Summary: 1978 study shows no evidence of carcinogenicity in technical-grade DDT, TDE, and DDE in diet of mice and rats [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications]; 1991 study shows oral administration of breakdown products DDE and TDE show definite carcinogenicity in hamsters, some groups (by gender and species) of mice and rats (something that was also shown in part in the 1978 study).
As such, despite insufficient evidence in humans (primarily due to heavy confounding of epidemiological data by other pesticides) it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".
Worth noting: that UNL link is a cached version of an page *from another site* from a course outline for Chemistry teachers, so NOT a UNL page. http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869EInfoFiles/pubCHEM869E-Info080.html The linked-to site ( http://www.altgreen.com.au/ ) is down, but the google cache reveals this: "This site is primarily an information exchange and contains reviews of environmental issues. It presents the alternative green view and does not endorse . .."
Slashdot Mirror
I believe his main intent was to counter the *inflation* of the source by making it appear to be endorsed by UNL, as he said.
Also, he did provide an alternative and disagreeing source of information - the Wikipedia article.
You could also read a 2005 NIH report (PDF): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov:8080/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s064ddt.pdf&qt=DDE&col=030roc&n=1&la=en
Summary: 1978 study shows no evidence of carcinogenicity in technical-grade DDT, TDE, and DDE in diet of mice and rats [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications]; 1991 study shows oral administration of breakdown products DDE and TDE show definite carcinogenicity in hamsters, some groups (by gender and species) of mice and rats (something that was also shown in part in the 1978 study).
As such, despite insufficient evidence in humans (primarily due to heavy confounding of epidemiological data by other pesticides) it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".
oops. I was fooled by a date listed in the search I did on the National Toxicology Program's site - that is not a more recent study.
Instead, a 2005 publication (PDF): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov:8080/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s064ddt.pdf&qt=DDE&col=030roc&n=1&la=en Same conclusion.
Worth noting: that UNL link is a cached version of an page *from another site* from a course outline for Chemistry teachers, so NOT a UNL page. ."
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869EInfoFiles/pubCHEM869E-Info080.html
The linked-to site ( http://www.altgreen.com.au/ ) is down, but the google cache reveals this:
"This site is primarily an information exchange and contains reviews of environmental issues. It presents the alternative green view and does not endorse . .
Also linked from the UNL course is an NIH page describing DDT toxicity.
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/8_RoC/RAC/DDT.html
or you can read a more recent study:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=0704C8A4-F52A-BE78-5C81C16C5C1F14C9
Summary: in some groups (rodents separated by strain and gender), no evidence of carcinogenicity for some/all of DDT, TDE, and p.p.-DDE [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications] . . . but all showed definite carcinogenicity in at least some groups. As such, it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".