Self destructing discs are back at Amazon.

[Skoorb]

They do seem like they could work. Blockbuster's pathetic selection is only good for mainstream movies. Now, a small isle in a grocery won't be able to have even the sorry selection of blockbuster, but it can definitely have the movies that BB uses as 90% of its income: new and pretty new releases.

Recyling is not even an issue. Drive down any street on garbage day and you see how much crap even a small household goes through. What's a few extra disks a week? Nothing, comparitively. The waste/recyling ability of this product will have no meaningful impact on whether it's a success.

As stated before...It's already been tried. (DIVX) Customers didnt fall for it. It failed and quitely went away. So will this.

No, it's nothing like DIVX. DIVX was a proprietary format and had a very annoying process. Circuit city & Co were trying to use it to shoehorn a section of the market for themselves. Movie rentals _work_. That's obvious. All that flexplay would be is movie rentals that you don't have to return. Hell, even rental stores could start carrying them. Oh, it can definitely work. The question is whether the content is going to be there. It's definitely not going to run on some pathetic movie like Noel that nobody would have heard about if not for flexplay.

[EvilWizardGlick]

They do seem like they could work. Blockbuster's pathetic selection is only good for mainstream movies. Now, a small isle in a grocery won't be able to have even the sorry selection of blockbuster, but it can definitely have the movies that BB uses as 90% of its income: new and pretty new releases.

Recyling is not even an issue. Drive down any street on garbage day and you see how much crap even a small household goes through. What's a few extra disks a week? Nothing, comparitively. The waste/recyling ability of this product will have no meaningful impact on whether it's a success.

As stated before...It's already been tried. (DIVX) Customers didnt fall for it. It failed and quitely went away. So will this.

No, it's nothing like DIVX. DIVX was a proprietary format and had a very annoying process. Circuit city & Co were trying to use it to shoehorn a section of the market for themselves. Movie rentals _work_. That's obvious. All that flexplay would be is movie rentals that you don't have to return. Hell, even rental stores could start carrying them. Oh, it can definitely work. The question is whether the content is going to be there. It's definitely not going to run on some pathetic movie like Noel that nobody would have heard about if not for flexplay.

The reason it will fail is people like to keep their movies. What happens at hour 49 when the kids want to rewatch the Disney flick again and they can not? Or pops wants to check out the boob shot at hour fifty and he can't. Or mom wants to cry along with the chick flick at hour 60 and she can't.
Will they then buy another copy? Or in this time of low incomes, sliding dollar, and economic despair, realize that "gee I should have bought the movie as a keeper, WTF was I thinking".
Where this does stand to make a profit is hotel porn. No links to movies rented over the box, no hiding the mags under the mattress ( you would be amazed at how many people do that). Guilt free porn with no trace back to the viewer.
Sure for the novelty of watching a movie at home on debut day there may be some sales. But they could make more of a profit releasing films as pay per view debuts ( include the pre-show interviews and what nots).
What this really is is an attempt to make ALL media watch once and buy again. The media monopolies realize there is absolutely no way to curb file sharing. They refuse to create a new economic model of distribution ( Look at Half Life 2 and how the game opened the same time worldwide, or the few bands that release their music directly to p2p and still make a profit).
This is just more INDUCE act backdoor greedy folderol.

[Skoorb]

They do seem like they could work. Blockbuster's pathetic selection is only good for mainstream movies. Now, a small isle in a grocery won't be able to have even the sorry selection of blockbuster, but it can definitely have the movies that BB uses as 90% of its income: new and pretty new releases.

Recyling is not even an issue. Drive down any street on garbage day and you see how much crap even a small household goes through. What's a few extra disks a week? Nothing, comparitively. The waste/recyling ability of this product will have no meaningful impact on whether it's a success.

As stated before...It's already been tried. (DIVX) Customers didnt fall for it. It failed and quitely went away. So will this.

No, it's nothing like DIVX. DIVX was a proprietary format and had a very annoying process. Circuit city & Co were trying to use it to shoehorn a section of the market for themselves. Movie rentals _work_. That's obvious. All that flexplay would be is movie rentals that you don't have to return. Hell, even rental stores could start carrying them. Oh, it can definitely work. The question is whether the content is going to be there. It's definitely not going to run on some pathetic movie like Noel that nobody would have heard about if not for flexplay.

The reason it will fail is people like to keep their movies. What happens at hour 49 when the kids want to rewatch the Disney flick again and they can not? Or pops wants to check out the boob shot at hour fifty and he can't. Or mom wants to cry along with the chick flick at hour 60 and she can't.
Will they then buy another copy? Or in this time of low incomes, sliding dollar, and economic despair, realize that "gee I should have bought the movie as a keeper, WTF was I thinking".
Where this does stand to make a profit is hotel porn. No links to movies rented over the box, no hiding the mags under the mattress ( you would be amazed at how many people do that). Guilt free porn with no trace back to the viewer.
Sure for the novelty of watching a movie at home on debut day there may be some sales. But they could make more of a profit releasing films as pay per view debuts ( include the pre-show interviews and what nots).
What this really is is an attempt to make ALL media watch once and buy again. The media monopolies realize there is absolutely no way to curb file sharing. They refuse to create a new economic model of distribution ( Look at Half Life 2 and how the game opened the same time worldwide, or the few bands that release their music directly to p2p and still make a profit).
This is just more INDUCE act backdoor greedy folderol.

