What do you think?
Rate this book
When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales Of Environmental Deception And The Battle Against Pollution
In When Smoke Ran Like Water , the world-renowned epidemiologist Devra Davis confronts the public triumphs and private failures of her lifelong battle against environmental pollution. She documents the shocking toll of a public-health disaster-300,000 deaths a year in the U.S. and Europe from the effects of pollution-and asks why we remain silent. For Davis, the issue is Pollution is what killed many in her family and forced some of the others, survivors of the 1948 smog emergency in Donora, Pennsylvania, to live out their lives with impaired health. She describes that episode and also makes startling revelations about how the deaths from the London smog of 1952 were falsely attributed to influenza; how the oil companies and auto manufacturers fought for decades to keep lead in gasoline, while knowing it caused brain damage; and many other battles. When Smoke Ran Like Water makes a devastating case for change.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
25 people are currently reading
742 people want to read
About the author
Devra Davis
11 books18 followersDevra Davis is an American epidemiologist and writer. Her book When Smoke Ran Like Water, which begins with the tale of the Donora Smog of 1948, was a finalist for the National Book Award in 2002. Davis's second book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, was published by Basic Books in October 2007.
She is currently the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; the multidisciplinary center includes experts in medicine, basic research, engineering and public policy, who will develop cutting-edge studies to identify the causes of cancer and propose policies to reduce the risks of the disease. Davis is also a Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School. A former Scholar in Residence at the National Academy of Sciences, she completed her Ph.D. in science studies at the University of Chicago as a Danforth Fellow, and an M.P.H. at Johns Hopkins University as a National Cancer Institute post-doctoral fellow. Davis received a B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1967.
She was born June 7, 1946, in Washington, DC, the daughter of Harry B. and Jean Langer Davis, and was raised in Donora, Pennsylvania and in Pittsburgh, where she graduated from Taylor Allderdice High School.
From 1970-76 she was assistant professor of sociology at Queens College of the City University of New York. Beginning in 1982 she was a faculty associate at Johns Hopkins University, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Hygiene and Public Health. She served as a visiting professor at University of Missouri in 1983; Municipal Institute, Barcelona, Spain, in 1985; Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, Department of Community Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in 1988; and Hebrew University, School of Public Health, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1989.
A member of both the American Colleges of Toxicology and of Epidemiology, Dr. Davis is also a Visiting Professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City. In addition, she is a Visiting Scientist of the Strang Cornell Cancer Prevention Center of the Rockefeller University and Scientific Advisor to the Women's Environment and Development Organization. Davis founded the International Breast Cancer Prevention Collaborative Research Group, an organization dedicated to exploring the causes of breast cancer. She currently serves on the Board of the Climate Institute, and the Coalition of Organizations on the Environment and Jewish Life, and the Earthfire Institute.
Davis married Richard D. Morgenstern on October 19, 1975; their children are Aaron and Lea.
-wikipedia
She is currently the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; the multidisciplinary center includes experts in medicine, basic research, engineering and public policy, who will develop cutting-edge studies to identify the causes of cancer and propose policies to reduce the risks of the disease. Davis is also a Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School. A former Scholar in Residence at the National Academy of Sciences, she completed her Ph.D. in science studies at the University of Chicago as a Danforth Fellow, and an M.P.H. at Johns Hopkins University as a National Cancer Institute post-doctoral fellow. Davis received a B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1967.
She was born June 7, 1946, in Washington, DC, the daughter of Harry B. and Jean Langer Davis, and was raised in Donora, Pennsylvania and in Pittsburgh, where she graduated from Taylor Allderdice High School.
From 1970-76 she was assistant professor of sociology at Queens College of the City University of New York. Beginning in 1982 she was a faculty associate at Johns Hopkins University, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Hygiene and Public Health. She served as a visiting professor at University of Missouri in 1983; Municipal Institute, Barcelona, Spain, in 1985; Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, Department of Community Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in 1988; and Hebrew University, School of Public Health, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1989.
