え！？キクマコ氏が歴史修正主義の人のｔｗをRTしたのかい？というか、偽科学批判をベースにした放射能の影響の過小評価の仕方が歴史修正主義の人の口ぶりに似てくると言うのは随分前から感じている事であり。— 未/来/大/僧/正さん (@c_daisoujyo) 3月 27, 2012
最近つくづく思うんだけど、なんでエセ科学批判者の語り口って、歴史修正主義者とそっくりなんだろうね。 / “noiehoie氏のハンセン病隔離差別に関する解説 - Togetter” htn.to/m3LUbS— noiehoieさん (@noiehoie) 3月 27, 2012
A recent review in the Lancet - the world's leading medical journal - concluded that when used at levels required for mosquito control, DDT causes significant human impacts, particularly on reproductive health. (This is not surprising, given that some of the earliest evidence against DDT was that it interfered with reproduction in birds and rats.) Abundant scientific evidence reveals DDT's impact on child development, including preterm birth, low birth weight, and possible birth defects. High concentrations of DDT in breast milk are correlated with shortened duration of lactation and early weaning - itself highly correlated with infant and childhood mortality. The Lancet authors conclude that any saving of lives from malaria might well be abrogated by infant and early childhood mortality caused by DDT (58). Some lives might have been saved by continued used of DDT, but others would have been lost.
(58はRogan and Chenの総説)
Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of doubt, Bloomsbury 2010
DDT (bis[4-chlorophenyl]-1,1,1-trichloroethane) is a persistent insecticide that was used worldwide from the mid-1940s until its ban in the USA and other countries in the 1970s. When a global ban on DDT was proposed in 2001, several countries in sub-Saharan Africa claimed that DDT was still needed as a cheap and effective means for vector control. Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. Historically, DDT has had mixed success in Africa; only the countries that are able to find and devote substantial resources towards malaria control have made major advances. DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit.
DDT was originally banned because of ecological effects, such as eggshell thinning, and accumulation in the environment and organisms, including human beings. Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation. The research focus on human reproduction and development seems to be appropriate. DDT could be an effective public-health intervention that is cheap, longlasting, and effective. However, various toxic-effects that would be difficult to detect without specific study might exist and could result in substantial morbidity or mortality. Responsible use of DDT should include research programmes that would detect the most plausible forms of toxic effects as well as the documentation of benefits attributable specifically to DDT. Although this viewpoint amounts to a platitude if applied to malaria research in Africa, the research question here could be sufficiently focused and compelling, so that governments and funding agencies recognise the need to include research on all infant mortality when DDT is to be used.