell thinning in various other birds namely those in higher trophic levels, up higher in the food chain. These included a couple assesments of the research to date and mostly in vivo and in vitro studies.

Can you inform me of any other scientific research published back to 1977 that this search at PubMed did not show? Explain to me how I got a biased view (possibly 86%) opposing the truth as you see it? I hear ya' about how the studies may be corrupted but 86% ????? A large portion of these are hard core research and not just indicative of citing each other in a cadre of a brotherhood of corruption as you have suggested. Are you claiming that scientific research and its reporting is mainly corrupted? Seems to me then that we have no knowledge we can depend on. Having any firm hypothesis pro or con whether or not egg shell thinning were related to DDT use then becomes suspect on the basis of your assesment of the corruption of science. The only reasonable strategy one could adopt then would be to play it safe, heed the danger warnings.

Of course, in an online forum, unlike peer reviewed studies, reason is not necessary. All you need is the ability to cut and paste, type incessantly, and despite the scientific research, any postion can be defended.

Mr. Chips · Apr 27, 2004

This sunday is Africa Malaria day. Check out how El Salvador was eradicating the mosquito malaria vector. Nuke 'em! http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-27/s_23203.asp

We are still off topic. Should this thread be moved starting back when the debate about DDT started?

Edufer · Apr 27, 2004

I suggest then we start a new thread titled: "DDT pros and cons".

Edufer · Apr 27, 2004

The SIT (Sterile Insect Technique) is quite old, by modern standards. It was tried back in 1980 during the terrible Medfly (Mediterranean fly) in California. It was then when Governor Jerry Brown was nicknamed “The Lord of the Flies”, for his unfruitful efforts to stop the medfly infestation in California valleys. Let’s hear something about what happened.

In its 4-week lifetime, the female medfly may produce as many as 880 offspring, including 400 daughters ready to reproduce. The female inserts a needle-like ovipositor in a fruit and spews about 5 to 15 eggs into the puncture. It moves then to another host, to do it again and again, until al the eggs have been disposed off. The eggs hatch into larvae, or maggots, which immediately begin serious eating. The damage the pest caused to California fruit producers was estimated in $14 billion. The only practical way to kill the medfly is during its adult stage, when it is out in the open.

Most eradication programs, exploiting the adult’s medly taste for honeydew – not the fruit but a sweet liquid produced by aphids and scale bugs – have relied on sweet bait laced with insecticide, usually malathion. Even when citrus groves are sprayed with insecticides, the pesto is so pervasive that a sizeable percentage of fruit and vegetable crop is ruined every year, as in the case of Israel, that has no worries concerning sprayings in order to defend its economy.

It would be too long to tell here everything that happened in California, so I will tell what happened when the governor, driven by environmental groups, decided to do to stop the Mefly. First, they tried the use of predators to control the flies, usually a tiny wasp that put their eggs inside the flies. As predators need a noticeable population of victims to survive themselves, the idea of still having Medflies roaming around crops was ludicrous. They dropped the efforts when the Medly kept feasting on California’s apples and oranges. Second, because the Medly was a foreigner, most of its parasitic enemies are to be found in other lands; American birds and toads and certain beetles will feed upon the Medly, but predators are less effective control than parasites. Then they formed the Medfly Task Force, headed by a certain Jerry Scribbner, deputy director of California’s Food and Agriculture Department, and advised by experts from Stanford University, the USAD, and many environmental ONGs. Its $27 million program consisted of four approaches:

1) Sterile-fly release: The same as mosquitoes, the Medfly mates only once, and if they mated with sterile males, then no offspring would be born. Million of pupae in Peru, Mexico and Hawaii were irradiated and raised to sexually active through (presumably) adulthood. Then they were tagged with fluorescent dust for later identification, shipped to California, and freed.

2) Trapping and monitoring: To study Medly population projections, 5,000 traps were baited with simulated aggregations pheromone, and distributed throughout the Santa Clara area. Twice a week flies were retrieved from the traps and sent to laboratories, where they were checked for sterility.

