Specialist Periodical Reports provide systematic and detailed review coverage of progress in the major areas of chemical research. Written by experts in their specialist fields the series creates a unique service for the active research chemist, supplying regular critical in-depth accounts of progress in particular areas of chemistry. For over 80 years the Royal Society of Chemistry and its predecessor, the Chemical Society, have been publishing reports charting developments in chemistry, which originally took the form of Annual Reports. However, by 1967 the whole spectrum of chemistry could no longer be contained within one volume and the series Specialist Periodical Reports was born. The Annual Reports themselves still existed but were divided into two, and subsequently three, volumes covering Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry. For more general coverage of the highlights in chemistry they remain a 'must'. Since that time the SPR series has altered according to the fluctuating degree of activity in various fields of chemistry. Some titles have remained unchanged, while others have altered their emphasis along with their titles; some have been combined under a new name whereas others have had to be discontinued. The current list of Specialist Periodical Reports can be seen on the inside flap of this volume.

Auszug. � Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Foreign Compound Metabolism in Mammals Volume 3

By D. E. Hathway

The Royal Society of Chemistry

Foreword By D. E. Hathway, 
General Introduction: Some Environmental and Toxicological Perspectives, 
Part I Uses and Abuse of DDT and Dieldrin By D. L. Gunn, 1, 
Part II Role of Metabolic Studies in Drug and Biocide Development By D. E. Hathway, 83, 
Part III Chronic Toxicity Testing and Metabolic Considerations By D. E. Hathway, 100, 
Compound Index, 688, 
Author Index, 699,

CHAPTER 1

Part I: Uses and Abuse of DDT and Dieldrin

BY D. L. GUNN

1 Introduction

Most people are aware, perhaps vaguely, of the existence of modern insecticides and have read in newspapers that DDT has been banned in various countries. Some people regard such compounds as the greatest boon of the age, but others think they art dangerous. Both views contain elements of truth. Only a few specialists know the facts, understand the choices to be made, and see that some choices that have already been made are not scientifically secure or wise.

Background. — There has been widespread organized objection in the U.S.A. to the use of DDT, which was selected as the main target by Rachel Carson, and since then there has been sustained propaganda in the Press. This propaganda has affected popular opinion and legislation and also, I consider, the conclusions reached by committees. I therefore quote examples of it from reputable newspapers : 'inherently dangerous, highly toxic, broad spectrum persistent chemical biocide DDT ...'; 'considered hazardous to birds and marine life ...'; 'Hickel bans 16 pesticides'; quoting C. Wurster, 'DDT has been shown to be a carcinogen ...'; quoting John Thomas of West Virginia 'Impotence down on the farm'; 'DDT found in milk of mothers'. Since DDT is in fact found in many foods, the mainsprings of emotive propaganda – birds, food, cancer, babies, and sex – have been tapped. 'We are dealing with people concerned purely with the profit motive' said Paul J. Burbach' and the campaign broke out into stickers on car bumpers inscribed 'Sue the Bastards'. Burbach continued 'As soon as we knock out DDT we will go after dieldrin and the rest of the persistent pesticides'.

This sort of propaganda has led to several enquiries in the U.S.A., some of them evidently influenced by untrue emotive propaganda rather than objective wisdom, and finally one ordered by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the U.S. Government, Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus, with Mr. Edmund M. Sweeney as Hearing Examiner. After a very full hearing of all sides of the matter lasting more than six months with 125 witnesses on 80 working days, Sweeney reported to the Administrator in April 1972. In June, Ruckelshaus ordered the general use of DDT in the U.S.A. to cease from the end of December 1972, and allowed only minor exceptions. In support of this order he made statements contrary to the findings of Sweeney's report, statements of an unscientific character, and statements at variance with the weight of evidence presented at the Hearing. The almost complete prohibition of the use of DDT in the U.S.A. was not based on the evidence nor on the balance of advantage to the people. Later, Ruckelshaus did almost the same thing by appointing a committee under R. D. O'Brien to report on aldrin and dieldrin and then ignoring the report. He was later appointed Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation but did not stay long in that office.

On 16th October 1973, Hearings on aldrin and dieldrin began in Washington, D.C., under Judge Herbert L. Perlman, after 'field hearings' in August, and were still proceeding in August 1974. It will be interesting to see how Ruckelshaus's successor, Russell Train (see ref. 217), reacts to Perlman's report, when it is delivered.

