Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

Billy wrote:
outsider wrote:

880,000 (quoted above from your source) dying every year is clearly
not using every means possible to prevent infection and death.

Are you contending that not enough DDT is being sprayed?

I certainly contend that. Absolutely. Using DDT on mosquito nets in
the tropics and on the inside walls of tropical buildings would spare
hundreds of thousands of new infections annually. Instead it is totally
banned at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

If so "quantify" how much is needed.

That is indeed the hard part. How much to save vast numbers of human
lives yet not so much as to breed resistant mosquitos who will deliver
malaria anyways.

Malaria has resisted the development of any vaccination. Therefore
other means should be used to prevent infection.

DDT was overused before it was banned. The amount used on mosquito
netting and the interior walls of buildings would be tiny compared to
the amount used before. But it should not be zero.

On 8/11/2011 2:42 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,

abusive poster in killfile - hardly made a plunk

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
outsider wrote:

880,000 (quoted above from your source) dying every year is clearly
not using every means possible to prevent infection and death.

Are you contending that not enough DDT is being sprayed?

I certainly contend that. Absolutely. Using DDT on mosquito nets in
the tropics and on the inside walls of tropical buildings would spare
hundreds of thousands of new infections annually. Instead it is totally
banned at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

If so "quantify" how much is needed.

That is indeed the hard part. How much to save vast numbers of human
lives yet not so much as to breed resistant mosquitos who will deliver
malaria anyways.

Malaria has resisted the development of any vaccination. Therefore
other means should be used to prevent infection.

DDT was overused before it was banned. The amount used on mosquito
netting and the interior walls of buildings would be tiny compared to
the amount used before. But it should not be zero.

Did you read the article, Doug?
Mosquitos can be controlled in Central America with agricultural
practices. In Africa it is more integrated pest management plus
insecticides. Do you think that the mosquito can be eradicated, but for
some reason the governments don't want to?
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it's not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/11/2011 2:42 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,

abusive poster in killfile - hardly made a plunk

Asking for a citation that supports what you post is abusive? It's only
abusive to those who think that they can make up reality. So here's your
chance to run away. Go on, run.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
outsider wrote:

880,000 (quoted above from your source) dying every year is clearly
not using every means possible to prevent infection and death.

Are you contending that not enough DDT is being sprayed?

I certainly contend that. Absolutely. Using DDT on mosquito nets in
the tropics and on the inside walls of tropical buildings would spare
hundreds of thousands of new infections annually. Instead it is totally
banned at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

If so "quantify" how much is needed.

That is indeed the hard part. How much to save vast numbers of human
lives yet not so much as to breed resistant mosquitos who will deliver
malaria anyways.

Malaria has resisted the development of any vaccination. Therefore
other means should be used to prevent infection.

DDT was overused before it was banned. The amount used on mosquito
netting and the interior walls of buildings would be tiny compared to
the amount used before. But it should not be zero.

You into your Belgium bier again, Doug?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Environmental impact


Degradation of DDT to form DDE (by elimination of HCl, left) and DDD (by
reductive dechlorination, right)
DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is extremely hydrophobic and
strongly absorbed by soil. Depending on conditions, its soil half life
can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation
include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation. When applied to aquatic ecosystems it is quickly
absorbed by organisms and by soil or it evaporates, leaving little DDT
dissolved in the water itself. Its breakdown products and metabolites,
DDE and DDD, are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and
physical properties.[1] DDT and its breakdown products are transported
from warmer regions of the world to the Arctic by the phenomenon of
global distillation, where they then accumulate in the region's food
web.[33]
Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT has a high potential to
bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[34] DDT, DDE, and DDD
magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds
concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment.
They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE
are very resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and
up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were
detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for
Disease Control in 2005, though their levels have sharply declined since
most uses were banned in the US.[35] Estimated dietary intake has also
declined,[35] although FDA food tests commonly detect it.[36]
Marine macroalgae (seaweed) help reduce soil toxicity by up to 80%
within six weeks.[37]

