Chemophobia column

[slccom]

blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/10/ddt-and-sucralose-a-case-study-in-chemophobia/

However, DDT is  not carcinogenic.
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

Sharon

[litliwlowa]

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddttech.pdf  (fact sheet created in 2000, National Pesticide Information Center)

http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm (unknown when epa last updated)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=79&tid=20 (public health statement September 2002)

http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/05/06/us-ddt-idINTRE54542W20090506?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 (May 2009)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c3.pdf (very long - 182 pages, ongoing studies)

[slccom]

The EPA and CDC are not reliable sources of information on pesticides. They have a vested interest in continuing to be funded, and must make the world seem much more dangerous than it is.

Sad but true. Epidemiology always trumps animal models and small studies. And the epidemiology disproves carcinogenicity for DDT.

Sharon

[litliwlowa]

The EPA and CDC are not reliable sources of information on pesticides. They have a vested interest in continuing to be funded

no disagreement there!!

[Sleepy In Seattle]

Yah - and the chemical companies have no financial interest AT ALL in convincing people their creations are perfectly safe. 

[litliwlowa]

Yah - and the chemical companies have no financial interest AT ALL in convincing people their creations are perfectly safe. 

Of course they do

Always follow the money trail...

[slccom]

Epidemiology ALWAYS trumps small studies. And millions have died because DDT was banned.

While you are "following the money," check out the "non-profits" that stay in business by scaring people to death.

Sharon

[litliwlowa]

While you are "following the money," check out the "non-profits"

No need to.  Like any corporate structure, the top of the chain profits under guise of tax shelter. That's old news

[quietdynamics]

I will stick with the "Big Ones", CDC, EPA, NHI, WHO, with data, researchers "real" scientists galore, etc...they, as oversight entities are under magnifying glasses now anyway with the "information highway", publication access of hearings, media coverage, etc.

The Scientific American Blog does say in the middle, left of molecular diagram:
"It's another example of shifting the responsibility to research his claims, and I've never seen a reliable source that compare sucralose (a non-toxic sweetener) to DDT (a known carcinogen)." 

The other link you gave is from a class, and it looks to be that the instructor has gone more toward "instructional/ networking" classes...so not sure what the instructional objective of that page is for?
If you click on the link at the bottom of his page
"Repeated scares that focus on trivial or nonexistent risks — and the media blitzes and public panics that follow — may actually divert scarce resources away from real, significant public health risks even as they whip up needless anxiety. This report shows just how the American public has been manipulated repeatedly by certain segments of the media, by a handful of scientists outside the scientific mainstream, and by a larger coterie of activists and government regulators, all of whom have frightened the public over hypothetical risks. "

It looks as though the class objective was discerning, questioning Media and the effect on public.

Often an article will come up...and I have to wonder if the reporter/writer even bothered to look up the study. They use buzz, scare, sensationalism for audience grab.

DDT levels are still monitored in milk, human and animal, among many other chemicals that are stored in fat. And they are monitored in Fatty fish. As are other chemicals.

  WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria
Each year, more than 500 million people suffer from acute malaria, resulting in more than 1 million deaths. At least 86 percent of these deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa. Globally an estimated 3,000 children and infants die from malaria every day and 10,000 pregnant women die from malaria in Africa every year.

Now monitoring is showing higher levels in breast milk..benefit vs. risk in area with Malaria.  Documented Malaria acute/deaths vs. possible low incidence of other effects.

We having autoimmune conditions: are they rising? or being Dx'd better in a larger world population? Read information with skepticism...the article in Scientific America is more in support of the Snake Oil thread:  fear tactics are used, no links to studies when making comparisons, no foundation. The Dr. in question in the article has been called to the carpet many times for his hollow words, while he hawks his overpriced products.

Reader Beware.
And it is not just the quantity of one chemical as we do not live in lab...we are bombarded daily. Some friendly, others not, and others questionable...
So the fear pendulum swings and buy "organic" at much higher cost becomes the fear-fed trend...Eskimo mother's milk is supposed to be the most contaminated....so the message of Organic = pure: True?