5 ms·

Interesting, but given that DDT (of which DDE is a metabolite) was banned except for a few specific use cases, can we really do much about this now? Is this DD

Interesting, but given that DDT (of which DDE is a metabolite) was banned except for a few specific use cases, can we really do much about this now? Is this DDT/DDE from the few specific use cases were DDT is still legal (disease control of malaria) or is this from previous accumulations from the environment from when DDT was widely utilized? Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#United_States_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#United_States_ban

tremon 8y ago
It's probably the latter. From the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on DDE [1]: Due to DDT’s massive prevalence in society and agriculture during the mid 20th century, DDT and DDE are still widely seen in animal tissue samples. DDE is [..] rarely excreted from the body, and concentrations tend to increase throughout life. The major exception is the excretion of DDE in breast milk, which transfers a substantial portion of the mother's DDE burden to the young animal or child [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethyle...
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  The breast milk thing makes me think: If a substantial portion of the DDT is removed from the mother through breast milk, what difference does it make for subsequent children? And could it be somehow exploited to help remove more of the risk?
  - Herodotus38 8y ago
    Or, you should see a big difference in breast fed children vs those that had formula. I'm pretty sure that variable has been heavily researched without any significant difference.
    - tremon 8y ago
      Not sure if this is what you meant, but breast-feeding a child wouldn't increase the autism risk for that child -- the damage would have been done by then. You would need to research the occurrence of autism among children of breast-fed mothers vs formula-fed (i.e. a cross-generational study). I'm not sure if that has been studied as extensively as you assume.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      I'm saying something different: does it remove enough DDT from the mothers body to affect womb development of subsequent children?
      - Herodotus38 8y ago
        I see your logic and it makes sense. My point was more that if we posit DDT in breast milk caused autism, we'd expect to see a difference in rates of breast vs bottle fed kids, which we don't. So I'm skeptical of it being a big player, but I'll admit I haven't looked into this area deeply.
    - strainer 8y ago
      Breastmilk is the evolved complete nutrition for babies. Various milk formulas are developed towards that goal. You cant compare these with the assumption they do perform the same - it would be like using Soylent 2.0 as the control for adult dietary research.
- derefr 8y ago
  Fun idea: induced lactation as DDT chelation therapy.
ebikelaw 8y ago
It's important research because the chemical industry and their boosters are always trying to get it unbanned. Koch-funded libertarian mouthpiece Reason still runs near-constant attacks on Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, 55 years later.
- gcthomas 8y ago
  Research isn't made important because it satisfies a political imperative, but because it advances knowledge in a reliable way. This sort of narrowly significant result is just the sort of research that is vulnerable to p-hacking and other biases. I'll wait for some supporting research before accepting something so weak, no matter the politics.

tremon 8y ago

It's probably the latter. From the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on DDE [1]: Due to DDT’s massive prevalence in society and agriculture during the mid 20th century, DDT and DDE are still widely seen in animal tissue samples. DDE is [..] rarely excreted from the body, and concentrations tend to increase throughout life. The major exception is the excretion of DDE in breast milk, which transfers a substantial portion of the mother's DDE burden to the young animal or child [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethyle...

jamesrcole 8y ago
The breast milk thing makes me think: If a substantial portion of the DDT is removed from the mother through breast milk, what difference does it make for subsequent children? And could it be somehow exploited to help remove more of the risk?
- Herodotus38 8y ago
  Or, you should see a big difference in breast fed children vs those that had formula. I'm pretty sure that variable has been heavily researched without any significant difference.
  - tremon 8y ago
    Not sure if this is what you meant, but breast-feeding a child wouldn't increase the autism risk for that child -- the damage would have been done by then. You would need to research the occurrence of autism among children of breast-fed mothers vs formula-fed (i.e. a cross-generational study). I'm not sure if that has been studied as extensively as you assume.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    I'm saying something different: does it remove enough DDT from the mothers body to affect womb development of subsequent children?
    - Herodotus38 8y ago
      I see your logic and it makes sense. My point was more that if we posit DDT in breast milk caused autism, we'd expect to see a difference in rates of breast vs bottle fed kids, which we don't. So I'm skeptical of it being a big player, but I'll admit I haven't looked into this area deeply.
  - strainer 8y ago
    Breastmilk is the evolved complete nutrition for babies. Various milk formulas are developed towards that goal. You cant compare these with the assumption they do perform the same - it would be like using Soylent 2.0 as the control for adult dietary research.
derefr 8y ago
Fun idea: induced lactation as DDT chelation therapy.

ebikelaw 8y ago

It's important research because the chemical industry and their boosters are always trying to get it unbanned. Koch-funded libertarian mouthpiece Reason still runs near-constant attacks on Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, 55 years later.

gcthomas 8y ago
Research isn't made important because it satisfies a political imperative, but because it advances knowledge in a reliable way. This sort of narrowly significant result is just the sort of research that is vulnerable to p-hacking and other biases. I'll wait for some supporting research before accepting something so weak, no matter the politics.