From the Bookshelf of Diversity in All Forms!…

Silent Spring

Rachel Carson

Start date: April 1, 2018

Finish date: April 28, 2018

Discussion: Monthly Bonus Reads

Why we're reading this: April Bonus Read- Earth Day

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
[close] April Bonus Read- Earth Day

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 73 topics — 889 comments total

Monthly Bonus Reads

The Autobiography of Malcolm X (February 2023)
By Mariah Roze · 2 posts · 18 views

last updated May 17, 2023 10:35AM

For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide (March 2023)
By Mariah Roze · 2 posts · 11 views

last updated Mar 06, 2023 08:42AM

showing 2 of 2 topics view all »

What Members Thought

Jul 26, 2020 Phelia rated it really liked it

Shelves: environment

For science subject, some people see classic and historical books as irrelevant. Science transform very fast, especially in last two decades, thanks to the advance of internet technology. However, this fact does not reduce the value of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson which was originally published in 1962. Although some of the substances stated in this book have been restricted, but environmentalists still refer to this book as great success in educating world society for the danger of toxic chem ...more

14 likes · Like · see review

Nov 14, 2009 Tippy rated it really liked it

Shelves: ecology, animalia, environment, health

Good science backed up all of Rachel Carson's main points in this book. Not every point she made, but those that were most important to the thesis of her book. I particularly liked the part where she discusses the problems with DDT. I have heard, probably in no small part because of Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear," people stating that they believed that abandoning DDT has inadvertently led to the deaths of millions from malaria. Rachael Carson systematically dismantles this argument befo Good science backed up all of Rachel Carson's main points in this book. Not every point she made, but those that were most important to the thesis of her book. I particularly liked the part where she discusses the problems with DDT. I have heard, probably in no small part because of Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear," people stating that they believed that abandoning DDT has inadvertently led to the deaths of millions from malaria. Rachael Carson systematically dismantles this argument before it was ever made. She backs her reasoning up with documented research. Her argument: Using DDT just selects for DDT resistant mosquitoes, who reproduce and have immunity against our pesticide. Plus, since the chemical kills other animals as well, it kills off the natural predators of the mosquitoes, and since prey items always reproduce faster than their predator counterparts, populations of mosquitoes actually greatly increased in areas where DDT was used after a period of 2-3 years. USING DDT led to an increase of malaria. This was repeated again in Bolivia with a hemorrhagic fever spread by rat populations that became unchecked when DDT killed off birds and cats in the area.

Also, contrary to what many people believe this book is about, Rachel never advocates completely eliminating the use of pesticides, but rather conducting broader research that includes 1)what happens when the pesticides are combined and 2)what are the effects on elderly, children etc. She also describes how many people do not follow the guidelines for suggested use of the pesticides, causing more problems. She states that pesticides would be more effective if they were used in smaller, targeted doses rather than spraying massive amounts over large areas.

She doesn't go into detail about the counter arguments to her thesis. She states something, explains the studies that back it up and moves on. I don't necessarily think that this is a fault. It kept the book concise and it flows very well from one thought to the next. (Plus, why would she want to interrupt the flow of her argument to explain the counter arguments and the counter counter arguments and the counter counter counter arguments? That is for the critically thinking reader to do and I appreciate that she leaves me with that responsibility. It's way less condescending.)

Her conclusions are well founded and continue to be relevant. Frankly, I understand the desire and reflex to be nit-picky and critical of every little statement she makes and doesn't make. However, if you are doing that for this book, you're missing the forest for the trees. Even though she has a lot of science in her book, this was not written for scientists but to reach everybody, which it did. Not everybody is interested in reading the back and forths of academia. Her book is big picture.

One glaring exception...she does advocate for the use of biological pest control. Really? All the research done on the problems with pesticides and she didn't bother to look up the method she was advocating? However, she mentioned this in passing a couple times. It was not a main point to her overall objection. Still, when offering another solution, it's probably important to evaluate it better, if you're trying to be taken seriously.
...more

Like · see review