Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (210726)	7/4/2007 5:19:22 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) of 794091

re: "why there isn't anything else that can be used on the &#$%! mosquitoes" First, It costs money to develop new chemicals. And those who develop new chemicals have a right for monetary compensation. DDT has been around for so long that anyone with the ability can probably make the stuff without worrying about a royalty payment. Second, DDT is not only cheap but relatively safe around people and animals. Third, DDT is persistent. It doesn't degrade as quickly as other pesticide chemicals. This is good if you are in a poor country, because you can treat an area - and not have to go back and re-treat the area again in a year (or two, possibly more). The half life of DDT is possibly years maybe decades. This is very good if you are poor and want to fight mosquitoes. But possibly bad for animals higher up in the food chain, as DDT levels will probably just rise throughout the animal's life. Fourth, You probably couldn't sell (so why develop) such a persistent pesticide (for liability as well as environmental reasons) in a first world country. In the Western World, we would rather not have a pesticide that stays in your yard, parks and houses (where your children can play in it) for years.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next