 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2006artificial light stimulates breast cancer growth
Date: 2005-12-20 http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/cancerlight.htm Artificial Light At Night Stimulates Breast Cancer Growth In Laboratory Mice Results from a new study in laboratory mice show that nighttime exposure to artificial light stimulated the growth of human breast tumors by suppressing the levels of a key hormone called melatonin. The study also showed that extended periods of nighttime darkness greatly slowed the growth of these tumors. The study results might explain why female night shift workers have a higher rate of breast cancer. It also offers a promising new explanation for the epidemic rise in breast cancer incidence in industrialized countries like the United States. The National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, agencies of the federal National Institutes of Health, provided funding to researchers at the Bassett Research Institute of the Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital in Cooperstown, New York and The Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pa. The results are published in the December 1, 2005 issue of the scientific journal Cancer Research. "This is the first experimental evidence that artificial light plays an integral role in the growth of human breast cancer," said NIEHS Director David A. Schwartz, M.D. "This finding will enable scientists to develop new strategies for evaluating the effects of light and other environmental factors on cancer growth." "The risk of developing breast cancer is about five times higher in industrialized nations than it is in underdeveloped countries," said Les Reinlib, Ph.D., a program administrator with the NIEHS' grants division. "These results suggest that the increasing nighttime use of electric lighting, both at home and in the workplace, may be a significant factor." Previous research showed that artificial light suppresses the brain's production of melatonin, a hormone that helps to regulate a person's sleeping and waking cycles. The new study shows that melatonin also plays a key role in the development of cancerous tumors. "We know that many tumors are largely dependent on a nutrient called linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid, in order to grow," said David Blask, M.D., Ph.D., a neuroendocrinologist with the Bassett Research Institute and lead author on the study. "Melatonin interferes with the tumor's ability to use linoleic acid as a growth signal, which causes tumor metabolism and growth activity to shut down." To test this hypothesis, the researchers injected human breast cancer cells into laboratory mice. Once these cells developed into cancerous tumors, the tumors were implanted into female rats where they could continue to grow and develop. The researchers then took blood samples from 12 healthy, premenopausal volunteers. The samples were collected under three different conditions -- during the daytime, during the nighttime following 2 hours of complete darkness, and during the nighttime following 90 minutes of exposure to bright fluorescent light. These blood samples were then pumped directly through the developing tumors. "The melatonin-rich blood collected from subjects while in total darkness severely slowed the growth of the tumors. "These results are due to a direct effect of the melatonin on the cancer cells," said Blask. "The melatonin is clearly suppressing tumor development and growth." In contrast, tests with the melatonin-depleted blood from light-exposed subjects stimulated tumor growth. "We observed rapid growth comparable to that seen with administration of daytime blood samples, when tumor activity is particularly high," Blask said. According to the researchers, melatonin exerts a strong influence on the body's circadian rhythm, an internal biological clock that regulates sleep-wake cycle, body temperature, endocrine functions, and a number of disease processes including heart attack, stroke and asthma. "Evidence is emerging that disruption of one's circadian clock is associated with cancer in humans, and that interference with internal timekeeping can tip the balance in favor of tumor development," said Blask. "The effects we are seeing are of greatest concern to people who routinely stay in a lighted environment during times when they would prefer to be sleeping," said Mark Rollag, Ph.D., a visiting research scientist at the University of Virginia and one of the study co-authors. "This is because melatonin concentrations are not elevated during a person's normal waking hours." "If the link between light exposure and cancer risk can be confirmed, it could have an immediate impact on the production and use of artificial lighting in this country," said Blask. "This might include lighting with a wavelength and intensity that does not disrupt melatonin levels and internal timekeeping." "Day workers who spend their time indoors would benefit from lighting that better mimics sunlight," added Blask. "Companies that employ shift workers could introduce lighting that allows the workers to see without disrupting their circadian and melatonin rhythms." ### NIEHS, a component of the National Institutes of Health, supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health. For more information on breast cancer and other environmental health topics, visit our website at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/. > Date: 2005-12-20 > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > For more information on breast cancer and other environmental health > topics, visit our website at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/. COMMENT: Indeed, breast cancer is heavily latitude-dependent (as I have mentioned), not just industrialization dependent, and low vitamin D from lack of natural sunlight (rather than low melatonin from artificial light) has also been suggested as a causal agent. Melatonin has actually been used by the Italians to treat breast cancer, so this theory, too, is not exactly this week's news. Alas, there are no large drug companies behind melatonin research since it's unpatentable per se, being a natural hormone. Still, this paper is an interesting piece in the puzzle. BTW, linoleic acid (omega-6) use by tumors can also be modulated not only by melatonin, but also by omega-3 fatty acids, notably those in fish oils. In looking at the effects of fat on breast cancer, it's very important to take note of the KIND of fat. Those Japanese with the low breast cancer rates eat a lot of fish, and the more they eat, the lower their risk is. I note in my usual biggotted way that Eskimos also have especially low breast cancer risk rates, especially while sticking to the traditional diet. White men have been chasing them historically with Crisco, but many of them have too slippery. Cancer Sci. 2005 Sep;96(9):590-9. Dietary intakes of fat and fatty acids and risk of breast cancer: a prospective study in Japan. Wakai K, Tamakoshi K, Date C, Fukui M, Suzuki S, Lin Y, Niwa Y, Nishio K, Yatsuya H, Kondo T, Tokudome S, Yamamoto A, Toyoshima H, Tamakoshi A; JACC Study Group. Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, 1-1 Kanokoden, Nagoya 464-8681, Japan. wakai@aichi-cc.jp To examine the possible association of dietary fat and fatty acids with breast cancer risk in a population with a low total fat intake and a high consumption of fish, we analyzed data from the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) Study. From 1988 to 1990, 26 291 women aged 40-79 years completed a questionnaire on dietary and other factors. Intakes of fat or fatty acids were estimated by using a food frequency questionnaire. Rate ratios (RR) were computed by fitting proportional hazards models. During the mean follow-up of 7.6 years, 129 breast cancer cases were documented. We found no clear association of total fat intake with breast cancer risk; the multivariate-adjusted RR across quartiles were 1.00, 1.29, 0.95, and 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.38). A significant decrease in the risk was detected for the highest quartile of intake compared with the lowest for fish fat and long-chain n-3 fatty acids; the RR were 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.94) and 0.50 (0.30-0.85), respectively. A decreasing trend in risk was also suggested with an increasing intake of saturated fatty acids (trend P = 0.066). Among postmenopausal women at baseline, the highest quartile of vegetable fat intake was associated with a 2.08-fold increase in risk (95% CI 1.05-4.13). This prospective study did not support any increase in the risk of breast cancer associated with total or saturated fat intake, but it suggested the protective effects of the long-chain n-3 fatty acids that are abundant in fish. (Cancer Sci 2005; 96: 590 - 599). PMID: 16128744 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] SBH > > Date: 2005-12-20 > > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > breast cancer rates eat a lot of fish, and the more they eat, the lower > their risk is. {{I note in my usual biggotted way that Eskimos also have especially low breast cancer risk rates, especially while sticking to the traditional diet. White men have been chasing them historically with Crisco, but many of them have too slippery.}} Please exlain this paragraph in the context of the above paragraph. "Indeed, breast cancer is heavily latitude-dependent (as I have mentioned), not just industrialization dependent, and low vitamin D from lack of natural sunlight (rather than low melatonin from artificial light) has also been suggested as a causal agent. > Cancer Sci. 2005 Sep;96(9):590-9. > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > SBH > {{I note in my usual biggotted way that Eskimos also have especially > low [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from lack of natural sunlight (rather than low melatonin from > artificial light) has also been suggested as a causal agent. COMMENT The Eskimos have escaped whatever the latitude problem is, just as they have for ricketts. In the case of breast cancer, perhaps from eating fish with w-3 and vitamin D, or else from avoiding electric lights at night. Nobody knows. Or perhaps it's something else we've missed entirely. I merely suggest we try to find out, and meanwhile, avoid the distracting Leftist hunts for witches. If Eskimos were suddenly dying like flies of breast cancer, I have no doubt at all that "Green" groups would be springing up all over to blame it all on organochlorine contamination of arctic fish. Yes, the white man's industry. But since that's not happenning, the organochlorine fish contamination (which is indeed real) is ignored. But that is wrong. It shouldn't be ignored. It's a piece of negative evidence. It's a dog that does NOT bark in the night. In any case, none of these models explain everything. We take guesses, we note trends. About the only time we know we're barking up the wrong tree is when HUGE differences in population exposures don't produce the effects our theories say they should. Ag polution and breast cancer is one of these. It just isn't a very good theory. It might explain a minor amount of the problem, but overall, it doesn't deserve the press it's been given. Which has been, and continues to be, my point all along. There are better ideas out there. I wish the watermelon (green outside, red inside) enviro-whiners would take a few chemistry and toxicology and oncology classes, put down their prejudices, and just take a fresh look at the problem. There are interesting effects enough. There are even some industrial "villains" to be found, though they may be found making incandescent light bulbs and hydrogenated vegetable grease, not anything as pollitically inflammatory as DDT. I'm asking people to THINK. Use the epidemiology. Ignore the witchhunters who are looking for anything to blame for their personal problems, even things that don't pan out statistically. Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would ever have died producing the same amount of nuclear power, and we pay for the pollution of fossil fuels again and again. All because of stupid and irrational fears of radition poisoning. And as for DDT, the general scarcity of THAT has probably killed more people in Africa in the last three decades of the 20th century than Hitler did in Europe, and all because of envirowhining. Thanks a lot for the 10 million extra dead child malaria victims, Ms. Carson. If only you'd taken a moment to think of unintended consequences, those children would be alive. And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- committed a near genocide by neglect-- and all because of fears of a silent spring, where we couldn't hear a few *&^%ing warblers. Argghh. SBH SBH > > {{I note in my usual biggotted way that Eskimos also have especially > > low [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > COMMENT <<"ories say they should. Ag polution and breast cancer is > one of these. It just isn't a very good theory. It might explain a > minor amount of the problem, but overall, it doesn't deserve the press [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > SBH <<Ignore the witchhunters who are looking for anything to blame for their personal problems, even things that don't pan out statistically. >> Women who have breast cancer do indeed have personal problems. Far greater a personal problem is a person who uses poltiical agenda and propaganda to possibly turn people away from what they should be questioning. You will kill women Steve. > Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political > correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > committed a near genocide by neglect-- and all because of fears of a > silent spring, where we couldn't hear a few *&^%ing warblers. Argghh. Round of applause warranted, IMHO... HMc > > Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political > > correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > HMc I'm not sure what you're applauding Howard, but remember, content is not separable from form. I may be a tad bereft in the science dept. but even I know that when coal was king, we didn't have the option of nuclear power. >> > Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political >> > correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm not sure what you're applauding Howard, but remember, content is > not separable from form. If form were all I were applauding, you'd get an ovation too, Zee. HMc > >> > Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political > >> > correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > HMc You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: coal and nuclear power didn't exist at the same time so it was not possible to choose one over the other; the coal deaths and desruction were primarily a result of profit and greed controlling how coal was mined, not coal itself; DDT has (apparently) not been banned for malaria use. breast cancer levels dropped in Israel when DDT analogue pesticides were banned; and artificial light pollution at night stimulates breast cancer growth. > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and artificial light pollution at night stimulates breast cancer > growth. I don't dismiss those facts - I am suspicious of their relevance. Such issues have way too much political overlay to be accepted at face value as significant points. If I have to take one position or the other in the face of the shrill politics on both sides, the points that Steve makes fit much closer with my own personal biases, and tend to be less shrill, in my opinion. HMc > > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > HMc Shrill? I do note the pervading misogyny among those who counter what I post here. Attacks on the intelligence; cynical attempts to drive a wedge between women. It's very familiar. This is what women come up against when we demand a voice in issues that affect us; when we demand that we be part of the decision making, and are not content to be just the 'receivers'. Most of us don't want anyone to 'serve' us (and then demand we pay obeisance to them forevermore akin to something approaching a religion, with of course, them as the priests and priestess.) Yes women physicians often do this too. They were cast in the mould or they wouldn't be there. >> > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > priestess.) Yes women physicians often do this too. They were cast in > the mould or they wouldn't be there. Uh...I think you just made my point.... HMc >>> > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > HMc The old circular argument. Women can't get into medicine because they are oppressed by men......... Except of course, there are plenty of women in medicine, but they must be "cast in the mould" of men..... In most western countries, more women doctors are being produced than men doctors, by a significant margin > >> > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > HMc Yes, it's a plea for all those feminist out there to defend her. About misogynistic thinking here? Well, established; long before I came on group. > > > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: > > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > priestess.) Yes women physicians often do this too. They were cast in > the mould or they wouldn't be there. I haven't found any single professional healthcare worker out there that agrees with you on anything. The only people who do are those political shrills you cater to. > I haven't found any single professional healthcare worker out there that > agrees with you on anything. > The only people who do are those political shrills you cater to. ---------- Er....don't you mean *shills*? Eva > > I haven't found any single professional healthcare worker out there that > > agrees with you on anything. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eva LOL. In her case, it works either way. Merry Christmas. SBH > > > I haven't found any single professional healthcare worker out there that > > > agrees with you on anything. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SBH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From YubaNet.com Sci/Tech Chrome-Plated Fraud: How PG&E's Scientists-for-Hire Reversed Findings of a Cancer Study Author: Environmental Working Group Published on Dec 24, 2005, 08:58 A consulting firm hired by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) to fight the "Erin Brockovich" lawsuit distorted data from a Chinese study to plant an article in a scientific journal reversing the study's original conclusion that linked an industrial chemical to cancer, according to documents obtained by Environmental Working Group (EWG). The Wall Street Journal reported today that the San Francisco-based consultants, ChemRisk, "conceived, drafted, edited and submitted to medical journals" a "clarification" of the Chinese study, according to documents filed in another chromium lawsuit against PG&E. They did so despite a letter of objection from the Chinese scientist who led the original study, calling their reversal of his findings an "inappropriate inference." Through the state Public Records Act, EWG has obtained many of the documents cited by the Journal. They are available at http://www.ewg.org . In the Brockovich case, residents of Hinkley, Calif., sued PG&E for dumping chromium-6 in their drinking water. In 1997, PG&E paid $333 million to settle the case, but another lawsuit against the company over chromium pollution is set for trial next month. The fraudulent article has influenced chromium regulations by state and federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency. ChemRisk, perpetrator of the deception, continues to work for corporate and government clients including the Department of Energy and the Centers for Disease Control. The article was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. EWG has written the journal's editors urging them to set the record straight and bar the scientists who were involved from its pages. "The scientific community must be notified that a paper circulating in the published literature is fraudulent, the paper must be retracted, and those responsible for the incident must be appropriately disciplined," EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles wrote to the journal. EWG has also written the Centers for Disease Control, which recently renewed ChemRisk's multi-million dollar contract for a key project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, urging the agency to take prompt action against the company. "ChemRisk's current contract must be cancelled and the firm barred from seeking future contracts from the CDC or other government agencies," wrote Wiles. The documents obtained by EWG show that ChemRisk employees - with the knowledge of PG&E's attorneys - hired one of the original study's authors as a "consultant," and conducted a new analysis of his data that deliberately ignored evidence of an association between stomach cancer and chromium-6 in drinking water. They then wrote and submitted the article for publication without disclosing that they worked for ChemRisk or that PG&E had paid for the new "study." Nowhere in the published article are the names of the ChemRisk employees who worked on it, or any indication that it was part of PG&E's legal defense strategy. The founder and president of ChemRisk is Dennis Paustenbach, who has made a career of consulting for big polluters including PG&E, ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical. In 2002, his appointment to a federal committee on the health effects of chemicals was blasted by independent scientists as part of a Bush Administration pattern of packing environmental panels with industry-friendly experts. © Copyright 2005 by YubaNet.com >> > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I post here. Attacks on the intelligence; cynical attempts to drive a >wedge between women. Who's driving a wedge between you and any other women here? Aside from you yourself, I mean. And don't forget to accuse everyone of racism, ageism, and any other -isms that might occur to you. God forbid it could be the case that you just manage to put people off by your manner and are remarkably thin-skinned on top of it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >> > You can dismiss me Howard but you can't dismiss the facts I've posted: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You can dish it out, but you can't take it. . have a look at the history of your posts man. Zip for content. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > > Do it the other way, and you end up killing people out of political > > correctness. We've killed far more people in our coal mines than would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > HMc Not to mention, coal death, destruction and pollution was primarily a result of method. And method was dictated by capitalist greed. Even when better methods were available, the coal barons wouldn't use them. People were expendable; profit came first. > Not to mention, coal death, destruction and pollution was primarily a > result of method. And method was dictated by capitalist greed. Even > when better methods were available, the coal barons wouldn't use them. > People were expendable; profit came first. COMMENT: Earth to Zee: Coal-mining deaths are still occuring (both in the mines and from blacklung) and yet we've had commercial nuclear power since about 1960. We haven't built any new plants since Three Mile Island in 1979, and that's primarily due to the enviro-whingers (who cannot seem to "see" coal deaths). Meanwhile, France has converted 80% of their electric power system to nuclear, and they don't kill anybody in coalmines. The blasted Frenchies are smarter than we are, here. We could have done the same as they did, but we didn't, primarily due to "activism." But even now, the average coal mine accident makes Three Mile Island look like a Sunday picnic. There's a lot of talk of "carbon sequestration" plans to spend huge bucks to put CO2 into deep beds where it won't get into our atmosphere and melt our icecaps. Well, here's the alterative Harris Carbon Sequestration Plan: build a lot of wind farms and nuclear reactors, and leave the coal carbon all down there where it now, and don't dig it up in the first place. I note that all that carbon seems to be sequestered down there pretty well already. :) SBH >leave the coal carbon all down there where it now, and don't dig it up >in the first place. I note that all that carbon seems to be sequestered >down there pretty well already. :) Or just let it sit until DeBeers is interested instead of Peabody... -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke > >leave the coal carbon all down there where it now, and don't dig it up > >in the first place. I note that all that carbon seems to be sequestered > >down there pretty well already. :) > > > Or just let it sit until DeBeers is interested instead of > Peabody... good one! but I believe much higher pressure is required..  Signaturemadiba Two words for your narrow frame of reference (among many others I could post). Nova Scotia ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Not to mention, coal death, destruction and pollution was primarily a > > result of method. And method was dictated by capitalist greed. Even [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > SBH > Two words for your narrow frame of reference (among many others I could > post). > > Nova Scotia Your point being? If you don't burn it, you don't have the problem. I don't care if it sits on the ground in piles and is used in winter for ski hills. SBH >>Not to mention, coal death, destruction and pollution was primarily a >>result of method. And method was dictated by capitalist greed. Even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > about 1960. We haven't built any new plants since Three Mile Island in > 1979, but we have roughly doubled output from nuclear plants in the US. josh halpern > > COMMENT: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > josh halpern Yes, better turbines and so on. But there's a limit to that and we're close to it. Time to get off the pot. SBH > > Not to mention, coal death, destruction and pollution was primarily a > > result of method. And method was dictated by capitalist greed. Even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > electric power system to nuclear, and they don't kill anybody in > coalmines. Maybe, but they're quietly taking out half of Europe with their nuclear pollution.. > The blasted Frenchies are smarter than we are, here. We > could have done the same as they did, but we didn't, primarily due to > "activism." The frogs are bad at maths, they're ignoring the colossal decommisioning costs of these plants -ask the Brits about those.. They also have the worst environmental record in western Europe. In coal mining accidents you get a bunch of people killed, makes headlines (at least in the EU it does) but the story ends there. The clouds of radioactive gases vented in plant accidents are colorless, odorless, no-one dies immediately (except for spectacular accidents like Chernobyl) and so they make no headlines. Well they might years later, in journals when scientists rack their brains over escalating rates of cancer.. > But even now, the average coal mine accident makes Three > Mile Island look like a Sunday picnic. Average nuclear reactor accidents like 3mile island perhaps, but not serious nuclear accidents like Chernobyl. Thats the one that makes coal mine accidents look like a Sunday picnic. Oh right, you guys were hardly affected so its conveniently ignored. > There's a lot of talk of "carbon sequestration" plans to spend huge > bucks to put CO2 into deep beds where it won't get into our atmosphere [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in the first place. I note that all that carbon seems to be sequestered > down there pretty well already. :) I like it, except for the nuclear bit.. Havent they managed to solve the effluent problems in modern coal power plants yet? All kinds of special filters attached to the smoke stacks? Anyway, the biggest energy potential is practically untouched in more efficient heating systems and better insulation. Using solar, wind, and wave energy should cover the difference. Signaturemadiba > And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales > and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- > committed a near genocide by neglect-- and all because of fears of a > silent spring, where we couldn't hear a few *&^%ing warblers. Argghh. I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked. This is urban myth, spin, lie whatever you want to call it, but not true. DDT was and is not banned for Malaria control, the website who tell you that millions have died because of banning DDT are at best irresponsibly repeating false information and at worst lying to