A member of both the American Colleges of Toxicology and of Epidemiology, Dr. Davis is also a Visiting Professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City. In addition, she is a Visiting Scientist of the Strang Cornell Cancer Prevention Center of the Rockefeller University and Scientific Advisor to the Women's Environment and Development Organization. Davis founded the International Breast Cancer Prevention Collaborative Research Group, an organization dedicated to exploring the causes of breast cancer. She currently serves on the Board of the Climate Institute, and the Coalition of Organizations on the Environment and Jewish Life, and the Earthfire Institute.
Davis married Richard D. Morgenstern on October 19, 1975; their children are Aaron and Lea.
-wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
April 10, 2008
I think I first picked this book up in preparation for a class presentation on politics and epidemiology. It was really an excellent book, filled with well written personal stories woven into scientific facts and figures. Davis is a highly regarded environmental epidemiologist, and one of the few in the field (and sub-field) who has the courage to speak truth to power.
Part of why this book is so powerful and moving is the fact that Davis and her family lived through the Donora smog incident and experienced first hand the corporate malfeasance and deception that led to and followed the deadly incident. Davis then proceeds to describe other environmental disasters and looming health issues for our population as a result of every day environmental contamination.
All in all, this is a powerful book based on sound science and personal experience. It doesn't get much better in the public health world than when you have this combination of expertise and experience--and someone respected in the field who is willing to speak out, to boot. Davis is a rare gem, indeed.
Part of why this book is so powerful and moving is the fact that Davis and her family lived through the Donora smog incident and experienced first hand the corporate malfeasance and deception that led to and followed the deadly incident. Davis then proceeds to describe other environmental disasters and looming health issues for our population as a result of every day environmental contamination.
All in all, this is a powerful book based on sound science and personal experience. It doesn't get much better in the public health world than when you have this combination of expertise and experience--and someone respected in the field who is willing to speak out, to boot. Davis is a rare gem, indeed.
August 3, 2017
When government officials seek to regulate a risky substance, there is a common pattern of corporate resistance: foster doubts about the science, predict economic doom if the regulation is adopted, and delay, delay, delay. It’s the playbook used most notoriously by the tobacco industry, but it had been used before (and since), as Devra Davis recounts in When Smoke Ran Like Water. A leading epidemiologist, Davis provides the fascinating history of battles to protect public health and of the researchers who sounded the alarm.
The first major battle between the chemical industry and public health was over lead. Tetraethyl lead was an additive to gasoline and to paint since early in the twentieth century. Though some experts early on predicted harm to health from burning lead in exhaust fumes, corporate executives assured the public that such concerns were unfounded. In the 1940s, the lead industry sued a Harvard pediatrician trying to suppress his findings of harm to children who ate lead paint chips.
When the EPA proposed phasing lead out of gasoline in 1973, the Ethyl Corporation, the main lead producer, vigorously opposed the ban in a debate that lasted until 1985. Leaded gasoline was still sold until 1995. The industry produced scientists who argued the harm from particulate lead was unproven. But Herbert Needlemann, a toxicologist at Harvard, found profound harm from lead. His research revealed that young children, mostly Caucasian, who had higher lead levels as toddlers, had IQs nearly four points lower at age ten.
Scientists with ties to the lead industry formally accused Needleman of committing misconduct in the study. He spent more than ten years and thousands of dollars facing repeated challenges. Needleman later wrote, “If my case illustrates anything, it shows that the federal investigatory process can be rather easily exploited by commercial interests to cloud the consensus about a toxicant’s dangers, can slow the regulatory process, can damage an investigator’s credibility, and keep him tied up almost to the exclusion of any scientific output for long stretches of time while defending himself.”
Studies in the 1960s and early 70s found that people living in cities with the dirtiest air had the highest risk of dying. Though this link may seem obvious now, it was highly controversial at the time. Lester Lave was the pioneering researcher in this field. His work was roundly criticized by professors hired by the auto industry to do so. “Science does not reward those who take on controversy, at least not while they ae alive,” Davis writes.
