Carson's analysis of DDT and other synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides resulted in a deeply ominous conclusion-pesticides destroy the environment and threaten everything within the ecological system. Carson examined the composition of pesticides, revealing that synthetic pesticides have the ability to not only kill their intended targets, but they also move right up the food chain, eventually reaching the human population. The pesticides then build up in the tissues of the body, rarely breaking down but often building in intensity through continued exposure or changing into forms that are even more toxic by interacting with other ingested chemicals. Even worse, these chemicals cause tremors, paralysis, cancer, and a host of other unpleasant ailments. Carson cites numerous stories about exposed people falling ill and dying shortly after spraying these toxic chemicals. Carson also shows the biological process these poisons take when they enter the body, when they cut off oxygen to the cells and raise the metabolic rate to unhealthy levels. Carson proves these chemicals move on to succeeding generations of offspring through mother's milk and other biological processes.

Most of the book deals with the effects of chemical spraying on wildlife in the environment. Separate chapters deal with birds, insects, fish, and plant life. Needless to say, the picture painted here is not pretty. Too often, spraying chemicals in the 1950's and 1960's brought into play the full ignorance of the human race. Carson's book shows how farmers applied pounds of poisons to their land, far exceeding the recommended application levels. Spray trucks moved through neighborhoods, hosing down the community with poison while the kiddies played outside in the yard. On several occasions, planes sprayed poison on cities. This reckless disregard for life in any form ruined landscapes, created mounds of animal corpses, and gave us tasty water that can melt your teeth.

What is surprising about Carson's book is that people knew all about the effects of these poisons. "Silent Spring" made a difference because it puts it all together, showing how a series of localized incidents is, in fact, a national problem. Carson also wrote her book in a style where even the densest yokels in the herd could figure out the dangers of the problem. Since I am a science idiot, I appreciated Carson's clear articulation of the problem without sacrificing the hard data behind the examples.

Carson delivers a stinging rebuke to our conception of mankind as the dominant force in the universe. If humanity truly rules the roost, so to speak, why are we such idiots about sustaining the very environment that feeds us? The ignorance of man in this book is astounding. Repeatedly, we destroy and destroy again even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the damage we are causing. Local governments kept spraying even when evidence showed it was a failure. Birds literally fell out of the sky while the trucks went out for another pass through the neighborhood. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

"Silent Spring" concludes with a call for sanity. Carson's answer to the insane escalation of chemical spraying is to seek out biological control methods. Many insects have natural enemies that, if introduced into a problem area, will keep down pest populations. Even localized spraying will work better than mass, indiscriminate spraying. Carson argues that biological control methods are increasingly important because insects are building up resistance to pesticides, requiring the creation of even more virulent poisons in a never-ending cycle where nobody wins.

"Silent Spring" is required reading for anyone concerned about the environment. Carson's book led to significant changes in environmental law (some would say not enough change) and resulted in the outright ban of DDT. My only problem with the book is the introduction written by Al Gore, as the publisher marketed the book with that fact in mind. Gore's name seems to merit equal billing with Carson's on the cover. One must remember Al Gore is a politician and is in league with the destroyers because he needs their money to run his expensive campaigns. Carson would be appalled.


Misunderstood   June 5, 2003
 64 out of 82 found this review helpful

Too many reviewers see only one thread of Carson's argument: that DDT and pesticides like it endanger the environment. The other thread is that DDT resistance in mosquitoes develops very quickly, and the more quickly the more it is used. Which leaves us right back where we started. Her argument is not that pesticides should not be used, but that they should be used intelligently. In this age, when antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming a very serious problem precisely because of antibiotic overuse (and not only in hospitals, but, most egregiously, as growth enhancers for livestock), this argument should be indisputable.


Silent Spring is for the birds   December 1, 1999
 57 out of 97 found this review helpful

This is one of the most influential books of our time. Even now, it contributes to the death of one child every 12 seconds, mostly in the Third World, because it helped to bring about the ban of DDT with a resulting resurgence of malaria and other insect-borne diseases.

Entomologist G. Gordon Edwards wrote: ``In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, and because of my 25 years of nature study I expected to be delighted....It didn't take long to learn that she had filled the book with great numbers of untruthful things. Vice President Al Gore has stated that Rachel Carson turned his life around. She turned mine around, too, but in the opposite direction,...from an 'environmentalist' to a scientist with a desire to keep truth in science and environmentalism.''

Audubon magazine refused to publish the other side of the DDT story and accused Edwards of being in the pay of the pesticide industry. He won a libel suit against them. In fact, many scientists were going along with the anti-DDT propaganda in order to get paid for flawed experiments.

DDT was actually good for birds. There is a vast amount of material to refute assertions to the contrary. Bird counts in 1960 (after DDT) vs. 1941 (before DDT) showed 12 times more robins, 21 times more cowbirds, 38 times more blackbirds, 131 times more grackles, etc. Possible protective effects include: increasing plant yields; increasing protective cover; eliminating mosquito-borne bird diseases; and inducing liver enzymes that break down naturally occurring environmental toxins and carcinogens.

It was said that DDT was killing eagles and other predatory birds. In fact, eagles were endangered long before DDt was discovered. Yes, eggshells were thinner in birds that were fed DDT--but only when the birds were also deprived of calcium. DDT does NOT undergo biomagnification in the food chain. Scientists "proved" that it does by comparing concentrations in hawk brains with that in fish muscle. Comparing muscle with muscle shows no such effect. DDT does not persist for a long time in the environment. In 38 days, 92% of the DDT in a sealed container of sea water disappeared. One can "find" DDT--in samples sealed decades before DDT was discovered-- by using methods that detect interfering substances found in fluorescent light ballast or plastic tubing.

It is true that in one experiment "DDT-fed mice developed cancers"--but the control animals that were NOT fed DDT developed almost 25% MORE cancers.

Dr. Edwards is so convinced of DDT's safety that he used to eat a tablespoon of DDT powder at the beginning of every speech. In 1971, Robert and Louise Loibl took a capsule of 10 mg of DDT (a full year's intake for an average American) every day for 3 months without ill effect.

Rachel Carson dedicated her book to Albert Schweitzer, who said ``Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.''

``Miss Carson knew,'' Edwards states, that ``he was referring to atomic warfare when she quoted that, but she implied that he meant there were deadly hazards from pesticides such as DDT. I got a copy of Schweitzer's autobiography to see if he really mentioned DDT. He did, writing (p. 262): 'How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us...but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us'.''

The ban on DDT was based on a tissue of lies and half truths, for which Rachel Carson must be held partly responsible. Babies are being sacrificed for the welfare of the birds--and they are dying in vain.


Junk Science   February 25, 2001
 53 out of 95 found this review helpful

A number of years ago I read a critical review of "Silent Spring" where the author of the review accused Rachel Carlson of making a very basic error in statistical inference. I went out and got a copy of the book to see for myself. To my surprise and great disappointment I found that yes Carlson exactly what the reviewer said. Carlson claimed that there was a dramatic increase in the rate of death from childhood leukemia between 1900 and (circa) 1960 and blamed the increase on chemical pollution. Carlson failed to understand the difference between rate (as she defined it) and incidence. In 1900 children died from many different diseases most of which were cured by 1960. So naturally a greater fraction of child deaths would be from leukemia. If we cured all childhood diseases except leukemia then 100% of the childhood deaths from disease would be from leukemia. You really should compare the incidence rate in 1900 with 1960. Carlson did not do this, either out of ignorance or because it does not give the answer she wanted. This is not just a trivial mistake. It reveals a profound lack of competence in drawing conclusions from data. If you want a feel-good polemic against pesticides then you will like this book. If you want to be informed about the dangers of pesticides then read serious works by qualified epidemiologists. Junk science books like this do a disservice to the cause of environmentalism.


A Beginning   December 14, 1999
 46 out of 67 found this review helpful

I was disappointed to say the least of some of the following reviews of Silent Spring. It is no wonder that our earth is being so abused. Yes, Virginia, there is an environmental problem. Unfortunately, it is undeniable. The earth IS fragile (God-created or not), chemicals DO persist in the environment, and we "environmentalists" are NOT Marxists.

You see, the significance of Rachel Carson's book was not its scientific accuracy, nor the position it took on DDT. Its significance was that it helped to turn national, even global, consiousness in a different direction. Suddenly we were not the only species on the planet. The steps we take to improve ourselves actually have an impact on the rest of the world...on our own environment. Everyday we make compromises. Ban pesticides, eat a hamburger. Both have significant impacts on the health and hunger of those less fortunate. We help one, we hurt another, whether individuals, businesses, species, or nations. There are few easy ways out. With our tendency to ignore long-term consequences, both negative and positive, it is easy to argue forcibly against such activists as Rachel Carson. Short-term results are nearly absent when we seriously consider securing the future of the earth.

But shouldn't this security be a universal goal?

So read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and be moved as she feels the groanings of the earth and speaks out on their behalf. Thank you, Rachel, for having that courage, for opening that door.