21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 61

1.TheStockholmPOPConventionThelettersPOPastheacronymforPersistentOrganicPollutantsappearedfirstin

U.N.documentsduringthelastdecadeofthe20thCentury.Forexample,wefindPOP in the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) document dealingwiththepreparationsprecedingtheimpositionofabanontheproductionandappli-cationofchemicalcompoundsclassifiedasbelongingtothePOPgroup.1InamannertypicalforthevariousactivitiesoftheUN,thepreparationsincludednumerousinter-nationalconferences.ThepreparatoryactivitieswerefinalizedattheconferenceinStockholminMay2001wheretherepresentativesof127countriessignedthedocu-mentwhichisknownasTheStockholmPOPConvention.2

Theconventionexplicitlybansorimposesseverelimitationsonproductionanduseof12chloroorganiccompounds(DDT,Aldrin,Dieldrin,Endrin,ChlordaneHepta-clor, decachlorobi-phenyl, tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, tetrachlorodibenzofuran). In

A chemist looks at the voluminous

scientific literature, and concludes that

DDT is not hazardous to human

health.

DDT:Then...Duringthewar,DDTwasused tosave the livesofmillions of soldiers andcivilians from insect-borne disease, makingthisthefirstwarinwhichdiseasedidnotkillmorepeople than the war it-self.Right:DDTresidualsprayingof ahutwithamobilepowerspray.Left:DDT dusting in WorldWarII.

The True Story of DDTbyPrzemyslawMastalerz

...AndNow

The race to eliminate DDT.TheStockholm Convention is racing“toward achieving the elimina-tion of DDT for disease vectorcontrol” by 2020.You can clickon the button to enlarge thegraphicandseehowtheConven-tionisprogressinginitsdisease-supportingracetoeliminateDDT.http://chm.pops.int/Programmes/DDT/Overview/tabid/378/language/en-US/Default.aspx

U.S. ArmyU.S. Army

62 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

theEnglishecologicalliterature,thePOPsaresometimescalled“thedirtydozen.”3,4Thatphrasealonetellswhatisthe“eco-logicallycorrect”attitude towards thePOP familyofchemi-cals....

The main reasonwhy environmentalistswagewar againstPOPs,isthatallPOPsareorganochlorinecompoundsandtheenvironmentalistsstubbornlybelievethatallorganochlorinesareharmfulandshouldbetotallyeliminated.Skepticswhodonot believe that there are people harboring such ridiculousviewsarereferredtothebookbyThornton,5pages1-11andothers.

ThePOPswereselectedforafrontalassaultbecauseprevi-oussuccessfulbansoforganochlorineinsecticidesandPCBsopenedabreachinsociety’sdefenseagainstenvironmentalistsandmadeitmoreprobablethat their futurevictorieswillbeeasiertoachieve....

TheStockholmConventionismostaptlydescribedasabe-trayal of scienceand reason. It is notwithout irony that thesamephrasewasusedbyPaulR.EhrlichandAnneH.Ehrlichinthetitleoftheirbookinwhichtheyacidlycriticizealleffortstocounteractenvironmentalistpropaganda.6

Commonsenseandevenacursorysurveyofliteratureindi-catethatthePOPConventiondoesindeedbetrayscienceandreason.ItisverydifficulttounderstandwhyandhowsciencebecamesototallyovershadowedbyenvironmentalistopinionsthatitwaspossibletocreatesuchadocumentastheStockholmConvention.

2.IdeologicalandHistoricalBackgroundoftheWar

AgainstDDTThehistoryofDDTaboundswithimportantsci-

entific and political events, but the main reasonwhyitshouldbemorewidelyrememberedisthatitpresentsaveryinstructivepictureoftheconflictofscienceandcommonsensewithpoliticsandpro-paganda. It is a very sad and depressing picturewithnumerousexamplesof:

• cheatingpublicopinion,• contemptofscientificinformation,• dishonestyofscientists,• simplehumanstupidity,• dominationofideologyandpoliticsoversci-

ence.Inviewoftheongoingconfrontationofscience

withpoliticsandobscurantism,itwouldbedishon-estandevendangeroustoputalidofsilenceuponthatpicture.

Thereareknownatpresentmorethan20millionorganiccompoundsandmostofthemaremoreorless toxic,but theenvironmentalistshavechosenDDTasthetargetoftheirmostviolentattacks.Theirreasonsareverydifficulttounderstand,inviewofthe fact thatDDThas extremely low toxicity formostwarm-bloodedanimalsandisoneofthemostsafeandmosteffective insecticides.ProbablynoantibioticsavedsomanypeoplefromunnecessaryandavoidabledeathasdidDDT,throughitsuseinthefightagainstmalaria.

ThecampaignagainstDDThasnorationalex-planation.Itculminatedinthe1970swiththeDDTban,buttheuglymarksitleftinhumanmindsre-maintothepresentday.ThecampaignagainstDDTwasapoliticalandideologicalactwithoutanysci-entificreasons.However,thereweretacticalrea-sons.

Frommanyorganochlorine insecticides,whichwere in common use from late 1940s to early1970s,theenvironmentalistschoseDDTasthetar-getof theirfirstbroadsideattackonorganochlo-rines.ThereasonoftheirchoicewasthatDDTal-readywaspublicizedveryextensivelybythemassmedia.MostpeopleinNorthAmericaandEuropeknewwhatDDTwas,whileonlyfewwereaware

Editor’sNoteProf. Mastalerz is Professor Emeritus of Organic Chemistry and

Biochemistry at theTechnical University ofWroclaw, Poland. HewroteTheTrueStoryofDDT,PCB,andDioxinin2005inanattempttounearththerelevantfactsaboutthesechemicalstoputbeforethepublic.Thebookcoversthetechnicaldetailsofthesechemicals,andpresentshisfindingsfromareviewofmorethan2,000scientificpa-persontopicsliketoxicitytobirds,fish,domesticandwildanimals,andhumanbeings.Itincludesanexaminationofthemajorenviron-mentalissues,suchastheallegedcarcinogenesis,hormonaleffects,anddecreasingmalefertilityofDDT.

Thebook,publishedbyWydawnictwoChemiczneinWroclaw,isavailable for$20.00athttp://www.chemia.org/id12.html.Wehaveexcerptedasmallpartofthe226-pagebookhere,withminoredito-rialchangestoaidthecontinuityoftheexcerptsandfootnotes.

Prof. Mastalerz stands nexttoastackofthe2,000papersonDDTwhichhereviewedas documentation for hisbook.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 63

ofdieldrin,chlordane,orheptachlor,withtheirdifficult-to-re-member names. The environmentalists knew very well thatonlybyattackingthemostpopularinsecticidewouldtheyat-tract sufficient public attention and secure financial supportfromsociety.DDTappearstobethemostprominentcaseofus-ingchemophobiatoearnmoneyfromscaredpeople.

