Perhaps a good question is, how did DDT itself become deeply vilified after a generation of use at such ridiculous levels, going from 'unlimited' to 'zero' tolerance, while other endocrine disruptors remain in common use today?
I think there is a human attribute in play. You don't have to make as many excuses for something proven harmful... when all you have to do is declare a "chemical Hitler" who has been vanquished completely, and direct everyone's attention to it.
RetroTechie · 4h ago
The public's attention often works like the beam of a searchlight, focussed on 1 spot/subject. Or (at best) everyone has their own searchlight, and @ times those of many people all shine on the same spot.
Whatever is in that focal point, gets burned, raised to fame, ridiculed, scrutinized extremely, subject to harassment, etc. While things nearby (but outside that focus) escape such treatment. Who or what is moving that searchlight's direction, is usually more fuzzy.
TV talent shows work like that. Social media do. Memes that go viral may have same effect. An influential book/science paper/movie etc, or a politician's speech may do it.
But the public's attention span is short, and the beam's focus moves on to burn something/someone else.
huxley · 12h ago
That is not true. DDT as a tool was preserved by the environmental movement not eliminated, it is pure propaganda to say that it has zero tolerance, it has been used as much as it has been necessary for it to be useful in public health.
The people who claim that it became a “Chemical Hitler” wanted it used excessively in areas like agriculture which would have eliminated its usefulness in reducing malaria and similar disease vectors.
7952 · 10h ago
Maybe because it was done with good intentions to have a positive effect. And that it was actively sprayed. That makes it different to toxins that were released as a byproduct of some other process or product. You see the same kind of feelings around fluoride in water, vaccination, etc. It is actions that break normalcy bias, have no obvious monetary advantage, are done at large scale.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Common-Ground-Joshua-Tickell/dp/B0DSQ...
I think there is a human attribute in play. You don't have to make as many excuses for something proven harmful... when all you have to do is declare a "chemical Hitler" who has been vanquished completely, and direct everyone's attention to it.
Whatever is in that focal point, gets burned, raised to fame, ridiculed, scrutinized extremely, subject to harassment, etc. While things nearby (but outside that focus) escape such treatment. Who or what is moving that searchlight's direction, is usually more fuzzy.
TV talent shows work like that. Social media do. Memes that go viral may have same effect. An influential book/science paper/movie etc, or a politician's speech may do it.
But the public's attention span is short, and the beam's focus moves on to burn something/someone else.
The people who claim that it became a “Chemical Hitler” wanted it used excessively in areas like agriculture which would have eliminated its usefulness in reducing malaria and similar disease vectors.