Virtually no substance is totally harmless. Water, in proper doses is as lethal as arsenic. The problem with DDT, in my opinion, is not that it had dangers, risks or harmful effects on people and/or the environment. The problem with the story of DDT is that it was vilified and removed from the market before viable alternatives were available and that the woman (I don't remember her name) who led the exposure of DDT's harms and misuse was and is seen as a world hero. It is rarely that simple. Thanks to her work, much of the damage to our environment done by DDT has been reversed. But that is not where the story ends. It is estimated that thousands if not millions of people died in third world countries of malaria and insect vector borne diseases because there was no cheap effective alternative to DDT. Maybe that is urban legend but I don't think so. The moral of the story is that there are actions and there are reactions just as there are risks and benefits. When we over-react to a problem, particularly in some fervor to advance whatever cause we are supporting, unintended consequences can be far more harmful than the harm we are trying to fix. And while it is terrible that DDT caused a decline in raptor numbers due to the effects of soft shells, that, in reality, is meaningless when half your family dies of malaria.
