Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Rachel Carson, Silent Spring and DDT were lies?

O, well not eveything. But over the years examples she quoted have been shot down, even recently seals in california were shown 'not to be suffering DDT poinsoning' as thougt.

DDT almost wiped out malaria. When the USA eradicated malaria from its mainland, it piously banned all others for using it.

As time has gone on, DDT has been found to be safer and safer. For example, I'll wager a decent bet that I could eat a teaspon of DDT and feel no side effects. Anyone want to take me on? You know who I am - I will stick by this wager.

DDT has saved hundreds of millions of people while NO safe alternative has been found.

It is time to bring back DDT, expecially in developing countries.


EDIT: A lot of evils have been laid at the door of DDT only to be later disproven. There are literally dozens of them.

Update 2:

I'm not saying DDT was harmless, but ut cured more than it killed, and was harmless to humans (but not to mosquitos). The Americans only banned it after they had sprayed the continental United States.

Update 3:

To Javid: DDT was never pisonous to humans. Remember th photos of the 30's with kids running behind tractors inhaling clouds of DDT dust. And Yes, you put up a suitable be and I will drink DDT - IT IS HARMLESS to humanans in limited doses (one of its many special qualities). DDT was a wonder drug of its time.

Update 4:

To Jim: Yes, there were some negative side effects although grossly exggerated. And Americal did have malaria problems, especially in th south where ther were hundreds of swamps Many since reclaimed).

Update 5:

I am noy saying DDT was harmless, but it was FAR preferable to teh alternative.

And those who say 'read the research'. Well, back at ya. There are reams of evidence now that DDT was not even half as dangerous as originally though.

Update 6:

I reiterate. I will bet you that I will ingest 1 teaspoon full of DDT (maybe in solution to help it go down) to prove it is harmless to humans. This is a known fact - will you joinn me?

7 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    you are nuts!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that DDT cause significant negative environmental impact. Try reading some of that. DDT was only banded in America.

    America never had a malaria problem.

    Your comments just plain don't make since. Why have any controls on anything? Why not let the power plants burn coal without any restrictions.

  • 1 decade ago

    Are u insane ? do u know the devastating effects of DDT ? It has caused so many resistant strains of the same stuff were trying to eradicate; bacteria, viruses, as you said malaria! Now that they have become resistant to the DDT, this means they basically cannot be killed by the DDT u incompetent idiot. And where is your basis for your explanation that DDT is not poisonous. Where are your friggin sources, well if you dont have any dont go around telling people to drink DDT, go do it yourself and i sure hope you do.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I do believe that you are quite wrong. DDT is a proven endocrine disrupter in some species and was the leading cause of bald eagle endangerment. Why do you want to bring it back? You don't make any argument on how it would help society, but are quick to dismiss the benefits and successes of banning DDT. There are many examples of the harm DDT causes. So please, enlighten us all on why bringing DDT back is such a great idea.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    My Opinion What she meant should bring tears to the eye of every man, woman and child. Can you imagine waking up some morning regardless of the time of year and not hearing the birds chirping or see any leaves on the trees to see the earth collapse before your very eyes. The rivers, lakes and oceans run with the stench of pollution and death. I don't want my world to be full of all that people hand out, not only the pollution of the earth but the pollution of the mind as well. We are well on the road to "Doom and Gloom". All from the likes of the care takers.

  • 1 decade ago

    I may be wrong about this, but I believe that DDT breaks down in to DDE(?) which acts like estrogen. It binds to estrogen receptors and causes sexual development problems in animals, especially males. We all know what excess estrogen levels do to males, causing problems such as sterility, underdevelopment of sex organs, etc. Also, in females, excess estrogen likely causes cancer of the reproductive system.

  • 7 years ago

    "Many Misconceptions Surround The Use Of DDT

    Features - Pesticide Issues, Pesticide Issues

    | July 1, 1998


    Headlines proclaim “Eagles Are Off The Endangered Species List.” Of course the absence of eggshell thinning by DDT gets the credit in all the reports I have seen. What a lie! The real reasons are described partly in my previous Myth Conceptions articles on DDT. No mention is made of decimation of the eagle population that occurred during the decades when bounties were paid to kill eagles, or of the excessive egg collecting by ornithologists. No endangered species laws were in effect during those years.