AttacksonotherPOPscamelater,whenenvironmentalistor-ganizationsstrengthenedtheirpositionbyhavingachievedthebanofDDT.Thatbanwastheirbiggestevervictory.Theircam-paignagainstotherorganochlorines found itsculmination in

theStockholmConvention.Oneofthepossibleexplanationsofthehostileatti-

tudetowardsDDTappearstohaveitsrootsinthefactthatenvironmentalistsrejectscientificopinionswhen-evertheseopinionsdonotagreewiththeircanonsoffaith.Forexample,theenvironmentalistsdonotagreewiththeresultsoftoxicologicalandepidemiologicalstudieswhichdemonstrate very clearly thatDDT isharmless tohumansandothermammals.Theyalsorefuse to accept thefact that there is nothing betterthanDDTtofightthemalaria-spreadingmosquitoes.7-

9

Weshallreturninlaterchapterstovariousas-pectsof thewarof environmentalistswithDDT,butitisworthmentioningherethattheStockholmConventionexemptedDDTfromimmediatetotalban by permitting its use in malaria eradicationprograms. Unfortunately, this exemption did nothelp thepoornationsverymuch,becausemanyreliefagenciesrefusetosponsorprogramsinwhichDDTistobeused,orrefusetosponsoranyreliefprograms in countrieswhichdecide to return toDDTintheirstruggleagainstmalaria.

FierceattacksonDDTcontinuedfromtheearli-estyearsof thehistoryof that in-secticide,and itsopponentshaveused all conceivable lies as theirweapon.Oneoftheearliestexam-ples is provided by a book pub-lished in 1955 where the authorsaidthattheannualproductionofDDT in the USA (about 150,000tonsatthattime)wouldbeenoughtokillallpeopleonourplanet.10Itis an exceptionally crass lie, be-causeitwaswellknownin1955,or even earlier, that DDT is nottoxictohumans.Icitethatbooktoshow how difficult it is to arguewith environmentalists with theirtotaldisregardoftruth.Anearlierexampleofastupendouslietoldina paper published in a scientificjournalwillbediscussedlater.

About20yearsafterthebegin-ningofDDThistorytheAmericanauthor Rachel Carson publishedher famous book Silent Spring.Carson presents there a dramatic

picture of a world ravaged by DDT, which indiscriminatelybringsdeathtopeopleandanimals.11Thebookisnowalmostforgotten,butinitstimeitservedtoestablishinthepublicopin-ion thepictureofDDTasadeadlypoisonwhichkills evenwhenappliedinverysmallamounts.TheCarsonbookmarksthebeginningofchemophobiawhichnowdominatesthepub-licattitudetowardsallchemicals.

It shouldbe stressed thatSilent Springmustnotbe totallycondemnedbecauseithelpedtodevelopecologicalawarenessin the society.However, onehas to remember thatCarson’s

Thefirstpageof the2001StockholmConvention.Toreadtherestof thedocument, see http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/convention_ text/UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT-FULL.English.PDF

Stockholm POPs Convention

“Abetrayalofscienceandreason”:TheStockholmPOPConventionmeeting inMay2006.

64 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

book is full of lies and exaggera-tions.Aseverecritiquebyprofes-sorGordonEdwards12appeared30years after the publication of thefirsteditionofSilent Spring.Withreactionsdelayedby30yearsthereisnochance thatprofessors shallever win the upper hand in theirdiscussionwithenvironmentalists.

Inlaterchapters,Idiscussmanyexamples of false information onDDTtakenfromscientificjournalsandpopularbooks....

TheTriumph,theDemise,andtheReturnofDDT

DDT was first synthesized 130yearsago,butdidnotattractanyattention until 1939, when PaulMüllerdiscovereditsamazingin-secticidal properties. For reasonsto be explained later, the date ofMüller’sdiscovery,nowlargelyfor-gotten,shouldbeinscribedintheannalsofhumanityasoneof thegreatest scientific achievements.Contemporaries very soon recog-nizedthemeritsofthenewinsecti-cideandMüllerreceivedtheNo-bel Prize in 1948, less than 10yearsafterthefirstagriculturalap-plicationsofDDT.DetailsofworkleadingtothatdiscoveryaredescribedinpapersbyMülleretal.13,14andinthebookbyWestandCampbell.15

VerysoonthenewlydiscoveredDDTwassuccessfullyap-plied inSwitzerland tocombat theColoradobeetle,butbe-causeofthewar,theagriculturalapplicationswerenotintheforeground before 1946. Instead, the attention was then fo-cussedoneradicationofdisease-carryinginsects.Beingawareoftheimportanceofanextremelypotentinsecticide,theSwissgovernment made DDT available to theAllies.That gesturemadepossiblealarge-scaleutilizationofDDTforprotectionofalliedsoldiersfrommalaria-spreadingmosquitoesandfromtyphus-carryinghumanlice.

ItisatellingandlittleknownfactthattheSwissgovernmentmadeDDTavailablenotonlytotheAlliesbutalsotoNaziGer-many.TheSwissarguedthatthiswasrequiredbytheirneutral-ity.16TheSwissthusdemonstratedaratherqueerunderstandingofneutrality.

ThesuccessofDDTagainstmalariaandotherdiseasescar-riedbyinsectswastrulyphenomenalandwasthereasonwhyMüllerwashonoredwiththeNobelprizeinmedicinesosoonafter the first practical applications of DDT. Unfortunately,due to tremendouspressure fromecologicalorganizations,theearlysuccessesweresoonforgottenandarealmostnevermentionedinnewerliterature.AstrikingexceptiontothisisprovidedbyA.G.Smith inareviewarticlewhere theearlyhistory of DDT is objectively presented.17 Environmentalistbookseitherdonotmention,ortrytobelittlethesuccessesof

DDT.18,19

Mosquitoesbitewhentheirvic-timsaresleepingandbeforeoraf-terfeeding,theyrestonthewallsofhumanhomes.Thisbehavioralpeculiaritymadepossiblethephe-nomenal success of the fightagainstmalaria,becauseonlyonesprayingofinsidewallswithmin-utequantitiesofDDTprotectsthehomes for several months.20 Theeffectivenessofsuchanapproachisverywelldocumentedinthelit-erature.21,22

Between 1945 and 1971, ma-lariawas eradicated in27coun-tries with a total population ofover700million,butitreturnedinlateryearswhen theuseofDDTwas prohibited worldwide. Thesponsors from the United Statesand rich European countries de-cidedthatbecauseoftheban,itisunlawful to support the eradica-tionofmalariawithDDT.Withoutfinancialsupport,DDTwaswith-drawnfrommalariaprogramsandtheresultswereimmediateanddi-sastrous.Millionsofpoorpeoplein tropical countries again weredyingfrommalaria.

