DDT?
I read an editorial just the other day which praised the efficiency of using the well-known insecticide DDT. The view urged the material again with special care concerning its ill effects on our society, of course, to curb the increase in loss thousands of lives lost to malaria and other insect borne diseases.
It is time we take a mature attitude toward such matters.
We seem to have a streak within our makeup which allows us to be overly impressed with a dramatic factor at the expense of limited, sensible ways of a wider view based on facts. In 1938 a scientist by the name of Othmar Zeidler, synthesized a substance and a full year later Dr Paul Meuller. a Swiss entomologist, identified its application as an effective insecticide. In 1940 Meuller and the Geigy Corporation patented the product as DDT. It was initially used to get rid of moth infestations, but further studies showed it to have a far wider potential. It enabled health officials to eradicate malaria in Italy in 1945. It was noticed some species were already developing an immunity to the substance and it was made available in various forms and strengths and crewmen routinely “dusted” plane loads of troops and their gear being transported from one area to another. In 1955 the World Health Organization (WHO) granted its approval for world-wide use.
Yet, in 1972 it became the first insecticide ever to be banned in the United States.
In 1942 Rachel Carson's book “Silent Spring” was published, and it was followed by others of the same type but of inferior quality. A full decade passed before the literary affect was strong enough to bring about agitation calling in sufficient strength to cause a ban to be issued. The ban, politicized in some areas. It was total; allowed little or no discussion concerning partial, controlled or limited use of the insecticide. The contention was that DDT killed just about all natural life.
It took thirty years for the “opposition” to mount their attack. There was great deal of insincerity in the movement. It was used politically to bring about other change while an environmental diversion was being staged, I am still waiting for some explanation, in logical terms, as to how we can continue to buy our fresh fruits and vegetables and other foodstuffs from Mexico and other such places. The “rule”, I have been told, requires we ask them if they have used DDT in growing the produce. If they say “No.”... it's considered to be O.K. Buy it. It's cheaper, too. No bug damage. You might wish to ask if a crop was grown by rigid organic standards? And, do not inquire into their human waste disposal methods.
I agree with some aspects of the DDT ban “reasoning”. It is true that the substance is dangerous,and tricky, too. I think our scientific community was lax or lazy in mid-century decades. They were aware of dangerous changes and, seemingly, did very little to modify the product to suit man's needs. The half-life of DDT in water solution is from twenty-eight to fifty-six days and in and if anyone known that sort fact about it they can deal with its hazards for efficiently. It is time for us to move on this DDT front in the fight against needless deaths from malaria. Some variations may well, serve us in our farm and gardening needs, as well. How much is left of the original DDT of Meuller's time? This was classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
A.L.M. January 22, 2005 [c609wds]
