• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Why are pesticides still used in homes?

pesticides chemicals in the home cancer mental health

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Viridarius

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 08 January 2016 - 08:13 PM


Why are people still contaminating their homes with these chemicals? This seems like one of the most careless and thoughtless things one can do to one's living space. I mean a single exposure to one of the main pesticides used has been shown to increase chances of breastt cancer by 50% in females. Home where pesticides are used regularly around infants and children have a much higher rate of mental illnesses in those children later in life such as learning disabilities, depression, and ADHD. Also, in high doses they cause organ failure so I'm guessing multiple light exposures can be damaging as well.

I've been dealing with bed bugs and my grandmother insist on using pesticides to kill them despite the health risk. She even sprays sleeping areas with them, heavily. She sprayed the bed she sleeps on down to the point the smell of the pesticides pervaded the apartment.

The annoyance of bed bugs seems much more bearable the living and worrying about poisons saturating my living enviroment. I mean bed bugs won't shorten my life span the way chemicals used to fix the problem will. So why do people still use them in their homes? How can people be comfortable having them in their floors where their children play, in their cabinets where they store their food, and on the surfaces where they sleep? Why aren't we actively trying to find safer alternatives?

Edited by Viridarius, 08 January 2016 - 08:18 PM.

  • Needs references x 3
  • Ill informed x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#2 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 10 January 2016 - 08:34 AM

Because they are not contaminating their homes.


  • Needs references x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#3 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 10 January 2016 - 12:39 PM

How so? The pesticide doesn't stop being in your home after it dries, so you still have toxic material in your home that can negatively impact health to a significant degree over time. I think that counts as mild chemical contamination.
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 January 2016 - 10:51 PM

[...] so you still have toxic material in your home that can negatively impact health to a significant degree over time.

 

 

I can understand being concerned about the persistent pesticides (DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane) of yesterday, but those aren't sold to homeowners, if at all.  What's the evidence that low doses of today's home pesticides negatively impact health? 



#5 chenoa

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 January 2016 - 02:24 AM

Viridarius, which pesticides are you referring to, which chemicals specifically? Many chemicals that are known to be harmful are not sold in high concentrations (save for research purposes) or have been taken off of the shelf. Are there new studies out that the general public isn't yet aware of?



#6 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 09:50 AM

How so?

 

Because they are not toxic in the concentrations they are used.

 

I'm waiting for your proofs that they are dangerous.


Edited by Antonio2014, 11 January 2016 - 09:51 AM.


#7 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 10:06 AM

I can understand being concerned about the persistent pesticides (DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane) of yesterday, but those aren't sold to homeowners, if at all.  What's the evidence that low doses of today's home pesticides negatively impact health? 

 

DDT is not dangerous to humans. It inhibits an ATPase that insects have but we don't have. It has killed nobody. On the contrary, it saved millions of lives from malaria and typhus.


  • Ill informed x 2

#8 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 10:39 AM

[...] so you still have toxic material in your home that can negatively impact health to a significant degree over time.



I can understand being concerned about the persistent pesticides (DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane) of yesterday, but those aren't sold to homeowners, if at all. What's the evidence that low doses of today's home pesticides negatively impact health?

I can't post links so it's kinda hard to give references but there's studies out there showing a link to home pesticide use and child cancer and from what I understand it's talking about the kind you can simply purchase at the hardware store. Plus, the ones sold to home owners aren't the only ones relevant here. There's also the ones used by commercial pest control companies in homes. Those have been show to be more of a health risk then the ones you can buy. I know it's not a direct study but CNN posted an article about it. Increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma in children and hindering of cognitive development. Just search "pesticides and child cancer".
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#9 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 11:03 AM

I can understand being concerned about the persistent pesticides (DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane) of yesterday, but those aren't sold to homeowners, if at all. What's the evidence that low doses of today's home pesticides negatively impact health?

DDT is not dangerous to humans. It inhibits an ATPase that insects have but we don't have. It has killed nobody. On the contrary, it saved millions of lives from malaria and typhus.
DDT exposure has a strong link with breast cancer according to several studies. Increasing the risk of girls to develope it, if exposed to it before puberty, by four or five times.

Btw, in addition to my previous post, the u.s department of health and human services has a pretty good pdf about pyrethrins and pyrethroids. It states they may be a cancer concern, have shown ability to cross the placental barrier in pregnant animals and have shown up in breast milk in animals but there are no human studies avalible. Also, neurotoxcity is seen in animals.

Edited by Viridarius, 11 January 2016 - 12:00 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#10 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 12:28 PM

I can't post links so it's kinda hard to give references but there's studies out there showing a link to home pesticide use and child cancer and from what I understand it's talking about the kind you can simply purchase at the hardware store.

 

I have a dragon in my garage. I can't post pics here because he's invisible, but I swear he's real.