When the Clean Air Act told the auto industry it needed to reduce harmful exhaust emissions, industry executives predicted bankruptcy if they had to meet emission standards, which Japanese manufacturers had already met. In 1973, for example, Lee Iacocca warned that “we could be just around the corner from a complete shutdown of the U.S. auto industry” due to the new regulations. A year later, Iacocca changed his tune, saying his company could comply, but needed more time to do so.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a type of gas that was widely used in coolants and solvents. In 1974, scientists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first warned that CFC emissions were destroying the earth’s ozone layer, exposing humanity to higher risks of skin cancer. The warnings were dismissed as unreliable by the CFC industry. That industry attitude was embraced by Reagan’s EPA administrator, Ann Gorsuch, (whose son became a Supreme Court justice in 2017.) Though subsequent research confirmed the initial findings, the Chemical Manufacturers Association insisted that long-range studies were necessary before regulations should be enacted.
There was little action until Margaret Thatcher, an inveterate critic of environmentalism, did an about-face on CFCs and supported a ban. Her leadership led to a global treaty in 1987 called the Montreal Protocol under which all nations agreed to a timetable to phase out CFC production. Rowlands and Molina won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for their work on CFCs. It probably didn’t hurt that British firms had already developed an alternative to CFCs, and charged 20 times more.
Davis spells out the obvious, namely that delays mean more exposure and deaths than would’ve occurred by a more expeditious process. Reasonable people can disagree about the standard of proof required before restrictions are enacted. How much risk to public health is an acceptable tradeoff for an industry’s growth?
The chemical industry contends that just because exposure of animals to certain chemicals causes cancer, that’s not reason enough to regard the agent as a threat to humans. Animals are, after all, different from us. On the other hand, Davis writes, “everything proven to cause cancer in humans has been shown to do so in animals…We are surely different…but we may not be different enough.”
It’s preferable for “public health research to prevent damage, not to confirm later on that harm has happened.” But “the real scientific difficulties in the field (of epidemiology) have been complicated by a stream of disinformation fueled by the short-term economic interests of those who stand to profit from keeping matters unresolved.”The costs of reducing pollution, contends Davis, should be weighed against the benefits to public health. “If we always insist we should do nothing until the damage is absolutely certain, then the only certainty is that we will cut short millions of lives and bring misery to millions of others.”
What’s happening today when it comes to the climate change debate is the same “clouding the consensus about a toxicant’s dangers” that Professor Needleman encountered. Waiting for certain proof about climate change “constitutes a doomsday experiment.” Davis advocates a carbon tax to speed the transition to cleaner fuels, since people respond to prices.
Avoidable exposures to hazardous chemicals can cause cancer, other afflictions and death. Davis asks readers a trenchant question: “Would you err on the side of overcontrolling a safe agent or on the side of undercontrolling a hazardous one?” ###
The first major battle between the chemical industry and public health was over lead. Tetraethyl lead was an additive to gasoline and to paint since early in the twentieth century. Though some experts early on predicted harm to health from burning lead in exhaust fumes, corporate executives assured the public that such concerns were unfounded. In the 1940s, the lead industry sued a Harvard pediatrician trying to suppress his findings of harm to children who ate lead paint chips.
When the EPA proposed phasing lead out of gasoline in 1973, the Ethyl Corporation, the main lead producer, vigorously opposed the ban in a debate that lasted until 1985. Leaded gasoline was still sold until 1995. The industry produced scientists who argued the harm from particulate lead was unproven. But Herbert Needlemann, a toxicologist at Harvard, found profound harm from lead. His research revealed that young children, mostly Caucasian, who had higher lead levels as toddlers, had IQs nearly four points lower at age ten.
Scientists with ties to the lead industry formally accused Needleman of committing misconduct in the study. He spent more than ten years and thousands of dollars facing repeated challenges. Needleman later wrote, “If my case illustrates anything, it shows that the federal investigatory process can be rather easily exploited by commercial interests to cloud the consensus about a toxicant’s dangers, can slow the regulatory process, can damage an investigator’s credibility, and keep him tied up almost to the exclusion of any scientific output for long stretches of time while defending himself.”
