Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultramarine (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 25 January 2006 (→Schultz telegram). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (2002 to March 2005)
  • American Council on Science and Health
  • How does DDT damage humans
  • Chemistry of DDT
  • Fertility
  • A number of missing and or incorrect stuff
  • Documentation
  • Can we agree on an outline?
  • Okay, I'm mad
  • Audubon Census
  • The Sri Lanka malaria control information
    • Ruckelhaus
  • Wurster quotes
  • Declining Raptor Population

Toxicity in humans misleading?

The article states: Chemical and pesticide proponents claim there is not a single known human death from DDT poisoning. However, a study (Haun & Cueto, 1967) states, "In a 9-month-old child, poisoned with a 2:1 mixture of camphechlor and DDT, death occurred after convulsions and respiratory failure." Studies into organochlorines indicate "a dose of approximately 10 mg/kg leads to convulsions. An oral median lethal dose (LD50) is higher than 50 mg/kg in animal studies."

Yet both links are dead, and from wikipedia's link on camphechlor, a 2:1 mixture of camphechlor and anything else seems to be deadly. As for the second assertation (since that link is also dead) I can't tell if DDT has the typical toxicity of organochlorines. The EXTOXNET link in the footnotes gives an LD50 of over 100 to 800 in mammals. It also gives a more toxicity example: a child died after consuming 1 ounce of a 5% DDT/kerosene solution.

I think those statements are relics of an earlier debate about DDT's human lethality. A claim was made (without any references, links, or attribution) that DDT has never caused a single human death, ergo the chemical is completely safe around human beings. Personally, without better documentation I'd favor completely removing the statements you find misleading (since the links are dead). Likewise, the paragraph immediately preceding it, claiming "DDT is not particularly toxic to humans," and "no link to cancer has yet been established" needs to be deleted as well. There's no documentation for this entire paragraph. No link is given about the "Numerous studies (that) have been conducted, including one in which humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for almost two years." Human test subjects have volunteered (apparently multiple times) to ingest DDT daily for two-year stretches? Who conducted these studies? Where were the results published? I'd love to read about these "numerous studies." Dead links are just as useless as these undocumented claims that DDT has "no demonstrated ill effects." Both of these paragraphs border on POV; they both need better references and still probably ought to be moved under the "Arguments for and against DDT" section instead of sitting up at the top.

Remove NPOV tag?

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

External links

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

ddt and malaria.

Well, I hope this satisfies your perceived problem with "obsolete or non-existing references". As for your statement that "environmental groups have tried to ban all use": even if true, that is basically irrelevant, since all use is not banned, no matter whether or not environmental groups have tried anything of the kind. Whelan et al are not stating how many deaths they would estimate might happen if such a ban was in effect, they are stating it as fact. When mosquitoes are susceptible, DDT is indeed effective; I hope you have enough biological understanding to see how the current treaty, banning agricultural use while freely allowing use only for disease prevention, will REDUCE deaths, by reducing the rate at which the mosquito population are selected for resistance. Gzuckier 05:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

PS, this isn't intended to be exclusively POV, although I do obviously have a strong one, so I didn't change/delete the Whelan et al section, and in fact added some references to others who agree with her. I'd have added more of the logic behind their position if I could find any (dig dig) but if anyone else can find said logic or give a reasonable explanation, that would be great. Gzuckier 14:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A good bit of information from the DDT and Malaria section seems to be sourced to Africa Fighting Malaria, a group that pretends to be fighting against malaria. Actually their main concern is fighting for DDT, as on their website there is a near absence of any mention of other ways to fight malaria (see also sourcewatch.org entry on the group). It does not even appear to have a base in Africa. It is clearly an industry lobby group and it should be made clear if it is to be used as a source at all. Somebody who knows enough about the DDT and malaria issues, please rewrite section accordingly. Jens Nielsen 12:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

POV stuff

This article seems way skewed towards some kind of insane view that DDT is harmless, and seems to imply that enviromentalists are all out to harm people by banning DDT for no reason. Someone should go through this article and fix it.

