|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2006 : 21:40:40
|
A toxicologist talked on "Toxicology and the Environment: Separating fact from fiction" at my local skeptic club today, and said some interesting things about the danger of pesticides being overblown.
-Despite the harmful aspects, DDT is the one compound that has saved more human lives than any other.
-The most frequently used pesticide before DDT was arsenic - often lead arsenic!
-Despite the bad connotation with the word "pesticide", since a pesticide is anything used to ward away or kill pests, mint, garlic, and many other harmless edibles are legally registered as pesticides.
-Many organic food farms in California use sulfur as a pesticide, and they still get to call it "organic" because it passes the industry set standards.
-The big fear with pesticides is cancer. The American Cancer Society writes: "People who eat more fruits and vegetables, which may be treated with pesticides, are less likely to get cancer than those who don't."
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 22:50:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
A toxicologist talked on "Toxicology and the Environment: Separating fact from fiction" at my local skeptic club today, and said some interesting things about the danger of pesticides being overblown.
-The big fear with pesticides is cancer. The American Cancer Society writes: "People who eat more fruits and vegetables, which may be treated with pesticides, are less likely to get cancer than those who don't."
I am not all that unhappy that they don't use DDT here in California any longer. It was killing of our pelican population for one thing. That said, it really makes me wonder about the thinking that goes on in those who worry about all the stuff that may kill them while not noticing or ignoring the fact that our average life spans have been getting longer and longer over a fairly short period of time. Really, the last hundred years has been pretty impressive in terms of life expectancy. And while there are a lot of reasons for that, one of them is certainly improved agricultural technology, including pesticides, that brings a more varied and reliable food source to market.
quote:
wikipedia:
Homo sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
_ Neanderthal, 20
_ Neolithic, 20
_ Classical Greece, 28
_ Classical Rome, 28
_ Medieval England, 33
_ 1800's End of 19th Century, 37
_ 1900's Early 20th Century, 50
_ 1940's Circa 1940, 65
_ Current (in the Western world), 77-81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 00:10:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
-Despite the harmful aspects, DDT is the one compound that has saved more human lives than any other.
How does DDT save human lives? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 00:30:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
-Despite the harmful aspects, DDT is the one compound that has saved more human lives than any other.
How does DDT save human lives?
It's commonly used to spray areas where malaria-carrying mosquitos live. Kill the mozzies -> less disease.
DDT might have been (and still is) saving lives, but that does not mean that you want to have it on your vegetables. It is probably carcinogenic and it bioaccumulates. The statement that it is less bad for you than arsenic is of course totally irrelevant. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 00:40:36 [Permalink]
|
DDT did indeed save many lives and is still used to this day because of the trade off in malaria prone poverty stricken parts of the world.
Almost everything of this nature is a trade off. Drive your car, you are making a trade off with the consequences.
Unfortunately you have to add to the equation the corporate influence and we also unfortunately have a system that encourages profit taking while the disincentive, the consequences, are paid by someone other than the corporation.
What we really need to better use products like DDT is to make sure the market system charges the bill to the originator, not to the recipient or the bystanders. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/22/2006 00:41:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 10:57:54 [Permalink]
|
Hawks wrote: DDT might have been (and still is) saving lives, but that does not mean that you want to have it on your vegetables. It is probably carcinogenic and it bioaccumulates. The statement that it is less bad for you than arsenic is of course totally irrelevant.
I didn't say the speaker (or that I) were advocating that we switch back to DDT. The whole point that the guy was making was that pesticides as a whole have gotten a bad name despite the fact that they have become safer and safer. (Basically because dangerous stuff gets more attention than safe stuff). Another point he was making was the one that beskeptical makes - that "everything of this nature is a trade off".
I listed these particular facts because they were interesting. I mean, lead arsenic - that's pretty amazing. (The toxicologist said that the reason they used lead more frequently than other types of arsenic was because it stuck to the food better and so would kill even more pests!) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 11:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Kil quoted Wikipedia:
Homo sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
_ Neanderthal, 20
_ Neolithic, 20
_ Classical Greece, 28
_ Classical Rome, 28
_ Medieval England, 33
_ 1800's End of 19th Century, 37
_ 1900's Early 20th Century, 50
_ 1940's Circa 1940, 65
_ Current (in the Western world), 77-81
My minor was physical anthropology, and I'm a total human evolution nut, but I've never read or heard those life expectancies for neanderthals and neolithic humans. There are not enough fossils of neanderthals to make any determination about their life expectancy (Although there was an elderly male skeleton found, with evidence that he was also badly crippled in the long-term - they could tell by the healed bones - and therefore the others must have been caring for him.) And educated guesses that I've heard about neolithic humans are in the high 30's.
