Thank you for the information, interesting, as I am
speaking with a friend right now who also concurs with
you, and has had his house pumped full of DE to rid it
of ants. I am curious about the warning labels, must
just be to cover bases.
As far as average life span, 1.5 years may be
accurate, but I'm sure you know that if passerines
reach breeding age, they are much more likely to
survive longer. I personally know of a WIFL that is
at least nine years old, through color banding data,
and am sure that birds can live to develop cancer,
which may or may not be a concern in this case, I
guess likely not. Thanks again for the informed
response.
Drew Wheelan
awheelan at hermaninstitute.org

--- Hope Stanton <wildnatives at yahoo.com> wrote:
> My father was a pathologist at the National
> Institutes of Health who did some of the original
> work on lung cancer and particle size. He found that
> it was the size and shape of asbestos particles that
> made them particularly dangerous as cancer causing
> agents. What Scott Ray says is true. Amprphous
> silica is different than crystalline silica in
> structure so therefore is not such a problem and
> silica is not as bad as asbestos. If anyone is
> interested, you can look up research by Mearl F.
> Stanton, in the 1960-1980.
>
> Hope Stanton
> Nehalem, OR
>
> S c o t t R <mryakima at nwinfo.net> wrote:
> While there may or may not exist veridical health
> problems associated with
> DE inhalation, during the short 1.5 year average
> life span of most
> passerines, including swallows, the development of
> lung cancer seems
> questionable.
>
> Many people mistakenly believe that because DE is a
> silica meterial, that
> it can cause silicosis. It cannot. DE is amorphous
> silica which, unlike
> crystaline silica, does not cause silicoses. DE has
> been and continues to
> be deemed a safe insecticide for use in human
> dwellings.
>
> Any finely divided material can pose a hazard to the
> lungs. I read
> somewhere that road dust (which has a high
> crystalline silica component)
> is more hazardous to human lungs than DE. Like all
> cavity nesting birds,
> cavity nesting swallows are certainly exposed to a
> huge amount of airborne
> dust particles of another form, shed feather
> sheathes.
>
> Scott R a y
> Yakima, WA
>
> > As far as I know DE is NOT non-toxic. While it may
> > not contain chemically toxic compounds, it is very
> > harmful to the lungs. Warnings on the label advise
> > not to breath it. I have worked around this
> substance
> > quite a bit, in gardens, and at wineries for use
> in
> > filtration. Small particulates are very harmful to
> > the lungs, and are one of the main causes for lung
> > cancers. I see that the abstract does not mention
> > anything about mortality rates of the Tree
> Swallows,
> > as a two year study would have difficulty looking
> at
> > that.
> > I know how sensitinve my lungs are, and can only
> > imagine the possible sensitivity a 15- 20 gram
> bird
> > might have to a substance such as this, in its
> packed
> > and tight living quarters, with young birds moving
> > around, ruffling their feathers, wrestling for the
> > next delivery of food, etc...
> > Not poo-poooing the idea, nor the study, but as we
> > endeavor to "manage" our wild, native birds we
> must
> > think about every possible facet, and it seems in
> this
> > case one was overlooked.
> > Drew Wheelan
> > Maple Falls, WA
> > awheelan at hermaninstitute.org
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> >
>
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/