But your concerns about this are the exact same concerns somebody will have if they rent a movie. If you've returned your rental (and flexplay should cost about the same), then you can't watch an extra scene later either. Kicking oneself for not buynig it in the first place may happen with a rental as well, but the majority of people want to watch the majority of movies only once, so most at-home movie viewings are done by those who are renting movies. Flexplay may just be a more efficient way to do it.

48 hours may be a problem though, but I bet they could increase it by a couple of days if they wanted.

[ZAPPER]

Skoorb and Evilwiz
Yea I kind of put in comparison with the rental deal. I don't know what they cost per disk and to me, waiting on the mail for an impulse buy ain't going to happen.

For this to work good, they will have to be available everywhere (gas stations, beer stores, food stores, everywhere). The selection will have to be good and as I stated before lasting a week would be better. But most of all they will have to be cheap. I would say under ten bucks and even then way under ten bucks would be better. Sell the new releases for about 90 days as self destruct and then issue the real DVD to the public for about ten bucks and pirateing would almost go away and they could cut out the rental shops all together.

I think that I opened up the eco-freindly part of this thread and not that I am a treehugger, but it is sad that we do the things that we do to this Earth and ultimatley ourselves. It is like smoking, we know better, but do it anyways, and in the end it will kill us as a species. Oh well extinction is the natural order of life anyways.

[Skoorb]

I think that I opened up the eco-freindly part of this thread and not that I am a treehugger, but it is sad that we do the things that we do to this Earth and ultimatley ourselves. It is like smoking, we know better, but do it anyways, and in the end it will kill us as a species. Oh well extinction is the natural order of life anyways.

I agree, but most people just don't care about it enough for it to have an affect on its success

I saw four overpriced, crappy DVDs for sale at a gas station yesterday and I think that if a gas station had even a single cardboard display with maybe 20 GOOD flexplay DVDs, they would indeed sell really well. People go into these places all the time. What's another $4 on top of a $35 tank of gas? I think it could really do well.

[EvilWizardGlick]

But your concerns about this are the exact same concerns somebody will have if they rent a movie. If you've returned your rental (and flexplay should cost about the same), then you can't watch an extra scene later either. Kicking oneself for not buynig it in the first place may happen with a rental as well, but the majority of people want to watch the majority of movies only once, so most at-home movie viewings are done by those who are renting movies. Flexplay may just be a more efficient way to do it.
48 hours may be a problem though, but I bet they could increase it by a couple of days if they wanted.

No because their is a different Psychology to buy than there is to rent. Most will assume that they "bought" the movie that they "own" it.
If they rent there are various incentives for return customers to adopt.Punch cards that offer a freebie with the x rental. Rental stores also carry games, which the multiple renter can also apply their incentive to. Also if you rent and wish to keep the movie a bit longer you can pay the late fee. With this you can not you have to "buy" a whole other copy.
The majority like having something substantial that they own as a surrogate, rent. Really that is what rental is, whether it is an apartment or a dvd, surrogate ownership.
How many people went in for the Paper Clothing fad ( well it was limited)?
Same thing.

[DereX888]

But your concerns about this are the exact same concerns somebody will have if they rent a movie. If you've returned your rental (and flexplay should cost about the same), then you can't watch an extra scene later either. Kicking oneself for not buynig it in the first place may happen with a rental as well, but the majority of people want to watch the majority of movies only once, so most at-home movie viewings are done by those who are renting movies. Flexplay may just be a more efficient way to do it.
48 hours may be a problem though, but I bet they could increase it by a couple of days if they wanted.

No because their is a different Psychology to buy than there is to rent. Most will assume that they "bought" the movie that they "own" it.

They can sell flexplays under "Johnny's Rental Discs" name with its brand-name "You never have to return anything to us! Ever!!" or such, so whats the problem you see there? Its just semantics! (and yes, I understand that semantics work on 90% of population - "casualty" instead of "killed", "mature scenes" instead of "soft porn" etc et, thus Im sure if it comes to selling flexplays at every cornerstore and gas station, then they WILL carry different name, in some ways related to "renting" rather than "buying" - just to "fool" average Joe Schmoo. I had psychology classes too).

If they rent there are various incentives for return customers to adopt.Punch cards that offer a freebie with the x rental. Rental stores also carry games, which the multiple renter can also apply their incentive to. Also if you rent and wish to keep the movie a bit longer you can pay the late fee. With this you can not you have to "buy" a whole other copy.