Anyway, those life expectancy stats always bother me because they confuse a lot of people. Some people look at that and think that most Greeks and Romans died in their late 20's and early 30's. But in reality, the infant mortality and child mortality rates were high, and most people who made it to adulthood were likely to live well into their 60's and 70's. We have records of Roman officials who frequently made it into their 70's and later.
I'm not saying your point is not taken. My dad had a heart attack at the age of 55 (despite healthy weight, moderate diet and regular exercise), but he's still around and will probably be around for a good while longer because of his bipass surgury and because of of heart and cholesteral meds and stress tests to detect future problems. Certainly if he were an ancient Roman he'd be dead. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 13:53:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Hawks wrote: DDT might have been (and still is) saving lives, but that does not mean that you want to have it on your vegetables. It is probably carcinogenic and it bioaccumulates. The statement that it is less bad for you than arsenic is of course totally irrelevant.
I didn't say the speaker (or that I) were advocating that we switch back to DDT. The whole point that the guy was making was that pesticides as a whole have gotten a bad name despite the fact that they have become safer and safer. (Basically because dangerous stuff gets more attention than safe stuff). Another point he was making was the one that beskeptical makes - that "everything of this nature is a trade off".
I listed these particular facts because they were interesting. I mean, lead arsenic - that's pretty amazing. (The toxicologist said that the reason they used lead more frequently than other types of arsenic was because it stuck to the food better and so would kill even more pests!)
Some third world countries are begging that we switch back to allowing DDT to be purchased with aid funds. It is a lot more effective (cost and effacy) to use DDT on thier marshlands to control mosquito populations. The stuff they have been allowed to purchase hasn't been cutting the mustard. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 17:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleJ
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
It is probably carcinogenic and it bioaccumulates.
“Bioaccumulates” yes
“carcinogenic” As a skeptic I have to wonder about the “sky is falling” crowd (i.e. Rachel Carson). I think this is an issue still up for much discussion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9677052&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
Safety-testing for chemicals is not exactly straightforward, for several reasons. Testing for the safety of chemical substances involves testing them one at a time to find a maximum "safe dose". This fails to consider that often many substances do their work via similar pathways (they might bind to the same receptors on your cells for example). DDT belongs to a group of substances known as xenoestrogens (gender-benders). While you might be safe to be exposed to one of these substances on their own, concurrent exposure to several might have additive or synergistic effects. Testing often uses animal or bacterial models (and these have found DDT to be carcinogenic), which might not necessarily represent any effects in a human being. Often, epidemiological studies are done. Sometime back in march last year I sat with a list of some 30 papers (epidemiolgical) that had failed to find a link between cancer and xenoestrogens (of which DDT is one). Next to it I had a list of roughly as many papers that had found a link. Who is right? We can't say with any certainty. Is this a case of the "sky falling"? By no means. But of course you should be skeptic of any conclusion where the evidence is "inconclusive". |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 01/23/2006 17:35:04 |
|
|
|
Jason Barker
Skeptic Friend
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 17:48:46 [Permalink]
|
| I buy organic foods from a whole foods type store. I do it as a status symbol. ^_^ |
Homer: He thinks he's so big, with all his money and wealth. But there's one thing he can't buy with his money.
Marge:What's that?
Homer:........a dinosaur. |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 19:45:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Safety-testing for chemicals is not exactly straightforward, for several reasons. Testing for the safety of chemical substances involves testing them one at a time to find a maximum "safe dose". This fails to consider that often many substances do their work via similar pathways (they might bind to the same receptors on your cells for example). DDT belongs to a group of substances known as xenoestrogens (gender-benders). While you might be safe to be exposed to one of these substances on their own, concurrent exposure to several might have additive or synergistic effects. Testing often uses animal or bacterial models (and these have found DDT to be carcinogenic), which might not necessarily represent any effects in a human being. Often, epidemiological studies are done. Sometime back in march last year I sat with a list of some 30 papers (epidemiolgical) that had failed to find a link between cancer and xenoestrogens (of which DDT is one). Next to it I had a list of roughly as many papers that had found a link. Who is right? We can't say with any certainty. Is this a case of the "sky falling"? By no means. But of course you should be skeptic of any conclusion where the evidence is "inconclusive".