3) Ground spraying and stripping: Twice a week 200 technicians fanned across the county spraying the ground (with malathion) and stripping fruit from thousands of trees and burying it.

4) Quarantine: All fruits and vegetables grown in the 600-square-mile area around Santa Clara had to be fumigated before they could be taken out. Motorists were checked for contraband.

For several months it seemed that the program was succeeding, but late in June 1981, a farmer in Mountainview, outside of the quarantine area, reported that he had a tree infested with Medly maggots. At the end of two weeks, more than 100 other places were identified as infested, and more were being reported every day. The task Force recognized that its program had failed and it was out of control. And this was how the aerial spraying in California was resumed – something that should have never been stopped. Richard Rice, an expert in Medfly at the San Joaquin Valley research center said; “It takes just one female and one fertile male to star the whole thing again.”

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program experts and environmental activists are afraid that the failure of the sterilization program will seriously affect their future efforts. So they started to look abroad for parasites that would fight the Medly population. But as Frank Zalom an IPM specialist in UC at Davis said: “Parasite require a seizabla population of the host in order to thrive, and with the Medfly, that’s a terrible thought.”

The SIT experiment in El Salvador didn’t last enough to go the California way. For the pest to return it is only needed one fertile male and one female.. But one thiong is remembered by California fruit producers: because the delay in trying all those environmental recommendations they lost more than $20 billion in revenues – and California’s economy lost much more with it.

And as for risks posed by Malathion aerial spraying, Bruce Ames said: “A man would have to eat all the Malathion that fell in an entire acre before he could be p o i s o n e d by it.”

(I don't know why, but the sciforum program would not print the word - "p o i s o n e d" , when written all together, it only gives "********". Strange, isn't?

Edufer · Apr 27, 2004

You said: "Of course, in an online forum, unlike peer reviewed studies, reason is not necessary. All you need is the ability to cut and paste, type incessantly, and despite the scientific research, any position can be defended."

It looks as we are closing distances. The reason you find 86% of articles showing direct DDT correlation with eggshell thinning is due to the reason I have already mentioned: Science and Nature will NEVER publish any study showing any favorable aspects of DDT. You’ll have to find those studies in other less known journals, or in archives at Universities that have carried research into the subject, as the ones performed for years at Cornell University.

The only real way we can someday know the whole truth is to replicate those studies blaming DDT for terrible effects. Or start afresh and make impartial research, with constant control and auditing by both sides. But I thing there is no interest from the scientific Establishment to do so, because it could prove that the “Mother of all Frauds”, the DDT ban, will show the public that the science has been – and still is - conducted in a very corrupted way, and that the peer-review system needs a complete overhaul. Nothing could be better for the sake of scientific truth. Or is not the truth that what all of us are behind?

Of course not all science is being performed in a corrupt way. Only those that have a big economical and political load have some aspects of chemistry (toxic and carcinogenic substances), climate science (global warming, sustainable, alternate energies), physics (radioactivity and nuclear energy), biology (biotechnology and agriculture advancements, species extinctions), medicine (AIDS and HIV).

All I use for spotting fraud in any suspicious study is asking myself the question Romans used to ask: “Qui Bono”, Who Benefits? Then, follow the thread and, voilá, you get to the root of all evil and wrongdoings in history.

So, “Qui Bono” in the DDT issue? Not the powerful chemical industry in industrialized countries. They don’t make cheap insecticides; they make and sell expensive insecticides. So they want to keep the ban on DDT. Could these people be funding studies to show DDT is a wrong choice to kill mosquitoes?

Thus, powerful western companies cannot be funding dissenting scientists and personalities for trying to bring back DDT. So, why these people are doing it? Just for the fun of it? Which are the interests behind their claims? Or behind MY claims?

Could it be a desire to find the truth in this terrible issue – the ban that prevent hundreds of millions to get DDT for fighting malaria and many other lethal insect borne diseases?

The desire to stop the horrible statistic – a child dies from malaria every 5 seconds, 4 million people die every year because of it – is such a horrible crime?

