Ddt In Nj - Poli228

Andrew Leahey POLI 228 Research Paper Assignment

Environmental Effects of Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) in New Jersey DDT, or dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, is a powerful pesticide invented in 1874 by an Austrian student. Its insecticidal properties however were not realized until 1939 when Dr. Paul Muller, a Swiss-born scientist, discovered its effectiveness against the common house fly as well as a variety of other insects considered pests. He was granted a Swiss patent for its synthesis in 1940, and products containing the new insecticide were made commercially available by 1942 (Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine, 1942-1962:1964). Muller’s discovery was touted as a giant leap forward for controlling vector-borne diseases, and he would win a Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery. Unfortunately, exhaustive testing of the new chemical fell victim to its efficacy against malaria-carrying mosquitoes and typhus; World War II had broken out, and a mass producible alternative to the insecticide pyrethrum was needed to combat the rampant malaria mosquitoes in the Pacific Theater. It proved more than up to the task, being called the “atomic bomb” of pesticides, and entirely eradicatedmalaria from several Pacific islands (DDT: An Introduction). Due in part to its success during World War II, and the manufacturing infrastructure its necessity in the war helped put in place, DDT found a welcoming commercial market in the years following. The list of pest insects it was effective in controlling grew, and included cropdamaging potato beetles, moths, and tobacco worms (DDT: An Introduction). As such, its applications in the US was no longer limited to eradicating malaria, itself still a real threat of the time, but decreasing agricultural losses as well. Though concerns were raised beginning in the 1940s, it was not until the 1960s that any truly meaningful investigation or questioning in to the environmental impact of widespread DDT usage was conducted.

The first popular introduction to the potential dangers of widespread DDT use was “Silent Spring”, a 1962 book by nature historian Rachel Carson. Some of Carson’s science was flawed, and she was called an alarmist by some, but nonetheless her book’s impact was profound. It has been credited with launching the modern environmental movement, setting a precedent for the modern environmentalist writer, and shedding light on possible outcomes of widespread chemical pesticide use. In “Silent Spring” Carson targeted DDT, citing massive environmental damage due to increasing levels of the chemical in the environment. These damages included the accumulation of the chemical in bodies of water, its effect on fish species, and the thinning of the shells of some birds of prey. She further accused the chemical industry of being aware of these potential risks, and orchestrating a cover up. Though certainly not without her critics, her rhetoric drew attention to DDT and increased public pressure for more studies in to the impact it might be having environmentally (Lieberman 1998:9). In the early 1950s, malaria had been all but eliminated in the United States and with this no longer an imminent threat to Americans, DDT was less likely to survive this public backlash. Indeed by 1972, the EPA had banned the agricultural use of DDT in the United States, with some provisions for disease-control measures (DDT: An Introduction). Unfortunately the damage had been done. Due to bioaccumulation, that is an ecosystem’s absorption of a chemical at a rate greater than the speed at which it can be expunged, DDT was not going anywhere any time soon. In areas heavily treated with the chemical, the effects were significant and tangible. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, in states with large mosquito populations, DDT was used liberally in both urban and rural areas. Trucks spraying the chemical could be seen driving down populated streets, releasing a cloud of DDT at dusk. One such heavily treated state was New Jersey. Three species of native birds in particular were negatively affected by this liberal application. The most well-known of the three is perhaps,

the osprey. The osprey, or sea hawk, is a bird-of-prey that relies almost entirely on fish as its main source of food (All about Birds: Osprey). The widespread usage of DDT in New Jersey, for agricultural purposes as well as mosquito elimination, had leeched the chemical through the aquifers and in to bodies of water. The fish, living in these waters, would then be exposed to the chemical as well. In turn, when the osprey fed on the fish, the DDT interrupted their metabolism and inhibited their ability to produce calcium. The result was a thinning of their egg shells, and other reproduction issues. A thinned egg shell, by even a few millimeters, can have a monstrously detrimental effect on egg mortality. Prior to the DDT usage in New Jersey, more than 500 osprey nesting sites dotted the New Jersey landscape. By 1974, that number had dwindled to less than 50 (Wurst 2009). Here it can be seen that, while the chemical had been banned in the area for 2 seasons, due to bioaccumulation, it was still negatively impacting the environment. DDT is something like a perfect poison, its toxic nature lies in its chemical makeup. It has a low solubility in water, and a high solubility in fats. This means, in essence, that the only way it will leave the environment is through the metabolism of an organism. It won’t dissolve in water, but it will dissolve in the fatty tissue of any organism exposed to it (DDT: An Introduction). Therefore it can lie dormant in the environment, until rains wash it in to the water table, and it can be absorbed by fish or other aquatic life. Additionally, because of its persistence in organisms, exposure of DDT to the environment can lead to what is known as biomagnification. Biomagnification is the tendency for the organisms at the top of the food chain to have a larger accumulation of a chemical than those at the bottom. The idea is relatively simple; an example would be, the osprey that has been exposed to DDT both environmentally, from the water, and through the ingestion of fish with high DDT levels, has a larger amount of DDT in its body than the fish itself. It has a longer