Studies in the 1960s and early 70s found that people living in cities with the dirtiest air had the highest risk of dying. Though this link may seem obvious now, it was highly controversial at the time. Lester Lave was the pioneering researcher in this field. His work was roundly criticized by professors hired by the auto industry to do so. “Science does not reward those who take on controversy, at least not while they ae alive,” Davis writes.
When the Clean Air Act told the auto industry it needed to reduce harmful exhaust emissions, industry executives predicted bankruptcy if they had to meet emission standards, which Japanese manufacturers had already met. In 1973, for example, Lee Iacocca warned that “we could be just around the corner from a complete shutdown of the U.S. auto industry” due to the new regulations. A year later, Iacocca changed his tune, saying his company could comply, but needed more time to do so.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a type of gas that was widely used in coolants and solvents. In 1974, scientists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first warned that CFC emissions were destroying the earth’s ozone layer, exposing humanity to higher risks of skin cancer. The warnings were dismissed as unreliable by the CFC industry. That industry attitude was embraced by Reagan’s EPA administrator, Ann Gorsuch, (whose son became a Supreme Court justice in 2017.) Though subsequent research confirmed the initial findings, the Chemical Manufacturers Association insisted that long-range studies were necessary before regulations should be enacted.
There was little action until Margaret Thatcher, an inveterate critic of environmentalism, did an about-face on CFCs and supported a ban. Her leadership led to a global treaty in 1987 called the Montreal Protocol under which all nations agreed to a timetable to phase out CFC production. Rowlands and Molina won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for their work on CFCs. It probably didn’t hurt that British firms had already developed an alternative to CFCs, and charged 20 times more.
Davis spells out the obvious, namely that delays mean more exposure and deaths than would’ve occurred by a more expeditious process. Reasonable people can disagree about the standard of proof required before restrictions are enacted. How much risk to public health is an acceptable tradeoff for an industry’s growth?
The chemical industry contends that just because exposure of animals to certain chemicals causes cancer, that’s not reason enough to regard the agent as a threat to humans. Animals are, after all, different from us. On the other hand, Davis writes, “everything proven to cause cancer in humans has been shown to do so in animals…We are surely different…but we may not be different enough.”
It’s preferable for “public health research to prevent damage, not to confirm later on that harm has happened.” But “the real scientific difficulties in the field (of epidemiology) have been complicated by a stream of disinformation fueled by the short-term economic interests of those who stand to profit from keeping matters unresolved.”The costs of reducing pollution, contends Davis, should be weighed against the benefits to public health. “If we always insist we should do nothing until the damage is absolutely certain, then the only certainty is that we will cut short millions of lives and bring misery to millions of others.”
What’s happening today when it comes to the climate change debate is the same “clouding the consensus about a toxicant’s dangers” that Professor Needleman encountered. Waiting for certain proof about climate change “constitutes a doomsday experiment.” Davis advocates a carbon tax to speed the transition to cleaner fuels, since people respond to prices.
Avoidable exposures to hazardous chemicals can cause cancer, other afflictions and death. Davis asks readers a trenchant question: “Would you err on the side of overcontrolling a safe agent or on the side of undercontrolling a hazardous one?” ###
February 7, 2024
This might be a textbook but that didn't stop me from trying to read it like a normal book and only left me kinda disappointed
March 25, 2024
CFCs and greenhouse gases
“This chapter describes how two types of gases generated by humans - chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and greenhouse gases - threaten to change the nature of life forever” (248). The author Devra Davis clearly states the purpose of the chapter not far from the beginning. Then she mentions about little and big science - “Little science refers to the lone scientist working in isolation to improve our understanding of how the world works. Big science requires teams-dozens, sometimes thousands, who work on large projects to accomplish complicated tasks” (247). It’s not a coincidence Devra Davis put them together. Both CFCs and greenhouse gases are a mix of big and little science.