Since 1972, hundreds of thousands of acres of Douglas Fir in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have been completely defoliated by the tussock moth, formerly controlled by DDT. Some areas have suffered like this for the third year in succession, and are not expected to recover. Similar damage has been done in eastern U.S.A. by the gypsy moth, formerly controlled by DDT (see p. 17). Applications to permit the use of DDT in these cases have failed, and a bill to overcome the EPA ban was placed before Congress later in 1973. Eventually, the public outcry through an organized campaign, led by a vociferous minority, against the damage being done became so great that the EPA Administrator, Russell Train, gave way and allowed the use of DDT against tussock moth just for 1974. It has been stated that he did this lest he be over-ruled by Congress, and lest the EPA be deprived of some of its great powers.

In 1970, the use of cyclamates as sweeteners was prohibited in the U.S.A. on evidence which was regarded by specialists in Britain, and no doubt also in the U.S.A., as totally inadequate and unreliable; nevertheless, Britain followed the U.S.A. in prohibiting its use. It now seems that when the experiments have been repeated in several countries, not one of them has confirmed the results upon which the ban was based. Perhaps the prohibition will shortly be removed, and perhaps some revision of the rules about DDT will ensue.

The decision of Ruckelshaus to forbid most uses of DDT in the U.S.A. was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeal in December 1973. The three judges decided that they need not undertake the 'time-consuming and difficult task of weighing the evidence' upon which Ruckelshaus based his decision. The Court said that all that was required was 'substantial evidence', 'to support a conclusion', apparently irrespective of other information that might completely undermine the original evidence and therefore the conclusion. Thus the judgment quotes that 'substantial evidence is something less than the weight of evidence and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by the evidence'. Further, the Court stated that although other 'evidence might be sufficient to have allowed the Administrator to have decided the other way and permit DDT to continue', that possibility did not exclude substantial evidence to support the order to stop the use of DDT.

Amongst the items of 'substantial evidence' quoted on p. 12 of the Court Judgment are human hazards from 'carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of DDT'. No public authority on cancer considers that DDT has this hazard to man (see pp. 27, 63–66, 73) and, as far as I know, no trained scientist considers that it is mutagenic (see p. 67).

Surely this is the sort of judgment that brings the law into disrepute. A revulsion against the improper extrapolation of information and the weighing of fears more heavily than of needs may spread from the recent quick decision to permit the Alaska pipe-line to be laid after years of obstruction by people more concerned about conservation of wild animals than about human beings.

This subordination of scientific conclusions and of the public good to organized propaganda merits fuller discussion, for what happens in the U.S.A. is likely to affect other parts of the world. It is everybody's business, so a sound basis for forming opinions is required. The present contribution to that purpose is primarily addressed to chemists and biochemists who are familiar with toxicology; but to set the situation into the larger picture, other material has been...

��ber diesen Titel� kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.

Anbieterinformationen

Zur Homepage des Verk�ufers

Unternehmensdaten des Verk�ufers

Edward Bowditch Ltd
Exstowe, Exton, Exeter, EX3 0PP, United Kingdom

Gesch�ftsbedingungen und Versandinformationen

Verkaufsbedingungen

Legal entity name: Edward Bowditch Ltd
Legal entity form: Limited company
Business correspondence address: Exstowe, Exton, Exeter, EX3 0PP
Company registration number: 04916632
VAT registration: GB834241546
Authorised representative: Mr. E. Bowditch

Widerrufsrecht

Wenn Sie Verbraucher sind, k�nnen Sie gem�� den folgenden Bestimmungen vom Vertrag zur�cktreten. Verbraucher ist jede nat�rliche Person, die zu Zwecken handelt, die nicht ihrer kaufm�nnischen, gewerblichen, k�nstlerischen oder beruflichen T�tigkeit zugerechnet werden k�nnen.

Informationen zum Widerrufsrecht

Gesetzliches Widerrufsrecht

Sie haben das Recht, den Vertrag innerhalb von 14 Tagen ohne Angabe von Gr�nden zu widerrufen.

Die Widerrufsfrist betr�gt 14 Tage ab dem Tag, an dem Sie oder ein von Ihnen benannter Dritter, der nicht der Transporteur ist, die letzte Ware oder den letzten Posten oder das letzte Exemplar in Besitz genommen hat.