ItistruethatinsomeisolatedcasesDDTwaswithdrawnbe-causeoftheappearanceofresistantmosquitoes,butthebanwaspromptednotbyinsectresistancebutforpurelypoliticalandideologicalreasons.Resistanceisnotabigproblem,be-causeeventheresistantmosquitoesarerepelledbyDDTanddo not enter sprayed homes.Without being highly effectiveagainst mosquitoes and some crop-damaging insects, DDTwouldnotbeaspopularasitisnowinThirdworldcountries.TheamountofDDTusedgloballyaftertheban,mostlyinAsiancountries,wasestimatedin2001toapproach50,000tonsan-nually.23

Poor,malaria-threatenednationsareoftenunabletoaffordother,moreexpensivemethodsoffightingmosquitoesandthusturntoDDTevenifthatmeansalossoffinancialhelpfromtheUnitedStatesandEurope.Itistrulydisgustingthattheenviron-mentalistsfromrichcountriescondemnpoorpeopletodeathfrommalaria,bydenyingfundsonlybecausetheuseofDDTisagainsttheircanonoffaith.24

Fromtheearliestdays,thesuccessesofDDTdidnotpreventscientistsfromnoticingsomedisturbingsymptoms.Thefirstpa-personthetoxicityofDDTtofishes,frogs,andlaboratoryani-malsappearedin194425-27andthetoxicitytohumanswasfirstmentionedin1945.28TheaccumulationofDDTinanimalfatanditsappearanceinmilkwerealsodescribedin1945.29,30

TheearlieststudieswerecarriedoutinthelaboratoriesoftheU.S.Armyandpublishedwithmuchdelaybecauseofthese-crecyenforcedbywar.Thedetailsweredescribedaquarter-centurylaterbyW.B.Deichman,whohadsupervisedsomeof

Novartis

Nobel Prize winner Paul Müller in his laboratory,where he discovered the insecticidal properties ofDDTin1939.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 65

theearlywork.31Sincetheappearanceofthefirstpapers,thou-sandsofscientificpapersonbiologicalpropertiesofDDThavebeenpublished,buttheearlypublicationsarenowforgottenandarehardlyevercited.

ThedevelopmentsduringthefirstyearsofDDThistoryweredescribedbyE.Russellinanarticlepublishedin1999.Itisavery interesting article based on documents fromAmericangovernmentalarchives.Unfortunately,theRus-sellarticle isheavilybiased,with focusupontheharmfulpropertiesandomissionoftheuse-ful properties of DDT. For example, Russell

doesnotatallmentiontheeradicationofmalaria.32Irefertohisarticleonlytoremindthereadersthatre-viewsarenotagoodsourceofobjectiveinformationonmatterscontestedbyenvironmentalists.

TheToxicityQuestionTheverylowtoxicitytohumansandothermam-

malswasnoticedattheverybeginningofwide-scaleapplication of DDT. For example, people infectedwith lice were literally sprinkled with copiousamounts of powders containing several percent ofDDTwithoutharmfuleffects33(seephotographs).

EvidencethatDDTisverysafetousewasprovidedalsobyitsapplicationonaverylargescaleinagricul-ture,withoutanyindicationofharmtohumans.

Unfortunately,theexcellentsafetyrecordsofDDTencouraged its indiscriminateuseonfieldsand inforests,whichresultedinisolatedcasesofpoisoningoffishandbirds.At thesametime, itwas learnedthatDDTisverypersistentintheenvironmentandispresentindetectableamountsinanimalandhumantissues.

Toxicityandpersistencewereverymuchexagger-atedbyenvironmentalists,whofromtheearliestdaysofDDThistoryclaimedthatitistoodangeroustobeusedandshouldbebanned.Soonaveryheatedpub-licdiscussionbeganofthemeritsandhazardsofDDT.

Unfortunately,itwasalwaysapoliticaldiscussion,whichpro-ceededwithtotaldisregardofscience.Thefollowingtwoex-amplesofargumentationillustrate theextremityofpositionstakenbytheparticipantsofthesediscussions.Bothquotationscomefrommedicaljournals:

“DDTisadeadlypoisonforhumansandforallanimalspecies.”34

U.S. Army

TheArmyroutinelydusteddisplacedpersonsandothersinEuropewithDDTtoprotectciviliansandtheArmyfromtyphus,alouse-bornekillerdisease.TheSupremeHeadquartersoftheAlliedExpeditionaryForce(SHAEF) made public health a command responsibility, setting upDDTdustingatbordercontrolstationsandelsewhere.

U.S. Army

DDT spraying was carried out by the Armyaroundtheworld.Hereresidualsprayingofliv-ingquartersinAssam,northeastIndia.

U.S.troopswereroutinelydustedwithDDTfordiseasecontrol.Hereasoldierdem-onstrateshowtospray,andanWorldWarIIArmyposterdescribestheprocessofdelousingnewrecruits.

U.S. Army

National Museum of Health and Medicine at Walter Reed Army Medical Center

66 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

“It was incontro-vertibly shown thatDDTpreventshumanillnessonascalehith-erto achieved by noother public healthmeasures entailingthe use of a chemi-cal.”35

It isdifficult tobe-lievethatthesetwosoradically differentstatementsrefertothesame chemical com-pound. We shall seelaterthatinthelitera-tureonDDTthere isnoshortageofcontra-dictoryopinionsandinformation.HereIshallonlycommentbrieflyonthesituationin1960-1970whentherewereheateddiscussionsinthemediaandincourtsoflaw.ThediscussionfinallyresultedintheworldwidebanonDDT.Themostimpor-tantandinfluentialweretheprotestsofenvironmentalistorga-nizationsanddiscussioninthemediawhichdrovethesocietytohysterical fear ofDDTandof the chemical industry.Themostimportantlegacyofthoseyearsisthechemophobiaandthecommonbeliefthatchemistryispoisonous.Apopularac-countof theoriginsofchemophobia isgivenbyE.M.Whel-an.36

ForapopularandverycompetentpresentationoftheDDTproblemasitwasatthebeginningofthe1960s,thereaderisreferredtothebookbytheAmericanpoliticianJ.M.Whitten,whoparticipatedinpublicdiscussionduringthe1960s.37

Environmentalistsmostoftenusedthefollowingthree accusations to support their attacks onDDT38:

• DDTbringsahazardofbirdextinction.• DDTissopersistentthatitsremovalfromthe

environmentispracticallyimpossible.• DDTisahazardtohumansbecauseitiscar-

cinogenic.InlaterchaptersIpresentdetailedandcompel-

lingevidencethatalltheseaccusationsarewith-outscientificfoundations.

TheAttacksEscalateThe trulydangerousattacksonDDTbegun in

1969,whenthreepotentenvironmentalistorgani-zations(EnvironmentalDefenseFund,SierraClub,andNationalAudobonSociety)submitted to theDepartmentofAgricultureapetitiondemandingabanonDDT.Themainargumentoftheseorgani-zations was that DDT is carcinogenic.39 In re-sponsetothepetition,theDepartmentofAgricul-ture issuedapartialbanprohibitingDDTuse inhuman habitats, tobacco plantations, and waterareas.

Butthisdecisionwaswasnotsatisfactoryfortheenvironmentalists, who brought the matter to a

court of appeal, whichruledthattheDDTprob-lem should be consid-eredbyacourtappoint-ed by the EnvironmentProtectionAgency(EPA).In sessions lasting fromAugust 1971 to theSpringof1972,thiscourtheard the testimony ofover100witnesses,rep-resentingboththeoppo-

nentsandsupportersofDDT.InApril1972,theEPAhearingexaminerEdmundSweeney,afterreviewing9,300pagesof testimony,recommendedtotheEPAthatamoreextensivebanonDDTthanthatalreadyinforcewasnotnecessaryordesirable.ThehighlightsofSweeney’sverdictareasfollows:40-42

• DDThasextremelylowtoxicitytomanandisnothazard-ouswhenusedasdirectedinregistrationdocuments.

