What do you think?
Rate this book
Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment
With this eloquent and impassioned book, biologist and poet Sandra Steingraber shoulders the legacy of Rachel Carson, producing a work about people and land, cancer and the environment, that is as accessible and invaluable as Silent Spring --and potentially as historic.
In her early twenties, Steingraber was afflicted with cancer, a disease that has afflicted other members of her adoptive family. Writing from the twin perspectives of a survivor and a concerned scientist, she traces the high incidence of cancer and the terrifying concentrations of environmental toxins in her native rural Illinois. She goes on to show similar correlation in other communities, such as Boston and Long Island, and throughout the United States, where cancer rates have risen alarmingly since mid-century. At once a deeply moving personal document and a groundbreaking work of scientific detection, Living Downstream will be a touchstone for generations, reminding us of the intimate connection between the health of our bodies and the integrity of our air, land, and water.
"By skillfully weaving a strong personal drama with thorough scientific research, Steingraber tells a compelling story....Well worth reading."--Washington Post
In her early twenties, Steingraber was afflicted with cancer, a disease that has afflicted other members of her adoptive family. Writing from the twin perspectives of a survivor and a concerned scientist, she traces the high incidence of cancer and the terrifying concentrations of environmental toxins in her native rural Illinois. She goes on to show similar correlation in other communities, such as Boston and Long Island, and throughout the United States, where cancer rates have risen alarmingly since mid-century. At once a deeply moving personal document and a groundbreaking work of scientific detection, Living Downstream will be a touchstone for generations, reminding us of the intimate connection between the health of our bodies and the integrity of our air, land, and water.
"By skillfully weaving a strong personal drama with thorough scientific research, Steingraber tells a compelling story....Well worth reading."--Washington Post
374 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
64 people are currently reading
1873 people want to read
About the author
Sandra Steingraber
20 books42 followersEcologist, author, and cancer survivor, Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized expert on the environmental links to cancer and reproductive health. She received her doctorate in biology from the University of Michigan and master’s degree in English from Illinois State University. She is the author of Post-Diagnosis, a volume of poetry, and coauthor of a book on ecology and human rights in Africa, The Spoils of Famine. She has taught biology at Columbia College, Chicago, held visiting fellowships at the University of Illinois, Radcliffe/Harvard, and Northeastern University, and served on President Clinton’s National Action Plan on Breast Cancer.
Steingraber’s highly acclaimed book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment presents cancer as a human rights issue. It was the first to bring together data on toxic releases with newly released data from U.S. cancer registries. Living Downstream won praise from international media, including The Washington Post, the Nation, The Chicago Tribune, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, The Lancet, and The London Times. In 1997, Steingraber was named a Ms. Magazine Woman of the Year. In 1998, she received from the Jenifer Altman foundation the first annual Altman Award for “the inspiring and poetic use of science to elucidate the causes of cancer,” and from the New England chapter of the American Medical Writers Association, the Will Solimene Award for “excellence in medical communication.” In 1999, the Sierra Club heralded Steingraber as “the new Rachel Carson.” And in 2001, Carson’s own alma mater, Chatham College, selected Steingraber to receive its biennial Rachel Carson Leadership Award.
Continuing the investigation begun in Living Downstream, Steingraber’s new work, Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood, explores the intimate ecology of motherhood. Both a memoir of her own pregnancy and an investigation of fetal toxicology, Having Faith reveals the alarming extent to which environmental hazards now threaten each crucial stage of infant development. In the eyes of an ecologist, the mother’s body is the first environment for human life. The Library Journal selected Having Faith as one of its best books of 2001. In 2002, it was featured on “Kids and Chemicals,” a PBS documentary by Bill Moyers.
Formerly on faculty at Cornell University, Sandra Steingraber is currently Distinguished Visiting Scholar at Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York. She is married to sculptor Jeff de Castro. They are proud parents of five-year-old Faith and two-year-old Elijah.
