DDT is moderately to slightly toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 ranges
from 113-118 mg/kg in rats; 150-300 mg/kg in mice; 300 mg/kg in rabbits;
500-750 mg/kg in dogs; and >1,000 mg/kg in sheep and goats. DDT is less
toxic to test animals exposed via the skin. The acute dermal LD50 for
female rats is 2,510 mg/kg(10). DDT is categorised by the World Health
Organisation as Class II "moderately hazardous"(11).
It mainly affects the central and peripheral nervous systems, and the
liver. Acute effects in humans exposed to low to moderate levels may
include nausea, diarrhoea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation
of the eyes, nose and/or throat. At higher doses, tremors and convulsions
are possible(12). Deaths from exposure to DDT are rare. Even in developing
countries there have been few reported cases,
especially when compared with organophosphate insecticides (see PN34
pp20-21). In 1994, one fatal poisoning was reported in the US involving a
child who ingested one ounce (28g) of a 5% DDT and
10. Tomlin, D.C.S., (Ed.), The Pesticide Manual, BCPC, UK, 1997.
11. The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and
Guidelines to Classification 1996-1997, UNEP, ILO, WHO, Geneva,
12. DDT, Extoxnet, Pesticide Management Education Program, Cornell
University, 5123 Comstock Hall, Ithaca, New York, US, 1994.
>What is wrong with defending DDT? Is there any peer reviewed, sceintific
>evidence of its harm to humans?
Date: Jul 27 2000 15:11:03 EDT
From: "amiya nayak"
Subject: Resource materials on Malaria and MMV
Free viewing http://medicine.nature.com
Go to the links for Nature Medicine published special articles
Information on Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) published in various
sources such as Wellcome Trust and WHO.
dr. g.h. brundtland: statement at mmv launch office of the
director-general world health organization organisation mondiale de la
santé updated: thu apr 20 10:41:47 2000 dr. gro harlem brundtland
director-general world health organization geneva, 3 november, 1999
statement at mmv launch ladies and ge ...
7012 bytes; modifié: Wednesday, April 20, 2000 (08:41)
mmv - radio page
who multimedia home page updated: 03 november 1999 a new way to develop
effective, affordable drugs the medicines for malaria venture ( mmv ) is a
new and essential part of the effort to roll back a devastating disease.
malaria kills about one million peop ...
33900 bytes; modifié: Wednesday, May 11, 2000 (11:08)
25 million dollars of gates funding leads to further opportunities for mmv
publications > tdrnews > no.62 > 25 million us dollars of gates funding
leads to further opportunities for mmv no.62 main menu 25 million us
dollars of gates funding leads to further opportunities for mmv major
financial boost for mmv as a ne ...
10238 bytes; modifié: Tuesday, June 14, 2000 (10:59)
tdrnews no.61 mmv goes independent: its a new world
>publications > tdrnews > no.61 > mmv goes independent no.61 main menu mmv
>goes independent: its a new world the launch of the medicines for malaria
>venture (mmv) embodies a new spirit of public/private partnership a
>of excitement hung ...
12962 bytes; modifié: Tuesday, June 14, 2000 (10:59)
tdrnews 59: mmv: gearing up
>publications > tdrnews > no.59 > mmv: gearing up no.59 main menu mmv:
>gearing up in the last issue of tdrnews , the initiation of a venture to
>discover new drugs for the treatment of malaria - the new medicines for
>malaria venture (mmv) - was ...
10180 bytes; modifié: Wednesday, May 18, 2000 (10:37)
tdrnews no.60 mmv comes of age
>publications > tdrnews > no.60 > mmv comes of age no.60 main menu mmv
>of age the medicines for malaria venture (mmv) prepares for its launch as
>an independent not-for-profit foundation the medicines for malaria
>(mmv), a partners ...
11027 bytes; modifié: Wednesday, May 18, 2000 (10:38)
Subj: Re: Voting For Biotech?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 3:48:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Red Porphyry
At 09:14 PM 7/25/2000 -0000, you wrote:
>AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
>Date: Jul 25 2000 16:29:25 EDT
>From: Andrew Apel
>Subject: Voting For Biotech?
>I'm not sure that it's possible to vote for or against biotech in the US
>election (with the dubious exception of Nader), but I could be wrong.
>Red Porphyry wrote:
>>Andy, first off, you still haven't given pro-gm foods folks a catchy
>label like you've given to the >environmentalists (eco-reactionaries). my
>suggestion is "eco-realists". it's both catchy *and* easy for >everyone
>understand. I urge anyone who supports gm foods on this list to refer to
>themselves as "eco->realists" from now on.
