Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring and a seminal figure for the modern environmental movement, would have turned one hundred this past Sunday. “Carson’s book altered the nature of environmentalism,” is how the Washington Post described her legacy. “Previously, it had been mainly about preserving and appreciating parks and other beautiful places. But Carson’s message was that all of nature should be protected, for its own sake and because people eventually would suffer if it was degraded.”
“What she said was, the Earth itself needs an advocate,” said Patricia M. DeMarco, Executive Director of the Rachel Carson Homestead Association.
But when Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland – where Carson was a longtime resident – tried to honor her with a Senate resolution it was blocked by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. “Rachel Carson has been an inspiration to a generation of environmentalists, scientists and biologists who made a difference and changed the irresponsible use of pesticides,” Cardin said. “Honoring her 100th birthday should not be controversial. I wanted to share that with our country.”
Indeed, Elizabeth Kolbert describes the magnitude of Carson’s impact in The New Yorker, “As much as any book can, ‘Silent Spring’ changed the world by describing it. An immediate best-seller, the book launched the modern environmental movement, which, in turn, led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the passage of the Clean Air, the Clean Water, and the Endangered Species Acts, and the banning of a long list of pesticides, including dieldrin.”
But in a released statement Coburn insisted, “[Silent Spring] was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT” which is used to fight malaria. Spokesman John Hart claims that the treatment of malaria was hindered by Carson’s work: “…millions of people in the developing world died because the environmental movement, inspired by Rachel Carson, created a climate of fear and hysteria about DDT.”
But those who have studied Carson’s work know that it is Coburn who is reacting with unfounded hysteria. In a 1964 tribute/obituary in The New Yorker, E.B. White wrote that Carson “was not a fanatic or a cultist. She was not against chemicals per se. She was against the indiscriminate use of strong, enduring poisons capable of subtle, long-term damage to plants, animals, and man….”
Linda Lear, a professor at George Washington University and a biographer of Carson, said Carson never called for a complete ban on DDT. “Carson was never against the use of DDT,” Lear said. “She was against the misuse of DDT.”
And Neal Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of the Audubon Naturalist Society in Maryland where Carson was a longtime board member, concurs with Lear. “Carson was not opposed to pesticide use – she was opposed to pesticide abuse,” Fitzpatrick says. “And Coburn obviously never read Silent Spring. It’s filled with examples of broad spraying of chemical poisons and the destructive impact on natural resources. Carson’s focus on the wonder of nature is a value not shared by Coburn.”
In these times, when the Bush administration muzzles scientists and caters its policies to the desires of corporate lobbyists, Rachel Carson’s commitment to truth-telling and hard work in order to care for our planet needs to be fully appreciated – and revisited.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
When Carson’s “Silent Spring” came out, I wasn’t interested in reading it, but heard enough then to know what it was about. A few years ago I suddenly felt the need to read the book, and after a very long search was able to find a copy.
Maybe if everyone who fears what is happening to our earth, and the determined efforts to destroy every safeguard put in place for its safety and well being by the Bush Administration, were to search for a copy of the book, we could pay tribute to this woman the administration will now demonize.
Is there a better example of ignorance on parade than Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma’s reflexive, knee-jerk opposition to a resolution honoring — God forbid! — an environmentalist, Rachel Carson? He seems to be ruled by something close to the following syllogism:
Remedying environmental concerns costs money;
Anything that costs money reduces profits;
Reducing profits is evil;
Remedying environmental concerns (and environmentalism itself)
is evil.
Electing simpletons like Coburn confirms that the race is to the twits.
Insecticides may not be that different from pesticides.
A new study indicates that there’s an increased chance to contract Parkinson’s disease associated with exposure to pesticides, especially among agricultural workers.
“Study links pesticides to high brain disease risk”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21824497-2,00.html
[Pop-up]
I question Coburn’s motives. He’s right in that DDT was not used in Africa, in large part due to concerns over its health effects. I don’t know if the rise in malaria deaths was the consequence of restrictions–legal or otherwise–on the use of DDT.
I believe there are other insecticides that are extremely effective fighting mosquitos, but cost is an issue. DDT may be cheaper and thus more ground can be covered and malaria prevented.
DDT’s lower cost may reflect the consequences of its use, in inverse proportion to demand for the toxin. Either that or DDT is more effective by increased potency, which means less needs to be spread.
I’ve heard many bad things about DDT, in particular its effect on fish-eating birds of prey.
I tend to believe that some chemical’s effectiveness comes at decreased safety. If for instance we want to clean something, hydrolic acid would work perfectly. It could also be a major safety risk working with it, and a chemical that stays around and presents a danger: persistent.
I think it’s sad that Republicans have to beat up on the environment to prove they’re “pro-business”, whatever that means. I don’t see destruction of the environment as a benefit to the economy, or poisoning either. Regulations may be evil, but they are a necessary one, as the temptation to cut costs by using cheaper chemicals or taking shortcuts with use and disposal is too strong to be left to voluntary compliance.
Mr. Coburn, a physician, has also stated that silicon breast implants make women healthier than those who don’t have them. It is comforting to think of the many people spared his medical opinion by his time in the House and Senate, but I don’t think we can take his viewpoint very seriously.
I find it interesting that defenders of Rachel Carson are scrambling to point out that she was not agains the use of DDT, but the MISUSE of DDT. I have to believe that is only because Ms. Carson was living in the dark ages of “Better living through chemistry”. I don’t think it was as clear then as it is now that there is no proper use for DDT and most other pesticides. I suppose, had we used them responsibly in the first place, they might have been useful in specific instances, but their over-use has saturated our planet, infiltrated our water and soil, the food chain…We realize now that pesticide exposure can lead to any number of maladies, from cancer to MS and Parkinsons to depression and anxiety disorders.
I don’t doubt that Mr. Coburn would like to burn all copies of Silent Spring. It is the starting point for current lawsuits by agricultural workers. We are starting to hear the impact these chemicals have on agricultural workers and the workers themselves are starting to fight back against their employers. I do not doubt that Silent Spring is somewhere at the root of this move forward and conservatives like Mr. Coburn don’t like the word “forward”.
Let us not try to make Ms. Carson seem “reasonable” in the modern context where using one’s mind to seek sensible solutions is a heresy. Let’s thank Ms. Carson for opening our eyes so that we might open them still further. She was a pioneer who showed us where to start, not where to finish. Honestly, I cannot remember of Silent Spring, but I remember that it led me to read more. It led me to become active in environmental issues. I would list it among the most important books I have ever read and it is possibly the book I push most often into the hands of people I meet. Let us celebrate Rachel Carson not by making her reasonable, but by making her a pioneer in an on-going effort to make the world a healthier, safer place for all of us.
As a licensed pesticide applicator I prefer organics.I use integrated pest management to determine when a pesticide is needed and then use the least toxic approach first.Rachell Carson was right,Coburn is missinformed.
I agree that even dangerous bioacumulating compounds like D.D.T. have a place for use ,not abuse.Today D.D.T. can be used with Mombassa nets to reduce Malaria with great efficasy,and cheaply.I wonder if we don’t have a safer synthetic pyrethroid type pesticide in combination with an organic larvaecide that isn’t twice as effective against Mosquitos.
Community development programs that stress I.P.M. are needed in Malaria hotspots.A bunch of rhetoric bashing enviornmentalists is not helpfull.
peace
Unknown arts: thank you for your intelligent words. I heartily agree.
Senator Coburn, as well as many others of the proponents of the “humanitarian critique” of Rachel Carson, should be honest enough to actually read Silent Spring. Carson repeatedly writes that she did not favor a total ban on any insecticide. In effect she says it twice in the first twelve pages of the book. In a set of articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette celebrating the 100th anniversary of Carson’s birth, those passages were cited at least three times. Critics such as Coburn are constructing a straw person to combat.
I just read an article on Yahoo’s popular news site concerning cocaine, tobacco, caffeine and marijuana in the air around Rome, Italy:
“The concentration of cocaine in Rome’s atmosphere was only 0.1 nanogrammes (1 nanogramme is one billionth of a gramme) per cubic metre at its height during winter months, the researchers said. But the conclusions were worrying for public health.
“It is well documented that even small concentrations in the air of these pollutants can seriously damage health,” said Dr. Ivo Allegrini of the CNR’s Institute for Atmospheric Pollution.”
Amazing how often the same people who denigrate environmentalists for their concern about pesticides, herbicides, and other big business pollutants get all upset about “illegal drugs.” (I don’t know it this is specifically true of those who are involved in the study of Rome, it’s just a general observation.)
Rachel Carson was a pioneer in environmentalism. Whether or not she advocated the elimination of DDT or simply advocated not abusing it is irrelevant. Coburn is correct in that Carson helped initiate the movement toward environmental health partly through her condemnation of the abuse of poisons. He, of course, would not put it that way. The apologists for polluters are among the most incredible hypocrites. They all too often support the use of truly damaging substances by large corporations and fight against private use of much less damaging substance by individuals.
So it goes.
Rachel Carson, the forebearer of environmental awareness, would be 100 years old this week. This courageous lady researched and alerted the world to the dangers of pesticides and other environmental toxins–while dying of cancer (ie–Silent Spring, published in 1962). President Kennedy heeded her warnings, and implemented some measures to counteract these threats. even though her discoverys were then still disputed.
If she were alive and active today, her credibility would be attacked by this administration, who are now waging this contemptuouis war on science and the environment.
Robert Settgast
San Rafael, CA
rhsettgast@hotmail.com