Posted on 05/22/2023 7:23:51 PM PDT by ganeemead
I think that we both have the same number of Nobel Prizes.
It probably wasn’t good that we inhaled so much, so deeply, year after year
= = =
And note the effect -
You ended up as a Freeper.
The ban was based on misinformation AND media bias refusing to cover the facts. The media has been practicing politics my entire lifetime and with detrimental outcomes.
Misinformation and a biased media killed it.
Hard to believe that at one time in my childhood, getting to play in the DDT was a weekly highlight.
Times sure change.
● Researchers found internal alerts over the chemicals were raised in 1961
● But this didn't become public knowledge until the 1990s, some 30 years later
● Many common baby goods are contaminated with dangerous PFAS chemicals linked to cancer
● Researchers say that these chemicals are ever-present, on many products and near impossible to avoid
● Researchers at EWG believe that the contaminant is present on all 34 goods that they tested
● Theses chemicals have been linked to cancer, autism and other developmental issues
All the arguments presented by the Environmental Defense Fund responsible for getting DDT banned during the hearings in the summer of 1972 were ultimately debunked by the independent studies done by the Fish and Wildlife service.
Then EPA director, William Ruckelshaus, who never attended one of the hearings, just arbitrarily banned it. Apparently he had personal ties to the EDF.
The claim that DDT caused the thinning of birds' eggs was a lie and subsequent studies by the Fish Wild. dept. proved just the opposite. It the test studies done on pheasant and quail eggs, the birds that were fed a steady diet of DDT had a hatch rate of approx. 80% while the other test group that wasn't fed DDT only had a hatch rate of around 53%
Another lie was that DDT was responsible for the decline in the bald eagle. The reality was the loss of habitat and hunter predation on not only the eagles but all other raptors as well. In fact, Alaska offered a bounty on bald eagles between 1917 and 1953 in order to protect the salmon industry.
Junkscience has a great article at their site detailing all that happened during those hearings.
It WAS overused, they were using it for EVERYTHING, which...I don’t blame them a bit. If I had been a farmer, rancher, or someone combatting insect populations, I darn well would have overused it. Heck, they used to dust people with it!
Once I investigated it this whole scam (not just accepting what I had been taught over the years, heard via the media or government, etc.) I never bought into the eggshell thinning part of it, or the toxicity part, etc.
But I did feel that the overuse of it had real potential for creating a resistance to it in some of the insect populations we were using it on. Over time, that can be a real problem with many insecticides that are overused.
But that wasn’t the main reason it was banned in favor or more expensive and more toxic insecticides, as you point out.
Funny, my buddy and I occasionally drive up in Maine, and when we pass the sign for the “Rachel Carson Wildlife Area” he says “Hand Salute!” and we both extend our middle finger to it1
So how do you view DDT now?
If you are willing to risk an OMG moment, read the peer reviewed medical and scientific articles from Medline with the search terms "microplastics" or "persistent organic pollutants." Many of the article are free, and others can be accessed through your local public library or academic library.
Inevitably, there is a tension between safety and the qualities we want in pesticides, plastics, and many artificial chemicals in foods and consumer products. We want persistence, meaning that the useful qualities last more than natural equivalents. Yet that very persistence also means that they tend to last longer than is desirable after they have accomplished their immediate purpose.
Granted, the environmental movement has its wackos, unreasonable demands, and impossible expectations. Yet industry and the American elite are broadly compromised by careerism, profiteering, and lack of regard for the public interest. As always, the best way though the competing claims and assertions is to review the evidence and determine the facts for yourself.
You can read the same "peer reviewed" articles claiming that man is creating global warming too.........
The question is, who is doing the peer reviewing? The answer is, the same scientists who contributed to the study and have every thing to gain financially from the grants that paid for their studies.
The peer review process has issues, but categorical rejection is simply foolish. One can usually correct for flaws and errors by careful screening and critical reading. And there is something to be said for reading studies that one is inclined to disagree with and then finding the flaws.
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.