>Red, I call them 'eco-reactionaries' because these people are more than
>merely anti-biotech. They are reacting against globalism, capitalism,
>government, biotechnology, eating meat, logging, etc., under the banner
>eco-this or eco-that.
when you originally attached the label, that may have been true, but i
submit that within just a few months, "eco-reactionary" has already
expanded to include anyone in an environmental organization of any kind,
from greenpeace and the friends of the earth on the left to the sierra
and the audubon society on the right. your intent may have been to create
bright line around a limited number of openly violent, extremist
organizations, but the members of this list and others have really taken
this ball and ran with it. the term is now beginning to appear outside
group, and in the real world, "eco-reactionary" includes a heckuva lot
than greenpeace. you should be proud. you've invented one of the greatest
rhetorical weapons in recent years, whether you realize it or not.
>On the other hand, I'm not inclined to call all
>pro-biotech folks "eco-realists," because there are some biotech fanatics
>who firmly believe biotech will save the world. While I like the term
>'realists,' the realists don't conveniently lump under eco-banners.
>They're scientists, economists, corporate officers, investors and all the
>rest who make up a nearly unclassifiable biotech menagerie.
"eco-realist" is a term that simply means someone who takes a "realistic"
attitude (as opposed to say, a "spiritual" or "mystical" attitude) toward
the earth's environment: to wit, that the environment does not exist for
its own sake, but rather for man's use. furthermore, the environment has
neither a sacred nor a poetic character about it, but only a material
character, and unless properly tamed and subdued, it is a mortal threat to
mankind's survival. i submit that outside of a few oddballs here and
the vast majority of the "scientists, economists, corporate officers,
investors and all the rest" that you refer to would not be uncomfortable
with being referred to as an "eco-realist" based on the above definition.
using the term is also something the pro-biotech side needs to do if it's
serious about "framing the terms of the debate", as it were. it not only
implies pro-biotech is "realistic", it implies anti-biotech is
"unrealistic", "irrational". very important in the u.s., as we americans
love to think of ourselves as pragmatic and realistic people, not given to
irrational stances or flights of fancy.
>Red also wrote:
>>Second, i'm heartened to see that, by bringing up Nader, you're finally
>>getting down to brass tacks, to wit, the scientific is the political.
>>no sane person involved in any aspect of ag biotech research can in good
>>conscience support Nader and the green party. but we both know there
>>ice cube's chance in hell that nader can win the u.s. presidential
>>the more pertinent question is, can a sane person involved in any aspect
>>biotech research in good conscience support al gore, the presidential
>>candidate of the democrats (or is it democRATS? :-) ), and author of the
>>best-selling eco-reactionary book "earth in the balance"?
>Red, the scientific is only the political if it falls into the hands of
science is already in the hands of politicians, since they control the
purse strings without which the pursuit of science would not be possible.
what areas of science to support, in what amounts, and what areas *not* to
support, are ultimately political decisions, not scientific ones. on a
philosophical note, politics is an inseparable part of being a human
and cannot be escaped anyway, so you may as well face reality and eagerly
take part in "abv (agbioview) smackdown"("why don't you eco-reactionaries
just book yourselves on the jerry springer show and GET IT OVER WITH!")
>That said, it is entirely possible that Gore will support
>biotechnology. Clinton supports it. Gore's cabinet and the rest of
>research will inform Gore that biotechnology has benefits for the
>environment. Unless you know something about Gore that I don't I think
>it's fairly obvious that he won't go anti-biotech unless the Nader
>contingent can threaten to split his vote and force certain compromises.
>That said, I'm not sure that biotech really hangs in the balance as
>between the two main candidates themselves.
the point i was trying to make was that pro-biotech scientists have to
learn to be true to themselves, in a political sense. any list in which,
without challenge, its members seriously refer to nader as a "communist",
routinely spread unsubstantiated rumors about how organic foods pose a
clear and present danger to u.s. public health, make scurrilous (and
potentially libelous) remarks implying that leading eco-reactionaries are
both heavy users and dealers of illegal drugs, and are occasionally not
above using code words and phrases to refer to members of u.s. ethnic and
religious minorities, is clearly a list composed largely of members whose
personal political attitudes lean either to the right or to the hard
given that, i'm simply saying to those pro-biotech scientists "own up to
it". gore and the democrats, in their heart of hearts, are sympathetic to
the eco-reactionary cause, and eagerly accept endorsements and campaign
contributions from their organizations, whatever political compromises
they're currently required to make as the minority party in the u.s.
congress. so don't be shy. step up to the plate and say, "we need to
support g.w.b. or p.j.b. and we're not ashamed to say it any longer". if
they're serious about winning the war with the eco-reactionaries, u.s.
pro-biotech scientists are going to have to jump into politics with both
feet. they should be joining the republican and reform parties and both
volunteering and financially contributing to the political campaigns of
their candidates. they should be setting up and donating to political
action committees that provide soft money contributions to the appropriate
candidates, political parties and "think tanks", etc. etc. composing
letters to the editor "in order to set the record straight on biotech"
won't cut it. eco-reactionaries are not going to be knocked over with that
kind of feather. in the end, you must be true to who you are. i could go
but i think i've made my point.