• DDTisnotcarcinogenictoman.• DDTusesaccordingtoregistrationdonothaveadeleteri-

ouseffectonfishandwildlife.OnewouldassumethatsuchclearverdictshouldsaveDDT

forcontinueduse.However,EPAadministratorWilliamRuck-elshaus ignored Sweeney’s recommendation and imposed abanofDDT.Indoingso,Ruckelshausdeclaredthatthewealthofscientificdatapresentedduringcourtsessionswasirrelevantand starteda longchainof irresponsibledecisionsmadebyEPA.

TheRuckelshaudecisionbelongstothebiggestscandalsinthehistoryofscienceandpolitics.Detailsofthebackgroundofthisinfamousdecisionarenotknown.Therearereasonstobe-

Thethreeleadingenviron-mentalgroupsinthecrusadeagainstDDT,whichgainedthembothfameandfunds.

EPA

EPAadministratorWilliamRuckelshaus,anactivememberoftheEnviron-mentalDefenseFund,bannedDDTin1972,inwhathelateradmittedwasadecisionbasedonpoliticalreasons.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 67

lievethatRuckelshauswasinfluencedbytheecologicalorgani-zationEnvironmentalDefenseFund,ofwhichhewasanactivemember.43

Indevelopedcountries,wherethefarmershaveaccesstoavarietyofinsecticides,thebanofDDTwaswithoutmanydis-turbingeffects.Thesituationwasverydifferentinpoorcoun-triesinfectedwithmalariawheretheremovalofDDThaddev-astatingconsequences,44asitresultedinunnecessarydeathofmillionsofpeoplefrommalaria.ItistruethatwithhissinglesignatureRuckelshauscommittedthecrimeofgenocideonanunimaginablescale.HiswillingaccompliceswereecologicalorganizationswiththeirrelentlesspropagandaagainstDDT.

Environmentalistspleadnotguiltyandsay that removalofDDTwasduetoincreasinginsectresistance,butbydoingsotheyonlycommitonemorelie.Thebestevidenceagainsttheclaimsoftheenvironmentalistsisthecontinued“illegal”useofDDTinthirdworldcountries.

ThePopulationQuestionThepotentialtosavehumanlifewasusedasanargument

byboththesupportersandopponentsofDDT.ThesupportersarguedthatDDTmustnotbebannedbecauseitpreventsmil-lionsofdeathcasesfrommalaria,whiletheopponentssaidthattherearetoomanypeopleonthisplanetandDDTbanwouldlessentheproblemofoverpopulation.J.G.Edwards,adistinguishedparticipant in theDDTdiscussion,quotes thefollowingstatementmadebyAlexanderKing,thechairmanoftheRomeClub:

“IamagainstDDTbecauseeradicationofmalariaincreas-estheoverpopulation.”45

Similarbutmuchmoredi-rect is the statement by C.F.Wurster,thescientificadvisoroftheEnvironmentalDefenseFund:

“TherearetoomanypeopleandbanningDDTisasgoodaway to get rid of them asany.”46

These quotations tell usthatforaproperjudgmentofenvironmentalist intentions,itisusefultorememberwhatdark ideas lurk behind thescene of public discussionsonDDT.

The astounding effective-nessofDDTagainstmalariaisillustrated by the followingstatisticsofmalariacasesbe-foreandafter introductionofDDTinsomecountries(afterH.Hug,Dertäglicheökohor-ror, München, 1997). Suchstatisticsareneverreferredtoin publications authored bywriters who are convincedthatDDTisanextremelyhaz-

ardoussubstance.

Number of Malaria Cases

Country Before DDT After DDT

Turkey 1,185,969 2,173

Italy 144,631 10

Romania 333,198 4

Bulgaria 144,631 10

India over 1,000,000 287,000

TheDDTFamilyIt is necessary to define

DDT,PCBs,anddioxinspriortothediscussionoftheeffectstheyhaveintheenvironment.Unfortunately,nothingiseasyor simple concerning thesethree most important POPs,andeventheirdefinitionsarecomplicated.

ThestructureofDDTshownin the figure does not give afullpictureofwhatisnowun-derstoodasDDTin theenvi-ronment. In addition to the

compound definedbythechemicalsche-matic(thecorrectab-breviationofitsnameis p,p’-DDT), thetechnical DDT usedto eradicate insectscontains also about20percentoftheiso-mer with a differentposition of one ofchlorineatoms(XIII).This isomer, knownas o,p’-DDT, was introduced into the environmentalongwithp,p’-DDT.

Thatisnotthewholestoryyet,becauseintheenvi-ronment,p,p’-DDTveryeasilysplitsoffamoleculeofHClandistransformedtotheunsaturatedcompoundDDE(XIV).47Anotherreaction,involvingthesubstitu-tion of one chlorine atom with hydrogen producesDDD(XV).48

Unchangedp,p-DDToccursintheenvironmentto-getherwitho,p’-DDT,DDE,andDDD.Therearepres-entalsosmallamountsofo,p’-DDTderivativessimi-lartoDDEandDDD.TheDDTandrelatedcompoundsfoundintheenvironmentarerepresentedsummarilybytheformulaSDDTorsimplyasDDTs....

HumanExperimentswithDDTSymptoms indicating that something is terribly

wronginenvironmentalsciencesaresevereandnu-merous,butperhapsnoneisasstrikingandominous

Club of Rome Alexander King, co-founder of the Malthusian Club ofRome,acknowledgedthatalthoughhehad supported DDT use during thewar,helaterregrettedhisdecision,be-causemalariaeradicationbyDDTin-creasedpopulation.

THESTRUCTUREOFDDT

68 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

asthefactthatanarticlewaspublishedin2004inwhichDDTisaccusedofhav-ingbeen thecauseof thepoliomyelitis(child paralysis) epidemic of 1942-1962.49ThearticleappearedontheInter-netandwillprobablyhavemoreimpactthan thepublications in refereedscien-tific journals because more readersbrowseintheInternetthanamonglibraryshelves.Thereisthehazardthatthemoststupid lie about DDT which was evertold will be repeated until it becomesanothergenerallyacceptedfact.Thear-ticle50 mentions the paper by Biskind,whoas farbackas1949demonstratedquiteexceptionalignorance.51

We have already quoted Biskind inChapter4.ThereappearanceofBiskindin the scientific literature55years laterindicatesthatamongtheenvironmental-ists there are scientists who understandnothingandareprobablyunabletolearnanything.

TheubiquityinhumantissuesandthefrequentlyencounteredhighorveryhighconcentrationsofDDTwereofconsider-able concern in the early days of DDTandwereusedbyecologicalorganizationstobringpubliccon-cernstothelevelofhysteria.Let’ssee,then,whatscientificlit-eraturehastosayinthematterofDDTandhumanhealth.

TheeffectsofDDTanditsmetabolitesonhumanorganismhavebeencarefullywatchedsincethefirstapplicationsofthatinsecticideinfieldsandforests.Becauseoftheenormousvol-ume of information collected so far, an exhaustive reviewwouldfillarathersizablevolume.Despiterestrictionsimposedbythesmallsizeofthisbook,allcarewastakentoincludethepaperswhichclaimthatDDTisharmlessaswellasthosewhichdescribeharmfuleffects.

