6 ms·

Curious. Your first source states the DDT LD50 for mammals, yet when you examine their stated source [1], it doesn’t say anything about DDT. This Techinical Fa

Curious. Your first source states the DDT LD50 for mammals, yet when you examine their stated source [1], it doesn’t say anything about DDT. This Techinical Fact Sheet [2] has details quite a few alarming impacts to wildlife in general (birds, fish) and also to mammals. For example • Mammals exposed to moderate doses (500 mg/kg) of DDT (technical) have an increased risk of liver tumors(1). • In a two generation study of mice fed low doses (2 mg/kg/day) of DDT for life, the males are twice as likely to develop liver tumors (1). Your DDT is not hazardous to mammals is not born out by science, even in your source. 1 - https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Tab... 2 - http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/ddttech.pdf http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/ddttech.pdf

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Your DDT is not hazardous to mammals is not born out by science, even in your source. <rolls eyes> Come on. He didn't say it was safe for widespread indiscriminate use. He said it's not that hazardous to mammals. Based on the sources and TFA that seems like a pretty fair conclusion. If it were seriously hazardous, like arsenic or mercury levels of hazardous, it wouldn't need to accumulate at the top of the food chain to cause health problems in the animals that are exposed. That said, he was a fool to not expect that, HN being HN, someone would come along to score some cheap virtue points with a more encompassing definition of "that hazardous".