lifespan, allowing for more accumulation, and being higher on the food chain it also has more points of exposure (Mader 1996). Biomagnification also came in to play in New Jersey, when DDT nearly drove the peregrine falcon to extinction. The peregrine is perhaps a better indicator of the causal link between DDT and bird population decreases due to its adaptability and wide range. Its natural nesting sites are the ledges of cliffs, where its eggs are safe from predators. Analogous sites for their nests are high-rise window ledges in urban areas. DDT was used primarily in rural areas, both for mosquito control and agricultural applications. Urban peregrine falcon populations did not see a significant amount of DDT exposure, and consequently did not see the same population decrease the rural population suffered. A reduction of nearly 23% in the thickness of peregrine eggs was found in the time following the introduction of DDT to the environment. By the 1960s, there were no known nesting sites of peregrines left in rural New Jersey, and the species extirpation was feared (Peregrine Falcon). As early as 1982, just 10 years after the DDT ban, a press release from the Fish and Wildlife Service touted an increase in some affected bird population numbers (Davis 1982). For both the osprey and the peregrine falcon, a marked increase in the population was seen in the years following the 1972 ban. However, due to the aforementioned ability DDT has to remain in the environment, the efforts to repair the damage caused could not be limited to the ban. For both species, man made nesting sites had to be constructed to increase the life chances of the fledglings, in an effort to counteract the detrimental effects of residual DDT on egg hatching rates. Additionally, reintroduction efforts had to be launched for the peregrine falcon, as its population had been decreased below the point of sustainability in many parts of its habitat. Finally, one species that took much longer to shake off the effects of DDT was the bald eagle. By the late 1960s, the once-thriving population in New Jersey had been reduced to a single

breeding pair (Davis 1982). This was likely due to their near complete dietary reliance on fish that tended towards increased absorption of DDT. In 2007, just 35 years following the ban of DDT, there were an estimated 64 active nesting sites in the state. This was following a steady increase in sightings over those 35 years by 6% yearly (Walsh 2008). Though certainly not recovering as quickly as other affected bird species, there can be no question that the evidence seems to indicate, if not a causal link, a strong correlative link, between the DDT ban and the increase in population numbers in this third species. In June of 1972, following pressures from environmentalists, and several states including New Jersey having already banned the substance, the EPA passed legislation to phase out DDT by the end of that year. The EPA Administrator, William D. Ruckelhaus, expressed the opinion that “laboratory evidence is … especially abundant to show the acute and chronic effects of DDT on avian animal species and suggests that DDT impairs their reproductive capabilities” (Ruckelhaus 1968). Despite the legislation allowing for public officials to use DDT to control disease-carrying vectors such as mosquitoes and mice the opinion of the EPA being voiced in this document, that DDT was a dangerous carcinogen and negatively impacted the environment, all but guaranteed even this use would be eliminated. Public opinion on the chemical, if it was not already, was now decidedly negative. In the years following 1972, the level of DDT in tested New Jersey aquifers has, for the most part, steadily reduced. Unfortunately one site where this is not the case is the Passaic River. This site illustrates one of the failings of the EPA’s ruling on DDT. While DDT was banned for usage in the United States, its production was not banned under the ruling. Therefore, certain sites within New Jersey continued to produce the chemical for export and usage overseas. The Kolker Chemical Works site in Newark produced nearly 100 million pounds of the chemical through the mid-1980s (Rosman2004). During that time, the plant discharged the chemical under

