Silent Spring

[amethystmoon]

So I finally started reading Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, last weekend. It's basically the original environmentalist book. It was written in 1962, and it's all about the government pesticide spraying programs, and the rise in pesticide use, radiation, and the creation of non-natural chemicals. It may touch on other things later, I'm only

Comments

[amethystmoon]

Remember that we use these chemicals to control and kill populations of insects that limit our ability to grow crops, or that spread diseases such as malaria that wipe out large numbers of humans.

"Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria
On the contrary, she does consider these points, and cites studies and facts which bring into question this alleged effectiveness. In many situations, the mass chemical spraying that occurred 1) was a "solution" to something that research has shown was not really a problem (ex: fire ants in the southern US); 2) was done against the advisement of branches of the government tasked with researching the effects of this (ex: Fish and Wildlife departments, I believe the FDA, etc.); 3) was later proven to be a temporary fix, where the targeted population surged again a few years later, often with their natural predators or control factors replenishing at a reduced rate (having also been affected by the chemical), thus exacerbating the problem; 4) was carried out even though known alternatives had already been proven to be cheaper or more effective; 5)resulted in the extinction, mutation, and severe reduction of many non-targeted species; 6)was carried out with little research into what quantity was necessary for the desired effect; 7)resulted immediately and directly (never mind indirectly or later) in deaths of humans, pets, and livestock (resulting in quite a few class action lawsuits and other legal measures seeking compensation for people whose livelihoods were ruined by the spraying). The inherent problem with blanket spraying of chemicals is that it is in no way targeted--despite wanting to kill off a particular pest, you are killing or damaging every plant or animal that comes in contact with a sufficient quantity of the chemical, and I'm sure you can imagine that spraying from an airplane is a rather inexact science as to how much chemical will land where. The quantity of DDT or other pesticides necessary to cause nerve damage or death in many creatures is measured not even in the typical parts per million, but rather in parts per billion, and we were dumping multiple pounds of it per acre.

Carson also does point out situations (such as malaria control) where use of chemical pest control has been effective, but she advocates for responsible, targeted, well-researched use of chemicals, and use of more natural alternatives whenever possible (such as introducing predatory populations, rotating crops, growing crops in smaller, more interspersed patches, etc... basically all of the approaches that, for example UMass's Integrated Pest Management program teaches). It's simply a fact that introducing toxic chemicals to an environment will cause unwanted fallout - very few species have exhibited immunity or resistance to these pesticides.

I am willing to read critical research opposing Carson, and I intend to seek it out when I'm done with Silent Spring, but her facts do seem to be pretty well researched, and a lot of the critical articles I've skimmed on the internet seem to ignore the alternatives she offers, her concessions to effective chemical applications, and the research she cites.

but argue that the solution is balanced usage of technology, not a hysterical run back to "the good old days" before we had synthetic fibers, reasonable disease control, medicine, and the like.
I certainly agree. Hence, "to what extent do we need to revert" - I'm not suggesting we give up technology, but that we approach it more responsibly and perhaps reevaluate what acceptable costs are, especially when dealing with problems of annoyance or inconvenience rather than actual threats to lives or livelihoods. I do think it's worth noting, however, that even though we may be more comfortable now, and are largely unwilling to give that up, we do have a severe population control problem now as well as many environmental problems, and humans thrived for millennia without these problems before we started inventing things that don't occur in nature.