Steingraber’s highly acclaimed book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment presents cancer as a human rights issue. It was the first to bring together data on toxic releases with newly released data from U.S. cancer registries. Living Downstream won praise from international media, including The Washington Post, the Nation, The Chicago Tribune, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, The Lancet, and The London Times. In 1997, Steingraber was named a Ms. Magazine Woman of the Year. In 1998, she received from the Jenifer Altman foundation the first annual Altman Award for “the inspiring and poetic use of science to elucidate the causes of cancer,” and from the New England chapter of the American Medical Writers Association, the Will Solimene Award for “excellence in medical communication.” In 1999, the Sierra Club heralded Steingraber as “the new Rachel Carson.” And in 2001, Carson’s own alma mater, Chatham College, selected Steingraber to receive its biennial Rachel Carson Leadership Award.
Continuing the investigation begun in Living Downstream, Steingraber’s new work, Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood, explores the intimate ecology of motherhood. Both a memoir of her own pregnancy and an investigation of fetal toxicology, Having Faith reveals the alarming extent to which environmental hazards now threaten each crucial stage of infant development. In the eyes of an ecologist, the mother’s body is the first environment for human life. The Library Journal selected Having Faith as one of its best books of 2001. In 2002, it was featured on “Kids and Chemicals,” a PBS documentary by Bill Moyers.
Formerly on faculty at Cornell University, Sandra Steingraber is currently Distinguished Visiting Scholar at Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York. She is married to sculptor Jeff de Castro. They are proud parents of five-year-old Faith and two-year-old Elijah.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
August 4, 2008
Why do I read books like these? They just make me mad. I'll never think about water in the same way again. Sometimes books on the environment and its toxins are just unsubstantiated sensationalistic rants. This one is not.
April 8, 2012
Sandra Steingraber is one of my environmental heroes. Secretly I want to be like her "when I grow up," a scientist who is able to convey important scientific knowledge to the lay public. Her style seamlessly blends emotion-stirring imagery with scientific research. This book is her personal inquiry into the environmental origins of cancer, particularly the bladder cancer she suffered in her early 20s, and the throat cancer that ultimately took her best friend's life.
Among the things I really appreciated about this book were how Steingraber organized her inquiry by routes of exposure: water, air, earth, etc. She investigated contaminants and the way that we come into contact with them, and incidences of cancer correlated with this exposure. There is a wealth of knowledge in this book, clearly gleaned from extensive research by Steingraber.
While not a "page-turner" per se, I never found this book boring or dry, and rather appreciated being able to put it down for awhile and pick it back up without losing the narrative. I think this is an important book that should be read by everyone because the message is so important: we need to understand the connections between environmental contaminants and our own health. Unlike the studies that pop up daily in the popular press touting the next "cancer fighting miracle food," Steingraber presents a full picture, including the limitations of scientific knowledge and understanding. This book provides a critical foundation for understanding what is currently known, and where we need to go.
Among the things I really appreciated about this book were how Steingraber organized her inquiry by routes of exposure: water, air, earth, etc. She investigated contaminants and the way that we come into contact with them, and incidences of cancer correlated with this exposure. There is a wealth of knowledge in this book, clearly gleaned from extensive research by Steingraber.
While not a "page-turner" per se, I never found this book boring or dry, and rather appreciated being able to put it down for awhile and pick it back up without losing the narrative. I think this is an important book that should be read by everyone because the message is so important: we need to understand the connections between environmental contaminants and our own health. Unlike the studies that pop up daily in the popular press touting the next "cancer fighting miracle food," Steingraber presents a full picture, including the limitations of scientific knowledge and understanding. This book provides a critical foundation for understanding what is currently known, and where we need to go.
March 18, 2012
I've tried to avoid adding books I've had to read for school, because I think when I don't have a choice it's hard to like something. However, there are books I learn from and enjoy that I read for school. I've decided it's only fair to review them as well.
This book was required reading for an English class. The class had a weird mix of majors. I've met science majors and creative writing majors in this class, but I couldn't point out one person I know to be an English major.
I learned a lot from Steingraber's book. I'm for her cause and I understand the importance of what she's trying to rely. The information she relays is kind of scary, but it's good for us to get a wake up call. I'll approach my choices in life a little more carefully. In that way this book was successful in reaching its goal.