Let’sbeginwithcasesofdeathafter ingesting solutionsofDDT:

1945:Aone-and-one-half-year-oldchilddrankca.30mlofDDTinnaphthaanddiedafterafewhours.52

1946:SuicidebydrinkinganunknownamountofDDTsolu-tioninnaphtha.53

Suicidebydrinkingca.50mlofDDTsolutioninmethylcy-clohexanone.54

Deathupondrinkinga6percentsolutionofDDTinnaph-tha.55

DeadlypoisoningbyinhalationofDDTvapors.56

Deathafterstayinginaroomsprayedwitha6percentDDTsolution in naphtha.56This death was probably caused by astrongallergicreaction.Protectionfrommosquitoesbyspray-ingwallswithDDTissafeforhumans.

1947:Deathupondrinking120mlofa5percentsolutionofDDT,solventunknown.57

Nocaseswerereportedafter1947exceptforamentionontheInternetofthedeathin1994ofachildafteringestionofDDTsolutioninkerosene.58

Thedeathsinalloftheabovelistedcaseswasprobablydue

tothesolventratherthantoDDT.CasesofdeathafteringestionofDDTwithoutsolventarenotknown.

DuringthefirstyearsofDDThistory,thereweremanycasesofpoisoningwithoutdeath.Thedescriptionsofnon-controlledpoisoningepisodesareofratherlittlescientificvaluebutmakeaquiteinterestingreadingandarequotedheretobringbackthe characteristic for those times’ carelessness in handlingchemicals:

1945:A technician stirredamixtureofDDTandacetonewithhisbarehands.Thetechnicianbecameillwithsymptomsof insomnia and weakness.The symptoms disappeared afteroneyear.59

1946:AcookataBritisharmyunitbakedacakeusingflouraccidentallycontaminatedwithDDT.Twenty-fivesoldierswhoatethecakesufferedfromvomitinganddizziness.60

1946:AgroupofprisonersofwarwaspoisoneduponeatingcakescontaminatedwithDDT.Thepoisoningwasseriousandrequiredhospitalization.61

1946:Aworkeremployedinthepreparationofsolutionsforuse against mosquitoes stirred DDT in diesel oil with barehands.Afterseveralweekstheworkersufferedheadache,weak-ness,vomiting,andahightemperature.63

1947:InGöttingen,Germany,aDr.H.VelbingerinvestigatedthetoxicityofDDTonhimselfandtwootherpersons,wholetthemselvesbepersuadedtoparticipateintheinvestigation.TheexperimentsinvolvedswallowingincreasingdosesofDDT.Af-terthefirstdoseof250milligramsandthesecondoneof500mg taken fourweeks later, therewerenovisibleeffects.Thedoseof750mgproducednausea.Threeweekslater,thepar-ticipantsreceivedadoseof1,000mgandthenauseaincreased.Thelastandlargestdoseof1,500mgwasgivenundermedicalcontrol in a hospital.The1.500-mgdoseproduced tremors,

Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.

AspecialtractordevelopedinwartimeforDDTsprayingoffoodcropstocontrolin-sectsandincreaseyields.TherewasnoreporteddamagetohumanhealthfromtheproperuseofDDT.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 69

vomiting,andvertigo.Thereisnoneedtocontinuethe

description of that heroic experi-ment, probably one of the last hu-man experiments in the history ofmedicine.64

OtherHumanExperimentsDemonstratingononeselfthelack

oftoxicityofDDTwasnotuncom-mon during the heated discussionwhichprecededtheDDTban.Thus,ProfessorK.Mellanby,awell-knownparticipant and director of severalprogramsofresearchoninsecticides,used to swallow sizable doses ofDDTduringhispopular lecturestodemonstrate itsbenignnature.Pro-fessor Mellanby says that he nevernotedanyharmfuleffects.65

A similar example was providedbyProfessorGordonEdwards,who,during his many lectures, used toswallow a tablespoon of DDT andwhoenjoyedagoodhealthevenattheageof80.66

Suchheroicexperimentsareoflit-tlescientificvalue,butmakingthemwidelyknownmightperhapshelptoconvincethepublicthatDDTisnotadangeroussubstance.

Thebiggest ever experimentswithDDTonhuman sub-jectsweredescribedbyHayesin1956and1971Theexperi-ments were carried out on several dozen prisoners from

Americanjailswhoagreedtotakepart in that experiment. It is notevenpossible to imagine the furyofthemediaifsomebodyproposedto conduct such experiments atpresent!

IntheexperimentsconductedbyHayes,thehumansubjectsreceiveddailydosesof35mgofDDTforal-mosttwoyears,andsomewereob-servedforseveralyearsafterthelastdose. Hayes states that no harmfuleffects were found by medical ex-amination.67,68

A human experiment was con-ductedalsobyMorganandRoanin1971. In their experiment, thevol-unteers received 10 or 20 mg ofDDTdailyforaperiodof183days.Hematologicalandbiochemicalex-aminationdidnotrevealanyirregu-larities.69

Long-termExperimentalEvidenceIn thediscussionsof thedanger-

ous nature of DDT it is alwaysstressed that diseases may appearmanyyearsafterexposure.Theenvi-

ronmentalistsarenotsatisfiedwiththefive-yearsobservationbyHayes,butshouldfindsatisfactorytheresultsobtainedbyCoccoetal.,whoin1997examinedthehealthofpersonswho50yearsearlierparticipatedinmosquitoeradicationprogramsinSardinia,andhadprolongedcontactwith sprayedDDT.70

Courtesy of Gordon Edwards

EntomologistJ.GordonEdwardsforyearsdemon-strated the non-toxicity of DDT by ingesting aspoonfulofDDTathisuniversitylectures.

U.S. Army

Drumsofa5percentsolutionofDDTbeingmixedwithkeroseneordieseloilforusebytheArmyinItaly.

U.S. Army

TheArmyusedrepeatedaerialsprayingofDDTinItalytocontrolmosqui-toesandpreventmalaria.One1997studyexaminedthehealthof5,193residentsofSardiniawhohadprolongedcontactwithDDTsprayingdur-ingthewar,includingsome2,908personswithhighexposure.Fiftyyearslater,therewasnodifferencebetweenthehealthofthesepeopleandoth-erSardiniaresidents.

70 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

Coccoetal.examined5,193participantsoftheanti-mosquitocampaign including2,908per-sonswithhighexposure.Therewasnodiffer-encebetween theexpectedand theofficiallyregisterednumberofdeaths.Thisresultshowsthat the general health of persons highly ex-posedtoDDTisnotdifferentfromthehealthofotherpeoplelivinginSardinia.

Coccoetal.statethatthepersonsexposedtoDDTdisplayedanincreasedfrequencyoflivercancers. It isdifficult tounderstandwhy theyincludedsuchstatement,because in thenextsentencetheysaythattheincreasednumberofcancers is meaningless because similar num-berswerefoundincontrolgroup.Theauthorsapparentlydidnotunderstand,anddidnotcareatall,thatjustoneslightmentionofcancerisenough for theenvironmentalists to registerapaperasevidencethatDDTiscarcinogenic.