  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#11 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 12:30 PM

DDT exposure has a strong link with breast cancer according to several studies. Increasing the risk of girls to develope it, if exposed to it before puberty, by four or five times.


Btw, in addition to my previous post, the u.s department of health and human services has a pretty good pdf about pyrethrins and pyrethroids. It states they may be a cancer concern, have shown ability to cross the placental barrier in pregnant animals and have shown up in breast milk in animals but there are no human studies avalible. Also, neurotoxcity is seen in animals.

 

Yeah, the same studies that you provided abov... oh, wait!
 


  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#12 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:48 PM

A study showing DDT can accelerate mammary tumor growth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7326823

A study that shows ddt can support the growth of an estrogen responsive tumor:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/4060181

A study that concluded ddt is genotoxic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21556202

This study showed chromosomal aberrations that could lead to mammary cancer in rats treated with ddt:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15880734

But this thread isn't about ddt, which is banned in the U.S.A and many other countries. It's about pesticides commonly used in the home.
As it turns out, I was mistaken about not being able to post links. I'll get you some sources.
  • Good Point x 1

#13 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 06:11 PM

A study showing DDT can accelerate mammary tumor growth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7326823

 

I will answer about this first one (that doesn't mean that I agree with your claims about the others, only that life is short and I have better things to do ATM).

 

First, we aren't rats.

 

Second, no effect was observed when they were fed DDT only.

 

Third, no signs of toxicity were observed in DDT-fed rats on autopsy (nor any other signs of problems).

 

Fourth, we don't eat so much DDT at all.

 

Fifth, this is what Wikipedia says about Sprague-Dawley rats:

 

A 1972 study compared neoplasms in “Sprague-Dawley” rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."[8]

 

I can't analyze more details of the paper (like the number of animals used) because it's behind a paywall, but the above suffices to show that the paper is not a proof of human carcinogenesis of DDT.


Edited by Antonio2014, 11 January 2016 - 06:14 PM.


#14 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 07:37 PM

A study showing DDT can accelerate mammary tumor growth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7326823


I will answer about this first one (that doesn't mean that I agree with your claims about the others, only that life is short and I have better things to do ATM).

First, we aren't rats.

Second, no effect was observed when they were fed DDT only.

Third, no signs of toxicity were observed in DDT-fed rats on autopsy (nor any other signs of problems).

Fourth, we don't eat so much DDT at all.

Fifth, this is what Wikipedia says about Sprague-Dawley rats:

A 1972 study compared neoplasms in “Sprague-Dawley” rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."[8]


I can't analyze more details of the paper (like the number of animals used) because it's behind a paywall, but the above suffices to show that the paper is not a proof of human carcinogenesis of DDT.


Okay, we don't eat that amount of ddt. I agree with that. And yes, we're not rats but you're original argument for ddt's safety focused on a mechanism of action that would only effect insects. All those papers demonstrate that the danger doesn't just apply to insects but mammals as well. The mechanisms for cancer and bug killing are different. The one to kill bugs is indeed the one you mentioned but the one suspected to lead to cancer has to do with interaction with estrogen receptors.

As far as home pesticides go, it seem I did mistake the danger as being more the it really is but as posted above, I did find references to pyrethroid neurotoxicity and their ability to pass the placental barrier and to end up in breast milk in animals (no human studies available). Also, they seem to have thyroid disrupting properties which could lead to a number of health issues.


Disruption of thyroid hormones in rat brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14694632


Toxicology profile of pyrethroids referencing neurotoxcity, ability to penetrate the placental barriers and to be secreted in brest milk of animals:

http://www.atsdr.cdc...?id=787&tid=153

Study showing decreased scores on mental development indexes in babies whose mothers were exposed to piperonyl butoxide (often used alongside pyrethroids, listed as a possible carcinogen by the EPA):

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3065142/

Seems to me that chemicals that cause neurotoxcity, interfer with thyroid hormones, and hinder mental development could very easily cause some of the mental health issues I mentioned in my first post if exposure was often enough, though I have no studies to prove this(though I swear I read it some where, but that doesn't really matter unless I can provide a reference :p ). There also was mention of these chemicals causing lipid peroxidation and formation of free radicals that i'll try to find again if anybody is intrested. All in all, the impression I'm getting from all this is that these aren't exactly healthy chemicals to have around, especially around pregnant women and children, who seem to be the most vulnerable.
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1

#15 chenoa

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 January 2016 - 08:46 PM

Pyrethrin is produced in members of the chrysanthemum plant. They are contact poisons, and penetrate the nervous system of insects. "Inhaling high levels of pyrethrum may bring about asthmatic breathing, sneezing, nasal stuffiness, headache, nausea, incoordination, tremors, convulsions, facial flushing and swelling, and burning and itching sensations...The lowest lethal oral dose of pyrethrum is 750 mg/kg for children and 1,000 mg/kg for adults" (http://pmep.cce.corn...thrins-ext.html)

About 63 grams for a lethal dose for someone of my size (63kg).  Pesticides are effective at very low concentrations for exactly this reason

Pyrethroid is low in toxicity to mammals and birds, highly toxic to fish, and requires very low does to be effective against insects (specifically potent against arthropods). The problem again is that a very high dose (such high does are always used in studies) is hard to achieve.

