Thus far I really enjoy “The Silent Spring” by Rachel
Carson. It is easy to see in her writing how passionate Carson was about
improving the state of our environment. Passion, however, can often be
misinterpreted as extremism, and I consequently was curious to see if there
have been negative reactions to her book.
I found one such article written by Lisa Makson for
Frontpage Magazine. In her article Makson claims that DDT is a completely
harmless pesticide when used correctly, and she explains in depth the political
processes that caused it to be unjustly banned. Makson goes so far as to blame
Carson for singlehandedly causing the resurgence of infectious diseases such as
malaria and typhus since the outlawing of DDT, and compares the ban on DDT to
the deliberate murder of innocent people. Additionally, she states that Carson
has no scientific grounds for any of the statements in her book, and that it is
filled with “junk science,” and “hysterical speculations.”
Wow! That certainly is an interesting take on DDT. I feel it might be efficient in the elimination of malaria, but I still think you need to examine the other costs and side effects. I feel the anti-malaria researchers in the paper on only concerned on the malaria carrying insects effected by DDT. I think you would also have to look into the change in quality of life after the exposure to DDT. You may not have as many deaths caused by malaria, but you could have a decreased quality of life as a side effect of continual DDT exposure.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting article. When reading Silent Spring, I only thought about how harmful DDT was, but I have never seen the helpful aspects of DDT. It makes sense that DDT could have helped to prevent malaria, and I think that DDT could have been used in a more controlled way, but I still think that the long term effects need to be researched as well. We talked in class about how pesticides can lie dormant in a person and build up with more exposure. If we used a controlled amount of DDT over a long period of time, it still might have this build-up effect.
ReplyDeleteThe linked article is very biased, misleading, and sometimes wholly inaccurate. It is one of a long tradition of attacks on Rachel Carson, her writing, and her science.
ReplyDeleteBias: Notice that there is no mention of the well-known adverse effects of DDT on wildlife, such as the near extinction of birds of prey like the California condor.
Inaccurate: DDT is still in use in tropical countries to control malaria! It has never been subject to a worldwide ban, and I doubt that Rachel Carson ever advocated such a ban.
Misleading: To state that DDT is perfectly safe for humans is only partially true. DDT has not been linked to reproductive disorders or cancer in humans, but has been linked to reproductive disorders in lab studies of mice and rates, and has been linked to cancer in lab studies on mammals. With synthetic chemicals, "no proven link" does not necessarily mean "safe." In addition, there are known acute effects, according to a recent toxicology textbook --
"People exposed to DDT while working with the chemical or by accidental exposure report a prickling sensation of the mouth, nausea, dizziness, confusion, headache, lethargy, incoordination, vomiting, fatigue, and tremors (2)."
(2) Casarett & Doull’s toxicology. The basic science of poisons, Fifth edition.; Klaassen, C. D., Amdur, M. O., Doull, J., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York,1996.