ThestrongestevidencethatDDTisabenignsubstance is provided by the gigantic experi-ment in which all humanity has participated

sinceDDTappearedintheenvironment.Theexperimentstart-ed60yearsagoandthenumberofparticipantsatpresent isover6billion.Everyhumanbeingtakespartinthisexperiment,becauseeverybodycontainsDDTinhisorhertissues.Formorethanone-halfcentury,thescientistsscrupulouslylookedforev-idenceofharmfuleffectsandfailedtofindevenonediseasecausedbyDDT.What’smore,humanlifespanincreasedverysignificantlyduringthepresenceofDDT.IfDDTwereasdan-gerousassomeclaimittobe,oneshouldnotexpectpeopletolivelonger.

AllargumentsforthebenignnatureofDDTextendautomat-icallytoitsmetaboliteDDE,becausefromthebeginningtheenvironmentcontainsmoreDDEthanDDT.

SomeAllegedNon-lethalEffectsofDDTThefactsdescribedinhereshouldconvinceeverybodythat

DDTisnotharmfultohumans.Theenvironmentalistsarenotconvinced,however,becausetheyneverdoagreewith factswhichprovethatsomethingisharmless.

Duetotheirefforts,andcontrarytothefacts,theliteratureisoverflowingwithpapersclaimingthatDDTisadangeroussub-stance.Someofsuchpapershavetobediscussedheredespitetheirlowscientificvalue,becausetheiromissionwouldbemetwithaccusationofnon-objectivityintheselectionofthepre-sentedmaterial.

ThemostproperplacetodiscusstheDDThazardstohumanhealtharethechaptersoncancer.HereweshallbeconcernedonlywithexamplesofpapersdealingwithsomeallegedeffectsofDDTotherthancancer.

In1970,thereappearedapaperontheassociationofDDDandDDEwithabortions.Thetitlesuggeststhatthereisanasso-ciation,butatableincludedinthatpapershowsthatthereisnone.Inthelastsentencetheauthorssay:

“ExposuretoDDTduringpregnancydoesnotbelongtotheessentialabortion-stimulatingfactors.”71

Unfortunately, thosescientistswhoreadonly the titlesof

IISD

AnuglyUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramposter,whichproclaims in six languages, “PersistantOrganicPollutants:Aseriousthreattohumanhealthandtheenvironment.”

© P. Virot/WHO

WhiletheenvironmentalistscontinuethewaragainstDDT,hundredsofthou-sandsofpeoplebecomeillanddisabledfrommalariaeachyear.Hereama-lariapatientinEthiopia.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 71

the papers they quote willthinkthatpublication72bringsa proof that DDT inducesabortion.

Theauthorsofapaperenti-tled “Pesticide Levels in theBlood of Mothers and New-bornInfants”saythattheyareunabletoruleoutacausativelink between DDT levels inumbilicalcordbloodandpre-maturebirths.73Buttheywerealso unable to demonstratetheexistenceofsuchalink.

Very radical conclusionsarefoundina1981paperon“Chloroorganic Pesticides inBloodSamplesTakeninCas-es of Abortions and Prema-ture As Well As NormalBirths.”Theauthorsstatesim-plythatDDTisanantagonistof pregnancy.74That conclu-sionisnegatedbythefactthatfrom the beginning of DDTuse, several billion healthychildren were born, and anincreased frequencyofabor-tionswasnotnoticed.

Theauthorsofaveryrecentpaper on DDT and abortionclaimthatDDEincreasesthefrequencyofprematurebirthsanddecreasesthesizeofnew-borns.75Thatpaperwascriticizedbecauseoferrorsintheinter-pretationofresults.76

...Thelitanyofsimilarpaperscouldbecontinuedadinfini-tum.Withoutdiscussingsuchpublicationsindetail,Iwanttoassurethereaderthatpapersonnon-lethaleffectsofDDTaregenerallyofverylittleecologicalrelevance,andnoneofthemdemonstratesthatDDTisdangerous....

DDTandHumanCancerThefirst signal thatDDT shouldbe considered ahuman

carcinogenappearedin196977andtheofficialproclamationthatDDTis“possiblycarcinogenic”tohumanswasissuedin1991bytheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer.78During the next decade numerous papers were publishedwiththepurposeoffindingoutwhetherDDTisorisnotahu-mancarcinogen.Traditionally,mostof thesepapersrefer tothecarcinogenicityofDDTbutwhatisbeingstudiedisthecarcinogenicityofDDEbecauseDDEistheonlymemberoftheDDTfamilystillpresentintissuesatrelevantconcentra-tions.SomepapersoncarcinogenicityreferonlytoDDEwith-outevenmentioningDDT.

Thequestionofcancerinductioncanbeansweredonlybymeansofepidemiologicalstudieswhicharebasedoncompar-isonsoftumorfrequencyinexposedpersonsandinthegeneralpopulation.Thedegreeofexposureisinferredfromtissuecon-

centrationsofthepresumedcarcinogenicagent.Uptonow,theepidemiologyhasfailedtoprovideevi-dencethatDDToritsmetabolitesarecarcinogenicinhumans.Thisisillustratedbythefollowingexam-plesofrecentresults:

1.NoassociationwasfoundbetweenDDEcon-centrationinadiposetissueandcancersofthetesti-clesandprostate.79

2. No link was found between non-Hodgkin’slymphoma and DDT,80 although such associationwasclaimedinearlierpapers.

3.Examinationof3,579workerswithlong-termexposuretoDDTatachemicalplantfailedtofindanincreasednumberofcancers.81

4.SerumconcentrationsofDDEarenotassociatedwithendometrialcancerriskintheUnitedStates.82

Therearealsopapersclaimingapositiveassoci-ationofDDTwithcancer,butthenumberofsuchpapers isnot largeandmanyof themwerecriti-cized.Inoneofsuchpapers,Garabrantetal.reportthatexposuretoDDTincreasestheriskofcancerofthepancreas.83Theauthorsarrivedatthatconclu-sionbyobservationofworkersatachemicalplantfor about a dozen years.The authors admit thattheirstudyisnotconclusive,becauseofthesmallnumberofdetectedcancersandbecausethework-erswereemployedintheproductionofseveraldif-ferentchemicals,notonlyDDT.

TheGarabrantpaperwascriticizedbyothersci-entists83andisaquitetypicalexampleofthepoorqualityofmanystudiesonthecarcinogenicityofen-vironmentalcontaminants.Otherexamplesofpoor

qualitywillfollow.VerystrongevidenceagainstthecarcinogenicityofDDEis

presentedinarecentpaperwherecancermortalityintheUnit-

ARS/USDA

AU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureposterissuedin1947promotingtheuseofDDTtocontrolhouseholdpests.Despite theenvironmentalist belief that DDT hasharmedhumanbeings,after60ormoreyears and much epidemiological re-search,thereisnoscientificevidencetoshowhumanharm.