I agree. I just wanted to clarify your statement that DTT is “probably carcinogenic.” I hope it did not seem like I was trying to group you with the people who overreact.
In cases like these the “sky is falling” crowd are those who ignore the papers that disagree with their opinion. Usually their side of the argument goes something like:
“Substance X is bad, really bad. Those that would tell you that substance X is not bad are just trying to mislead you for their own selfish ends. If use of substance X does not end the results will be catastrophic. We will not settle for a reduction in the use of substance X because we already know substance X is bad. Further study of substance X is useless unless it is to advance our knowledge of how bad substance X can be. Data showing that substance X is not bad was collected by scientists who don't really know what they're doing. Did we mention that substance X is bad?”
Substance X may or may not turn out to be bad but no matter what happens those who believe the “sky is falling” will never change their mind.
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 00:17:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree. I just wanted to clarify your statement that DTT is “probably carcinogenic.” I hope it did not seem like I was trying to group you with the people who overreact.
I can guarantee that I will not be offended when someone (like in this instance) brings up legitimate points backed up by proper research. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Sheri berri
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 14:50:52 [Permalink]
|
Interesting I would wonder who is the publisher of this research, i know of people who died from cancer from DDT 
I'm from california and a strong voice in the organic community, this is bull....
Who hired this toxoligist that will tell you who has a vested interest in steering you from organic.
The root of any diseease is often in what you eat if a bug won't eat something would you????
The pros in 'going organic' is that organic food is free from artificial chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, growth-promoters and fertilizers. It is produced using environmentally friendly methods and is free from genetically modified ingredients (term used to describe foods that have had genetic material from other edibles artificially inserted into them using a process known as 'genetic engineering'. The idea behind this is to transfer the beneficial properties found in some types of plants or animals - such as resistance to attack by diseases, insects or herbicides - to other plants or animals that normally lack these properties). Organic foods reduce dependence on non-renewable resources and places emphasis on animal welfare. Some people think organic food tastes better than non-organic. Organic foods according to some studies show that they have more vitamins and beneficial trace elements than conventionally grown food and so may be more nutritious (8).
|
WHEN ONE CEASES TO HAVE A SUBJECTIVE EXPEREINCE WITH 'GOD' , 'GOD' WILL NO LONGER EXIST
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
|
| Edited by - Sheri berri on 02/16/2006 15:03:31 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 15:49:04 [Permalink]
|
| How do you know their cancers were linked to DDT? |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 15:53:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleJ
I agree. I just wanted to clarify your statement that DTT is “probably carcinogenic.” I hope it did not seem like I was trying to group you with the people who overreact.
So do we overreact if we ban something that is 'probably carcinogenic'? Especially if it has been observed to increase deaths in wildlife due to bioaccumulation? We don't give something the status 'probably carcinogenic' if we think there is no reason to be concerned. For that we have other designations.
quote:
In cases like these the “sky is falling” crowd are those who ignore the papers that disagree with their opinion. Usually their side of the argument goes something like:
“Substance X is bad, really bad. Those that would tell you that substance X is not bad are just trying to mislead you for their own selfish ends. If use of substance X does not end the results will be catastrophic. We will not settle for a reduction in the use of substance X because we already know substance X is bad. Further study of substance X is useless unless it is to advance our knowledge of how bad substance X can be. Data showing that substance X is not bad was collected by scientists who don't really know what they're doing. Did we mention that substance X is bad?”
Substance X may or may not turn out to be bad but no matter what happens those who believe the “sky is falling” will never change their mind.
But substance X in this case is under debate. Substance X in this case also has a very high tendency to bioaccumulate, which makes the carcinogenicity issue of higher priority. If we have other pesticides that work effectively and does not bioaccumulate, we should go for those and use caution in using substance X.
The problem with DDT is not only the 'probably carcinogenic' status, although that already gives us reason to use caution in using it. Another problem with it is the high tendency to bioaccumulate. Everything is poisonous, if you make the dosage high enough. I would say it is only wise to exercise caution with any substance that does not degrade easily in nature. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