Piperonyl butoxide: http://npic.orst.edu...eets/pbogen.pdf

 

Imo you are likely not being exposed to enough of these compounds to cause harm. Copper is antibacterial, but I will bet money that you can OD on copper


  • Agree x 1

#16 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 11 January 2016 - 09:26 PM

Pyrethrin is produced in members of the chrysanthemum plant. They are contact poisons, and penetrate the nervous system of insects. "Inhaling high levels of pyrethrum may bring about asthmatic breathing, sneezing, nasal stuffiness, headache, nausea, incoordination, tremors, convulsions, facial flushing and swelling, and burning and itching sensations...The lowest lethal oral dose of pyrethrum is 750 mg/kg for children and 1,000 mg/kg for adults" (http://pmep.cce.corn...thrins-ext.html)
About 63 grams for a lethal dose for someone of my size (63kg). Pesticides are effective at very low concentrations for exactly this reason
Pyrethroid is low in toxicity to mammals and birds, highly toxic to fish, and requires very low does to be effective against insects (specifically potent against arthropods). The problem again is that a very high dose (such high does are always used in studies) is hard to achieve.
Piperonyl butoxide: http://npic.orst.edu...eets/pbogen.pdf

Imo you are likely not being exposed to enough of these compounds to cause harm. Copper is antibacterial, but I will bet money that you can OD on copper


Idk, the study for piperonyl butoxide just studied pregnant women who had been exposed to it in their day to day lives and some had been exposed to enough to hinder mental development so that's something. That plus the health of effects of pyrethroids on top of it is enough to at least worry about. I'm not saying that it'll have super-ultra horrible health effects, just that it may not be the best thing to be coating your carpet with, especially around children when considering their mental health development and that lipid peroxidation and free radical formation might be something to consider from an anti-aging point of view.

My original post where I referenced high cancer rates seems, to have only to have applied to organophophates and organochlorine insecticides, as niner pointed out, but there does seem to be enough concern over piperonyl butoxide for the EPA to list it as a possible carcinogen so it may not double chances of developing cancer but, with the fact that some are more at risk than others for cancer development in mind, it's still something to consider when deciding to use these chemicals in your home.

#17 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 12 January 2016 - 09:12 AM

Okay, we don't eat that amount of ddt. I agree with that. And yes, we're not rats but you're original argument for ddt's safety focused on a mechanism of action that would only effect insects. All those papers demonstrate that the danger doesn't just apply to insects but mammals as well.

 

Huh? No, they didn't, as I showed, at least for the paper I analyzed. If the other papers are of similar quality, they don't prove anything. When a randomly chosen paper from your list is so far from proving your point, don't expect people to waste their time with the others.

 

Also, I already posted it in another thread, but will post it here too: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2217210 This is another proof of how big a BS your claims are.
 


Edited by Antonio2014, 12 January 2016 - 10:01 AM.

  • Unfriendly x 1

#18 Viridarius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Louisville, KY, U.S.A
  • NO

Posted 12 January 2016 - 07:04 PM

Okay, we don't eat that amount of ddt. I agree with that. And yes, we're not rats but you're original argument for ddt's safety focused on a mechanism of action that would only effect insects. All those papers demonstrate that the danger doesn't just apply to insects but mammals as well.


Huh? No, they didn't, as I showed, at least for the paper I analyzed. If the other papers are of similar quality, they don't prove anything. When a randomly chosen paper from your list is so far from proving your point, don't expect people to waste their time with the others.

Also, I already posted it in another thread, but will post it here too: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2217210 This is another proof of how big a BS your claims are.

The paper you picked showed that it could increase the growth rate of a mammary tumor if one already was already forming and lead to a worse prognosis which I would argue is still pretty relevant especially since we'e not rats in a lab enviroment, even if something is show to only make a deadly disease worse and not cause it, it's still not something that should be released in our environment considering that it could increase morbidity of those who develope it. Making a already deadly conditIon more deadly counts as danger, one the paper you read demonstrated. The other papers deal with DDT by itself and show a clear link between DDT and mammary cancer and chromosomal damage.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#19 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 12 January 2016 - 08:48 PM

The paper you picked showed that it could increase the growth rate of a mammary tumor if one already was already forming and lead to a worse prognosis

No, it didn't. It has big methodological problems that I pointed out.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: pesticides, chemicals in the home, cancer, mental health

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users