Boron is a naturally occurring element. It is one of the 109 elements that make up planet Earth. Boron generally occurs in combination with other elements plus oxygen. These combinations are commonly referred to as boron salts or “borates”.

The first verifiable use of borates by mankind dates back to the 8th century AD. Prior to the Industrial Age in Europe concentrated borates were a rare treasure and were transported from sources in the Far East, along the trade routes originally pioneered by Marco Polo, into Europe.

Boron is mined in approximately fifteen countries around the world. Today a large proportion of the mined boron comes from the American continent, both North and South.

Boron is ubiquitous to the global environment, it being present at varying levels in water, soil, plants, animals and in fact ourselves! It is found in a multitude of manufactured products such as heat-resistant glass, cosmetics, fiberglass insulation, cold creams, charcoal, camera film and laundry detergents to name just a few. In many manufactured products it is a fundamental component.

While boron is present in all soils there are regions of the world where the levels are too low to support plant growth. Much of Australia is one of these regions and is generally considered to be boron deficient. It is not surprising therefore that fertilizers in Australia frequently have supplementary boron incorporated so as to ensure healthy and productive crop yields.

PROPERTIES

Boron has innate and exceptionally effective insecticidal and fungicidal properties. Those properties are further complimented through the fact that it has a low mammalian toxicity, comparable with that of sodium chloride (NaCl) or common table salt.

The value of borates would be much reduced if they were not also benign in terms of their health, safety and environmental impact. The fact is, borates are not only safe for people, pets and plants – they are essential.

Numerous scientists and other informed persons have long held the view that boron holds good prospects for greater commercialization by mankind. This philosophy currently receives renewed drive by what will prove to be the early stages of mankind’s response to ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. It is early days in our assimilation of this new challenge to our current lifestyle, if not ultimately sheer existence. The concept of ‘carbon trading’ is in it’s infancy, that where despite media hype independent researchers and informed comment concur that the ‘carbon trading’ phenomenon has yet to be understood before it can truly be considered a valid mode of redress. That in mind, boron clearly comes to the fore in the overall forestry / structural housing timber / carbon trading equation. Boron, with it’s dual insecticidal and fungicidal action, plus it’s durability, the combination of all three in the case of timber protection, draw much attention.

In recent years, these views have led to formal reassessments. Currently, pro-active moves are afoot toward the commercialization of boron in a number of applications. Boron is certain to compete with - if not significantly out-compete - many of the current mainstream ‘man made’ or synthesized timber protection insecticides and fungicides available on the timber protection market.

Prior to the Second World War boron was commonly used as an insecticide in general pest management situations including the control of cockroaches, silverfish, timber borers and termites. This was particularly so in tropical countries. Back then, boron was invariably used in the raw form, that being a dry white powder.

So exactly what happened after the Second World War that contributed to boron’s demise as a pest management product?

Back in 1874 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was first synthesized. Then much later in 1935 this chemical was discovered to be a highly effective insecticide. This led to its widespread use as a general insecticide in agriculture. It quickly became popular, being applied in situations beyond agriculture, specifically public health. It became known by the acronym DDT.

Specific DDT use for public health disease control began during the Second World War, most notably for malaria control. Stemming directly from the outstanding results achieved here, and supported by the WHO, in the 1950’s and 1960’s it was the main product used in a global campaign to eradicate malaria. This campaign was in fact only partially successful, yet it did achieved a significant reduction in malaria transmission in many parts of the world, and a full eradication from Europe and North America.

DDT is a member of the organo-chlorine group of chemicals. Driven by the exciting advances in pest and disease management delivered by DDT, additional organo-chlorines were synthesized, appraised and introduced to various markets.

Some of the additions to the organo-chlorine group during the 1950’s were aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin and heptachlor. They were registered by the Australian regulatory authorities of the day for a range of predominantly agricultural uses, plus termite management under and around Australian residential housing. It was 1952 that heralded Australia’s adoption of residential housing where the so called “slab on ground” method of construction was adopted. Today, while very few Australians would be aware of the fact, this construction method is not only the nationally preferred mode of housing and living, that for aesthetic and practical reasons over the alternative “high-set” construction method but, and perhaps the real driver of this preference, is the fact that it – “slab-on ground”- significantly contains housing construction costs so directly contributing positively to the “housing affordability” equation.

This positive equation is simple and in fact very significant, yet it is largely overlooked or not factored in by “government” regulatory authorities.

This may best be demonstrated when the Keating Government’s Senator Bob Collins moved to deregister these four organo-chlorine chemicals from residential housing termite management in June 1995. No recognition of the fact that these chemicals delivered a fundamental dynamic in the national housing finance equation was omitted.

At time of writing – August 2007 - the Australian community was progressively, if reluctantly, coming to terms with the fact that termite management products and systems installed in Australian residential housing - particularly those houses built post 1995 - were failing at unacceptable levels, and that those levels were escalating annually. Both sides of politics can be allocated some responsibility for this systemic breakdown in Australian residential housing termite management regulation. There can now be no question that the Keating Government’s Senator Bob Collins withdrew the organo-chlorines with undue haste, with inadequate attention being paid to what was to replace them. Then, on the Howard Government coming to power in 1996 it failed to redress the situation until on 09 July 2007 when the Federal Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane in a letter to Mr Andrew Campbell, Group Coordinator, Termite Action Group (TAG) responded, quote : “Thank you for your correspondence concerning the regulation of termite management systems. I note that you have also written to a number of my colleagues in Government. I am responding as the Commonwealth Minister responsible for building matters” end quote.

We may extrapolate from this that boron enjoyed a brief era of limited commercialization prior to the Second World War. The organo-chlorine manufactured chemistries then replaced boron post the Second World War, they being expanded in use and community dependence – most notably a community dependence on termite management in Australian residential housing – a dependence poorly understood. That ended midnight on the 30 June 1995.

After that date, newer chemical groups came into play for termite management including the organo-phosphates and the synthetic pyrethroids. The distinguishing feature of these two when compared with the older organo-chlorines was there notable lack of persistence or durability, particularly so in typical soil borne applications essential to termite management. This led to the innovation of two novel termite management systems introduced hurriedly during the mid 1990’s. those systems were the “reticulation systems” and the more community favored and market driven chemical free “physical systems”.

At time of writing the “government” regulatory authorities responsible for redressing the systemic failure in these systems were in process of coming to recognize that neither “performance criteria” nor “terms of reference” had been applied during their hurried regulation back in the mid 1990’s. The reticulation systems had not been appraised for hydraulic performance and simply did not deliver chemical emulsion evenly and consistently into the As 3660.1 defined soil barrier location. The physical systems did not perform from an entomological perspective, termites simply passing around the edges. Both systems had innate durability flaws considering a house is expected or hoped to have a life of some 100 years or more.

At time of writing the focus was largely on the “whodunit” factor. As answers are delivered in the months and years ahead, by the Courts and other authorities, outcomes will be reported on this website.

Immediately, a small number of persons and businesses work on what will replace the physical and reticulation systems. Novel systems and technologies are under development, at least one being based on boron. These developments will be reported as and when appropriate in the months ahead.

Richard Kingsley
Termite Management Consultant.