No problems to include $0.50 coupons towards the next flexplay purchase in every bag. Will work as good as your cards.
Games can be released on flexplay discs as well, I see no problem here either. Well, maybe those proprietary format systems using cartridges etc will suffer, but then - who cares? Good lesson for all the idiots who always buy such proprietary systems not to do it again
Late fees... that is what most of people HATE, and i cant see it as positive side of renting LOL,. You can always buy another flexplay disc instead of self-extending rental time and paying late fees later, while you cannot avoid late fees if youre just late

[Marvingj]

I agree!!

[RabidDog]

It's already been tried. (DIVX) Customers didnt fall for it

Except that was a completely different concept! you were required to activate the rental via phone..(late comment)

ALso wherever there is now an "undated" DVD there can be a "dated" DVD .. eg NETFLIX will love these things.. no return postage no return process.. Half there costs (or more) stripped out in an instant..whoa.

reuters ---> NFLX up 20%

Re recycling.. I suspect they could make these discs so that they break down very quickly(in the environment) and without harmful effects (thats thier USP anyway).

[chas0039]

You guys have lost the original intent of the DVD. This is the FIRST time a DVD has been released at the same time it was released in theaters. The target for this movie is those customers who cannot see the movie in the theater but do not want to wait for the DVD release (in this case, over a year). In addition, as this is a holiday movie, there is more motivation for viewers to see it now.

I feel I got my money's worth. An additional note: a week later the movie is still playing.

[Skoorb]

You guys have lost the original intent of the DVD. This is the FIRST time a DVD has been released at the same time it was released in theaters. The target for this movie is those customers who cannot see the movie in the theater but do not want to wait for the DVD release (in this case, over a year). In addition, as this is a holiday movie, there is more motivation for viewers to see it now.

I feel I got my money's worth. An additional note: a week later the movie is still playing.

They need to do it with a movie that the public has an interest in though. I'd never heard of this movie until I read about flexplay. Do it with ocean's 12 and we'll see a real buzz generated. I also suspect we'd see a huge decline in theater sales. I'd be hard pressed to ever go to a theater again if I could simply rent a dvd version of it the same day it hits theaters. Pair a bigscreen tv with a surround system and you're in the same ball park anyway, except this would be cheaper and minus the driving, putting up with kids, etc.

[EvilWizardGlick]

You guys have lost the original intent of the DVD. This is the FIRST time a DVD has been released at the same time it was released in theaters. The target for this movie is those customers who cannot see the movie in the theater but do not want to wait for the DVD release (in this case, over a year). In addition, as this is a holiday movie, there is more motivation for viewers to see it now.

I feel I got my money's worth. An additional note: a week later the movie is still playing.

They need to do it with a movie that the public has an interest in though. I'd never heard of this movie until I read about flexplay. Do it with ocean's 12 and we'll see a real buzz generated. I also suspect we'd see a huge decline in theater sales. I'd be hard pressed to ever go to a theater again if I could simply rent a dvd version of it the same day it hits theaters. Pair a bigscreen tv with a surround system and you're in the same ball park anyway, except this would be cheaper and minus the driving, putting up with kids, etc.

Oceans twelve, hahahaha. Good one. Like that piece of dreck won't suck. It deserves flexplay.

[smoke2004]

ok so call me a sucker. i bought one of these disks today at my local 7 eleven for testing purposes.

i brought it home and the dvd is wrapped seperate from the package.

i open the dvd and it's hole face is red in color , i pop it into my burner just to back with shrink it's a dvd 5 so if it goes bad before the 48 hour time period if not then i will destroy it after the 48 hours.

so for bonus feature and etc their are none just a advertisement saying that noel is the first feature release on flex play the movie you don't have to return blaa blaa blaa we know the rest.

as far as ez d format it looks like a regular dvd to me with an AUDIO_TS and VIDEO_TS folder.

i will try and scan it to see if the red shows.

oh and it only cost $3.99 here

bottum scaned 1 hour after opening


front scan



will post pics after 48 hours

[chas0039]

Wait a while. Mine took over a week to go black.

[smoke2004]

nothing different yet it's still totally red on the bottum, but the red ring in the center is black. i wish i could read the disc but i have been experimenting with the coating on the bottum.

so far i have tried, alochol, non acetone nail polish remover, scrapper and nothing has taken it off yet,
mind your i'm testing a small area with each test..

[chas0039]

I don't believe it is a "finish". As I understand, it is the entire bottom clear plastic sandwich that turns black. If you are to remove it you will expose the metal pressed data area.

[racerxnet]

I hope the whole idea self destructs.