Please be more specific about what parts of the existing article are "insane", as it currently stands your claim isn't particularly helpful. Bryan 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues. This is the current view of most countries, environmental groups, aid agencies, etc. and it makes sense, since regular usage of any Persistent Organic Pollutant is going to accumulate in the environment, and bioorganisms. This article focuses on environmental bashing, often without much evidence. The statement (one among many) Donor organizations have often refused to fund public health DDT programs, perhaps due to pressure from environmentalist groups is POV, how do they know this? What about pressure from chemical companies? If anyone is willing to do a bit of research, and find out why Greenpeace et al opposed the health exemption clause from their point of view that would be a valuable addition. I'll be back when I have time. Tedneeman 23:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed that statement by removing the speculation on motivation, since the reference linked with it doesn't give any support for it or even a notable source for the speculation. However, your own initial statement here ("Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues.") also isn't supported, Stockholm Convention is a stub with just one external link that doesn't provide any information about who the "interested parties" are. Do you know where a list could be found? Expanding the Stockholm Convention article would be quite useful in this regard. Bryan 00:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days, any further specific problems to point out? If nobody presents more after a while, I'm going to remove the NPOV notice. It's not useful if nobody can explain any details of what they think needs to be done. Bryan 15:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues. - this statement is a bit of a tautology, since the only use of DDT these days is for public health issues. And there's little agreement on THAT issue. Graft 17:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done a rough copyedit which I think makes the issues clearer. Actually, that statement isn't a tautology if environmental groups supported a ban regardless. I found something from the WWF's perspective on the matter, but I'll wait for responses to my edit before I add it in. Tedneeman 00:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit. I'm happy with it. Graft 05:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Dangers of DDT

I would like to see a heading on the dangers of DDT in terms of how it affected the food chain, that would solve the neutrality issues in my opinion, DDT was useful, but it was also harmful, more harmful than useful and that's why it was banned. iSzabo 00:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, so long as you keep in mind that "more harmful than useful" is your own POV and is in dispute with many people. Do you plan to work on this, or is this just a general wish for others to follow up on? Bryan 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speculation and strawmen

Ultramarine - if you agree Whelan is a strawman, why is that in there? Can we junk it? I think it's pointless and stupid - we all agree her numbers are totally off-base, her argument is ridonkulous, and her motivations are suspect.

Also, on a COMPLETELY SEPARATE note, total unattributed speculation is NOT appropriate. How do you know this? Given the strength of the environmentalist campaigns against DDT, the WHO and the UNEP could conceivably prematurely ban all use. On what basis is this being included? It just doesn't fly. Graft 17:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll soften my critique, actually, since I don't mean it as strongly as I say: what I want is something better-attributed or more positively stated. E.g., one could point out that DDT -was- nearly banned in 2000 by UNEP in Johannesberg (I'm not sure the WHO has ever been on board that particular train) due to environmentalist pressure. Specific allegations of cost to developing countries would be better demonstrated by example or quoted research. Graft 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reasons

i'm deleting information that is ridiculous neo-con bs. DDT is FUCKING dangerous. This page is hideously skewed towards the lie that DDT is harmless. Wake up people. Don't let them brainwash us again. --81.135.160.27 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're also deleting stuff like "DDT and DDE have no observable effect on non-apex predators, like chickens," which is simply true and confirmed in many studies. I agree this page is littered with neo-con BS, but that doesn't mean you should remove correct information. And based on what you deleted, I really question your ability to tell what is neo-con BS from what is not. Graft 21:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You fix it then. --81.135.160.27 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Errrr, so is malaria.

Limerick

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

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

I'm tempted to remove the reference to this "journal" as it doesn't appear to be a "normal" scientific journal (at best having only a single study per issue). It's mostly opinion pieces, complaints about the MMR vaccine and the Canadian healthcare system, and reviews of books that are usually consigned to the "right-wing nutjob" bin. Furthermore, the "study" cited, while ostensibly an "analysis", appears an intemperately written (suspiciously so), partisan piece rather than a scientific study. Have a look at their website . Anyway, will delete if no-one objects. --Plumbago 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A PDF of the "study" in question can be downloaded here .

NCBI doesn't index it... I'd agree with you on those grounds. Graft 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Removed. Having now looked more at the Journal, it perhaps merits an entry in Misplaced Pages. More politics dressed up as science. A rather disturbing trend these days, especially in the US. --Plumbago 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Object. Legitimate organization. State objections to the paper in the article. Why delete this when this article now has many unreferenced claims by DDT opponents? Ultramarine 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. But I think it's debatable that the JAPS is a scientific journal. I've gone through all of its volumes and it's really an opinion magazine that occasionally publishes a little study (about one per issue). That would be alright it itself, but its opinion pieces are quite often ridiculous, especially on subjects such as MMR. In these areas it's deviating so far from the scientific consensus that one could quite rightly question the veracity of the rest of its pieces. That it's often cited by strongly political organisations or individuals as "evidence" for this or that hobbyhorse makes me (at least) very suspicious of it. I'd be much happier if less rabid sources could be provided (e.g. from the scientific mainstream; there are hundreds of more appropriate journals). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

