Actually, I'm usually the one crying junk science all the time but, in this case, the science says DDT should be banned.
Each year, the FDA tests vegetables from store shelves across the country.
Despite being banned for over 25 years, DDT is still the most common pesticide found on vegetables.
It seems this little chemical is about as persistent as they come. When nature doesn't break it down, it shouldn't be used.
Okay, so how many people died from eating veggies that had residual DDT? I'm betting not near as many as are dying from malaria and other diseases that DDT controlled.
It seems this little chemical is about as persistent as they come. When nature doesn't break it down, it shouldn't be used.
Of course, our ability to detect minuscule amounts of chemicals has increased by orders of magnitude during the last 25 years, and the amount of DDT in Raptors eggshells, one of the the most sensitive indicators, has dropped precipitously during that period.
So why continue the ban? Nature doesn't "break down" lead or arsenic or mercury either. It can't because they are elements, not compounds. But that doesn't mean they should be banned.
I think we have to look at consequences, not how "persistant" a chemical is.
Actually, "nature" DOES break it down, as she does EVERY organic molecule.
Link? Not that I doubt you but "persistence" is one of DDT's strengths. You can spray it on a house an it is protected for a long time.
You sure are willing to sacrifice a lot of people because of "persistence", especially considering it isn't the least bit harmful.