[lchiu7]

You know, if the greedy bastards would let the movie run four 30 - 90 days in theaters and then put out the damb DVD for $10 and just move on. I think that more people would buy the DVD and not share or bootleg them and there profits would be accecptable. I think that most people that are into collecting movies would gladly pay $10 to have a fairly current movie with all of the packageing. If the prices weren't so high, more of the average Joes' would be buying instead of stealing. I got to be honest, after I see a movie once I don't really have any craving to see it again(Maybe I am sick)

A couple of points. Profits for theater owners for first run movies is mostly generated by the refreshment sales - not ticket sales which typically go back to the distributor. So if there were a direct to sale model for new movies that were released theatrically also, $10 would be pretty attractive for many of us rather than $10-$12 and then paying another $10 for popcorn, soda etc. But how would a theater owner feel?

Secondly I doubt if the self-destruct model considered the impacts of the burgeoning developments in people making backup copies of their DVD's After all they were not supposed to be able to be copied. I just wonder how many folks as a proportion of DVD owners have the technology and knowledge to do it and it is a revenue risk for the movie people?

Larry

[Nilfennasion]

Theatre owners may have to find new ways to generate a profit. Basing it upon sales of refreshments, as you put it, is a shaky way at best to do business.

[DJRumpy]

I agree. We're already well on our way to trashing the planet. Why add more unecessarily? Unless they make these things biodegradable, it's just irresponsible. A disk that can be copied so easily serves no purpose if it self destructs. Who cares when you can just copy it and toss the original? The fact that they can offer these so cheaply just shows how much they are screwing the public now on pricing schemes. Using the current rental model, they get a return investment on every disk, since they get it back to be rented again. That's not the case here.

Remeber the Audio CD?

[chas0039]

Unless they make these things biodegradable, it's just irresponsible. A disk that can be copied so easily serves no purpose if it self destructs.

As stated earlier, these are recycled and instructions for doing so are listed right on the package. As to the environment, you might want to consider reading "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World" by Bjorn Lomborg. It does a remarkable job of applying science to correct many errors of fact that the environmental movement has made.

Did you know that there are more trees on the planet today than in 1950? Did you know that the entire amount of waste generated in the US during the remainder of the 21st century will fit in a square landfill 18 miles on a side?
Did you know that after environmentalists stopped the use of DDT in South Africa in 1995 malaria cases rose from 6000 to 60,000 in 2000. even though there is still no scientific evidence that it causes damage to humans or widespread damage to nature?

Enough of my rant. Anyway, back to the subject, the experiment of "Noel" caused many theaters to back off from carrying the movie; it only showed up in 20. My guess is these discs will not be back anytime soon. At least not with quality movies.

[DJRumpy]

Do you seriously think the average consumer will actually follow the recycling instructions? Much like they do now for batteries, antifreeze, moter oil. Unhuh.

Even with recycling available for years, only a fraction of consumers actually recycle. In regards to your book, just because it's in print, doesn't make it true. Much like the us elections this year, it's all about presentation. It's rather interesting what you can do with a few selective figures, taken out of context. I don't need a book, which is probably politically, or special interest funded, to tell me what common sense already does. I wake up every morning with air I can barely see through for more than a few miles. The simple fact that a person produces X amount of waste, and that the number of people is increasing every year, should make the big picture clear enough. I don't need a book to do the math.

[chas0039]

Read the book. The author is a professor of statistics at a university in Denmark and it is a required text in a number of courses. He knows more than either of us.

EOM

[DJRumpy]

And there are a hundred link pointing to documents, debates, and publications on how this guy is a quack, and he takes his facts out of context. A quick search on Google will find you everything you need. As I said, I don't need someone with a piece of paper that states he knows more than I do. I can see for myself, (or not see...that whole smog nusiance I mentioned earlier). More people = more trash. Subterfuge won't change the basic facts, and something like this certainly won't make it better.

[offline]

DDT does not cause damage?

Where is your proof?

[BJ_M]

as for DDT damage -- that WAS proven .... but the amount of "Risk" depends on who you are and who you speak to.

http://www.darp.noaa.gov/
http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-5593-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://www.drgreene.com/21_868.html

[BJ_M]

DDT
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

TRADE OR OTHER NAMES: Trade or other names include Anofex, Cesarex, Chlorophenothane, Dedelo, p,pÕ-DDT, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, Dinocide, Didimac, Digmar, ENT 1506, Genitox, Guesapon, Guesarol, Gexarex, Gyron, Hildit, Ixodex, Kopsol, Neocid, OMS 16, Micro DDT 75, Pentachlorin, Rukseam, R50 and Zerdane (79,73).

REGULATORY STATUS: DDT is no longer registered for use in the United States, although it is still used in other (primarily tropical) countries. It is in EPA Toxicity Class II, moderately toxic (72). DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972, and remains banned barring public health emergency (e.g., outbreak of malaria) (73).

