Risk: Melathion I Have Been

¶ … Risk: Melathion

I have been approached by the City Council of Genericville to perform a risk assessment for the insecticide, Malathion. The reason for the assessment is the proposed use of the insecticide for the purpose of controlling the mosquito population on the banks of the river through the town. The reason for the proposal is that the mosquitoes tend to be carriers of the often deadly West Nile Virus (WNV), and that this could pose a danger to the town's tourist industry. There has been some controversy surrounding the decision, as opponents believe that the risks inherent in the implementation of an insecticide scheme for the river area. The insecticide would be administered by aerial spraying and ground application. Opponents believe that the potential risk to the environment is too high, and that funding should rather be applied towards a program for minimizing exposure to WNV.

The greatest concern associated with the insecticide is its long-term effect upon the environment. Proponents on the other hand cite that the pesticide holds no danger to either human beings or the environment, according to extensive studies conducted. The concerns involved are consolidated into a risk assessment, with four phases, to be discussed below. These phases include Hazard Identification, Dose-Response, Exposure, and Risk Characterization. These phases are considered in terms of both proposals: to implement the pesticide, or to implement an education program to mitigate and prevent the risk of WNV.

Specifically, each phase of the risk assessment will contain a section on implementing the pesticide, and one on not implementing it. The reason for this is that both options include hazards and implications both for the inhabitants of Genericville, and the tourists who choose it as a destination.

II. Risk Assessment

a. Hazard Identification

Malathion is toxic immediately after application. For this reason, human exposure to residues should be limited until at least a week after application. It should also be ensured that there is no human contact during application.

In terms of the education program, there is a high number of WNV cases for the area. This affects the tourism industry negatively. For this reason, it is unlikely that tourists would respond to a prevention program, especially as the mosquito population is so large and generally are not controlled.

An education program is also proposed for the implementation of the pesticide application. Proponents argue that control is much more easily exercised in chemical exposure than for mosquitoes.

b. Dose-Response.

When comparing the dose-response for the mosquitoes and the pesticide, the latter appears to be favorable. Mosquitoes cause immediate hazards to human beings. For the pesticide, it is required only that human beings not be exposed to the application process. The substance degrades to harmless soon after application. It could furthermore reduce the mosquito population by 90%, which also means a like reduction in WNV hazards to local inhabitants and tourists.

c. Exposure

As mentioned above, the effects of exposure are immediate. Exposure to either mosquito carriers of WNV and the pesticide during and immediately after application should be entirely avoided. Education regarding pesticide exposure is easier to control than mosquito exposure.

d. Risk Characterization

Another concern voiced by opponents to the pesticide option is that an information program may not reach all inhabitants. Some of the poorer community may for example not have televisions, radios, or the Internet so that such vital information can reach them. This is however easily mitigated by door-to-door visits, as well as pamphlets to the community. It is unlikely that an education program for mosquitoes would be as effective.

It is also found unlikely that the environment would suffer any long-term effects, although it is admitted that this is not an absolute certainty. The risk to human beings is minimal, as the pesticide would be harmless within a week after its application.

III. Conclusions and Recommendations

It is concluded that, when comparing the risk of WNV with the risks associated with Malathion, the former carries greater risks for human beings, although none for the environment. The latter carries no projected risk for the environment, although this cannot be estimated with certainty. It carries very low risks for human beings if the correct precautions are taken.