I didn't particularly like the book itself. The changes in narrative were distracting to me and, with a journalism/creative writing kind of background, I found her science hardcore and her prose melodramatic.
Her narratives brought out an interesting discussion about the individual preference and audience. Science students talked about how the book dragged, how the prose parts seemed irrelevant and how she couldn't get to the point. The more scientifically inclined were also on the lookout for where she dug up her facts. The creative writers found the book to be boggling with all the facts and figures she throws at them and enjoyed the breaks in data she took via personal story.
There seemed to be a general consensus that this book punches the reader with facts. For some, it was to such a point that it made them feel dull to statistics and numbers. Like many in the class, I felt so totally overwhelmed with her fact throwing I could hardly make it through each chapter.
It seems like Steingraber was trying to appeal to a wide general audience by including these two types of writing. A type of writing to appease the critically minded and a type of writing to make it more accessible to anyone and draw people into the personal side of this problem.
Steingraber is a biologist and creative writer, but I don't think she understands how to integrate these two loves to make something that flows easier, but also gets her message out. I've been exposed to scientific and creative writing and I could see that in these individual categories she knew what she was doing. I would've preferred they mingled instead of co-existed in her writing. I think a journalistic prose would server her purpose well.
This book was required reading for an English class. The class had a weird mix of majors. I've met science majors and creative writing majors in this class, but I couldn't point out one person I know to be an English major.
I learned a lot from Steingraber's book. I'm for her cause and I understand the importance of what she's trying to rely. The information she relays is kind of scary, but it's good for us to get a wake up call. I'll approach my choices in life a little more carefully. In that way this book was successful in reaching its goal.
I didn't particularly like the book itself. The changes in narrative were distracting to me and, with a journalism/creative writing kind of background, I found her science hardcore and her prose melodramatic.
Her narratives brought out an interesting discussion about the individual preference and audience. Science students talked about how the book dragged, how the prose parts seemed irrelevant and how she couldn't get to the point. The more scientifically inclined were also on the lookout for where she dug up her facts. The creative writers found the book to be boggling with all the facts and figures she throws at them and enjoyed the breaks in data she took via personal story.
There seemed to be a general consensus that this book punches the reader with facts. For some, it was to such a point that it made them feel dull to statistics and numbers. Like many in the class, I felt so totally overwhelmed with her fact throwing I could hardly make it through each chapter.
It seems like Steingraber was trying to appeal to a wide general audience by including these two types of writing. A type of writing to appease the critically minded and a type of writing to make it more accessible to anyone and draw people into the personal side of this problem.
Steingraber is a biologist and creative writer, but I don't think she understands how to integrate these two loves to make something that flows easier, but also gets her message out. I've been exposed to scientific and creative writing and I could see that in these individual categories she knew what she was doing. I would've preferred they mingled instead of co-existed in her writing. I think a journalistic prose would server her purpose well.
March 27, 2011
I first saw the documentary based on this book because my friend had worked as part of the film's outreach team. The film was beautifully done, and the Q&A session with Steingraber and the director was thought-provoking. I decided to read the book for a nonprofit law and policy class.
I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in high school, which opened my eyes and terrified me at the same time. "Living Downstream" is definitely reminiscent of "Silent Spring", but Steingraber employs her background in poetry to give the reader a personal perspective and a bit of a "rest" from the scientific terminology.
Steingraber has family members who are conventional farmers, as do I, so I thought she showed respect for farmers while still holding them accountable. She also poses some solutions that have been realistic and successful in Canada and Europe.
After reading the last page, I closed the book feeling angry about the U.S.'s negligence when it comes to chemicals, yet educated on some clear steps that can be taken to begin changing course.
I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in high school, which opened my eyes and terrified me at the same time. "Living Downstream" is definitely reminiscent of "Silent Spring", but Steingraber employs her background in poetry to give the reader a personal perspective and a bit of a "rest" from the scientific terminology.
Steingraber has family members who are conventional farmers, as do I, so I thought she showed respect for farmers while still holding them accountable. She also poses some solutions that have been realistic and successful in Canada and Europe.
After reading the last page, I closed the book feeling angry about the U.S.'s negligence when it comes to chemicals, yet educated on some clear steps that can be taken to begin changing course.
