Silent Spring
This took a while to finish. In part because I’m reading too many books at once, but also because it’s so depressing I had to put it down a few times.
Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, published in 1962, is single-handedly responsible for revitalising the environmental movement around the world. I wanted to read it just for historical context, but the message is so powerful and important that it’s still a very important book.
The book is mainly concerned with indiscriminate pesticides (biocides) such as DDT and various chlorinated hydrocarbons. The book is, of course, famous for inspiring a movement that would very quickly get most of these banned, and it’s very obvious why.
She describes the various projects in the ’50s and ’60s that used these biocides, and how they have a tendency to not just affect the insects or plants targetted, but also, through a process of bioaccumulation in which the pesticides get stored in the bodies of animals in greater and greater doses as they travel up the food chain (that is, a single insect may contain X amount of DDT; a bird that eats twenty of those insects would contain 20X, and because it passes from the system only very slowly, it will remain there while that bird keeps eating insects, or while it is eaten itself), with the result that in the end, applications of these biocides end up killing enormous numbers of larger animals; several projects she described have been successful in wiping out all birds, squirrels, and fish in the (generally very large) treated areas, while not affecting the target insects very much at all, except by removing its natural predators, which, of course, is rather counterproductive.
And of course it’s not just dangerous to birds and the like. She documents a number of cases of human casualties; hardly surprising, given the toxicity of the products involving. Even if death doesn’t occur, permanent brain damage is far more common than it should be, in people handling or just being casually exposed to these supposedly safe products.
And even forgetting the immediate toxicity, there are long-term effects to be considered. Many of the products she talks about (including DDT) are powerful carcinogens. And speaking of long-term effects, insects, with their short generation times, are, of course, going to build up a resistance (and already have), so people will only keep using more and more dangerous pesticides.
She ends the book with alternative approaches to insect control, mostly through introducing natural predators of the insects involved. This has the advantage of being much cheaper and species-specific, and there’s no danger of developing resistance. Or, of course, poisoning your cat.
It’s all very, very depressing to read. If nothing else, it destroyed the myth that “if it’s bad for you, the government wouldn’t allow it!”. Fortunately, Carson’s book made a difference and got all of the products she discusses essentially banned; DDT was banned in the US in 1972, and in most of the rest of the world over the next few decades. Dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor, and its ilk soon followed.
Regulations on biocides and pest control became stricter and more sane, and most of the projects Carson describes would now be immediately dismissed as retardedly reckless.
Still, it’s alarming how many assholes are out to reverse the DDT ban. The meme that a DDT ban caused thousands/millions/billions of preventable deaths due to malaria is still out there, and for some inexplicable reason gaining support, even though it’s complete nonsense.
It’s important to remember that these people, regardless of their motivation (be it Kool-Aid-flavored ignorance or outright malice (well, greed; same thing)), are very directly working to kill your children.
This is only barely hyperbolic.
(If Rachel Carson and the things she cares about interest you, Deltoid is a very interesting blog that often deals with DDT nutjobs.)
WunderKraut said,
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Wow…please don’t tell my three kids that I am “very directly working to kill” them. It may hurt their feelings.
I feel you missed the point of my post. Large-scale DDT applications like were done in the 50’s and 60’s were a detriment to the environment. I am not so sure about to people. I will look into this further.
But the outright ban, instead of large restrictions, of DDT has led to an increase in malaria. How do you support your conclusion that an increase in malaria deaths is “complete nonsense”?
I am willing to argue the finer points. But the fact remains that DDT was one of the best anti-mosquito pesticides ever. Bringing it back in even limited quantities would help reduce the mosquito population and therefore, malaria.
I don’t think banning large-scale use of DDT was a bad thing, I’m just saying that a total ban has caused other side effects.
Here is a question for you: would you be willing to trade one, just one species of birds for the lives of 100,000 children?
Just curious.
Also, did you take the time to read the articles I listed in my post?
Cairnarvon said,
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Because that’s bullshit. There has been no increase in malaria deaths, because DDT was never restricted for the purposes of malaria control, not even in the US, and most certainly not in countries where malaria is an actual problem.
This idea that Carson is responsible for thousands/millions/billions preventable death due to malaria is completely made up.
That’s not true either. It’s one of the most lethal general biocides, maybe, but as a means of controlling insect populations, it’s woefully inadequate.
And this is exacerbated by the fact that mosquitos in many malarial countries are already resistant (if not totally resistant, then at the very least much more so than they were fifty years ago).
You don’t understand how the ecosystem works. The loss of one species of bird can cause a tremendous increase in the number of insects that have suddenly lost their main natural predator, thereby causing far more harm in lost crops even in the semi-long run.
What, the National Review ones? Yes, I read them. And I’ve read a lot of other drivel the National Review has put out over the years, and all of it is about as connected to reality as the idea that the world travels on the back of a turtle is.
The National Review articles weren’t written to mount decent arguments; they were written to misinform the ignorant and the gullible.
Try actually checking out the facts, and the science.