Davis begins by highlighting the essential value of ozone for all life: “They work like a gigantic chemical sunscreen that filters the amount and types of UV radiation from the sun that hits the earth’s surface” (249). If the ozone layer were destroyed, epidemics of skin cancer and glaucoma would spread, and ecosystems would be devastated because solar radiation would kill tiny sea creatures krill - the prey of larger sea animals. Catastrophically, such crucial ozone can be destroyed by CFCs - “Within a second of their release from CFCs, atoms of chlorine seek out ozone, which is naturally reactive to begin with, to form chlorine monoxide. In a single year, hundreds of thousand of molecules of ozone would be destroyed in this manner, creating inherently reactive radicals” (250). It was warned by two scientists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina but it wasn’t taken seriously by neither politics nor corporations. “Among other things, industry-supported skeptics noted that volcanoes and chlorine from the ocean could be important sources of ozone-depleting gases. Compared to these natural sources of ozone-destroying agents, they said, humanly made CFCs were trivial” (252). “In February 1984, consistent with the Reagan administration’s diminished concern about the environment, the NAS issued a report downsizing its previous estimates of the potential size and importance of any loss of ozone” (252). Due to indifferent politics and corporations, their work finally led to a global treaty called the Montreal Protocol which was approved in 1987. If their idea had been accepted in 1974, several million skin cancers might have been avoided. Not simply scientific proof was needed for this change. “Three things were required: the finding of the ozone hole provided sufficient proof that the planet faced a grave and imminent danger; industry had found a way to profit from making major changes in production of the source of the danger; and governments saw that the costs of persisting were much heavier than the benefits of acting” (256).
Even though there were many years of delays, CFCs' issues were somehow managed. “Little Science” of F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina came to the “Big Science” of polar research. It showed that the South Pole had very low ozone as they predicted, covered by the news, which led to public attention and a solution. Thanks to their efforts, we don’t worry and talk much about how ozone depletion might cause skin cancers. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t have climate-related problems anymore. Unlike CFCs' straightforward problems, the greenhouse gas problem requires teams-dozens, sometimes thousands, who work on large projects to accomplish complicated tasks.
“Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and other by-products of natural and human activities tend to warm the atmosphere, which can alter weather patterns, produce more severe extremes of weather, and ultimately shift the world’s climate in unpredictable ways” (248). In the realistic example, Nauru, a small island nation is threatened immediately by rising sea levels and storm surges. Furthermore, “There is a growing recognition that the increased level of monster storms, tidal surges, downpours, droughts, searing temperature, and windstorms we are seeing today is only a dress rehearsal for the global warming to come” (262). Even with such obvious current and upcoming dangers, it’s hard to stop using fossil fuels causing greenhouse gases and again it’s mainly due to politics and the economy.
Coal is the dirtiest way to get energy but it’s still widely used because it’s the cheapest energy source. Also, there are industry-sponsored organizations like the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP), and the Climate Council that are representing and defending fossil-fuel producers’ benefits. Even though some political parties try to reduce greenhouse gases, it’s hard to do because politicians work short term but greenhouse gases are a long-term problem. Canada's federal government agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10 percent of current levels till the end of this decade. But unfortunately, “the fellow who announced this policy, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, is likely to be out of office long before the promise comes due” (265).
As we could learn from the CFCs problem, the scientific proof wasn’t enough but economic benefits were needed for the real changes which were needed to be led by the government. Devra Davis wrote to encourage clean energy through subsidies and discourage dirty energy through tax and other penalties. She is a smart scientist who understands that this strategy will be hated by free-market economists and she’s smart enough to understand that the free market itself is not an end when it’s not benefiting public welfare. Specifically, it can be effective to give each individual and corporation certificates to put a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the air and charge them for the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.
