DDT a problem of 30-50 years ago?

[Jeffrey A. Caldwell]

My understanding DDT itself  is indeed, for a pesticide, pretty harmless to man
and warm-blooded animals, one of the most harmless of all.  I think that in
specialized applications to protect human life its use could be a relatively
good thing, especially in tropical countries.  However huge amounts of it into
the environment did aparently have noticeable effects on bird reproduction,
especially raptors, and I don't think it is a good idea for huge amounts of it
to be going into the environment.  I am not reassured by the amount of DDE that
I probably have in my own body fat.  Even if it is not actively toxic, I don't
suppose it is anything more than "junk" my body would just as soon not deal
with...

My understanding is that health and environmetal problems weren't being caused
by  DDT per se, but by the DDE, which, of course, was being generated from the
"harmless" DDT.  I got the strong impression that there were a lot of weasels
out there taking advantage of people's ignorance about that -- they could
truthfully speak about the harmlessness of  DDT, but, in my opinion, quite
insincerely in completely ignoring the inevitable DDE problems it was causing.

So, "junkscience" kings, show us the papers that prove that DDE doesn't come
from DDT, or that DDE is just as harmless as DDT!!

And if you want to "quote" or cite some source as questionable, ESPECIALLY  from
any "junkscience" pages, give us the page citations of the original source, so
that we can check the context for ourselves and determine that you are honestly
and sincerely representing what you are attacking!