© P. Virot/WHO

AbabywithadvancedmalariaatGarkiGeneralHospital inAbuja,Nigeria.Environmentalistsarguethatthe“risks”ofDDTuseoutweigh thebenefits.Meanwhile90percentofmalariadeathsinAfricaarechildrenunderfiveandmalariakillsonechildinAfricaevery30seconds.

72 Summer2009 21stCenturyScience&Technology

edStateswasexaminedinrelationtoprolongedexposuretoDDE.85TheauthorsexaminedtheassociationoftheDDElev-elsinadiposetissuewithmortalityratesformultiplemyeloma,non-Hodgkin’slymphoma,andcancersofthebreast,corpusuteri,liver,andpancreas,andtheyobservednoassociation.Thus, the resultsof thisstudyexcludeDDEas thecausativeagentofmostcancers....

ShouldWeBeConcernedaboutIndustrialEstrogens?...Thepresentdiscussionoftheharmfuleffectsofendocrine

disrupterswillbelimitedtoafewtopicsonly.Thesubjectissohugeandincludessomanydifferenttopicsthatanexhaustivecoveragewouldrequirealargebook.

Someverysimpleconsiderationssufficetodispelthenotionthatsyntheticestrogensmaybeharmfultohumans.Firstofallthere is the matter of plant estrogens (phytoestrogens).Manyplantsandplantproductsinourdailydietcontainsignificantconcentrationsofphytoestrogenswhichareperfectlyabletodoasmuchharmasthesyntheticones,buttheecologistsdonotwarn us against eating bread, cabbage, potatoes, or apples.They argue that phytoestrogens must not be compared withsyntheticestrogensbecausetheyarerapidlydestroyedinani-malandhumanbodieswhileestrogenslikeDDTs,PCBs,anddioxinsarepersistentandaccumulateintissues.

Thatargumentisuseless,however,becausephytoestrogensareconsumedwitheverymealandtheiramountsintissuesareconstantlyreplenished.Thedistinctbiologicaleffectsofsoybean estrogen indicate that phytoestrogens can andshouldbecomparedwithsyntheticorganochlorineestrogens.Afterall,organochlorinedisruptersof thehumanendocrinesystemwerenevershowntodisruptthehumanmenstrualcy-cle,asdophytoestrogensfromsoybeans.

Weareeatingmuchlargeramountsofphytoestrogensthanof synthetic endocrine disrupters because our diet containsvanishingly small concentrations of industrial contaminants,while the concentrations of phytoestrogens are quite large.

Some plants contain estrogens atlevels of several dozen to severalhundredppm.86Despitetheirlargeconsumption, the harmful effectsof phytoestrogens are observedonly on very rare occasions. It isknown,forexample,thatexcessiveconsumptionofsoybeansmaydis-turbthemenstruationcyclebutno-bodyissueswarningsagainstcon-sumptionofsoybeanproducts.Thelackofharmduetophytoestrogensindicates that we should not beafraidoftheminuteamountsofin-dustrialestrogensinourfood.

AnydisruptiveactivityofDDTs,PCBs,anddioxinsisprecludedbythefactthattheirconcentrationsinhumanandanimaltissuesarebe-lowlevelsnecessaryforbiologicalactiontoappear.Forexample,o,p’-DDT, themostpotentestrogenofthe DDT family, is estrogenic at

concentrationsofatleast1ppmwhichisverymuchaboveo,p’-DDTlevelinhumantissues.87Theaffinityoforganochlorinestocellularestrogen receptors is at least a thousand times lowerthantheaffinityofmammalianestrogens.Lowaffinitiesandlowtissuelevelsoforganochlorinedisruptersmakeitimpossibleforthemtocompetesuccessfullywithnaturalestrogens....

It isevident thatconcernsabout thecarcinogenicityofor-ganochlorine pesticides, and other environmental estrogensareunfounded;andsimilarlyunfoundedareconcernsabouthumanfertility.Oneshouldbeaware,however,thatenviron-mentalistorganizationsthinkdifferentlyandcontinuetospreadthescareofenvironmentalestrogens.

Thesensitivityof thegeneralpublic to threatsofcancer isruthlesslyexploitedbyenvironmentalistorganizationstogainpopularity and financial support. It is difficult to defend thepublicagainstsuchthreats,becausethemediausuallyrefusetopublishopinionswhichcontradictthefalseenvironmentalbe-liefs.Truth is tobefoundinscientific journals,but thesearereadonlybyselectedfew.

Footnotes _______________________________________________________

1. Decision 18/32 of the UNEP Governing Council: Persistent Organic Pollut-ants. http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/indxhtms/gc1832en.html

2. U.N. Conference approves POPs convention in Stockholm, http://www.ours-tolenfuture.org

3. The “dirty dozen” U.N. treaty to be signed in Stockholm this week, http://www.commondreams.org

4. J. Kaiser and M. Enserink, 2000. Science, Vol. 290, p. 2053. 5. J. Thornton, 2000. Pandora’s Poison, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). 6. P.E. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason. How

Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future (Washington, D.C.: Is-land Press)

7. B. Hileman, 1999. Chem. Eng. News, Sept. 20, p. 41. 8. D.R. Roberts, S. Manguin, and J. Mouchet, 2000. Lancet, Vol. 356, p. 330. 9. D.R. Roberts, L.L. Laughlin, P. Hsheih, and L.J. Legters, 1997. Emerging In-

fectious Diseases, Vol. 3, p. 295.10. L. Wickenden, 1955. Our Daily Poison (New York: Bartholomew House

Inc.).11. R. Carson, 1962. Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.).

IISD

ParticipantsintheDecember2000meetingoftheStockholmConventioninJohannesburgjoiningtheGreenpeacedemonstrationagainstPOPs.

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2009 73

12. J.G. Edwards, 1992. 21st Century, Summer p. 41.13. P. Lauger, H. Martin, and P. Moller, 1944. Helv., Vol. 27, p. 892.14. P. Moller, 1946. Helv., Vol. 29, p. 1560.15. T.F. West and G.A. Campbell, 1950. DDT and Newer Persistent Insecticides

(London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.).16. K. Mellanby, 1992. The DDT Story (British Crop Protection Council).17. A.G. Smith, 2001. “DDT and Its Analogs” in Handbook of Pesticide Toxicolo-

gy, R. Krieger, Ed., (Academic Press).18. J. Thornton, Pandora’s Poison19. P.E. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason. How Anti-En-

vironmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, Island Press, Washington D. C., 1996.

20. R. Tren and R. Bate, 2001. Malaria and the DDT Story (London: IEA).21. K. Mellanby, The DDT Story.22. R.Tren and R.Bate, Malaria and the DDT Story.23. B.Gilley, 2001. Far Eastern Economic Review, Vol. 164, p. 50.24. D.R. Roberts, S. Manguin, and J. Mouchet, 2000.25. M.M. Ellis, B.A. Westfall, and M.D. Ellis, 1944. Science, Vol. 100, p. 477.26. J.M. Ginsburg, 1945. J. Econ. Entomol., Vol. 38, p. 274.27. J.H. Draize, A.A. Nelson, and H.C. Calvery, 1944. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.,

Vol. 82, p. 159.28. R.A.M. Case, 1945. Brit. Med. J., p. 842.29. G.Woodard, R.F. Ofner, and C.M. Montgomery, 1945. Science, Vol. 102, p.