Effects on human health
Potential mechanisms of action on humans are genotoxicity and endocrine
disruption. DDT may be directly genotoxic,[45] but may also induce
enzymes to produce other genotoxic intermediates and DNA adducts.[45] It
is an endocrine disruptor; The DDT metabolite DDE acts as an
antiandrogen (but not as an estrogen). p,p'-DDT, DDT's main component,
has little or no androgenic or estrogenic activity.[45] Minor component
o,p'-DDT has weak estrogenic activity.
[edit]
Acute toxicity
DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National
Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World
Health Organization (WHO), based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[47]
DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for
barbiturate poisoning.[48]
[edit]
Chronic toxicity
[edit]
Diabetes
DDT and DDE have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the
US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in
a population increases with serum DDT or DDE
levels.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
[edit]
Developmental and reproductive toxicity
DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have
xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to
estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine
disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological
studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these
effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US
Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the
reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may
cause developmental and reproductive toxicity:
? A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that
exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might
cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows
endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible
disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and
duration of lactation."[23]
? Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk
factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's
ability to breast feed.[55] Some 21st century researchers argue that
these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial
benefits.[56] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association
between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[57]
? Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero
exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For
example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that
children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development
problems,[58] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT
or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased
attention at infancy[59] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of
age.[60] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE
exposure to retarded psychomotor development.[61]
? Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with
high exposures (generally from IRS).[62][63][64]
? Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not
increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[65] There is some evidence that the
daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting
pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[66]
? DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of
miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found
"a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between
preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy
losses."[67] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than
that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[68]
? A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in
utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an
important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[69]
Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper
thyroid function.[70][71]


Other
Occupational exposure in agriculture and malaria control has been linked
to neurological problems (i.e. Parkinsons)[72] and asthma.[73]


Carcinogenicity
DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably
anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research
on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA
classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These
evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][23]
There is evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human
populations) that indicates that DDT causes cancers of the
liver,[23][35] pancreas[23][35] and breast.[35] There is mixed evidence
that it contributes to leukemia,[35] lymphoma[35][74] and testicular
cancer.[23][35][75] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE
does not cause multiple myeloma,[23] or cancers of the prostate,[23]
endometrium,[23][35] rectum,[23][35] lung,[35] bladder,[35] or
stomach.[35]


Breast cancer
The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has
been repeatedly studied. While individual studies conflict, the most
recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that pre-puberty exposure
increases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.[35][76] Until recently,
almost all studies measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of
breast cancer diagnosis or after. This study design has been criticized,
since the levels at diagnosis do not necessarily correspond to levels
when her cancer started.[77] Taken as a whole such studies "do not
support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor
for breast cancer."[45] The studies of this design have been extensively
reviewed.[23][78][79]

In contrast, a study published in 2007 strongly associated early
exposure (the p,p'- isomer) and breast cancer later in life. Unlike
previous studies, this prospective cohort study collected blood samples
from young mothers in the 1960s while DDT was still in use, and their
breast cancer status was then monitored over the years. In addition to
suggesting that the p,p'- isomer is the more significant risk factor,
the study also suggests that the timing of exposure is critical. For the
subset of women born more than 14 years before agricultural use, there
was no association between DDT and breast cancer. However, for younger
women--exposed earlier in life--the third who were exposed most to
p,p'-DDT had a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence over the
least exposed third, after correcting for the protective effect of
o,p'-DDT.[45][80][81] These results are supported by animal studies.[35]

Mosquito resistance
Resistance [to DDT] has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO
guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before
using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use,
in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention.
According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by
banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance,
"it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide
added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21]
----

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...o-combat-malar
ia

In 2007, at least 3,950 tons of DDT were sprayed for mosquito control in
Africa and Asia, according to a report by the United Nations Environment
Programme.

The panel convened in March, 2008, at Alma College in Michigan, near a
Superfund site where DDT was produced at a chemical plant. Their goal
was "to address the current and legacy implications of DDT production
and use," according to their report.