CHEMICAL CLASS: Organochlorine

INTRODUCTION: DDT is an organochlorine insecticide used mainly to control mosquito-borne malaria; use on crops has generally been replaced by less persistent insecticides (79). It was extensively used during the Second World War among Allied troops and certain civilian populations to control insect typhus and malaria vectors, and was then extensively used as an agricultural insecticide after 1945 (73). DDT was banned for use in Sweden in 1970 and in the United States in 1972 (73). Many insect pests may have developed resistance to DDT (79). Unless otherwise specified, the toxicological, environmental effects and environmental fate and chemistry data presented here refer to the technical product DDT. Technical grade DDT is actually a mixture of three isomers of DDT, principally the p,p'-DDT isomer (ca. 85%), with the o,p'-DDT and o,o'-DDT isomers typically present in much lesser amounts (73).

FORMULATION: It is available in several different forms: aerosols, dustable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, granules and wettable powders (79, 72). It is reported to be compatible with many other pesticides and incompatible with
alkaline substances (79).

TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS

* Acute Toxicity: DDT is moderately to slightly toxic to studied mammalian species via the oral route. Reported oral LD50s range from 113 to 800 mg/kg in rats (79,73); 150-300 mg/kg in mice (79); 300 mg/kg in guinea pigs (73); 400 mg/kg in rabbits (73) ; 500-750 mg/kg in dogs (79) and greater than 1,000 mg/kg in sheep and goats (79). Toxicity will vary according to formulation (79). DDT is readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract, with increased absorption in the presence of fats (73). One-time administration of DDT to rats at doses of 50 mg/kg led to decreased thyroid function and a single dose of 150 mg/kg led to increased blood levels of liver-produced enzymes and changes in the cellular chemistry in the central nervous system of monkeys (73). Single doses of 50-160 mg/kg produced tremors in rats, and single doses of 160 mg/kg produced hind leg paralysis in guinea pigs (73). Mice suffered convulsions following a one-time oral dose of 200 mg/kg. Single administrations of low doses to developing 10-day old mice are reported to have caused subtle effects on their neurological development (73). DDT is slightly to practically non-toxic to test animals via the dermal route, with reported dermal LD50s of 2,500-3,000 mg/kg in female rats (79, 73), 1000 in guinea pigs (73) and 300 in rabbits (73). It is not readily absorbed through the skin unless it is in solution (73). It is thought that inhalation exposure to DDT will not result in significant absorption through the lung alveoli (tiny gas-exchange sacs) but rather that it is probably trapped in mucous secretions and swallowed by exposed individuals following the tracheo-bronchial clearance of secretions by the cilia (73). Acute effects likely in humans due to low to moderate exposure may include nausea, diarrhea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation (of the eyes, nose or throat), disturbed gait, malaise and excitability; at higher doses, tremors and convulsions are possible (73, 76). While adults appear to tolerate moderate to high ingested doses of up to 280 mg/kg, a case of fatal poisoning was seen in a child who ingested one ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene solution (73).
* Chronic Toxicity: DDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys,and immune systems in experimental animals (73, 74). Effects on the nervous system observed in test animals include: tremors in rats at doses of 16-32 mg/kg/day over 26 weeks; tremors in mice at doses of 6.5-13mg/kg/day over 80-140 weeks; changes in cellular chemistry in the central nervous system of monkeys at doses of 10 mg/kg/day over 100 days, and loss of equilibrium in monkeys at doses of 50 mg/kg/day for up to 6 months (73). The main effect on the liver seen in animal studies was localized liver damage. This effect was seen in rats given 3.75 mg/kg/day over 36 weeks, rats exposed to 5 mg/kg/day over 2 years and dogs at doses of 80 mg/kg/day over the course of 39 months (73). In many cases lower doses produced subtle changes in liver cell physiology, and in some cases higher doses produced more severe effects (73). In mice doses of 8.33 mg/kg/day over 28 days caused increased liver weight and increased liver enzyme activity (73). Liver enzymes are commonly involved in detoxification of foreign compounds, so it is unclear whether increased liver enzyme activity in itself would constitute an adverse effect. In some species (monkeys and hamsters), doses as high as 8-20 mg/kg/day caused no observed adverse effects over exposure periods as long as 3.5-7 years (73). Kidney effects observed in animal studies include adrenal gland hemorrhage in dogs at doses of 138.5 mg/kg/day over 10 days and adrenal gland damage at 50 mg/kg day over 150 days in dogs (73). Kidney damage was also seen in rats at doses of 10 mg/kg/day over 27 months (73). Immunological effects observed in test animals include: reduced antibody formation in mice following administration of 13 mg/kg/day for 3-12 weeks and reduced levels of immune cells in rats at doses of 1 mg/kg/day (73). No immune system effects were observed in mice at doses of 6.5 mg/kg/day for 3-12 weeks (73). Dose levels at which effects were observed in test animals are very much higher than those which may be typically encountered by humans (74). The most significant source of exposure to individuals in the United States is occupational, occurring only to those who work or worked in the production or formulation of DDT products for export (75). Analysis of U. S. market basket surveys showed approximately a 30-fold decrease in detected levels of DDT and metabolites in foodstuffs from 1969-1974, and another threefold drop from 1975-1981, with a final estimated daily dose of approximately 0.002 mg/person/day (73). Based on a standard 70-kg person, this results in a daily intake of approximately 0.00003 mg/kg/day. Due to the persistence of DDT and its metabolites in the environment, very low levels may continue to be detected in foodstuffs grown in some areas of prior use (73). It has been suggested that, depending on patterns of international DDT use and trade, it is possible that dietary exposure levels may actually increase over time (73). Persons eating fish contaminated with DDT or metabolites may also be exposed via bioaccumulation of the compound in fish (73). Even though current dietary levels are quite low, past and current exposures may result in measurable body burdens due to its persistence in the body (73). More information on the metabolism and storage of DDT and its metabolites in mammalian systems is provided below (Fate in Humans and Animals). Adverse effects on the liver, kidney and immune system due to DDT exposure have not been demonstrated in humans in any of the studies which have been conducted to date (73).