April 17, 2011
Over a month after finishing the book, I finally have my review ready:
Living Downstream was a very dense book, and reading it was sometimes quite depressing. It really served to raise my awareness about how little regulation of chemicals there is in the US. This lack of regulation and oversight means that untold pounds of chemicals are released into the air, ground, and water every day, and individually and in combination, many of these chemicals put us at greater risk for getting cancer. Contrary to the public perception that so much risk of cancer is due to lifestyle choice (i.e., “If you’d only stopped smoking, you wouldn’t have gotten lung cancer.”), the reality is that exposure to toxins from our environments is a really big factor and one which we can hardly do anything about at the individual level.
Here are some salient (sometimes shocking, outrageous, infuriating, thought-provoking) bits from the book:
Pg. 27: Rachel Carson (the author of Silent Spring) died of cancer, but wouldn’t let anyone know she suffered from it as she didn’t want it to diminish the perception of her scientific objectivity.
Pg. 47: More than 40% of Americans are expected to contract cancer in our lifetimes. That’s 2/5 of people. That’s two out of me and my four siblings.
Pg. 102: Out of the approximately 80,000 chemicals in circulation, “only 2 percent of them have been thoroughly assessed for toxicity.” New chemicals aren’t required to be tested: manufacturers must “divulge what they know about the risks of any new chemicals” they want to put on the market. Pre-existing chemicals that are found to be dangerous aren’t prohibited. Instead, the EPA must “balance economic benefits of any chemical against its health risks.” Chemicals can only be regulated if the health risk is considered “unreasonable.”
Pg. 105: “Under EPCRA, any citizen can obtain a list of the reported toxic releases in his or her home county by typing their ZIP code” into a government website: www.epa.gov/triexplorer
Here’s another website to check out, the Right to Know Network: http://www.rtknet.org/
Pg. 124: “Half of all endosulfan (an insecticide) used each year is used in California, and it is a common contaminant in the Imperial Valley’s Alamo River.” Despite finding that the endosulfan residue in food and water “posed unacceptable risks,” the EPA allowed it to stay on the market. Endosulfan can speed the growth of human breast cancer cells.
Pg. 130: “With the invention of mauve in 1854, synthetic dyes began replacing natural plant-based dyes in the coloring of cloth and leather.” The people who worked with these chemicals had skyrocketing levels of bladder cancer. “Aromatic amines” were the culprit, and these were added to rubbers and cutting oils to serve as accelerants and antirust agents machinists and metal workers also began to get bladder cancer.
Pg. 153: Obesity and weight gain are risk factors for several cancers, including esophageal, pancreatic, uterine, colon, and post-menopausal breast cancer. I never knew obesity was a risk factor for cancer. Is this something everyone knows? Childhood obesity may contribute to breast cancer risk by hastening the onset of puberty: as a group, chubbier girls develop breasts at younger ages than leaner girls; early sexual maturation is a known risk factor for adult breast cancers. It is? I didn’t know this.
Pgs. 164-165: California is the only state with a comprehensive pesticide registry that requires all growers to report all agricultural pesticide use.
“The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a law that protects people from pesticides and ensures their registration. However, this law has a cost/benefit clause that allows risks to humans, such as farmworkers, to be weighed against the economic benefits of the pesticide in question.” Another quote: “The fact that such limited regulation exists is misleading if it causes the public to believe that farm workers are protected from potentially carcinogenic substances when they are not.”
Pg. 178: Cancer diagnoses attributable to air pollution comes from a 2009 EPA investigation called the National Air Toxics Assessment, which “looks at air contaminants within all counties in the US and concluded that ALL 285 MILLION U.S. RESIDENTS HAVE ELEVATED CANCER RISKS FROM EXPOSURE TO AIR POLLUTION.” The risk isn’t evenly distributed, though: some counties in Southern Cal (as well as other states) have significantly higher risks.
Pg. 179: Lung cancer among non-smokers is the 6th most common cause of cancer death in the US. 20% of those are attributed to second-hand smoke. But the majority of nonsmoking lung cancers remains unexplained. (Maybe air pollution.) US and European studies are finding higher rates of lung cancer in urban non-smokers (as opposed to those who live in rural areas).