    My bulging DDT file keeps growing as a result of my series of Myth Conceptions articles on DDT. The National Pest Control Association is an excellent source for material. I received an article published in Science News (Volume 153) from Western Exter-minator’s Bill Kolbe that had the best explanation for the thin shell phenomenon that I have seen. It claims that eggshell thinning was an early consequence of a century of excessive pollution from coal combustion. Acid rain caused by decades of belching smokestacks and combustion engines changed the soil and water chemistry enough to reduce the availability of calcium that is so critical in avian diet for eggshell development.

    A gold mine of information came from Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, a professor at San Jose State University. He sent me a 50-page dissertation titled, “Pesticides in Medicine and Politics.” He listed 20 things that DDT did NOT do:

    1. DDT did NOT have any adverse effect on humans, domestic animals or wildlife, including deliberate poisoning or suicide attempts.

    2. DDT did NOT kill birds, mammals, fish or other vertebrate animals when applied in any legally approved manner.

    3. DDT did NOT cause breast cancer, prostate cancer, stomach cancer or any other kind of cancer.

    4. DDT did NOT cause plummeting sperm counts or other reproductive difficulties in heavily exposed humans.

    5. DDT did NOT disrupt the endocrine systems and hormones of humans and other mammals.

    6. DDT did NOT adversely influence reproductive processes in humans or other mammals.

    7. DDT did NOT harm breast-feeding infants whose mothers contained traces of DDT residues.

    8. DDT did NOT harm volunteers who agreed to ingest as much as 36 milligrams of DDT every day for nearly two years.

    9. DDT did NOT cause a decline in populations of brown pelicans, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys or other birds.

    10. DDT did NOT kill robins living near elm trees that were sprayed to protect them from Dutch Elm Disease.

    11. DDT did NOT cause birds to produce eggs with shells that were too thick for the young to hatch or too thin to protect the eggs from being broken.

    12. DDT did NOT kill the honeybees that are important as pollinators of flowers and as producers of commercial honey.

    13. DDT did NOT destroy micro-organisms in the soil or water. On the contrary, those microorganisms destroyed the DDT and its residues in soil and water.

    14. DDT did NOT inhibit photosynthesis in marine algae, freshwater plants or any terrestrial plants.

    15. DDT did NOT persist at any significant levels for long periods of time in aquatic habitats, in soil or in tissues of living animals.

    16. DDT did NOT “biomagnify up the food chain,” and thus did not cause concentrations of pesticides to increase in animals higher on the food chain.

    17. DDT did NOT pollute the oceans, even along the shores that are teeming with people.

    18. DDT did NOT enter falling rainwater, accumulating on roofs in urban areas.

    19. DDT did NOT leach out of the soil and get into nearby ground water because it is not soluble enough in water to do that.

    20. DDT did NOT “blow around the world,” contaminating Antarctica or the surrounding seas.

    All the aforementioned statements are carefully substantiated by Dr. Gordon with creditable, valid scientific data, unlike the pseudo-scientific fiction in many popular writings such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and in a more recent book Our Stolen Future, which Vice President Al Gore called a “sequel to Silent Spring.”

    A disturbing revelation in Edwards’ paper are statements by spokesmen of various environmental groups who were responsible for the demise of DDT. Alexander King in 1990 wrote, “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” Prince Philip once stated that malaria, kept in check by DDT use, was controlling population growth. World health authorities in the 1960s believed that there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure that up to 40% of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As one officer of the Agency for International Development put it, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

    These are the same movements that forced the EPA to rule that any toxicant must be cancelled if it could cause more than one death from cancer in a million people who are exposed to the toxicant for 70 years. Silent Spring has become required reading in many schools, thereby assuring the poisoning of the minds of the next generation.

    It is my hope that at least the baby boomers in the pest control industry can be weaned away from a Silent Spring mindset.

    Harry Katz, a contributing editor to PCT, may be contacted at Berkshire E-3076, Deerfield Beach FL 33442, 954/427-9716."

    The evidence is documented and can be understood by anyone who can read. Rachael Carson was a fraud, Silent Spring was a gothic tale, and the EPA is rogue while making decisions based purely on politics and eugenics.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.