It is possible to control pests using costly chemicals with constant monitoring, and continuous repeated applications. This must be done carefully, and the chemicals must periodically be switched to avoid the problem of pests adapting to them as they do so well. It is possible, but is it practical?

The problems with this method, and all such methods, is that it fails in several areas.

• For one thing, it is not practical, because it is not cost effective. Repeated applications result in repeated charges, or long term contracts.

• The second problem was alluded to above: Pests adapt rapidly to new situations, and this insures that the war of attrition will continue forever.

• The effects on human health may be minor, and recoverable, but because it is done over a lifetime, the cumulative effect on the human nervous system does take a toll, and the earlier the exposure the more pronounced the effect over a lifetime.

All pyretheroids and organophosphate cholonesterase inhibitors damage the human nervous system, but the system bypasses the damage and restores function. The problem is that a lifetime of exposure accumulates a lifetime of damage, and at some point the effects become obvious, even though we may not recognize the cause.

At some points, the introduction of such pesticides may be necessary to prevent disease, but the less exposure the better. I am not arguing for the elimination of insecticides, but for the need to lower the usage.

The amazing truth is, that we can keep the insecticides for emergency purposes , lower the usage, and lower the cost, by simple habitat modification in most, if not all cases.

The most practical form of pest control is still pest prevention!