Rachel Carson's Alarmist Legacy

National Review Online: "Silent Spring" Stands As A Blueprint For Environmentalists' Strategy

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Iain Murray.

---

Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring," the 1962 book that launched the modern environmental movement, was born a century ago this week, and it is no wonder that green activists are celebrating her legacy. She practically invented the environmental alarmist strategy that has been so successful in pushing a radical environmental agenda. (I won't go into Carson's contribution to the ongoing malaria epidemic in many poor countries owing to her demonization of DDT; for more on that, see here, here, and here.) Her paradigm has been disastrous for rational political discourse. It is a template for bypassing debate and ignoring consequences.

Here's how it works.

First, identify your cause and the laws you want to see enacted. In the environmentalist's blinkered view of the world, everything is connected linearly, not in the multifaceted manner of the real world. Therefore, in the green' view, the removal of a problem will not cause other, unforeseen, problems. For Carson, the problem was the impact of pesticides on bird life; the elimination of pesticides would solve that problem. No other considerations — such as the impact DDT restrictions had on malaria control — could be allowed to come into play. A modern example of this idea is the notion that fossil fuels can be removed from the energy supply to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions without adverse consequences.

Second, create an apocalyptic scenario. The whole point of Carson's "Silent Spring," embodied in the title, was to paint a picture of a world without avian life — that is, a world without birdsong. This simple, evocative message horrified readers, shocking them on a visceral level. Environmentalist-stoked fears about "Frankenfoods" resulting from out-of-control biotechnology follow this model.

Third, claim there's a threat to children. For those unmoved by fears of a birdless world, this should suffice. Carson said in her book that, "A quarter century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity. Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other disease." Her statistics were misleading — the actual rate of cancer among children is unchanged since the 1900s, but cancer's incidence relative to other diseases has increased as medical technology has vanquished many of those other diseases.

Fourth, don the mantle of science and dismiss any evidence that contradicts your position. Carson used statistics and scientific data to provide a seemingly empirical basis for her alarmist claims. The spin continued even when the EPA's own scientists concluded that, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man ... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man ... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Yet evidence doesn't matter; the authority of claiming to represent science "proves" that action is needed. Even hotly disputed scientific claims, such as those concerning the effects of endocrine disruptors (substances that can disrupt the production of certain human hormones) on human health, can provide a seemingly invincible case when asserted in the right way.

Fifth, use the previous three steps to create a clamor that rules out rational debate. With a potential catastrophe, a threat to the innocent, and a ream of supposedly empirical data on your side, you have a recipe for urgent action — though one based on emotion and uncritical acceptance of assertion. Public policy is not (nor should it be) a rational process — emotion and acceptance of authority often drive it — so in recognition of that, modern democracies have created checks and balances. Yet, as the case of DDT shows, the alarmist model can often overcome these checks. If you can also destroy the credibility of your political opponents through ad hominem attacks, so much the better.

Finally, once your measures have been adopted, defend them ruthlessly. The alarmist model relies on its successes being unassailable. Critical examination threatens to reveal that measures advanced by alarmists may be unwarranted, ineffective and, in many cases, positively harmful. Once one such measure is repealed, people may think twice about passing more like it.

The world may finally be waking up to the unintended consequences of restrictions on pesticide use — though not in time to prevent millions of unnecessary deaths. The World Health Organization has called on environmentalists "to help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment" and endorsed increased use of DDT to fight malaria. Now people need to wake up to the harm caused to the political process by Rachel Carson's other legacy, the paradigm of alarmism.

[sverre5-2009]

Frankly, I find this article to be disrespectful to the legacy of Rachel Carson, and Rachel Carson herself. Without the dedication and bravery she exhibited in those last years of her life, environmental standards in the US would be much lower than they are today, and many species of birds would be struggling alot more than they are now. Rachel Carson dedicateded those last years of her life to what she believed was right, and stood up against the agricultural industry and many members of the government. Her legacy is one that has greatly benefited America, and will continue to do so.

[drdr59]

What a bunch of typical moronic right wing claptrap. They are so sad, angry and morally bankrupt that they have to stoop to dredging up and twisting long accepted scientific conclusions, hoping the majority will have forgotten what it was all about in the first place. While they are probably right about the majority being easily misled (Bush is the proof of that), they show such moral depravity to constantly prey on the weaknesses of the masses to sell their garbage.

