Convicted for Removal of Asbestos.

wwilson3 · February 21, 2012, 9:32pm

Oh yeah is a reliable source lolol. You really need to get a life i witness in my life time
seen it with my eyes population went down in the dumpers and then they stopped spraying it came back in a few years .
Do not be such a tool . let them start spraying again as you drink your organic milk

I hear it attacks fatty cells so only you will have to worry about brain damage lol

wwilson3 · February 21, 2012, 9:34pm

DDT was to blame for the decline in your National bird , but i guess thats ok with you too

mlarson · February 21, 2012, 9:36pm

Wrong again.

Long since disproved. But don’t let facts get in the way of your irrational beliefs.

mlarson · February 21, 2012, 9:37pm

Those voices you hear are lying. Get help.

They(Africa) are begging us to help them pay for DDT and save millions from agony and death.

mlarson · February 21, 2012, 9:43pm

DDT and the truth

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10

In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts—published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association—reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey—who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline—reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19

Conclusion

The ban on DDT was considered the first major victory for the environmentalist movement in the U.S. The effect of the ban in other nations was less salutary, however. In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying was stopped in 1964, malaria cases began to rise again and reached 2.5 million in 1969.33 The same pattern was repeated in many other tropical— and usually impoverished—regions of the world. In Zanzibar the prevalence of malaria among the populace dropped from 70 percent in 1958 to 5 percent in 1964. By 1984 it was back up to between 50 and 60 percent. The chief malaria expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development said that malaria would have been 98 percent eradicated had DDT continued to be used.34

In addition, from 1960 to 1974 WHO screened about 2,000 compounds for use as antimalarial insecticides. Only 30 were judged promising enough to warrant field trials. WHO found that none of those compounds had the persistence of DDT or was as safe as DDT. (Insecticides such as malathion and carbaryl, which are much more toxic than DDT, were used instead.) And—a very important factor for malaria control in less developed countries—all of the substitutes were considerably more expensive than DDT.35

wwilson3 · February 21, 2012, 9:46pm

You most have shares in the chemical companies , many studies also prove the other side of the fence . same old bull****, depends on who is lobbying

mlarson · February 21, 2012, 9:57pm

Same old BS, blame the messenger. Ignore the facts. :roll:

Chemical companies love selling expensive substitutes.

DDT is extremely cheap to produce.

Yet, you are OK will millions dieing just because you refuse to pay attention to reality.

Wayne, you are just plain wrong on this one.

I guess you are like Scrooge and want to “decrease the surplus population”:shock:

mlarson · February 21, 2012, 9:58pm

Again show me don’t just spout off without facts.:mad:

wwilson3 · February 21, 2012, 11:15pm

http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/pefaddt.htm

mlarson · February 22, 2012, 3:49am

Once endangered, peregrine falcons thrive in Portland’s urban landscape, Audubon finds

I’m still waiting for the evidence that DDT hurts anyone.

Don’t forget, not using it has already killed millions of people.