Posted on 08/06/2016 4:29:09 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
Read the science. Unlike animals, the effects of DDT on human development cannot ethically be tested, for reasons that I trust will be obvious with a little thought.
It seems as if no matter how disdainful, sad, and disgusting the Left seems to us, there always seems to be another just on its heels that seems even worse.
Have you read the scientific literature on DDT? Your objections are pro forma and lack specifics.
Makes sense, so there is no way to test anything because of risks, that applies to all thigs not just DDT. Wait? We do testing. . .
Lack specifics?
Appears your position does too.
I trust that we can agree that giving doses of DDT and DDE to pregnant women would violate medical ethics, so epidemiological and observational studies must be relied on. By definition, such studies are not experiments.
I refer again to PubMed and the more than 12,000 medical articles on DDT and DDE. As discussed in that venue, opinions differ as to the relative safety and merits of DDT, but negative effects on human health are generally recognized — and there is no tub thumping about how wonderful the world would be with lots of DDT being used.
The EPA and Lying Democrats know whats best regardless of any proof.
I have not read every article published against the use of DDT. I have read enough, however, to make it clear that the “science” involved is proforma and nonspecific.
Just which scientific articles did you find so persuasive on the subject?
none
In full sincerity, I recommend that you use PubMed to take a look at the scientific literature on DDT. Even if you do not change your views, you will be a better advocate for them and a better sparring partner on the subject and will elevate the discussion.
Dragging my time through the muck and mire of study after study of the negative effects of DDT/DDE always ends with equivocation and no findings of absolute toxicity.
You have consistently referred to the PubMed body of research but have not shown a single incidence of absolute correlation between the use of DDT and clear cut sickness or disease in humans.
We are all well aware of the substantial benefits of DDT in eradicating disease laden insect vectors. The sheer volume of absolute proof that lives are saved by its use is of no consequence to you. I am at a loss to understand your thinking.
Or, take a look at the exchanges in The Lancet. Opponents of DDT concede its relative lack of harm to humans on immediate application, but, as to malaria ridden Africa, they point out the expense of DDT and that its tendency to lower birth weight and increase preterm births diminishes its net potential benefits against malaria. Moreover, it is said that the evidence for adverse effects of persistent traces of DDT and its metabolites ought to be of concern and to have the benefit of additional research.
Call me an optimist, but it seems to me that we would both be due credit if our exchanges here had more references to and respect for medical and scientific evidence. It takes two to play though.
I do not see any optimism in your thesis.
As to low birth weight and premature birth correlated to DDT I simply ask if death is a more desirable option. These two conditions are easily attributable to common medical conditions in third world countries.
You hammering away at the importance of your so-called authority is flawed. All of the research cited on DDT is designed to find fault with the drug. Why would I even give serious consideration to such biased research?
Moreover, I have read enough of the scientific literature on the health effects of DDT to know that opinions vary widely among the experts. I can even email you some scientific articles that express support for limited use of DDT.
I do discredit it with ease, every time banning DDT comes up. There is no incontrovertible scientific evidence linking DDT with any known health hazard. No, not any. Really just that simple.
By definition, on any fairly disputed issue, the evidence is not incontrovertible. You have specifically rejected my offer of medical research articles that support your point of view. You seem to believe any such material to be a waste of time because you regard the issue as definitively settled in favor of DDT as safe for humans in all respects. Am I correct in my understanding of your point of view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.