Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson

by Roger E. Meiners (Editor), Pierre Desroches (Editor), Andrew P. Morriss (Editor)

Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement when published 50 years ago, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had a profound impact on our society. As an iconic work, the book has often been shielded from critical inquiry, but this landmark anniversary provides an excellent opportunity to reassess its legacy and influence. In Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson a team of national experts explores the book’s historical context, the science it was built on, and the policy consequences of its core ideas. The conclusion makes it abundantly clear that the legacy of Silent Spring is highly problematic. While the book provided some clear benefits, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance. Despite her reputation as a careful writer widely praised for building
her arguments on science and facts, Carson’s best-seller contained significant errors and sins of omission. Much of what was presented as certainty then was slanted, and today we know much of it is simply wrong.

Genres: Nonfiction

344 pages, Hardcover

First published September 16, 2012

Reviews

[Bhuvanesh · Rating 1 out of 5]

The authors as well as the publisher are biased and have nearly zero credibility. While there may be valid criticisms of "Silent Spring", this book is a farce.

[Audrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very in-depth look at the 1963 book "Silent Spring." It covers the history of the writer and the era, the science (and lack thereof), and the legacy it's left. There are a group of authors, each covering a different aspect. It's pretty academic but definitely worthwhile for anyone interested in science, especially ecology. It's very informative and educational.

These were some key points I found interesting:
* At the time, it was believed that nature is balanced and harmonious and any interference by humans can be catastrophic. Now, ecologists have found that nature is chaotic and in constant flux. It will change with or without human involvement. However, the earlier romantic notion still persists today.
* It was believed that everything in nature was benign and everything synthetic was poison. However, it should be pretty obvious that naturally occurring things like lead arsenate is highly toxic. We know that natural and synthetic materials are equally harmful and harmless.
* Agencies such as the EPA, USDA, and FDA were created more out of politics than for true health and environmental reasons. There are such stringent requirements for food, drugs, and chemicals that if they were to be truly followed, we'd have to ban all life, water, and air on the planet. They cater to special interests more than the public interest.
* The other problem with current regulations is the stifling of innovation plus unintended consequences. Newer, safer pesticides/chemicals/drugs have to be proven to be 100% harmless in all situations. This is, by the laws of nature, impossible. So we have to keep using the outdated ones that existed before the regulations were put in place. Better pesticide use means less land has to be set aside for farming, which then saves land for forests (for instance) and prevents erosion and promotes better health in general.
* Carson rightly criticized the indiscriminate spraying of pesticides on crops. However, she also ignored their benefits. DDT worked best as a repellent, not a crop pesticide. It saved over a billion lives and extended the life span. It's the reason malaria and typhus are rare in the US today. If it had been allowed to continue in developing countries, 50 million more people would be alive today.

[Irene · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book reveals the erroneous thoughts of naturalist, Rachel Carson. DDT was not the singularly cause of birth defects in children. These scientists look at the stampede to eradicate spraying or sprinkling DDT probably made transmitted diseases more prevalent. If DDT was used with constraint there is a possibility that our wildlife would not have as many victims to wasting away and we wouldn't have bed bugs, ticks or mosquitoes carrying diseases.
Let science decide when to pull the plug on pesticides.
This was a good read and excellent follow up study on "Silent Spring".

[D. Owen]

An excellent review of the ways in which Silent Spring has influenced environmentalism over the past 50 years - too often to bad effects...