* Reproductive Effects: There is evidence that DDT causes reproductive effects in test animals. No reproductive effects were observed in rats at doses of 38 mg/kg/day administered at days 15-19 of gestation (73). In another study in rats, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility (73). In rabbits, doses of 1 mg/kg/day administered on gestation days 4-7 resulted in decreased fetal weights and 10 mg/kg/day on days 7-9 of gestation resulted in increased resorptions (73). In mice, doses of 1.67 mg/kg/day resulted in decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the estrus cycle over 28 weeks (73). It is thought that many of these observed effects may be the result of disruptions in the endocrine (hormonal) system (73). Available epidemiological evidence from two studies does not indicate that reproductive effects have occurred in humans as a result of DDT exposure (73). No associations between maternal blood levels of DDT and miscarriage nor premature rupture of fetal membranes were observed in two separate studies (73, 77, 78). One study did report a significant association between maternal DDT blood levels and miscarriage, but the presence of other organochlorine chemicals (e.g., PCBs) in maternal blood which may have accounted for the effect make it impossible to attribute the effect to DDT and its metabolites (79).
* Teratogenic Effects: There is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals as well. In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through lactation resulted in impaired learning performance in maze tests (73). In a two-generational study of rats, 10 mg/kg/day resulted in abnormal tail development (73). Epidemiological evidence regarding the occurance of teratogenic effects as a result of DDT exposure are unavailable (73). It seems unlikely that teratogenic effects will occur in humans due to DDT at likely exposure levels.
* Mutagenic Effects: The evidence for mutagenicity and genotoxicity is contradictory. In only 1 out of 11 mutagenicity assays in various cell cultures and organisms did DDT show positive results (73). Results of in vitro and in vivo genotoxocity assays for chromosomal aberrations indicated that DDT was genotoxic in 8 out of 12 cases, and weakly genotoxic in 1 case (73). In humans, blood cell cultures of men occupationally exposed to DDT showed an increase in chromosomal damage. In a separate study, significant increases in chromosomal damage were reported in workers who had direct and indirect occupational exposure to DDT (73). Thus it appears that DDT may have the potential to cause genotoxic effects in humans, but does not appear to be strongly mutagenic. It is unclear whether these effects may occur at exposure levels likely to be encountered by most people.
* Carcinogenic Effects: The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal. It has been shown to cause increased tumor production (mainly in the liver and lung) in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies but not in others (73) In rats, liver tumors were induced in three separate studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumors were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks (73). In mice, lifetime doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumors in the second generation and leukemia in the third generation; liver tumors were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations. In hamsters, significant increases in adrenal gland tumors were seen at doses of 83 mg/kg/day in females (but not males) , and in males (but not females) at doses of 40 mg/kg/day (73). In other studies, however, no carcinogenic activity was observed in rats at doses less than 25 mg/kg/day; no carcinogenic activity was seen in mice with at doses of 3-23 mg/kg/day over an unspecified period, and in other hamster studies there have been no indications of carcinogenic effects (73). The available epidemiological evidence regarding DDTÕs carcinogenicity in humans, when taken as a whole, does not suggest that DDT and its metabolites are carcinogenic in humans at likely dose levels (73). In several epimiological studies, no significant associations were seen between DDT exposure and disease, but in one other study, a weak association was observed (73, 80). In this latter study, which found a significant association between long-term, high DDT exposures and pancreatic cancers in chemical workers, there were questions raised as to the reliability of the medical records of a large proportion of the cancer cases (73,80).
* Organ Toxicity: Acute human exposure data and animal studies reveal that DDT can affect the nervous system, liver, kidney (73). Increased tumor production in the liver and lung has been observed in test animals (73). An association with pancreatic cancer was suggested in humans in one study (73, 80).
* Fate in Humans & Animals: DDT is very slowly transformed in animal systems (74). Initial degradates in mammalian systems are 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene (DDE) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD), which are very readily stored in fatty tissues (73). These compounds in turn are ultimately transformed into bis(dichlorodiphenyl) acetic acid (DDA) via other metabolites at a very slow rate (73). DDA, or conjugates of DDA, are readily excreted via the urine (73). Available data from analysis of human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples, but a downward trend in the levels over time (73). Later study of blood samples collected in the latter half of the 1970s showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples (73). Levels of DDT or metabolites may occur in fatty tissues (e.g. fat cells, the brain, etc.) at levels of up to several hundred times that seen in the blood (73). DDT or metabolites may also be elminated via motherÕs milk by lactating women (73).

