Routine fogging harmful to health

Straits Times 15 Jul 13;

IN MY letter ("Ban routine fogging, focus on destroying mosquito breeding sites"; June 1), I wrote about the need to ban routine thermal fogging as it is ineffective, creates pesticide resistance in the mosquitoes, destroys the natural predators of the mosquitoes and pollutes the environment.
Put your hair in our hands. Watch it unbelievably restored.

I am glad that the National Environment Agency has noted that "some studies do not support outdoor fogging" ("NEA outlines dengue control measures"; July 5).

Routine fogging, besides being ineffective, is also harmful to our health and hazardous to vulnerable and at-risk groups.

Thermal fogging uses diesel as a carrier for the insecticide. This makes the constituents of the fog fat-soluble and, when absorbed into the body (by contact or inhalation), will accumulate and remain in the fatty tissues of the body - a process known as bio-accumulation.

With droplet sizes of 0.3 to 50 microns, and with most particles at less than 15 microns, the smallest droplets can easily be absorbed into the body through inhalation.

When this happens, it is not easily removed or broken down by the body's protective processes. The outcome is an accumulation of the pesticide and diesel, which is toxic and potentially carcinogenic in the long term.

Long-term diesel exposure is also known to damage the kidneys and affect blood-clotting. Repeated exposure will have a cumulative effect on the body.

Unfortunately, very little is known of the long-term dangers of pesticide and diesel exposure.

If we regulate outdoor smoking because of second-hand smoke and ban the burning of garden refuse because of the air pollution it generates, why do we allow routine fogging - the fog is far more toxic and hazardous than ordinary smoke or haze - to be carried out indiscriminately when it is of little help?

The pest-control companies need to redevelop their processes and services to provide alternatives that are effective and not hazardous to the population, instead of offering palliative services that are not helpful but harmful.

The NEA can play a critical role in this issue.

William Tok Gek Sun