The use of the word toxin in your article is inappropriate.
DDT is not a toxin. Although it may be toxic at certain concentrations and to certain
species it is not, to my knowledge, produced by any organism.
This is a common mistake which I see all the time in the literature. I don’t mean to offend you but it is important to be precise when writting articles such as yours.
Thank you,
Dr. R. J. Chichetti
See definition below:
From Merriam Webster on line
Definition of TOXIN
: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation
Examples of TOXIN
the toxin in scorpion venom
<read a pamphlet on the toxin responsible for botulism, a food poisoning that can cause paralysis and even death in some cases>
Origin of TOXIN
International Scientific Vocabulary
First Known Use: 1886
And while I don’t doubt the correctness of this assertion, it’s interesting to note that as a root of several other derived words, “toxi-” lacks that specific “of biological origin” connotation.
Words such as “toxic” and “toxicity” are much more generic than “toxin”. That’s probably the root of the pervasive (and apparently erroneous) broadening of the meaning “toxin” beyond its organism-based meaning. I suspect that given sufficient time, the specific “from an organism” proviso will disappear and “toxin” will become another generic synonym for “poison”.
I suppose that answering my own reply is bad form, but I did a bit of googling and discovered I’m operating under a faulty assumption.
Etymologically, “toxin” doesn’t appear to be the basis of the other “toxi-” words. “Toxic” is. (Makes sense; those other words like “toxicology” actually start with “toxic” in toto.
On seeing the thread title, I assumed it was going to be about alternative therapy proponents’ claims of purging the body of unspecified (and probably imaginary) “toxins”.