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

* Effects on Birds: DDT may be slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to birds. Reported dietary LD50s range from greater than 2,240 mg/kg in mallard, 841 mg/kg in Japanese quail and 1,334 mg/kg in pheasant (81). Other reported dietary LD50s in such species as bobwhite quail, California quail, red-winged blackbird, cardinal, house sparrow, blue jay, sandhill crane and clapper rail also indicate slight toxicity both in acute 5-day trials and over longer periods of up to 100 days (82). In birds, exposure to DDT occurs mainly through the food web through predation on aquatic and/or terrestrial species having body burdens of DDT, such as fish, earthworms and other birds (82). There has been much concern over chronic exposure of bird species to DDT and effects on reproduction, especially eggshell thinning and embryo deaths (82). The mechanisms of eggshell thinning are not fully understood. It is thought that this may occur from the major metabolite, DDE, and that predator species of birds are the most sensitive to these effects (82). Laboratory studies on bird reproduction have demonstrated the potential of DDT and DDE to cause subtle effects on courtship behavior, delays in pairing and egg laying and decreases in egg weight in ring doves and Bengalese finches (82). The implications of these for long-term survival and reproduction of wild bird species is unclear. There is evidence that synergism may be possible between DDTÕs metabolites and organophosphate (cholinesterase-inhibiting) pesticides to produce greater toxicity to the nervous system and higher mortality (82). Aroclor (polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) may result in additive effects on eggshell thinning (82).
* Effects on Aquatic Species: DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s in various aquatic invertebrates (e.g., stoneflies, midges, crayfish, sow bugs) range from 0.18 ug/L to 7.0 ug/L, and 48-hour LC50s are 4.7 ug/L for daphnids and 15 ug/L for sea shrimp (55). Other reported 96-hour LC50s for various aquatic invertebrate species are from 1.8 ug/L to 54 ug/L (82). Early developmental stages are more susceptible than adults to DDTÕs effects (82). The reversibility of some effects, as well as the development of some resistance, may be possible in some aquatic invertebrates (55). DDT is very highly toxic to fish species as well. Reported 96-hour LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in coho salmon (4.0 ug/L), rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), northern pike (2.7 ug/L), black bullhead (4.8 ug/L), bluegill sunfish (8.6 ug/L), largemouth bass (1.5 ug/L), and walleye (2.9 ug/L) (55). The reported 96-hour LC50s in fathead minnow and channel catfish are 21.5 ug/L and 12.2 ug/L respectively (55). Other reported 96-hour LC50s in largemouth bass and guppy were 1.5 ug/L and 56 ug/L respectively (82). Observed toxicity in coho and chinook salmon was greater in smaller fish than in larger (82). It is reported that DDT levels of 1 ng/L in Lake Michigan were sufficient to affect the hatching of coho salmon eggs (3). DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species and larval stages are probably more susceptible than adults (81, 82). In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure. This occurs mainly through uptake from sediment and water into aquatic flora and fauna, and also fish (82). Fish uptake of DDT from the water will be size-dependent with smaller fish taking up relatively more than larger fish (82). A half-time for elimination of DDT from rainbow trout was estimated to be 160 days (82). The reported bioconcentration factor for DDT is 1,000 to 1,000,000 in various aquatic species (83), and bioaccumulation may occur in some species at very low environmental concentrations (55). Bioaccumulation may also result in exposure to species which prey on fish or other aquatic organisms (e.g., birds of prey).
* Effects on Other Animals (Nontarget species): Earthworms are not susceptible to acute effects of DDT and its metabolites at levels higher than those likely to be found in the environment, but they may serve as an exposure source to species that feed on them (82). DDT is non-toxic to bees; the reported topical LD50 for DDT in honeybees is 27 ug/bee (82). Laboratory studies indicate that bats may be affected by DDT released from stored body fat during long migratory periods (82).