you. SignatureCoby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") > > And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales > > and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DDT are at best irresponsibly repeating false information and at worst lying > to you. Sigh. Did I say DDT had been universally banned? You need to READ WHAT I WROTE, not just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. DDT has been scarce (which is what I WROTE) for political reasons. Banned in the US and some other countries (Israel, as Zee is reminding us), at the same time it hasn't been banned in Africa. BUT the other side of the story is that because of the bans in the West, grants moneys to BUY DDT in African dried up. If you wanted money from the Rockefeller foundation to spray DDT in Nigeria, for example, they freaked. So DDT use in Africa in malaria control programs (funded quite often by the West) went way way down for reasons that were essentially political. Though it wasn't codified in law, the effect was the same. Rachel Carson, IMHO, is responsible. All this is detailed in one of the more recent issues of Scientific American, and they tell the story better than I do. Go read it. SBH >>>And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales >>>and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > All this is detailed in one of the more recent issues of Scientific > American, and they tell the story better than I do. Go read it. I invite you to play DDT bingo at http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ josh halpern > >>>And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales > >>>and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > josh halpern This is too rich. Harris has just used nearly every box here, sans cite which he demands of anyone who disagrees with him. Pretty much me, alone. Disagreement with Harris rare you see, because the punters here are Stepford Boys. They don't ask for cites cause they've learned "One of these days you're going to figure out that I say very few quantitative things on this group that I can't back up." {{Harris Dec 21, 2005 sci.med}} happen to provide the citation at the time or not." This will be #2. Today. This thread. > This is too rich. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you're going to figure out that I say very few quantitative things on > this group that I can't back up." {{Harris Dec 21, 2005 sci.med}} COMMENT: Used nearly every box here?? A Canadianism? I'm sorry, but I cannot disentangle what you're trying to say. Would you like to try again, using simple declarative sentences? The Scientific American article is in this month's (December) issue, and is called "Tackling Malaria." I cannot of course post it. But meanwhile you can read an article which is available in full text, and which I recommend to all. http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf You may take it for a cited reference. SBH > Harris has just used nearly every box here, sans cite which he demands > of anyone who disagrees with him. Pretty much me, alone. Disagreement > with Harris rare you see, because the punters here are Stepford Boys. > They don't ask for cites cause they've learned "One of these days > you're going to figure out that I say very few quantitative things on > this group that I can't back up." {{Harris Dec 21, 2005 sci.med}} I take it then that you would be happier if we "Stepford Boys" just blindly followed you? Speaking for myself, I'm not demanding Level 1 evidence from either of you. I already have my opinions on these issues based on my own understanding of the world around me. Setting aside your increasing petulance (which does detract, surely you must see), both you and Steve articulate your positions satisfactorily. I love spirited debate, always hoping to have my mind changed, but this one isn't cutting it. Being "weak on the science", you appear to want to make it about politics. Sorry, I'm not going there with you, because politics is irrelevant to my interest in this discussion, and is one area I don't want to step in, fearing to get it on my shoes. Zee, you do have the capability for rational argument. You're just poorly equipped in this particular instance. HMc > > Harris has just used nearly every box here, sans cite which he demands > > of anyone who disagrees with him. Pretty much me, alone. Disagreement [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I take it then that you would be happier if we "Stepford Boys" just blindly > followed you? Oh now Howard... > Speaking for myself, I'm not demanding Level 1 evidence from either of you. > I already have my opinions on these issues based on my own understanding of > the world around me. Setting aside your increasing petulance (which does > detract, surely you must see), Why should it for me. Doesn't seem to for Harris. "Happy now". both you and Steve articulate your positions > satisfactorily. I love spirited debate, always hoping to have my mind > changed, but this one isn't cutting it. Being "weak on the science", you > appear to want to make it about politics. I'm trying to keep up. Look what I found! http://mustelid.blogspot.com/ Sorry, I'm not going there with > you, because politics is irrelevant to my interest in this discussion, and > is one area I don't want to step in, fearing to get it on my shoes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HMc I am. I acknowledge my weaknesses and shortcomings. But: I refer you to the beginning of this thread. Science. No? Politics was not introduced by me; but I don't mind. I'm sorry you think they are separable, somehow. And: If you look over the history of posts here, apart from the naive poster with a medical question, the posts which are on topic, about something other than, say, the right of 50 year old men to have sex with children.... They were begin by me. Howard have a wonderful Christmas and a prosperous joy filled New Year, both in your careere and with your family. I'll be thinking of you in the New Year. You understand. Zee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Harris has just used nearly every box here, sans cite which he demands > > of anyone who disagrees with him. Pretty much me, alone. Disagreement [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > HMc > Howard have a wonderful Christmas and a prosperous joy filled New Year, > both in your careere and with your family. I'll be thinking of you in > the New Year. You understand. > > Zee Thank you, Zee. And to you. HMc >If you look over the history of posts here, apart from the naive poster >with a medical question, the posts which are on topic, about something >other than, say, the right of 50 year old men to have sex with >children.... > >They were begin by me. Gosh, don't dislocate your shoulders patting yourself on the back. I don't think the above is true for any of the three groups you are posting to. You've got an exaggerated sense of your own importance. > >>>And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales > >>>and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > josh halpern Please review the last paragraphs of: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf Do you think Reg 16 of the US Agency for International Development, and the Schultz order of 1986, are myths? I realize that the World Bank