Acknowledging that some areas remain dependent on DDT, they recommended
monitoring of the spraying to ensure that usage guidelines are followed
and improved application techniques.

"It is definitely not a matter of letting people die from malaria," de
Jager said.

We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue
using DDT if we know about the health risks," said Tiaan de Jager, a
member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems &
Public Health at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "Safer
alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be
phased out without putting people at risk."
----

Was that the answer to your question, Doug?
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it's not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

On 8/11/2011 4:11 PM, outsider wrote:
On 8/11/2011 2:42 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,

abusive poster in killfile - hardly made a plunk


Yep. That's what happens after little Yapper tells you to *just ****
off* - and you don't: *you* out yourself as an abusive poster and end up
up in little Yapper's killfile.


Here - once again - the evolution of abuse in this thread:

On 8/8/2011 11:01 PM, Outsider wrote:

We agree to disagree. But do let me know if/when you've actually read
something worthwhile about Chaos (internet web pages of the same value
as printed material are few) and have some understanding of the topic.

On 8/8/2011 3:35 PM, Billy wrote:

Your patronizing tone is amusing in that you have offered no proof to
support your own opinions, and only offer a book that isn't even written
on the subject. Why don't you just give me the quote, and the page
number, and then I can show everyone how lame you are. How about that?
Hummm?

On 8/8/2011 6:58 PM, Outsider wrote:

Why don't you just **** off. You have no science to back up your
ideas, they come out of a political play book. So go play....

Absolutely hilarious.

Bob
ASD A-hole Patrol

On 8/11/2011 5:35 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 2:42 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,

abusive poster in killfile - hardly made a plunk

Asking for a citation that supports what you post is abusive?

No, but *you forcing him* to tell you to "**** off" was.

It's only
abusive to those who think that they can make up reality. So here's your
chance to run away. Go on, run.

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Malaria has resisted the development of any vaccination. Therefore
other means should be used to prevent infection.

Mosquito resistance
Resistance [to DDT] has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO
guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before
using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use,
in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention.

I highlight this part - "Resistance is largely due to agricultural use,
in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention".

According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by
banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance,
"it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide
added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21]

Acknowledging that some areas remain dependent on DDT, they recommended
monitoring of the spraying to ensure that usage guidelines are followed
and improved application techniques.

Was that the answer to your question, Doug?

Largely. You will note that I cut to the parts relevant to my point -
That banning the use of DDT in agriculture remains the right thing to do
and that DDT use *in agriculture" is the main cause of developing
resistance. DDT should be used on mosquito netting, on indoor walls in
the tropical zone, and not in agriculture. This is farther from banned
than I thought had been put into practice, closer to banned than
apparently actually is in practice.

You will note that when the developed world banned DDT the amount of DDE
in wildlife began to decline. It's now low enough that predator birds
have once again begun to flourish. When I was a kid I nver saw a hawk.
Now I see hawks often and when I am on travel some eagles, facons and
buzzards. Using DDT at a level for malaria prevention will not change
that and the number of lives saved would be a large net positive. But
as you quoted it should not be used in agriculture.

In article , Bob
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 5:35 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 2:42 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,

abusive poster in killfile - hardly made a plunk

Asking for a citation that supports what you post is abusive?

No, but *you forcing him* to tell you to "**** off" was.

You're right, Bob. I've been a naughty boy ;O) It was unkind of me to
expose "out"(house?) to the light of day, as it isn't complimentary to
him at all.

It's only
abusive to those who think that they can make up reality. So here's your
chance to run away. Go on, run.

And as the Sun pulls away from the dock, and our boat sinks into the
harbor, we bid "hasta la vista" to another bonehead.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

As soon as we get past a problem in the current gene therapy
methods - inserting the new genes into a random point in the
old genes, and therefore in some cells likely to disable a
gene that prevents that cell from turning into cancer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/19/cancer.medicalresearch

It's known that inserting the new genes into the cells but
not into the old genes is a good way to make sure that the
new genes don't last long.