[ubrew12]

Yeah, lets all rely on the pesticide companies to evaluate the human and environmental dangers of their products fairly. NRO must think we're all boobs.
NRO:"With a potential catastrophe, a threat to the innocent, and a ream of supposedly empirical data on your side, you have a recipe for urgent action %u2014 though one based on emotion and uncritical acceptance of assertion."
I'm sorry, was he referring to the invasion of Iraq?

Malaria control = mosquito netting. Duh!!

[down-ndirty]

"J. Gordon Edwards, a professor emeritus at San Jose State University in California, drank a spoonful of DDT in front of his entomology classes at the beginning of each school year, to make the point that DDT is not harmful to human beings." Posted by billibek at 05:32 PM : Jun 02, 2007
--------------

I find nothing is his bio about this. Do you have a verifiable source?

[billibek]

'ainttaken' scribbled: "I would like to hand Mr. Murray an ice cold glass full of DDT. The symbol of this country, the Bald Eagle, would love to see him at least take a sip."

Here's data for you: J. Gordon Edwards, a professor emeritus at San Jose State University in California, drank a spoonful of DDT in front of his entomology classes at the beginning of each school year, to make the point that DDT is not harmful to human beings.

He died of a heart attack the age of 84 while climbing a mountain.

[billibek]

'ainttaken' scribbled: "I would like to hand Mr. Murray an ice cold glass full of DDT. The symbol of this country, the Bald Eagle, would love to see him at least take a sip."

Here's data for you: J. Gordon Edwards, a professor emeritus at San Jose State University in California, drank a spoonful of DDT in front of his entomology classes at the beginning of each school year, to make the point that DDT is not harmful to human beings.

He died of a heart attack the age of 84 while climbing a mountain.

And you're a twit.

[swingalong]

Typical National Review garbage. "An alarmist legacy," indeed. All she did was say DDT was killing all the birds. It was. They banned it, and the birds came back. If not for Carson, there would definitely be no Brown Pelicans or Peregrine falcons left. They were on the brink of extinction. You can trust the National Review to tell you that the world is 6000 years old and that acid rain is a myth, etc. etc. There is nothing so absolutely idiotic on the very face of it that you won't be able to read in the pages of this brainless publication. Maybe if Bush could write, he could do and article for them: he called global warming "bad science" as if he ever read a book. Just because trash publications like the National Review publish this twaddle doesn't mean that science has no merit or that reality isn't something we should value.

[diamtool]

and the world is 2000 years old, flat, and at the center of the universe.
There! that will do it for science class today kids!

[diamtool]

we have a new type of science in America.

political junk science- a whole new field!
say what the government wants you to say and you can be a famous scientist too!
great career path for dropouts from science academy.
just avoid facts or controversy surrounding Big Biz-- and you are IN!

[diamtool]

amazing that the ddt lobby is still around, i guess they are as persistant as the chemical they love!
they have learned from the no global warming crowd that if you can just keep raising stupid questions, you can keep people confused and get away with crimes.

[codexkills]

Read studies to make sure they're not junk science.- Were the DDT studies manipulated? I read that the birds were fed a low calcium diet with DDT. (http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html) Why are we so sure that DDT was dangerous? Oh, everyone just knows this without reading studies because everyone is so smart now. Why are we so sure that modern day pesticides and genetically engineered foods are safe? The FDA won't even allow people to show evidence that engineered foods cause kidney and liver damage in rats as well as cancer. How do we know that fossil fuels are truly the only form of energy that supports our lifestyle? Read about Nicola Tesla and his goal of free energy to everyone by tapping into the earth's ionosphere.

[jimfinster]

If not for Carson and others like her, the EPA would not have been formed. No Clean Water Act, no environmental regulations of any kind. Industry would have continued to poison the environment unchecked, and her prophesies would have been fulfilled.

Just look at China today as a country without environmental regulations. Horribly dirty air, most water contaminated beyond use, and on and on. This author should be ashamed and embarrased by this article.

[schi1911]

Is Murray still in high school? An 8th grader could poke holes in this argument. The quote that "the removal of a problem won't cause other problems ..." , but the fact that releasing poison on the environment in the first place is Ok??? This is similar to the anti-regulation view that the "marketplace will take care of the bad guys" yes, after they have maimed, killed, and financially ruined people.

[marcodele]

The article states: "EPA's own scientists" determined DDT was not a threat.

