Anger Over Malathion Spraying

John Vornholt’s letter (letters, July 14) is but the latest attempt to discredit malathion spraying on the basis of an unproven threat to human health. The city of Los Angeles tried to use similar arguments in its suit to stop the spraying, and the judge rejected the suit while noting that the toxic content of dirt was higher than that of malathion.

Assemblyman Terry Friedman’s adjacent letter, like recent Times’ editorials, criticizes spraying on the basis of the program’s effectiveness. If spraying is to be discontinued, this is the point that must be stressed. The infestation is real; the possible danger from spraying is largely hypothetical. The force of the former will almost always refute the latter. Moreover, other parts of the country accept aerial spraying as simply an inconvenience that goes along with insect control and eradication. We should do the same, unless, of course, we can show that such spraying does not work. And evidently, it does not. The statistics of the last 10 years are not at all encouraging, and suggest that another approach is needed.

It is time that we stop trying to halt spraying by frightening the public with imagined consequences that may never come, and start demanding more cost-effective ways to control a pest that is already here.

WILLIAM S. LaSOR JR.

Corona del Mar