Pgs. 192-193: Water utilities must inform customers which pollutants have been detected in our “drinking water and whether water quality standards have been violated.” 10% of the nation’s water is out of compliance BUT “the legal limits for each chemical have been arrived at through a compromise between public safety and economics.” It’s not based on health—it’s also based on how expensive it would be to reduce the contaminants to particular levels. Enforceable limits had, in 2009, only been established for 90 contaminants. “...of the 216 chemical pollutants identified as breast carcinogens in animals, at least 32 are found in drinking water, but only 12 of them are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Also unregulated at the federal level are pharmaceuticals and ingredients found in shampoo, make-up, insect repellants, and deodorants.
Pg. 195: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are carbon-based synthetic chemicals that are unstable, that is they vaporize more readily than water; most of which are suspected carcinogens. VOCs often contaminate tap water and are easily absorbed by our skin and even enter our breathing space when they evaporate. Check this out: “The simple, relaxing act of taking a” mother-fucking “bath turns out to be a significant route of exposure to volatile organics.” ! “In at least two studies, the exhaled breath of people who had recently showered or bathed contained elevated levels of VOCs, including chloroform.” “Showering in an enclosed stall appears to contribute the greatest dose” due to inhaling the steam. And guess what? The hotter the water, the more VOCs you breathe!
http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/getawate...
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminan...
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/1...
Pg. 243: California has passed legislation to establish the first state-based biomontoring program. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Biomo...
I know nobody's going to read this whole review, but I'm glad I read the book and that I copied down/summarized these crazy quotes. It is too easy to forget this stuff and I want to be able to take action on these issues.
Living Downstream was a very dense book, and reading it was sometimes quite depressing. It really served to raise my awareness about how little regulation of chemicals there is in the US. This lack of regulation and oversight means that untold pounds of chemicals are released into the air, ground, and water every day, and individually and in combination, many of these chemicals put us at greater risk for getting cancer. Contrary to the public perception that so much risk of cancer is due to lifestyle choice (i.e., “If you’d only stopped smoking, you wouldn’t have gotten lung cancer.”), the reality is that exposure to toxins from our environments is a really big factor and one which we can hardly do anything about at the individual level.
Here are some salient (sometimes shocking, outrageous, infuriating, thought-provoking) bits from the book:
Pg. 27: Rachel Carson (the author of Silent Spring) died of cancer, but wouldn’t let anyone know she suffered from it as she didn’t want it to diminish the perception of her scientific objectivity.
Pg. 47: More than 40% of Americans are expected to contract cancer in our lifetimes. That’s 2/5 of people. That’s two out of me and my four siblings.
Pg. 102: Out of the approximately 80,000 chemicals in circulation, “only 2 percent of them have been thoroughly assessed for toxicity.” New chemicals aren’t required to be tested: manufacturers must “divulge what they know about the risks of any new chemicals” they want to put on the market. Pre-existing chemicals that are found to be dangerous aren’t prohibited. Instead, the EPA must “balance economic benefits of any chemical against its health risks.” Chemicals can only be regulated if the health risk is considered “unreasonable.”
Pg. 105: “Under EPCRA, any citizen can obtain a list of the reported toxic releases in his or her home county by typing their ZIP code” into a government website: www.epa.gov/triexplorer
Here’s another website to check out, the Right to Know Network: http://www.rtknet.org/
Pg. 124: “Half of all endosulfan (an insecticide) used each year is used in California, and it is a common contaminant in the Imperial Valley’s Alamo River.” Despite finding that the endosulfan residue in food and water “posed unacceptable risks,” the EPA allowed it to stay on the market. Endosulfan can speed the growth of human breast cancer cells.
Pg. 130: “With the invention of mauve in 1854, synthetic dyes began replacing natural plant-based dyes in the coloring of cloth and leather.” The people who worked with these chemicals had skyrocketing levels of bladder cancer. “Aromatic amines” were the culprit, and these were added to rubbers and cutting oils to serve as accelerants and antirust agents machinists and metal workers also began to get bladder cancer.
