Sciencey people, what about DDT wool?

[Nao]

I received an old wool blanket (in good condition) from my grandmother today but somebody told me it's usual for old wool to have been treated with DDT to protect from moth. I've tried to look it up but most information is contradictory, some say it's very dangerous, some says it's not particularly dangerous, it cancerogenus, it's not cancerogenus, it's only dangerous under certain condition or if you are a white male and so on.

According to my grand mother she received the blanket 1970 or 1975 (my country banned DDT in 1970)from her uncle and aunt. They had sheep and usually send away the wool to somebody who would process and make blankets or whatever one wanted with the wool. But we don't know the likeliness of any % of the wool being from other people's wool or imported or old stock from before the ban of DDT. There isn't any labels or anything on the blankeT, it doesn't smell anything except maybe slightly old and closed in. It also doesn't taste anything special.

Is there anybody knowledgable here who can explain how it actually is? How dangerous is DDT? Is it still dangerous after over 40 years in a blanket or skein of yarn? What do you think the likeliness of my blanket containing DDT is? Would it help butting it in a airtight container with activated chaircoal help?

I was planning on sleeping with the blanket between me and the duvet since I'm having a hard time keeping warm when I sleep, so it will be a lot of close skin contact. It would also be really nice to keep the blanket and use it safely especially since it's a bit of a family heirloom.

 

[NsMar42111]

Wait, you tasted it?!?! AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

How many times has it been washed? I remember reading somewhere that the army would treat uniforms, but it only lasted 30 washings....

 

[DeeAnna]

"... Studies have shown that DDT has a half-life in the soil of between 2 and 15 years, depending upon moisture and temperature conditions. This means that if one pound of DDT were applied to the soil in 1972, between a negligible amount and 23% of the original amount would be left in 2003. A study showed that six years after DDT was banned there was a 90% reduction in the DDT content of fish in Lake Michigan..."

If DDT behaves the same on wool as it does in soil or in fish, I don't think there's a lot to worry about. But it's hard to know for absolute sure without actually testing the blanket to see if there are any residues or even to know if DDT was ever used on the blanket. In those days, my frugal grandmother would have stored the blanket in a cloth bag or sack for protection from moth. I guess I wouldn't be bothered too much by this, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Source: www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2003/sp0316.pdf

 

[SaltedFig]

DDT remediation is possible with soil (the residues are taken up by plants, in varying degrees). It also bio-accumulates (travels up the food chain, as mercury does in seafood). Land where DDT has been sprayed (it's used has been banned in Australia for a similar amount of time) continues to have measurable DDT (and DDE) content, and this causes it to be unable to be registered for organic food production.

But that's soil.

DDT has a half-life (the amount of time it takes for half of it to break down) counted in years (5-15 is often quoted, but up to 20 years has been noted). The product that DDT breaks down into (DDE) is more toxic and has a similar half-life.

The bits I didn't know:
The process of binding DDT to wool was similar to the way dyes were applied (the army applications appear to be more of a post-manufacture dip), as far as I can tell, but this is an area that I am totally unfamilar with. DDT does cross the skin barrier to a certain extent (again, I don't know the volume).

The unknowns are whether it was even used on the blanket, how much was used, how it was applied, how often the blanket was washed ... etc.

I agree that without testing (which is relatively easy, but obviously costs) you have no way of knowing the answer to whether the blanket contains DDT/DDE.

My gut instinct is to tell you to stop eating the blanket

This reference has a bit of full-on detail (with nothing about blankets): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737010/

 

[Ivanstein]

When I was young, my father was an aerial sprayer (cropduster). We had all kinds of stuff around all the time. Some nasty, some not.

So... here's the straight up on DDT, without all tue California mandated cancer warnings or the Silent Spring propaganda.

DDT is a synthetic copy of the chemical signal insects get to molt their exoskeleton. It caused the insect to molt prematurely and die of dehydration (Very simplified, but you get the picture). What this means to you and I is that it won't do anything to us, because we aren't insects. When Silent Spring became popular and governments started banning DDT, they sentenced millions of people to die from malaria because it was a cheap, effective insecticide with very few, if any, effect on humans.

For what it's worth, the most dangerous part of DDT was the emulsifiers and solvents used to keep it in liquid form.

Also, FWIW, the chemical big brother to DDT, DTT, was used as a cancer treatment and had some limited success as such when injected in tumors. Sο, they actually injected this chemical group in cancer tumors and did not see an increase in cancer.

This was all written in a periodical that my dad subscribed to and I highly doubt has passed the group consensus of DDT hatred and misinformation to be placed on the internet. I wish I still had that copy though.

Before you start burning the barn down on top of me, remember that we just found out about the government cover up funded by the sugar producing conglomerate which diverted attention away from sugar and called fat the bane of health.

Ask me about Freon sometime!

 

[BrewerGeorge]

When I was young, my father was an aerial sprayer (cropduster). We had all kinds of stuff around all the time. Some nasty, some not.

So... here's the straight up on DDT, without all tue California mandated cancer warnings or the Silent Spring propaganda.

DDT is a synthetic copy of the chemical signal insects get to molt their exoskeleton. It caused the insect to molt prematurely and die of dehydration (Very simplified, but you get the picture). What this means to you and I is that it won't do anything to us, because we aren't insects. When Silent Spring became popular and governments started banning DDT, they sentenced millions of people to die from malaria because it was a cheap, effective insecticide with very few, if any, effect on humans.

For what it's worth, the most dangerous part of DDT was the emulsifiers and solvents used to keep it in liquid form.

...

I agree with this, wholly - especially the bolded parts. IIRC, the primary reason it was banned was because the bio accumulation in insect-eating birds caused egg shells to weaken to the point that bird populations were threatened. It wasn't banned because of its danger to mammals.

 

[Ivanstein]

I agree with this, wholly - especially the bolded parts. IIRC, the primary reason it was banned was because the bio accumulation in insect-eating birds caused egg shells to weaken to the point that bird populations were threatened. It wasn't banned because of its danger to mammals.

That was indeed the line of thought.

However, much DDT was put down in the Midwest, far away from costal fish eating raptors, and no weak shells occurred in chickens who would eat flies and such that had DDT in them. Most farmers feed chickens bone meal to strengthen the shells.

Fish don't have a lot of calcium...