Vietnam refoliation From Dr Bernard Dixon
Sir: You printed a letter from a Mr A. J. H. Brown (January 19) who erroneously asserted that I had claimed in my column (January 5) that as a result of defoliation, "the land Of South Vietnam is completely infertile." I felt I must correct this serious misinterpretation, and you kindly Published my letter (February 16) stating that I had said no such thing. With rare cheek, Brown (March 23) now quotes something different which I actually did say and uses that woolly subterfuge "in other words" to accuse me of denying that "the Vietnamese countryside is presently infertile" (not, this time, completely infertile). I begin to suspect at this point that I really do have a greater respect for words, accuracy, and the civilities of discussion than does Mr Brown. Any readers who may have been intrigued by the exchange of letters can judge for themselves by consulting my original article.
In terms of hard evidence about what I originally termed the "devastating effects" of herbicide spraying on the Vietnamese countryside, this could not be a better time for assessment and discussion. The National Academy of Sciences — the most prestigious and authoritative scientific body in the United States — has just published the results of a survey of the horrendous practical consequences of defoliation in Vietnam. Mr Brown ought to read it. One conclusion of the report is that more than a third of the mangrove forests of South Vietnam were directly sprayed, and that "under present conditions of use and natural regrowth, it may well take well over 100 years for the mangrove area to be reforested." (A massive reforestation programme, the Academy estimate, could do the job in two or three decades.) The effects of defoliation on the inland forests have also been of terrifying dimensions. The report estimates that 1.25 million cubic metres of "merchantable" timber have been lost as a result of herbicide spraying, and that about 12 per cent of the total area affected will require a massive assistance programme. Moreover, these es-. timates are probably on the ofitimistie side. Dr Matthew Meselson, who conducted a similar study for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, believes that the Academy report may have underestimated the sprayed mangrove area by about 30 per cent. These are only two of the appalling results of the dousing of South Vietnam with some nineteen million gallons of herbicide. As Dr Philip Handler, president of the Academy of Sciences, points out in his introduction to the report, unless vigorous reforestation programmes are instigated, "mankind will have been guilty of a large and ugly depredation of our natural heritage. '
Bernard Dixon New Scientist, 128 Long Acre, London WC2
Previous page