normal operations directly in to the Passaic River. The failing of the EPA ban was laid bare. The wording of the legislation clearly indicated DDT could not be applied to crops, or used for insecticidal purposes. However, it made no mention of guidelines for curtailing chemical plants leeching it in to the surrounding environment. To this day, the Passaic River continues to be a point of high concentration for DDT, specifically an area known as the Diamond Alkali Site where concentration levels reach 22 milligrams per liter (Rosman 2004), well above the EPA safe level. Concentrations in populations of mummichogs, a small species of fish, were an order of magnitude higher than what was found at other control sites. The unfortunate truth is DDT has not claimed its last environmental casualty in New Jersey yet. It will be some time before the environment is capable of cleansing itself of the liberal applications of DDT it has endured over the past 60 years. There is some cause for cautious optimism for the region, as the chemicals usage has been banned, and the last production facility within state lines has been closed for nearly 25 years. The affected species population numbers have all improved, and across the board DDT levels have decreased in the state. As of 1989, all legal uses of DDT in the United States have been revoked, and there have been no DDT production facilities within US borders. While it may take some time for the environment to recover from its exposure, certainly eliminating its exposure to the environment has been a boon to many species that it had previously impacted or endangered. The response by the government, specifically the EPA, has greatly improved the situation. DDT is a dangerous chemical that’s effects can be seen for decades following its application. The 1972 ban has triggered a return to stable populations for at least three avian species that were, at the time of the ruling, thought to be on the path to extinction. As of 2009, all three are listed as of “least

concern” by the Endangered Species Act, surely a testament to the elimination of DDT from their environment.

Bibliography “All about Birds: Osprey.” Cornell Lab of Ornitology. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/‌ AllAboutBirds/‌BirdGuide/‌Osprey.html (accessed April 10, 2009). Davis, Joy. “Ten Years Later: Bird Populations Rise as DDT Declines in the Environment.” Department of the Interior News Release, March 8, 1982. http://www.fws.gov/‌ contaminants/‌pdf/‌historic/‌19820308a.pdf (accessed April 10, 2009). “DDT: An Introduction.” Duke University Chemistry Department. http://www.chem.duke.edu/‌ ~jds/‌cruise_chem/‌pest/‌pest1.html (accessed April 10, 2009). Lieberman, A J. “A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times.” Fact versus Fears 3 (June 1998): 9. http://www.solvaymartorell.com/‌static/‌wma/‌pdf/‌4/‌7/‌4/‌3/‌ facts.pdf (accessed April 10, 2009). Mader, Sylvia. Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification. http://www.marietta.edu/‌~biol/‌102/‌ 2bioma95.html (accessed April 10, 2009). Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine, 1942-1962. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1964. http://nobelprize.org/‌nobel_prizes/‌medicine/‌laureates/‌1948/‌muller-bio.html (accessed April 10, 2009).

“Peregrine Falcon.” In New Jersey DEP Threatened Species. Trenton: NJDEP. www.nj.gov/‌dep/‌ fgw/‌ensp/‌pdf/‌end-thrtened/‌peregrine.pdf (accessed April 10, 2009). Rosman, Lisa, Benjamin Shorr, Joseph Steinbacher, and Tim Brosnan. “Assessing DDT Risk in a New Jersey Urban Industrialized Waterway.” Coastal Protection and Restoration Division (June 2004). www.darrp.noaa.gov/‌northeast/‌passaic/‌pdf/‌ddtrisk_060204.pdf (accessed April 10, 2009). Ruckelhaus, William D. “Consolidated DDT Hearings.” Paper presented at the Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1972. http://www.epa.gov/‌history/‌topics/‌ddt/‌DDTRuckelshaus.pdf (accessed April 10, 2009). Walsh, Deborah. “Bald Eagle Pair Seen over Fayson Lakes.” Suburban Trends (Kinnelon), March 5, 2008. http://www.suburbantrends.com/‌NC/‌0/‌294.html (accessed April 10, 2009). Wurst, Ben. “Helping Ospreys Soar.” Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/‌explorations/‌spring09/‌wurst.html (accessed April 10, 2009).