hat is your opinion. Give links supporting your view otherwise it is original reserach. Note that the article cites extensivly from the literature. Attack the arguments, not the persons. Ultramarine 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I was having a go at the journal itself, it's clearly a politically motivated talking shop that at times publishes fringe science. But I take your point. I'll see what I can dig up. Incidentally, just because a publication cites the literature, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has either cited it accurately or in good faith. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Schultz telegram

'In 1986 Secretary of State George Schultz telegraphed orders to all embassies stating that "The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin." (link to AFM)'

I haven't been able to find any evidence for this claim other than in advocacy sites. Can anyone locate it.

Also, this is one of several cites to "Africans Fighting Malaria" that fails to note that this is a DDT advocacy group associated with the American Enterprise Institute. JQ

I've now deleted unsupported statements from AFM and Roger Bate presented as fact. The relevant para now refers to the AFM claim as follows

It has been claimed that international donor organizations, including USAID, have refused to fund public health DDT programs

JQ 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are delete these and keep totally unsupported statements by opponents? Ultramarine 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported claims of fact should be deleted, or properly supported, as per . Statements of opinion should be identified as such. "Selective deletion" is not a ground for restoration.

Simply false, the paragraphs have extensive references. Looking at the article for example shows that reference to George Schultz is Edwards JG. Mosquitoes, DDT, and human health. 21th Century Science and Technology 2002;15(3):16-32. Not AFM.

Ultramarine, this isn't a source but a restatement of a claim by an advocacy group.

Source please. Note that my source is not AFM, they only have a link to paper not published by them. Even if you show that this paper is published by an advocacy group, that is no reason for deleting.Ultramarine 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding AFM, not evidence of any misconduct has been shown. Nor that is it associated with any DDT industry.Ultramarine 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

AFM is an advocacy group. Claims made by AFM should be labelled that way, just like claims made by Greenpeace.

AFM is only one of 4 sources I gave. No reason for deleting the other statements, and no reason for deleting the AFM statement, add the claim regarding advocacy group if you think it is necessary.Ultramarine 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for advice on the best way to treat claims of this kind. In general, I think they should be of the form asserts ... Similarly for Edwards and the advocacy magazines in which he writes. But I don't think the claim about the Schultz telegram can be included at all without a newspaper report (not an Op-Ed piece) or official record. As far as I can see, it's a factoid that has been circulating round the Internet for ages with no attempt at verification, and is directly contradicted by offical USAID policy.

Regarding Edwards, you guessing and giving unsourced claims. I have given a source, there is no valid reason for excluding. If you dispute the quality of the source, give a link, not your own opinion.Ultramarine 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources It's clear that none of the sources you are citing are reliable. They are all advocacy groups repeating the same claims from each other, so multiplicity is no help to you. If Schultz sent the telegram as claimed, and it became public, this fact was presumably reported in a newspaper at the time. Find the report and cite it. Or if you prefer write "Numerous writers, including Edwards and AFM have claimed that George Schultz ... However this claim has not been independently confirmed" then proceed to the correct, and verifiable. statement of USAID policy.

I have given the source, you none. Give verifiable views and facts, not your own opinions. Ultramarine 10:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Um. "21st Century Science and Technology" appears to be the output of the LaRouche movement. Do you really want to tie yourself to that particular train-wreck, or have you got a better source? Graft 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you show that this is true, I will not object to removing it.Ultramarine 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DDT, the Russian band

DDT is also a russian well known rock band with Yuri Shevchuk as its leader

See DDT. --Plumbago 12:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Crap organization

Hi people,

It's all well and good to argue about substance, but the STYLE of the page has taken a real downturn. Why is the lede now two pages long and covering all sorts of relatively insignificant details? This is really ugly. Does anyone have a good reason for this? Specifically, Ultramarine, why did you revert to this hideous form? Graft 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm partially responsible for this. After Ultramarine's recent reverting spree the article lost its chemical description infobox. I replaced it by cutting and pasting, but I should probably have reverted to get the old structure back and then added in Ultramarine's changes (not that I agree with them). My apologies. --Plumbago 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)