177.30. H.S. Telford, and J.E. Guthrie, 1945. Science, Vol. 102, p. 647.31. W.B. Deichmann, 1972. Arch. Toxicol., Vol. 29, No. 1.32. E.P. Russell III, 1999. Technology and Culture, Vol. 40, p. 770.33. T.F. West and G.A. Campbell, 1950. DDT and Newer Persistent Insecticides

(London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.).34. M.S. Biskind, 1949. Am. J. Digestive Diseases, Vol. 16, p. 79.35. Brit. Med. J., 1969. Editorial, p. 446.36. E.M. Whelan, 1993. Toxic Terror (New York: Prometheus Books.37. J.M. Whitten, 1966. That We May Live (Princetown: Van Nostrand Co. Inc.).38. E.M. Whelan, Toxic Terror.39. E.M. Whelan, Toxic Terror.40. R.L. Ackerly, 1981. Chemical Times and Trends (October, Vol. 47).41. R.L. Ackerly, 1982. Chemical Times and Trends (January, Vol. 48).42. A. Wildavsky, 1995. But Is It True? A Citizens Guide to Environmental Health

and Safety Issues (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).43. E.M. Whelan, Toxic Terror.44. R. Tren and R. Bate, Malaria and the DDT Story.45. J.G. Edwards, 1999. EIR Science and Technology (December 20).46. E.M. Whelan, Toxic Terror, p. 100.47. A.S. Tahori and W.M. Hoskins, 1953. J. Econ. Entomol., Vol. 46, p. 829.48. W.D. Guenzi and W.E. Beard, 1967. Science, Vol. 156, p. 1116.49. Anon., “DDT Dosage During the Epidemic of 1942-62.” http://www.geocities.

com/harpub/ddt138.htm50. ibid.51. M.S. Biskind, Am. J. Digestive Diseases.52. W.R. Hill and C.R. Damiani, 1946. New England J. Med., Vol. 235, p. 897.53. J.W. Dini, 1998. Plating Surface Finishing, December, p. 74.54. K. Biden-Steele and R.E. Stuckey, 1946. Lancet, Vol. 235.55. J.W. Dini, 1998. Plating Surface Finishing.56. F.M.G. Stammers and F.G.S. Whitfield, 1947. Bull. Entomol. Res., Vol. 38,

No. 1.57. K.R. Hill, and G. Robinson, 1945. Brit. Med. J., p. 846.58. N.J. Smith, 1948. JAMA, Vol. 136, p. 469.59. Anon, “DDT Dosage During the Epidemic of 1942-62.”60. V.B. Wiggleworth, 1945. Brit. Med. J., p. 517.61. R.A.M. Case, 1945. Brit. Med. J., p. 842.62. R.M. Garrett, 1947. J. M. A. Alabama, Vol. 17, p. 74.63. J.M. Mackeras and R.F.K. West, 1946. Med. J. Aust., Vol. 12, p. 401.64. H.H. Velbinger, 1947. Das Deutsche Gesundheitswesen, Vol. 2, p. 355.65. K. Mellanby, The DDT Story.66. J.W. Dini, 1999. Plating Surface Finishing, July, p. 33.67. W.J. Hayes, Jr., G. E. Quinby, K.C. Walker, J.W. Elliott, and W.M. Upholy,

1958. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 18, p. 398.

68. W.J. Hayes, Jr., W.E. Dale, and C.I. Pirkle, 1971. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 22, p. 119.

69. D.P. Morgan and C.C. Roan, 1971. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 22, p. 301.70. P. Cocco, A. Blair, P. Congia, G. Saba, C. Flore, M.R. Ecca, and C. Palmas,

1997. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 52, p. 299.71. J.A. OLeary, J.E. Davies, and M. Feldman, 1970. Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec.,

Vol. 108, p. 1291.72. Ibid.73. R.S. Procianoy and S. Schvartsman, 1981. Acta Pediatr. Scand., Vol. 70, p.

925.74. M.C. Saxena, M.K.J. Siddiqui, T.D. Smith, and C.R.K. Murti, A.K. Bhargava,

and D. Kutty, 1981. J. Anal. Toxicol., Vol. 5, No. 6.75. M.P. Longnecker, M.A. Klebanoff, H. Zhou, and J.W. Brock, 2001. Lancet,

Vol. 358, p. 11.76. P.N.M. Demacker, 2001. Lancet, Vol. 358, p. 1732.77. J.L. Jacobson and S.W. Jacobson, 1993. J. Great Lakes Res., Vol. 19, p.

776.78. T. Key and G. Reeves, 1994. Brit. Med. J., Vol. 308, p. 1520.79. P. Cocco and J. Benichou, 1998. Oncology, Vol. 55, No. 334.80. D. Baris, S.H. Zahm, K.P. Cantor, and A. Blair, 1998. Occup. Environ. Med.,

Vol. 55, p. 522.81. O. Wong, W. Brocker, H.V. Davis, and G.S. Nagle, 1984. Brit. J. Ind. Med.,

Vol. 41, No. 15.82. P. Cocco, N. Kazerouni, and S.H. Zahm, 2000. Environ. Health Perspect.,

Vol. 108, No. 1.83. D.H. Garabrant, J. Held, B. Langholz, J.M. Peters, and T.M. Mack, 1992. J.

Nat. Cancer Inst., Vol. 84, p. 764.84. A.G. Smith, “DDT and Its Analogs,” See Note 17.85. See Note 82.86. J. Miyamoto and W. Klein, 1998. Pure Appl. Chem., Vol. 70, p. 1829.87. Ibid.

DDT Collection4 photocopied articles $15.00 (postpaid)

• The Lies of Rachel Carsonby Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

Summer 1992, pp. 41-52A well-known entomologist documents some of the falsehoods in Carson’s Silent Spring, the 1962 book that poisoned public opinion against DDT and other pesticides (Includes a report on a May 21, 1992 press conference in Washington, D.C., where a panel of scientists described the effect of the U.S. 1972 ban on DDT in one word—genocide.)

• DDT, The New York Times, and Judge Irving Kaufman by Thomas H. Jukes

Spring 1992, pp. 8-10A reminiscence by University of California biochemist Tom Jukes, now deceased, occasioned by the Feb. 1, 1992 death of Judge Irving Kaufman. Kaufman had gained national attention for two famous cases: the first, sentencing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair; and the second, overturning a jury decision in a libel suit against The NewYork Times and the Audubon Society, brought by Jukes and other scientists concerning DDT.

• Malaria: The Killer That Could Have Been Conquered by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

Summer 1993, pp. 21-35A well-known entomologist documents how U.S. antipesticde activists stopped DDT, the pesticide that could have stopped malaria from killing millions.

• Silent Spring and the Betrayal of Environmentalism by Dr. Thomas H. Jukes

Fall 1994, pp. 47-54An eminent American scientist documents Rachel Carson’s legacy and increase in irrational fears of pesticides accompanied by an increase in death and disease caused by the ban on DDT.

ORDER ONLINE AThttps://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=TTS&Category_Code=TCSPC

OR SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER in U.S. currency to21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041