Fuck Microsoft Word.
Anyway, I was recently over at Lemuels blog, Hillbilly White Trash, where he made the point about how the banning of DDT has in the long run proved detrimental to a far greater extent than it's use had ever allegedly been.
Now, personally, I had always been of the mind that DDT was banned due to the potential health hazards to humans, in particular, it could be a cancer causing agent. I'm still unconvinced it's banning by the then young EPA was necessarily a bad call.
What I do think, and know, is that there is enough of an impetus now to warrant restudy on the issue. I give two reasons for this:
West Nile Virus-this disease, which is carried by mosquitos, would be potentially all but eradicated if DDT, a highy effective mosquito killer, was now in use. According to Lem, it's banning has lead to a resurgence of malaria throughout the world, particularly in the Third World, among other things.
Japanese Beetles-Is the third new problem that might be solved by DDT, in fact, might only be solved by it. Japanese Beetles are so desructive to epecially small family farms they could in time lead to an econmic disaster not far removed from the epic proportions of locust plaques.
They eat fruits, in addition t flowers, are extremely prolific breeders, as well as eaters, and there seems to be nothing that can abate them for long. DDT might well be the answer.
The EPA needs to look into this, and once everything is weight=ed inthe balance, the pesticide might well prove useful. If it'sreported harmful effects are indeed exaggerated, as Lemuel and others claim, to not do so would amount to a criminal act, in my view.