has SINCE somewhat relaxed its policies as a result of all the malaria death, but we're talking about history here. What were they doing in the 1980's? SBH >>>>"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message SNIP... >>>All this is detailed in one of the more recent issues of Scientific >>>American, and they tell the story better than I do. Go read it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf > Do you think Reg 16 of the US Agency for International Development, and > the Schultz order of 1986, are myths? Regulation 16, actually is 22 CFR 216, is the USAID environmental prcedures. IT DOES NOT MENTION DDT but does deal with procedures to be followed prior to USAID support of projects involving pesticides. You can find it here in complete form, http://ane-environment.net/Training/annex_B.pdf Most of the details with respect to pesticides are on pages B-11 and B-12. There are special rules for pesticides that not licensed in the US, and there is also a clear exemption from the pesticide rules in an emergency condition defined as (a) A pest outbreak has occurred or is imminent; and (b) Significant health problems (either human or animal) or significant economic problems will occur without the prompt use of the proposed pesticide; and (c) Insufficient time is available before the pesticide must be used to evaluate the proposed use in accordance with the provisions of this regulation. The statement that I pointed to from AID CLEARLY shows that AID sponsors the use of DDT when appropriate. What it is NOT appropriate for is agricultural spraying. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/LetterstotheEditor/111505.html From Kent R. Hill, assistant administrator, Bureau of Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development: Paul Driessen’s opinion article titled “USAID Could Stop This Epidemic” (Nov. 2) misrepresents the U.S. Agency for International Development’s support for indoor residual spraying to control malaria, as well as the United States government’s position on the use of DDT internationally. USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted. In the past, USAID has provided critically needed technical support to implement the use of DDT, including training, logistic and planning support in countries where DDT has proved to be the best insecticide for spraying and when its use is permitted in that country. Also absent from Mr. Driessen’s letter is the essential fact that DDT is only one of 12 World Health Organization-approved insecticides for spraying in malaria control. USAID will begin implementing the president’s malaria initiative in coming weeks, with a large-scale spraying campaign in southern Angola as the first activity to be launched in the field. President Bush’s initiative will include substantial spraying activities in Angola, Tanzania and Uganda, as well as in future programs, as the president himself made clear in his announcement. We at USAID fully expect our funded spraying programs to include DDT where most effective, and where it is permitted by the government. Mr. Driessen seems to believe there is an anti-DDT agenda at play. In fact, the debate around DDT has seemingly moved far from the technical and operational issues, which should be the issues for consideration, rather than political ones. Given the human toll this disease, the United States public and Congress should be aware of the true nature of the efforts made by the U.S. foreign-aid agency to defeat this terrible disease. > I realize that the World Bank has SINCE somewhat relaxed its policies > as a result of all the malaria death, but we're talking about history > here. What were they doing in the 1980's? The best they could, but you were not listening then either josh halpern > I invite you to play DDT bingo at > http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ > > josh halpern Okay, I looked at this website and Lambert's responses, and I note that the responders have already pretty much taken him to task. DDT really is the cheapest insecticide because it's very eary to make physically and industrially, in a very few chemical steps. Cases where you find it's not are manipulated markets-- the sort of thing which you can suspect anytime you find (say) toasters costing more than automobiles. Also, the responders correctly noted that mosquitos become resistant to all known pesticides, but that's never a reason not to use them, until resistance is complete. Resistance is not a binary thing. Yes, it make sense to stop DDT use in the US after malaria was eradicated here, but it's simply a cannard to suggest that the US international aid department and the world bank simply stopped funding for DDT spraying in countries ONLY because of resistance. That's simply not the case. And the most wacky Lambert quote is this one: ===================== "Correction: "Silent Spring" is now saving African children. If it hadn't been for bans on the agricultural use of DDT that Carson inspired, mosquitoes in Africa would have developed resistance as they did in Sri Lanka and many other places. The African children being saved from malaria with DDT spraying can thank Rachel Carson. ====================== COMMENT: That is simply somebody with a screw loose. Is it really being suggested that DDT was banned, allowing African children to die, so that it could be reinstated later, to save later children, instead? What would be the point of that? You can't praise Carson for getting rid of DDT in the past so it would be useful NOW, without at the same time admitting that the argument still holds, and we should ban it NOW so that it will remain useful IN THE FUTURE. And so on, indefinitely. No, DDT won't good forever, anymore than any antibiotic or pesticide ever is. ALL pesticides have only a limited life before insects become resistant to them-- that includes DDT, deltamethrin, pyrethrins, etc, etc. But not using DDT in a area where malaria is endemic and resistance is not yet fully complete, would be like refusing to use any antibiotics on TB where you have a multiresistant TB bug, so you can save your antibiotics "for later". For later, when, the doctor asks? After your patient has died of TB? You have some explaining to do, Josh, since you put up this crap. DDT is a horse we need to ride until it it gives out, and it's a long way from doing so, and it never was close to being useless. To suggest that we used DDT everywhere we could historically until it wasn't doing us any good anymore because the mosquitos had gotten resistant to it, is self-serving historical revisionism. Shame on you. Myth bingo indeed. SBH Sbharris[assign]ix.netcom.com wrote: >>I invite you to play DDT bingo at >>http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ > > Okay, I looked at this website and Lambert's responses, and I note that > the responders have already pretty much taken him to task. You have a very unique viewpoint. Let me refer you to what one of the Tech Central Station group who was pushing the J. Edwards approach said: **************************************** "Tim Worstall Says: December 17th, 2005 at 8:03 pm I’m sure that Tim Lambert will be terribly glad to know that since November 2004 (when that piece came out) my views on the WHO and the use of DDT for controlling