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE

* Breakdown in Soil and Groundwater: DDT is very highly persistent in the environment, with a reported half life of between 2-15 years (83, 84) and is immobile in most soils. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic) (73). These processes generally occur only very slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE and DDD, which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties (82, 84). Due to its extremely low solubility in water, DDT will be retained to a greater degree by soils and soil fractions with higher proportions of soil organic matter (82). It may accumulate in the top soil layer in situations where heavy applications are (or were) made annually; e.g., for apples (72). Generally DDT is tightly sorbed by soil organic matter, but it (along with its metabolites) has been detected in many locations in soil and groundwater where it may be available to organisms (82, 83). This is probably due to its high persistence; although it is immobile or only very slightly mobile, over very long periods of time it may be able to eventually leach into groundwater, especially in soils with little soil organic matter. Residues at the surface of the soil are much more likely to be broken down or otherwise dissipated than those below several inches (3). Studies in Arizona have shown that volatilization losses may be significant and rapid in soils with very low organic matter content (desert soils) and high irradiance of sunlight, with volatilization losses reported as high as 50% in 5 months (85). In other soils (Hood River and Medford) this rate may be as low as 17-18% over 5 years (85). Volatilization loss will vary with the amount of DDT applied, proportion of soil organic matter, proximity to soil-air interface and the amount of sunlight (82).
* Breakdown of Chemical in Surface Water: DDT may reach surface waters primarily by runoff, atmospheric transport, drift, or by direct application (e.g. to control mosquito-borne malaria) (73). The reported half-life for DDT in the water environment is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water (83). The main pathways for loss are volatilization, photodegradation, adsorption to water-borne particulates and sedimentation (73) Aquatic organisms, as noted above, also readily take up and store DDT and its metabolites. Field and laboratory studies in the United Kingdom demonstrated that very little breakdown of DDT occurred in estuary sediments over the course of 46 days (82). DDT has been widely detected in ambient surface water sampling in the United States at a median level of 1 ng/L (part per trillion) (73, 76).
* Breakdown of Chemical in Vegetation: DDT does not appear to be taken up or stored by plants to a great extent. It was not translocated into alfalfa or soybean plants, and only trace amounts of DDT or its metabolites were observed in carrots, radishes and turnips all grown in DDT-treated soils (82). Some accumulation was reported in grain, maize and riceplants, but little translocation occured and residues were located primarily in the roots (73).

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND GUIDELINES

Physical Properties:

* Appearance: The physical appearance of technical product p,pÕ-DDT is a waxy solid, although in its pure form it consists of colorless crystals (79)
* Chemical Name: 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chlorobenzene]; 1,1,1- trichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl) ethane (79)
* CAS Number: 50-29-3 (79)
* Molecular Weight: 354.51 (79)
* Water Solubility: < 1 mg/L @ 20 degrees C (79)
* Solubility in Other Solvents: cyclohexanone v.s., dioxane v.s., benzene v.s., xylene v.s., trichloroethylene v.s., dichloromethane v.s., acetone v.s., chloroform v.s., diethyl ether v.s., ethanol s. and methanol s. (79).
* Melting Point: 108.5-109 degrees C (79)
* Vapor Pressure: 0.025 mPa @ 25 degrees C (79)
* Partition Coefficient: Not available
* Adsorption Coefficient: 100,000 (84)

Exposure Guidelines:

* ADI: 0.02 mg/kg/d (73)
* MCL: Not Available
* RfD: 0.0005 mg/kg/day (73)
* PEL: 1 mg/meters cubed (8-hour) (73)
* HA: Not Available
* TLV: Not Available

BASIC MANUFACTURER

No manufacturer review was available.

REFERENCES

References for the information in this PIP can be found in Reference List Number 6

[BJ_M]

important to note:

Many insect pests may have developed resistance to DDT anyway - so its a moot point

[thecoalman]

Did you know that there are more trees on the planet today than in 1950?

Yes many more small trees.

Did you know that the entire amount of waste generated in the US during the remainder of the 21st century will fit in a square landfill 18 miles on a side?

Is that 18 cubed, if so that's a line of garbage that would reach from Pittsburgh to Philadeladphia 18 miles wide and 1 mile high. A 6 or 7 hour drive direct route highway. Not so small anymore is it? Edit: Actual distance by highway is about 300 miles, garbage line would exceed this to 324 miles.

Did you know that after environmentalists stopped the use of DDT in South Africa in 1995 malaria cases rose from 6000 to 60,000 in 2000. even though there is still no scientific evidence that it causes damage to humans or widespread damage to nature?

Good or bad I'm not going to argue the point, but there are alternatives to DDT. Since many in the scientific community feel it's bad I see no reason why the alternatives should not be used.

As you can see I'm no enviromentalist....see my name I'm no friend to them. But when using facts you have to put them into context. My personal thoughts on anything disposable and the fact that it was mentioned what's a few more discs is wrong. There are too many disposable things that only get used once, what's the point. You have disposable cameras, discs, razors, the over packaging of products etc. etc..... all this stuff adds up to more waste.

Let you in on a business tip, if you can ever buy old landfill do it. It's going to be worth a fortune in the future.