3 ms·
Your linked article does not say anything about the scientific basis of Carlson's claims. I will say Carlson's claims were overdone. The book title, "Silent Sp
by cjensen 10y ago
Your linked article does not say anything about the scientific basis of Carlson's claims.
I will say Carlson's claims were overdone. The book title, "Silent Spring", implies the extinction of all songbirds, and most songbirds were not affected by DDT.
But here's the facts: all birds which eat fish or other birds had a massive dieback which reversed in the 1970s. For example, consider Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles. The former eats fish and died off; the latter eats mammals and did much better. It wasn't just one species: every fish-eating bird died off: cormorants, pelicans, Bald Eagles, egrets. If DDT does not explain this die-off and recovery, what do you propose to explain this preferential near-extinction?
The "DDT is Innocent" train of thought is, in my view, wishful thinking on the part of some who want environmentalists to always be wrong. They were right on this one.
- scardine 10y agoThe linked article is very unbiased, but it links to positions from both camps. > Studies published in Poultry Science found chicken eggs almost completely unaffected by high dosages of DDT. > In 1998, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds researcher Rhys Green published a study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B which found that eggshell thinning of some bird species had begun 50 years before the introduction of DDT. Despite some studies linking a byproduct (DDE) to moderate egg thinning in sensitive raptors, the ban was an overreaction. There is a lot of FUD surrounding DDT, and it costs lives. Spraying DDT on the internal walls in my country would save hundreds of lives.
- cjensen 10y agoYou have not provided an alternate explanation for the population crash and subsequent recovery of piscivore birds. I note that DDT perfectly explains it. The study by Rhys Green is entirely misrepresented. He studied four species of thrush. Thrush don't eat fish, nor do they eat other birds. That literally supports what I said: DDT affected specific species of birds based on whether or not they consumed environmentally-concentrated sources of DDT. Nor have you explained why DDT alone, rather than a less-stable alternative, must be used. I'm sorry, but you have bought into FUD. We all do that sometimes. Today was your turn. I'm not looking forward to my next turn.
- beevai142 10y agoDDT was never banned for use in fighting malaria and other diseases. Its use declined because mosquitoes develop resistance to it, and more efficient methods became available. Of course, some interest groups like to present a different picture, as usual with environmental issues.
- scardine 10y agoYes, it was not banned for malaria fighting in a few countries, but it was banned for all applications in most of the world including my country, Brazil. Now with the recent Zika virus outbreak many kids were born with microcephaly (crippled brains half the normal size), many people died or were crippled by Guillain–Barré syndrome. I'm not saying DDT is a safe chemical, just arguing that its ban is exaggerated.
- makomk 10y agoDDT probably wouldn't help all that much: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-save-us-from-the-zika-virus/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/22/no-ddt-wont-sav...
- CWuestefeld 10y agoI don't know all the details, but between heightened public awareness, state-level regulations, and the federal Clean Water Act, overall pollution levels in American freshwater was improving markedly. It seems plausible to me that we're talking about poisons of all sorts being cleaned from the environment, not just DDT.