Indeed I never had a proper, academical course of English. During critical years my teacher was buying into the "immersion" thing without even basics in the language's structure. Most of it was learnt online and on the job as a telemarketer, where the language is treated as vehicular (lingua franca), rather than vernacular (with all cultural nuances that appear in different varieties of English). I don't really know how to improve the idiomatic side of the language, as most anglophones in this city aren't natives either.My apologies if I misinterpreted . I interpreted it as 'DDT, as a GMO, wasn't known to be so toxic [because] .' and then the explanation.
I suspect English is not your first language so it's possible we're miscommunicating slightly.
It doesn't have to do with the nature of the chemical itself or its intended goal. It has to do with lack of proper testing. Cooling transformers has its own requirements, but seemingly no one has properly though about their eventual disposal.I don't mean to be rude but siting other suspect practices does not make what happened with DDT acceptable. This is rather poor logic on your part. Might also mention that comparing a chemical compound that is designed to be a poison with "miracle drugs" is ... well pretty much a lackluster offering. As well, though primitive a great deal of drugs of the named generation you mentioned were in fact tested in experimental labs and more including sulfa based drugs.
We can concur that the public is fed a great deal of hype on a multitude of topics including cleanliness of the body and the home.
About drugs, one should read about how they were rushed to market.