Pg. 153: Obesity and weight gain are risk factors for several cancers, including esophageal, pancreatic, uterine, colon, and post-menopausal breast cancer. I never knew obesity was a risk factor for cancer. Is this something everyone knows? Childhood obesity may contribute to breast cancer risk by hastening the onset of puberty: as a group, chubbier girls develop breasts at younger ages than leaner girls; early sexual maturation is a known risk factor for adult breast cancers. It is? I didn’t know this.
Pgs. 164-165: California is the only state with a comprehensive pesticide registry that requires all growers to report all agricultural pesticide use.
“The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a law that protects people from pesticides and ensures their registration. However, this law has a cost/benefit clause that allows risks to humans, such as farmworkers, to be weighed against the economic benefits of the pesticide in question.” Another quote: “The fact that such limited regulation exists is misleading if it causes the public to believe that farm workers are protected from potentially carcinogenic substances when they are not.”
Pg. 178: Cancer diagnoses attributable to air pollution comes from a 2009 EPA investigation called the National Air Toxics Assessment, which “looks at air contaminants within all counties in the US and concluded that ALL 285 MILLION U.S. RESIDENTS HAVE ELEVATED CANCER RISKS FROM EXPOSURE TO AIR POLLUTION.” The risk isn’t evenly distributed, though: some counties in Southern Cal (as well as other states) have significantly higher risks.
Pg. 179: Lung cancer among non-smokers is the 6th most common cause of cancer death in the US. 20% of those are attributed to second-hand smoke. But the majority of nonsmoking lung cancers remains unexplained. (Maybe air pollution.) US and European studies are finding higher rates of lung cancer in urban non-smokers (as opposed to those who live in rural areas).
Pgs. 192-193: Water utilities must inform customers which pollutants have been detected in our “drinking water and whether water quality standards have been violated.” 10% of the nation’s water is out of compliance BUT “the legal limits for each chemical have been arrived at through a compromise between public safety and economics.” It’s not based on health—it’s also based on how expensive it would be to reduce the contaminants to particular levels. Enforceable limits had, in 2009, only been established for 90 contaminants. “...of the 216 chemical pollutants identified as breast carcinogens in animals, at least 32 are found in drinking water, but only 12 of them are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Also unregulated at the federal level are pharmaceuticals and ingredients found in shampoo, make-up, insect repellants, and deodorants.
Pg. 195: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are carbon-based synthetic chemicals that are unstable, that is they vaporize more readily than water; most of which are suspected carcinogens. VOCs often contaminate tap water and are easily absorbed by our skin and even enter our breathing space when they evaporate. Check this out: “The simple, relaxing act of taking a” mother-fucking “bath turns out to be a significant route of exposure to volatile organics.” ! “In at least two studies, the exhaled breath of people who had recently showered or bathed contained elevated levels of VOCs, including chloroform.” “Showering in an enclosed stall appears to contribute the greatest dose” due to inhaling the steam. And guess what? The hotter the water, the more VOCs you breathe!
http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/getawate...
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminan...
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/1...
Pg. 243: California has passed legislation to establish the first state-based biomontoring program. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Biomo...
I know nobody's going to read this whole review, but I'm glad I read the book and that I copied down/summarized these crazy quotes. It is too easy to forget this stuff and I want to be able to take action on these issues.
December 2, 2024
I had to read this for class. It was pretty good considering it had a lot of scientific information. If you're curious about environmental factors in cancer causation this is a good read. I learned a lot about cancer I didn't previously know. Also destroys many misconceptions around cancer such as the emphasis on individual behavior/choices can essentially prevent different cancers.
February 8, 2013
I highly recommend this book to anyone who loved Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. In many ways, this is a sequel to the original book that brought the danger of pesticides and pollutants to the public's attention. Mixed in with all of the scientific talk about cancer cells, carcinogens, and pollutants are stories of the author's personal battle with cancer, the struggles of those in her home town who fought (unsuccessfully) for someone to recognize the high rate of cancer among residents, and personal anecdotes about how the author conducted her research for this comprehensive book.
Some highlights: an indepth look at how the military-industrial complex turned to civilian life for someplace to dump all their chemicals after the war (hello, pesticides and herbicides!) in the chapter 'War'; a gutwrenching realization that most of what we know about cancer comes from torturing animals ('Animals'); a story of communities banding together to prevent incinerators from moving to their towns; an interesting comparison between the facts about environmental factors causing cancer and how people are taught most cancers can be prevented through behavior.
Overall, a bit of a downer to read (we're all poisoned and many of us will die because of it), but a fascinating read.
Some highlights: an indepth look at how the military-industrial complex turned to civilian life for someplace to dump all their chemicals after the war (hello, pesticides and herbicides!) in the chapter 'War'; a gutwrenching realization that most of what we know about cancer comes from torturing animals ('Animals'); a story of communities banding together to prevent incinerators from moving to their towns; an interesting comparison between the facts about environmental factors causing cancer and how people are taught most cancers can be prevented through behavior.
Overall, a bit of a downer to read (we're all poisoned and many of us will die because of it), but a fascinating read.
September 9, 2013
Steingraber's damning indictment of the American chemical industry and their ongoing poisoning of the American populace -- and the direct links to cancer stands alongside Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in both its evidence and its eloquence. The U.S. Government also emerges as being culpable in their lack of will to reign in the industry and save lives. Required reading for anyone concerned about their health, the health of their children, and the future of the world.
March 16, 2008
A bit difficult to read, as I read it while Lorene was struggling to fight breast cancer for the third time. Makes a powerful point about the consequences of the U.S. ignoring the precautionary principle and waiting to see if enough people get cancer to force a chemical to be banned before any action is taken.
August 25, 2008
This book opened my eyes to lots of the problems with all types of pollution that can enter our bodies. I don't know if I can ever live in Iowa. It is a must read. I would like to see more results of correlation studies of types of cancer related to what is in the local environment, workplaces, and ground water.
July 19, 2021
Well- written, well- researched, expertly documented, intelligent and written in a way the non-scientists can understand. A must read for anyone concerned about toxic chemicals in our environment.
February 29, 2024
4/5. Such an informative and important book. I discovered it in an article I had to read for an environmental class. I found it was available at my library and was in storage. It was published in 1997. It makes me sad this was in storage because this information is not talked about enough. This book brought to me more questions than answers which I believe was its intention. It drew connections between the environment and human cancer. It talked a lot about the harmful effects of pesticides and how they are everywhere. There are many hazards out there that are so common, people just assume they are safe. This book also has inspired me to put silent spring on my reading list. Its scary to realize that decades can transpire between the time of exposure to when symptoms of disease occur. Sandra made a great point of how we need to traction putting all focus on curing cancer to focusing on how to preventing it. A good general rule is to avoid quickness. Cancer is much more prevalent in areas with heavy industry. Sandra was diagnosed with bladder cancer in college. SO scary to think how young she was. One fact that stood out to me was that perch in the great lakes had testicular cancer. This hits very close to home. When fish get cancer, its usually from human activity. I haven't really thought about how animals can get cancer too. Another something that was particularly interesting to me was how our bodies are like living scrolls of sorts. Like the rings of trees, our tissues are historical documents that can be read by those who know how to. I wonder if they could see you lead levels at a certain point in your life. She asked the question why we are urged to avoid carcinogens in the environment and why are they allowed there in the first place? This book is not an easy read by any means. It is full of facts and information. I thought it would be a little more narrative than it was. I wish she had talked about her own experience with cancer a little more. But besides that, this is a book that I believe was ahead of its time. I have a very deep interest for this topic and it makes me very curious.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 25, 2017
A maddening and exhilarating read. Though the book is over 20 years old, unfortunately not much has changed. We are still spilling poisons into our environment; into our water, soil, and air. And still, the long-suspected causalities between environmental factors and cancers have not been studied in earnest, for a variety of negligent reasons. So as a result, the agencies that are supposed to protect us deem that such and such chemical's deleterious effect on human health cannot be confirmed, or in some cases they will claim that the same chemical is harmless, but this "conclusion" stems from lack of research even with sufficient evidence already available that can establish clear causality.
It's difficult to read something like this. The more I know, the angrier I am, and more powerless I feel.
I honestly feel this should be mandatory reading for every single human being. Superbly researched and written.
It's difficult to read something like this. The more I know, the angrier I am, and more powerless I feel.
I honestly feel this should be mandatory reading for every single human being. Superbly researched and written.
May 10, 2022
Insane popular science treatise on the environmental factors for cancer. Damning evidence against the EPA and federal and state government more broadly for how they've failed us as citizens in toxin regulations, particularly those from low income communities. Having dived into the EPA legislation and toxin regulations myself, her clear comments and critiques are mind-blowing (that stuff is difficult to come away from with anything substantial. It's truly meant to be disorienting and her analysis is brilliant.) A model of clear science writing with emotionally poignant personal pieces and prose interwoven throughout. Highly recommend for anybody interested in learning more about the forces stalling environmental health legislation and the issues more broadly.
January 27, 2019
Steingraber writes about the correlation between environmental toxins and cancer, and her research is not just credible but convincing, and scary as hell. It is also nothing particularly new, and while I honestly do not mean this to be dismissive of her or her work, there are WAY too many comparisons of her to Rachel Carson. Carson is a giant in the field and few can touch her. Nevertheless, even as we roll back governmental protections in the United States under our own current toxic administration, the research continues showing just how vulnerable we all are. Highly recommend Living Downstream.
April 14, 2020
LIVING DOWNSTREAM - 5/5 stars
This isn't my usual type of book (yeah, I had to read it for class), but I think it's a really important read. It's really accessible, language-wise, and it drops some extremely scary but important truths. You're both sucked into the narrator's story of herself and her subject, and you're both compelled to keep reading because it's exposing such a dangerous underside to our world. It's a hefty book, but it really does go by quickly. Content-wise, the book is heavy, so just be ready for that.
This isn't my usual type of book (yeah, I had to read it for class), but I think it's a really important read. It's really accessible, language-wise, and it drops some extremely scary but important truths. You're both sucked into the narrator's story of herself and her subject, and you're both compelled to keep reading because it's exposing such a dangerous underside to our world. It's a hefty book, but it really does go by quickly. Content-wise, the book is heavy, so just be ready for that.
December 29, 2018
A real heart-bearing narrative of how small rural communities are effectively denegrated by the decisions of corporate farming and waste. Its a sad reality that bears to the mind in her scientific exploration of the facts. She takes no punches in coming to her conclusions and there's little room for symphathizing with apathy or inaction by the end. If you can get through the details of the science and keep up with the stories, it's a beautiful and impactful read.
October 24, 2021
This was an extremely informative read about environmental factors of cancer. My only gripe is that there was only ONE SENTENCE in this monster of a book about environmental racism even though it was a well-known and well-documented issue at the time of publication. However, aside from that this was well researched and engaging.
April 28, 2018
I had to read this for my Environmental Justice class. It was very informative and I enjoyed the personal take on cancer and the environment. What I didn't like were the constant references to Rachel Carson.
April 20, 2020
very formative in my thinking about the relationship between human and environmental health, read back in 2016 and still comes to mind when I recount the fire I have caught for environmental stewardship
August 26, 2020
This book self-consciously seeks to add onto the legacy of Rachel Carson's masterpiece "Silent Spring," and it largely succeeds in doing so. I like how she wove the personal and the scientific together.
October 28, 2018
I couldn't finish this book. That doesn't mean it wasn't well written, but it was just too slow for me to get into.
March 10, 2020
Masterpiece.
July 11, 2020
This was tough to get through at times, but I’m glad I stuck with it. The last chapter was by far the best.
January 13, 2021
Brilliant. A presentation of facts you will never forget.
December 28, 2021
Made me really consider what I have been exposed to without my knowledge or consent
January 19, 2022
My bible
September 26, 2022
did i read it thoroughly? no. did i spend nearly two weeks discussing it in class? yeah. i think it deserves to go on my bookshelf fr fr
January 5, 2023
The author is brilliant !
May 21, 2024
A bit outdated now, but interesting nonetheless. I work everyday in oncology and while there are many facets of cancer care this book does an excellent job of introducing another piece of the puzzle.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews