>DDT is definately again in the picture...the WHO thinks it should again
>play 
>an important role in the fight against malaria (stated at a conference last

>Fryday) as it is really effective esspecially used for indoor application. 
>This was a response on the decision of the American anti-malaria programme 
>to use DDT again (stated in May this year).


Like the article said, for years third world countries have been demanding
DDT for the control of flies and mosquitoes. They have been losing far more
children to disease than to the pesticide.

The article did not state what benefits DDT had for us at home.  Bed Bugs
had been all but eliminated in the U.S. by DDT.  Ask someone who grew up
during the Depression.  Everyone had Bed Bugs. It was a fact of life.  In
the absence of DDT, Bed Bugs are coming back.  Major hotels and cruise lines
have been getting sued because they can't keep them off the guests.  Now
that Bed Bugs are sweeping low income housing and have a foot hold, we will
all have them again soon.

We run into trouble in agriculture because the mentality that more is better
ruled.  We kept treating crops season after season, long after the target
pests are no longer present.  DDT is a persistent pesticide that builds up
in the soil, eventually running off to the streams and rivers.

I don't believe DDT needs to be banned.  I do believe it needs label
restrictions.  In its hay day, DDT was advertised to be "As safe as
rainwater". Now that we understand it better and know that it isn't that
safe, we can use it responsibly.

When push comes to shove, my State has treated mosquitoes when there was a
serious health risk.  We have done it before and will do it again someday
soon.  DDT should be on the list of possible choices.

Jim Hock
Wethersfield, CT

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---