Mr. Chips · Apr 28, 2004

Hmmm, another misstatement by Ames. You indulge us with your favored citations ignoring the latest and largest research. The organophosphate malathion is found to most likely induce cancers. What, more data disagrees with your crusade so I suppose you would suspect that it is all corrupted? It is a lot easier and more reasonalbe to consider your foaming and few selective citations to be corrupt. The El Salvador work was showing excellent results and the UN body has reason to expect further such work can be a lot more effective than DDT.

If so much of the peer-reviewed research is corrupted, a vast majority according to your claims, then how can you begin to make any firm conclusion? That is illogical and I might ad, insane. I consider you to be one sick puppy. Maybe that DDT you ingest is showing some of the CNS effects it has been found to exhibit.

Edufer · Apr 28, 2004

From EPA's webiste:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/malathion/summary.htm

Malathion Summary

Health Effects

As with all OPs, malathion is a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cholinesterase inhibition in humans can overstimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and, at very high exposures (e.g. accidents, major spills), respiratory paralysis and death.

Risks

Dietary Risk

The dietary risk from food treated with malathion is low and not of concern.
Drinking Water Risks

Acute and chronic exposure from surface and ground drinking water sources are low and not of concern.

Surface drinking water concentrations are based on modeling estimates, and ground drinking water concentrations are based on limited monitoring data.
Residential

Adult applicator exposure and toddler postapplication exposure to turf treatments are of risk concern.

All other home and garden uses are not of risk concern.

Bystander risks from public health mosquito control and the USDA Boll Weevil Eradication Program are low and not of concern.

Aggregate Dietary Risk

Aggregate acute and chronic risk (food and water) are not of concern.

There are a few residential uses of malathion for which the Agency has risk concerns (i.e., application and postapplication exposure to turf treatments). These residential uses pose problems when combined with food and drinking water exposure.

Aggregate risk from dietary (food and water) and residential bystander pathways (from public health mosquito abatement control and the Boll Weevil Eradication Program) are low and not of concern.

Worker Risks

Risks to mixers/loaders/applicators are not of concern with some additional personal protective equipment (PPE) or engineering controls.

The current restricted entry interval (REI) of 12 hours is not sufficiently protective for most reentry scenarios. For some postapplication activities, the REI is as high as 6 days.

Ecological Risks

Risks to birds and mammals are low from acute dietary exposure.

Chronic exposure to birds and mammals is low, but there could be concern if maximum rates and shortest application intervals are used.

There is concern for acute and chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Drift from ultra low volume (ULV) applications and the fate of the degradate malaoxon in the environment are of concern.

How the Risk Picture May Change

At this time, the Agency does not anticipate that the risk assessments will change significantly.

Mr. Chips · Apr 28, 2004

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.

Edufer · Apr 29, 2004

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.

Mr. Chips · Apr 29, 2004

I'm back! You are now off my ignore list, Mr. science. Ever see or hear that guy who was syndicated on many radio stations, Mr. Science? I saw him in Mendocino, calif. and I'd swear I got the biggest laugh of the evening during the question and answer session when I asked, "Uh, Is political science?"

Good to see at least one person has esteem for your spinning, selective ignorance and extremely biased perspective and crusade Edufer. Now, what was this thread supposed to be about?

Oh, and thank you for collecting and repeating some of my more lucid statements here.

Edufer · Apr 29, 2004

Mr. Chips: "I'm back! You are now off my ignore list, Mr. science."

So you stuck out you head out from the sand? Good. But why don't you make up your mind and decide if your are going to stay or leave.

Well, if those were your lucid statements, I am afraid we are up to some dumb contribution from your part, as asking "what was this thread supposed to be about?" You do have a bureaucratic mind!

Mr. Chips · Apr 29, 2004

"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've mentioned before, each time you put obvious misinformation in your posts you detract from your integrity. Be that way. Aint no more effective brakes on your crusade than your own dysfunction. I don't think there are any ostriches around here but there might be a dodo bird, after all, according to you, they couldn't possibly be extinct.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Log in or Sign up

Weeds, weeds, weeds!

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Skylark Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Weeds, weeds, weeds!

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Skylark Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

Mr. Chips Banned Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches