This book was also quite informative, as I was appalled by some of the actual events mentioned, like the story of a factory or warehouse that polluted the water around it so much that over time, the menagerie of chemicals bonded to form an additional one. It is true that Carson exaggerated a bit, but the point is, her message was sent far beyond a person's imagination. Silent Spring was the smoking gun against chemical toxins. Anyhow, I thoroughly enjoyed Silent Spring, and at times I found it hard to put down. After all, I did not give it such a high rating for nothing.


Classic of the environmentalist movement.   January 29, 2000
 10 out of 16 found this review helpful

Man's attempt to control environment and nature was born out of arrogance and has its roots in a primitive stage of biology that assumed that nature exists for man to do as he will with it. Carson calls the use of chemicals to control plants and insects a stone age method. She proposes a variety of biological solutions to the insect problems and more effort to study them instead of resorting to the chemical menace. She describes how the screwworm that afflicts livestock and wild animals was eliminated in Florida, after first being tested on an island, by releasing irradiated sterile male flies. Other biological efforts described are the use of artificial lures, ultrasound, bacterial infections, importing natural enemies like spiders, ants, and the use of small mammals.

The above is the conclusion of this classic work that was a huge stepping stone in environmentalism that grew in the 1960's and 70's and owed much of its impetus to this scientist who chapter by chapter unveils the follies of chemical spraying as a means of attacking a particular insect or plant with no regard to the consequences.


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.


Mother of all junk science "environmentalism"   December 1, 1999
 33 out of 78 found this review helpful

Over 35 years ago, this book, which would give aid and comfort to all those who would destroy our way of life, was written. Consider how the advocates of a certain policy (i.e. banning of pesticides) will skew "scientific" data to support a pre-ordained conclusion. A fine example of that in this book would be the "finding" of thin eagle eggshells, due to (we're told) DDT. Not mentioned was the diet fed to the mother eagles in the study, one containing only 20% of their normal, natural calcium intake.

Stop for a minute to think about how many millions of lives in the world were saved from malaria by DDT - and how many that were not saved since banning it. But, to the new "environmental" Marxists, what's a few million human lives in the battle to enslave all of humanity? Those who have written to praise this monument to junk science ought to consider the harm done by polemics such as this. This same sentiment is in control of the EPA today. One need only look at the environment of former Soviet satellite nations of Eastern Europe to see what a disaster totalitarian governments (with no oversight) have made. Continue along our current course of Washington-dominated command-and-control bureaucratic decision-making (as well as more government funded and controlled "science"), and we will have a dirtier and more unhealthy world, with lower life expectancy for everyone.

Undoubtedly, such an outcome would be praised as "fair" by our would-be dictators.


Silent Spring is for the birds   December 1, 1999
 53 out of 93 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.