Um das Widerrufsrecht auszu�ben, f�llen Sie auf unserer Website unter „Meine Eink�ufe" in „Mein Nutzerkonto" eine eindeutige Erkl�rung elektronisch aus und senden Sie sie ab. Wir werden Ihnen unverz�glich eine Best�tigung �ber den Eingang eines solchen Widerrufs auf einem dauerhaften Datentr�ger (z. B. per E-Mail) �bermitteln.

Um die Widerrufsfrist einzuhalten, reicht es aus, dass Sie Ihre Mitteilung �ber die Aus�bung des Widerrufsrechts vor Ablauf der Widerrufsfrist absenden.

Auswirkungen des Widerrufs

Wenn Sie diesen Vertrag widerrufen, erstatten wir Ihnen alle Zahlungen, die wir von Ihnen erhalten haben, einschlie�lich der Lieferkosten (mit Ausnahme der zus�tzlichen Kosten, die entstehen, wenn Sie eine andere Art der Lieferung als die von uns angebotene g�nstigste Standardlieferung gew�hlt haben).

Wir k�nnen einen Abzug von der R�ckerstattung f�r den Wertverlust der gelieferten Waren vornehmen, wenn der Verlust auf eine unn�tige Behandlung durch Sie zur�ckzuf�hren ist.

Wir werden die R�ckerstattung unverz�glich und nicht sp�ter als 14 Tage nach dem Tag vornehmen, an dem wir �ber Ihre Entscheidung, diesen Vertrag zu widerrufen, informiert wurden.

F�r die R�ckerstattung verwenden wir dasselbe Zahlungsmittel, das Sie f�r die urspr�ngliche Transaktion verwendet haben, es sei denn, Sie haben ausdr�cklich etwas anderes vereinbart; in keinem Fall werden Ihnen aufgrund einer solchen R�ckerstattung Geb�hren berechnet.

Wir k�nnen die R�ckzahlung verweigern, bis wir die Waren wieder zur�ckerhalten haben oder Sie den Nachweis erbracht haben, dass Sie die Waren zur�ckgesandt haben, je nachdem, was eher eintritt.

Sie m�ssen die Waren unverz�glich und in jedem Fall sp�testens 14 Tage ab dem Tag, an dem Sie uns �ber den Widerruf dieses Vertrags unterrichten, an Revaluation Books, Hounslow, United Kingdom, zur�cksenden oder �bergeben. Die Frist ist eingehalten, wenn Sie die Ware vor Ablauf der Frist von 14 Tagen zur�cksenden. Sie m�ssen die direkten Kosten der R�cksendung der Waren tragen. Sie haften nur f�r einen etwaigen Wertverlust der Waren, der auf eine Behandlung zur�ckzuf�hren ist, die nicht zur Pr�fung der Art, Eigenschaften und Funktionsweise der Waren erforderlich ist.

Ausnahmen vom Widerrufsrecht

Das Widerrufsrecht gilt nicht f�r:

Die Lieferung von Zeitungen, Zeitschriften oder Magazinen mit Ausnahme von Abonnementvertr�gen; und
Die Lieferung digitaler Inhalte, die nicht auf einem physischen Medium (z. B. auf einer CD oder DVD) geliefert werden, wenn Sie bei Ihrer Bestellung akzeptiert haben, dass wir mit der Lieferung beginnen k�nnen und dass Sie nach Beginn der Lieferung den Vertrag nicht mehr widerrufen k�nnen.

Versandbedingungen

Orders usually dispatched within two working days.

Versandkosten von Vereinigtes K�nigreich nach USA

Versandkosten von Vereinigtes K�nigreich nach USA
Bestellmenge	7 bis 14�Werktage	2 bis 3�Werktage
Erster Artikel	EUR 17.52	EUR 29.19

Die Versandzeiten werden von den Verk�uferinnen und Verk�ufern festgelegt. Sie variieren je nach Versanddienstleister und Standort. Sendungen, die den Zoll passieren, k�nnen Verz�gerungen unterliegen. Eventuell anfallende Abgaben oder Geb�hren sind von der K�uferin bzw. dem K�ufer zu tragen. Die Verk�uferin bzw. der Verk�ufer kann Sie bez�glich zus�tzlicher Versandkosten kontaktieren, um einen m�glichen Anstieg der Versandkosten f�r Ihre Artikel auszugleichen.