jstrubberg wrote:S. Heisley wrote::thinking: One more thing....Do you remember when farmers used DDT until it was outlawed as a carcinogen by the government?
In one of my gardening classes, the professor talked about DDT and how it could still affect some of us today. He explained that the body stored the DDT in fat cells. If you were fat back then and decide to lose weight now, you could release those carcinogens back into your body as free radicals, as your excess fat is used up by your body.
Why do I mention something from the past? Because I have since read that this fat-storing principle is true of other substances that the body doesn't recognize. While the body disposes of many substances in the usual, "bathroom" way or releases impurities through the skin, if the body can't recognize something, it may also store it in the fat cells. Think about how many Americans are overweight and are still gaining. It's a large portion of our US population. I suspect that all this 'playing' with food and chemicals could come back to haunt us in a really bad way some day; and, when it does, there may be little that we can do about it. Am I saying that poisonous chemicals like Round-up might be stored in our fat cells? ...Very possibly. Am I saying that parts of unrecognizable foods as well as poisonous chemicals could be stored in our fat, possibly making us fatter? I don't know; but, maybe....
...Just thinkin' & sayin'....
DDT is a great example of overreacting. DDT is know to cause reproductive problems in non-migratory birds. That was used to "prove" that DDT is bad for humans as well. DDT was banned, and as a direct result we've lost thousands to needless malaria deaths since 1973.I think we should be smarter than that. Look back in time and we can see all sorts of examples of things that were at one time considered inoccuous. Tobacco. DDT. Lead in gasoline, paints and more. Trans fats . Driving with everybody unbuckled.
If you make a decision without knowledge, you are just as likely to step into the middle of the road as you are to step to safety.
You're right, jstrubberg. DDT was originally banned because of the weakening egg shells for mainly predatory birds. It wasn't until 2002 that it was labeled for its possible carcinogenic properties. But my main point was that the body can store chemicals that it is unsure of and later release them from the fat cells; and that, if it can do that with DDT, it can also do that with other chemicals currently being used, as stated in my second paragraph that you quoted (Thank you). Some of the new pesticides could turn out to be a lot worse than DDT!
Since you brought up malaria, I went out and checked. Here is what I found:
In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria in countries with low to moderate transmission rates worldwide, relying largely on DDT for mosquito control and rapid diagnosis and treatment to reduce transmission.[29] The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[30] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[31]
However, failure to sustain the program, increasing resistance of mosquito to DDT, and increasing parasite resistance led to a resurgence (of malaria). In many areas early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[32] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[33]
DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum.[citation needed]
The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969 and attention was instead focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation.[32] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[33][34]
It is my understanding that 26 countries have now banned DDT; however, I can't help but wonder if it might be better than some of the chemicals we are now using. If only man could find a way to manage vegetation without using man-made chemicals. Oh, wait! Man can manage! It's called organic gardening. The problem is not that. The problem is man's greed and man's desire to do as little as possible while producing perfect-looking produce.
Is there an answer to all of this? It is doubtful. Perhaps the best that we can do is research and publish our findings in our own meager ways so that people can make up their own minds and decide how they want to handle their own lives. But, remember that the power of the wallet and of knowledge is mighty. Perhaps that is what this thread is all about.