DDT Must Have Been Considered Safe In The Beginning?

[Ben Framed]

Check out these scenes from 1945...

https://youtube.com/shorts/W6UKE3hoNrw?feature=share

[animal]

it was ... is ... to humans.... at least there are still no confirmed effects in humans... suspected reproductive effects.
The scare was over thin shell condor eggs if I remember correctly.
It is still used in parts of the world today. I remember when people would get it from Mexico well after it was banned here.. It may still be legal down there, for all I know.

[Jim134]

  The Government of the Philippines.. Still use DDT for dengue.. To kill mosquitoes..   That can carry Dengue . This travel by mosquito bites.. From where I know.. You can buy all the chemical... That United States as outlawed in the Philippines..

      BEE HAPPY 😊 Jim134

[Michael Bush]

We were assured you could drink DDT and it wouldn't hurt you...

[iddee]

We sprayed it in the kitchen the whole time I was growing up. No harmful effects that I know of. It just worked too well for our GREAT? gov. to keep around.

[Kathyp]

DDT was one of the single greatest lifesavers developed.  It is still used.  It was withdrawn from use in the US because a tree hugger wrote a book.
It was never proven to cause soft shells in bird eggs or any of the other things claimed. 

[gww]

I could look it up but am lazy.  What caused the eagle to have such a low population.  I do know antidotally there are lots more eagles around where I live now then there were when I was a kid.

[Kathyp]

What caused the eagle to have such a low population.  I do know antidotally there are lots more eagles around where I live now then there were when I was a kid.

I believe it was later proposed that it was a virus.  The same kind that causes many birds to lay soft-shelled eggs.  Also, remember that many of those species became protected and that reduced the number killed for things like eating our chickens.

It''s kinda like CCD.  Lots of theories, but none proven.   

[Ben Framed]

Well; If it's that good, maybe it is the "right under our nose", cure for Covid! 

[Kathyp]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/bring-back-ddt

not too old an article about bringing back DDT.  Some interesting quotes and stuff in it.

[Ben Framed]

Good article Kathy, thanks for posting...

[Acebird]

yes, science and knowledge should be ignored at all cost...

[iddee]

Ace, how can you believe science when it changes it's ""facts"" almost daily?

[Ben Framed]

It''s kinda like CCD.  Lots of theories, but none proven.   

Thats true. Also depending on 'which' scientist are doing the reporting..      Remember we were told if we take the experimental 'solution' we would be in the clear as far as getting or giving the 'dread'.. and we would not be able to spread it to our older parents and grandparents either this was the final solution.. Well so much for that science, after billions were spent. Apparently the goal post continues to move, perhaps the goal post are on wheels?

For example;

https://youtu.be/YuJeTb1DsBQ

A portion from the transcript..

"You see, despite the non-stop messaging that's been coming out of the CDC every once in a while there's an event that pops a hole in their well-crafted narrative. With one of the most recent and perhaps more most ridiculous examples being the CDC event that was held over by the CDC headquarters which experienced a massive covet outbreak despite the fact that nearly everyone in attendance was vaccinated. But as ridiculous as that was in and of itself, it gets even Wilder. Because we hear The Epic Times we were able to successfully file a Freedom of Information Act request through which we obtained internal documents from within the CDC itself and they showed something surprising. They showed that for one, the outbreak was significantly larger than the CDC had previously reported."
Roman Balmakov
Facts Matter, of
The Epoch Times

According to this report, released just 13 hours ago, (from the Epoch Times), there 'was' a 21% 'minimum' outbreak, within the very walls of the CDC Headquarters itself, in spite of ......... 
Now; Did the science change, or were we lied too about the experimental prevention that was pushed so hard by Fauci and gang???? 

After reading Kathy's report about DDT which was published in 2016, as well as the post by Mr Bush, iddee, Jim134, and animal; I am wondering about the negative hit on DDT as well.  I was taught the same as gww in school. DDT was the cause of the decline in Eagles and Buzzards.  🤷🏻‍♂️

[Kathyp]

yes, science and knowledge should be ignored at all cost...

At one point, both science and knowledge said the Earth was flat. 

Science and what we think we know should be constantly challenged.  But you are a follower of Fauci, so...

[Michael Bush]

Science said that X-Rays were harmless.  Science said that DDT was harmless.  Science said that Chlordane was harmless.  Science said that you could convert lead to gold.  Then it progressed to the principles of modern Chemistry.  The indestructibility of matter aka Law of Conservation of Mass (now thoroughly disproved), The Law of Definite Proportions, which is also not true, The Law of Multiple Proportions which is also not true and a bit of an amalgamation called Dalton's Theory:

    All matter consists of indivisible particles called atoms.
    Atoms of the same element are similar in shape and mass, but differ from the atoms of other elements.
    Atoms cannot be created or destroyed.
    Atoms of different elements may combine with each other in a fixed, simple, whole number ratios to form compound atoms.
    Atoms of same element can combine in more than one ratio to form two or more compounds.
    The atom is the smallest unit of matter that can take part in a chemical reaction.

These rules helped us make great strides in Chemistry, but they weren't true.  Madam Curie disproved most of them. 

Science is wrong more often than it's right and what they say is right is constantly changing, as it should, as we discover new things.

[The15thMember]

Knowledge and truth are not the same thing, and science, as much as we might hate to admit it, does not tell us what is the truth, it can only provide us with a framework to gain knowledge.  And while knowledge continually strives after truth, it can never fully reach it in its entirely, because we aren't omniscient.  We can never know everything there is to know about everything, even though our knowledge continues to grow over time. 

Science is more about understanding the natural world in a way that is useful to us.  For example, weather prediction.  Over the past several hundred years, our methods of weather prediction have grown increasingly more sophisticated, and we now have tools like radar and satellite imaging at our disposal, where once all we had was looking up at the sky.  Our knowledge of how weather generally works in a local and global scale has increased through many years of observation, and we now have fairly reliable patterns, which helps us to generally predict weather with accuracy that is useful.  But as we're all aware by how frequently we berate our local weathermen for not forecasting something correctly, science cannot tell us the truth about what the weather WILL certainly be, it can only give us models that get more and more useful over time as more and more knowledge and tools are available to us. 

Take gravity, which could be considered a "truth" in the sense that is a law of physics that undeniably exists, yet we had startlingly little knowledge about how gravity works on a cosmic scale until recently, because we didn't have enough knowledge to construct a useful model that both represented what we see from gravity and predicted results with accuracy.  But we all know gravity is "true", even though science was without functional mathematical knowledge of it.   

Even our conversation about taxonomy on another thread recently falls in line with this.  The taxonomic system of binomial nomenclature exists only as a convenient way to organize the natural world, and as our knowledge of individual species increases, it's continually edited to make sure it remains useful.  But in no way does taxonomy attempt to say that Apis mellifera is the true name of the honey bee and all other names are false.  It's simply the way we are currently classifying the honey bee, to the best of our modern knowledge.   

[Acebird]

But you are a follower of Fauci, so...

Yes, I put my faith in someone who has spent their whole carrier studying things I don't understand.  And has gained recognition for that study.  I do not put my faith in someone unknown trying to make a name for themselves coming up with theories that are unsupported by piers.

[iddee]

""Yes, I put my faith in someone who has spent their whole carrier studying things I don't understand.  And has gained recognition for that study.""

I suppose that includes Hitler. He fits that description.

I don't support people who have publicly admitted to lying to the people, as has Fauci and Hitler, who are suspected of poisoning millions with chemical warfare.

[salvo]

Hi 15,

I was just about to say the exact same thing!?

Sal