malaria have changed. Largely as a result of what Tim Lambert has been writing about the subject. I am now aware that limited and controlled indoor spraying is both allowed and at times encouraged and that large scale agricultural applications are not (encouraged that is), primarily as a result of worries over resistance. I am still worried about such things as the EU’s insistence upon costly checks on produce from some countries that do use DDT (I think I’ve seen Uganda mentioned) as I regard it as a form of protection, a non-tarrif barrier, in much the same way that some of the rules on slaughter (ie in Botswana, as I’ve been told by one of the EU’s own aid officials) do. But without wishing to sound too cloying I would like to say thank you to Tim for correcting my views on the matter. ********************************* > DDT really is the cheapest insecticide because it's very eary to > make physically and industrially, in a very few chemical steps. > Cases where you find it's not are manipulated markets-- > the sort of thing which you can > suspect anytime you find (say) toasters costing more than automobiles. Basically irrelevant. If it is ineffective due to overuse, it is worthless. > Also, the responders correctly noted that mosquitos become resistant to > all known pesticides, but that's never a reason not to use them, until > resistance is complete. Resistance is not a binary thing. Malaria, otoh is binary, either you have it or you don't. > Yes, it make sense to stop DDT use in the US after malaria was > eradicated here, Malaria in the US was not eradicated by the use of DDT, but rather by applying the same principles as Walther Reid and Goethals used to break yellow fever in Panama by taking away the breeding areas for mosquitoes. So, what is your point? > but it's simply a cannard to suggest that the US > international aid department and the world bank simply stopped funding [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > suggested that DDT was banned, allowing African children to die, so > that it could be reinstated later, to save later children, instead? No, that is your twisted reading. The point being that not using DDT for agricultural spraying and spraying of fields has preserved it as an effective insecticide that can be used to protect people. You on the other hand prefer green beans to children. > What would be the point of that? You can't praise Carson for getting > rid of DDT in the past so it would be useful NOW, without at the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, DDT won't good forever, anymore than any antibiotic or pesticide > ever is. You really are missing the point. Proper use of pesticides and antibiotics CAN MAKE THEM LAST FOREVER. Spraying them over the landscape, using them indescriminantly destroys their usefulness as resistance develops. > ALL pesticides have only a limited life before insects become > resistant to them-- that includes DDT, deltamethrin, pyrethrins, etc, > etc. IF YOU COVER THE ENTIRE AREA WITH THEM. IF YOU USE THEM IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY YOU CAN PRESERVE THEIR USEFULNESS. > But not using DDT in a area where malaria is endemic and > resistance is not yet fully complete, would be like refusing to use any > antibiotics on TB where you have a multiresistant TB bug, so you can > save your antibiotics "for later". For later, when, the doctor asks? > After your patient has died of TB? You might ask yourself why multiresistant TB developed. HINT: From overuse of common antibiotics. > You have some explaining to do, Josh, since you put up this crap. DDT > is a horse we need to ride until it it gives out, and it's a long way > from doing so, and it never was close to being useless. To suggest that > we used DDT everywhere we could historically until it wasn't doing us > any good anymore because the mosquitos had gotten resistant to it, is > self-serving historical revisionism. Shame on you. Myth bingo indeed. You ride that horse jack and you will kill it. You are a green bean lover and a child hater. josh halpern > Sbharris[assign]ix.netcom.com wrote: > >>I invite you to play DDT bingo at [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > Malaria, otoh is binary, either you have it or you don't. > > Yes, it make sense to stop DDT use in the US after malaria was > > eradicated here, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yellow fever in Panama by taking away the breeding areas for mosquitoes. > So, what is your point? Uh, you have a terrible memory hole about how we actually eradicated malaria in the US. Why don't you go to the CDC website and read about how it actually happened? http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/eradication_us.htm They not only sprayed interiors with DDT, but exteriors and whole premises when they needed to, and they dusted from airplanes. I've seen footage of people lined up on roads, sprayed with DDT powder till they looked like they'd been rolled in flour and were ready for the deep fry. That's how we got rid of it. Many of the breeding places are still there. Have you ever been bitten by a mosquito in the US, Josh? Take a look at the maps. Malaria used to be endemic in the entire great plains up to Montana, and in pockets in California and Washington State. Have you ever been bitten by a mosquito in any of these places? If not, you don't get out much, because they too (both mosquitos and breeding sites) are still there and bugs are still biting. Don't let the fact that our erstwhile malarial swamps are nowadays called "protected wetlands", fool you. It's the same country with a different name. But I should note that what was done in Panama to drain wetlands would be prohibited in the US now, and would have been impossible in places like Lousianna, even if they'd wanted to do it. I should also point out that if you think they got rid of malaria and yellow fever in Panama without larvacides, you don't know your history. They had no DDT or malthion, to be sure, but they had oil, phenol, and lye, and they used them in ponds and wetlands in ways that you wouldn't possibly be able to get away with now ecologically, either. Now what was the point you were asking me about, again? > > COMMENT: > > That is simply somebody with a screw loose. Is it really being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > effective insecticide that can be used to protect people. You on the > other hand prefer green beans to children. No, I prefer DDT to be used as it was in the US, in 1947-49, in the malaria eradication program. What wasn't a simple interior limited spray program, or an impregnated bed-net program. They sprayed it all over, including in, and on, 4 million homes. We agree that any agricultural (crop) use of DDT wastes the stuff for antimalarial uses, so there's no argument there. I wouldn't put it on green beans, either. I would, however, spray it in swamps, ditches, and anywhere else ourdoors where the wrong type of mosquitos come from. That is what we DID do in the US, and it worked. You cannot argue with success, though apparently you are trying to. > > What would be the point of that? You can't praise Carson for getting > > rid of DDT in the past so it would be useful NOW, without at the same [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > landscape, using them indescriminantly destroys their usefulness as > resistance develops. COMMENT: Yes, and spraying them in a limited and non-eradicatory fashion so you always have some mosquitos to come back, ALSO destroys their use as resistance develops. Like antibiotics, pesticides cause the worst problems if both under and overused, and the sweet spot of maximal effectiveness is somewhere in the middle. It is, apparently, closer to the massive simulataneous treatment program used in the US 1947-9. > > ALL pesticides have only a limited life before insects become > > resistant to them-- that includes DDT, deltamethrin, pyrethrins, etc, > > etc. > > IF YOU COVER THE ENTIRE AREA WITH THEM. IF YOU USE THEM IN AN > INTELLIGENT WAY YOU CAN PRESERVE THEIR USEFULNESS. We did cover the remaining malarial areas with them in 1947-9. Where are our resistant Anopheles mosquitos? Answer: there are none, because we used so much pesticide that we killed enough mosquitos to break the malaria cycle. Then the mosquitos came back, but without the malaria. Anopheles mosquitos still exist all across the U.S. and you can still get bitten by them. They are simply not carrying malaria. They could, but they don't, because we killed it all. We did that by applying enough pesticide, all at once, in a major control program big enough to get the job done. A half-assed program would not have worked. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/spotlights/index_052704.htm > > But not using DDT in a area where malaria is endemic and > > resistance is not yet fully complete, would be like refusing to use any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You might ask yourself why multiresistant TB developed. HINT: From > overuse of common antibiotics. HINT: you don't know what you're talking about. Common antibiotics don't work on TB and never have. We have multidrug resistant TB more as a result of UNDERUSE of the few specialized antibiotics which work on TB. Underuse, not overuse. People couldn't afford them or didn't take them, and there was no supervision to make sure you nuked whatever you started on. So some people used enough to make the bugs resistant, but not enough to wipe them out. Which is why I used TB as an example, because it looks very much like our present approach to malaria in Africa (but not like our approach in the US, which was the "nuke it all" variety). We came quite close to wiping out TB in the US, by the way. The multidrug resistant strains are mostly foreign imporants from places where the drugs got used improperly and haphazardly. > You ride that horse jack and you will kill it. You are a green bean lover > and a child hater. > > josh halpern And you are a strawman builder and have problems with knowledge of history, medicine, and basic biology. Othewise, you're okay. SBH >> I invite you to play DDT bingo at >> http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ > not the case. And the most wacky Lambert quote is this one: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > suggested that DDT was banned, allowing African children to die, so > that it could be reinstated later, to save later children, instead? You have to cross your eyes pretty far to see it that way. It is being suggested that DDT was LIMITED (banned only for agriculture) allowing mosquito populations to remain susceptible so that it could be used for indoor spraying NOW AND ALWAYS, saving African children. > No, DDT won't good forever, anymore than any antibiotic or pesticide > ever is. ALL pesticides have only a limited life before insects become > resistant to them-- that includes DDT, deltamethrin, pyrethrins, etc, > etc. As with antibiotics, this is a product of misuse. > But not using DDT in a area where malaria is endemic and > resistance is not yet fully complete, would be like refusing to use any > antibiotics on TB where you have a multiresistant TB bug, so you can > save your antibiotics "for later". For later, when, the doctor asks? > After your patient has died of TB? Strawman. No one says don't use it, they say don't use it willy nilly for agriculture. You have ignored the examples like Sri Lanka where DDT is was longer effective in any usage method. > You have some explaining to do, Josh, since you put up this crap. DDT > is a horse we need to ride until it it gives out, and it's a long way > from doing so, and it never was close to being useless. And when you've killed your best horse but still have leagues between you and safety, what then? SignatureCoby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") > > You have some explaining to do, Josh, since you put up this crap. DDT > > is a horse we need to ride until it it gives out, and it's a long way > > from doing so, and it never was close to being useless. > > And when you've killed your best horse but still have leagues between you > and safety, what then? I don't know. The problem never arose in the US, because we did the job right with a massive 2 year DDT campaign of spraying 5 million houses and a lot of waterways, in the few remaining states where malaria was still endemic after a long campaign of drainage and spraying with other generations of pesticides. So these days in the US we still have the mosquitos that carry malaria (several Anopheles species recovered and came back--- they bite you today), but no malaria (which has a more complex life cycle, and which got nailed in the small number crunch). There's a tipping point with malaria where if you get mosquitos below a critical number, the parasite cannot reproduce. At that point, your job is done. You've eradicated the disease without eradicating the carrier, which is what we've done in the US. It's POSSIBLE, but you can't be a politically correct pantywaist about doing it. If you don't do it the way we did it in the US with a massive spray campaign, you can't do it at all. The mosquitos eventually get resistant to your pesticide, you never make down to the critical mosquito population number, and then the resistant mosquitos come back and you're stuck. SBH > The problem never arose in the US, because we did the job > right with a massive 2 year DDT campaign of spraying 5 million houses [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mosquito population number, and then the resistant mosquitos come back > and you're stuck. Is anything known about the long-term effects of that campaign, apart from wiping out malaria? Were bird populations driven to extinction, did the cancer rate rise in these areas? Signaturemadiba > > > And, yes, finally DDT is making a comeback, albeit on different scales > > > and with limited uses. But meanwhile, we lost whole generations--- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sigh. Did I say DDT had been universally banned? You need to READ WHAT > I WROTE, not just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh this is your best yet Steve. Think of the possibilities: "Did I say (make it up)? You need to READ WHAT I WROTE....blah, not > DDT has been scarce (which is what I WROTE) for political reasons. > Banned in the US and some other countries (Israel, as Zee is reminding [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > SBH |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.