Isn't that all dependent on the politics of the moment? I'm sure Junior's EPA scientists were all on Poppy and Barbara's Christmas card mailing list. This administration only hires people who say what he wants to hear.

So whichever administration is in power at the time, the EPA scientists are pretty much in that administration's pockets.

I'd believe Rachel Carson before I would any political appointee.

[codexkills]

The key is, you have to READ the scientific studies to make sure they're not junk studies. The author of this article claims that ALL pesticides are OK, all genetically engineered foods are OK, and pretends that the only form of energy we have are fossil fuels. Maybe the studies show that (1) DDT IS safe (read the studies %u2013 were they really all that legitimate? The birds were fed a diet with low calcium and DDT, and then the bird shells broke %u2013 were the studies performed correctly? Why are we so sure that DDT%u2019s unsafe? Because we just know? (2) studies may show other pesticides are unsafe %u2013 more dangerous than DDT and (3) there really are alternative forms of energy or forms of transportation, and Big Oil has brainwashed us into thinking that oil's the only form of energy that supports our lifestyle. Just watch Nicola Tesla documentaries. More reading, more critical thinking, and really analyzing whether studies are done well or poorly is the only way to improve science.

[codexkills]

The key is, you have to READ the scientific studies to make sure they're not junk studies. The author of this article claims that ALL pesticides are OK, all genetically engineered foods are OK, and pretends that the only form of energy we have are fossil fuels. Maybe the studies show that (1) DDT IS safe (read the studies %u2013 were they really all that legitimate? The birds were fed a diet with low calcium and DDT, and then the bird shells broke %u2013 were the studies performed correctly? Why are we so sure that DDT%u2019s unsafe? Because we just know? (2) studies may show other pesticides are unsafe %u2013 more dangerous than DDT and (3) there really are alternative forms of energy or forms of transportation, and Big Oil has brainwashed us into thinking that oil's the only form of energy that supports our lifestyle. Just watch Nicola Tesla documentaries. More reading, more critical thinking, and really analyzing whether studies are done well or poorly is the only way to improve science.

[codexkills]

The key is, you have to READ the scientific studies to make sure they're not junk studies. The author of this article claims that ALL pesticides are OK, all genetically engineered foods are OK, and pretends that the only form of energy we have are fossil fuels. Maybe the studies show that (1) DDT IS safe (2) other pesticides are unsafe and (3) there really are alternative forms of energy or forms of transportation, and Big Oil has brainwashed us into thinking that oil's the only form of energy that supports our lifestyle. Just watch Nicola Tesla documentaries.

[tbweb]

I remember Rachel Carson, she was the Al Gore of her time! Rachel Carson was wayyyyy ahead of her time and a nightmare for Business and Government to deal with because Rachel graduated at the top of her class magna *** laude with honors and was an expert in her field. It was sad, they didn't even understand what she was talking about then, could not even hold a conversation with her. Rachel was the bomb and still is! I always admired her! Silent Spring, check out that title!!

[nyteryder2]

Wow! Talk about irresponsible journalism! This article takes the prize for alarmism. It fails to fully mention the disasterous effects on wildlife, including large birds and fish. It also fails to mention that DDT is banned in most developed countries. There must be a reason for that!

Murray did not mention that DDT is still used effectively, with strict regulations, in countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious health problems. In fact, the WHO said that DDT will be one of the three main tools used in places with constant and high malaria transmission.

As for the EPA's "own scientists?" After a six-month review process, The EPA Administrator rejected an outright ban, citing studies from the EPA's internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger to human health and wildlife. However, the findings of these staff members were criticized, as they were performed mostly by economic entomologists inherited from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whom many environmentalists felt were biased towards agribusiness and tended to minimize concerns about human health and wildlife. The decision not to ban thus created public controversy.

After seven months of hearings, with evidence pro and con, DDT was classified as an EPA Toxicity Class II substance and virtually banned in the U.S.

So, Murray, your alarmist lies have not gone un-noticed. Next time tell the whole story.

Better to be safe than sorry.

[zorlacskates]

alarmism? really? anybody watch the republican debates? the entire republican platform is based on alarmism and just generally trying to scare the *** out of the electorate. who cares about the environment when, at any moment, our children, our pets, and our great, fearful way of life could be destroyed by terrorists swimming across the ocean with nuclear weapons strapped to their backs!