“Fundamentally, we need to motivate the whole society-not just the well intentioned or those with the extra bucks to spend on being green. … The only way to do that is to create genuine, lasting incentives that make it cost more to release carbon into the air. We have to put more money back into people’s pockets if they spend for cleaner fuels” (272). For example, Washington State provides financial incentives to encourage energy-efficient improvements such as grants for energy retrofits in public buildings and cost savings at state facilities and schools. Also, politicians tend to focus on short-term issues rather than long-term problems like greenhouse gases. Therefore, creating new long-term political roles, specifically for climate change, could be helpful. The UK and Japan have already set an example by appointing ministers of loneliness to deal with the increasing problem of loneliness in society. This approach could be applied to climate change as well, as it highlights how politics should be flexible in handling new phenomena.
“This chapter describes how two types of gases generated by humans - chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and greenhouse gases - threaten to change the nature of life forever” (248). The author Devra Davis clearly states the purpose of the chapter not far from the beginning. Then she mentions about little and big science - “Little science refers to the lone scientist working in isolation to improve our understanding of how the world works. Big science requires teams-dozens, sometimes thousands, who work on large projects to accomplish complicated tasks” (247). It’s not a coincidence Devra Davis put them together. Both CFCs and greenhouse gases are a mix of big and little science.
Davis begins by highlighting the essential value of ozone for all life: “They work like a gigantic chemical sunscreen that filters the amount and types of UV radiation from the sun that hits the earth’s surface” (249). If the ozone layer were destroyed, epidemics of skin cancer and glaucoma would spread, and ecosystems would be devastated because solar radiation would kill tiny sea creatures krill - the prey of larger sea animals. Catastrophically, such crucial ozone can be destroyed by CFCs - “Within a second of their release from CFCs, atoms of chlorine seek out ozone, which is naturally reactive to begin with, to form chlorine monoxide. In a single year, hundreds of thousand of molecules of ozone would be destroyed in this manner, creating inherently reactive radicals” (250). It was warned by two scientists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina but it wasn’t taken seriously by neither politics nor corporations. “Among other things, industry-supported skeptics noted that volcanoes and chlorine from the ocean could be important sources of ozone-depleting gases. Compared to these natural sources of ozone-destroying agents, they said, humanly made CFCs were trivial” (252). “In February 1984, consistent with the Reagan administration’s diminished concern about the environment, the NAS issued a report downsizing its previous estimates of the potential size and importance of any loss of ozone” (252). Due to indifferent politics and corporations, their work finally led to a global treaty called the Montreal Protocol which was approved in 1987. If their idea had been accepted in 1974, several million skin cancers might have been avoided. Not simply scientific proof was needed for this change. “Three things were required: the finding of the ozone hole provided sufficient proof that the planet faced a grave and imminent danger; industry had found a way to profit from making major changes in production of the source of the danger; and governments saw that the costs of persisting were much heavier than the benefits of acting” (256).
Even though there were many years of delays, CFCs' issues were somehow managed. “Little Science” of F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina came to the “Big Science” of polar research. It showed that the South Pole had very low ozone as they predicted, covered by the news, which led to public attention and a solution. Thanks to their efforts, we don’t worry and talk much about how ozone depletion might cause skin cancers. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t have climate-related problems anymore. Unlike CFCs' straightforward problems, the greenhouse gas problem requires teams-dozens, sometimes thousands, who work on large projects to accomplish complicated tasks.
“Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and other by-products of natural and human activities tend to warm the atmosphere, which can alter weather patterns, produce more severe extremes of weather, and ultimately shift the world’s climate in unpredictable ways” (248). In the realistic example, Nauru, a small island nation is threatened immediately by rising sea levels and storm surges. Furthermore, “There is a growing recognition that the increased level of monster storms, tidal surges, downpours, droughts, searing temperature, and windstorms we are seeing today is only a dress rehearsal for the global warming to come” (262). Even with such obvious current and upcoming dangers, it’s hard to stop using fossil fuels causing greenhouse gases and again it’s mainly due to politics and the economy.
Coal is the dirtiest way to get energy but it’s still widely used because it’s the cheapest energy source. Also, there are industry-sponsored organizations like the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP), and the Climate Council that are representing and defending fossil-fuel producers’ benefits. Even though some political parties try to reduce greenhouse gases, it’s hard to do because politicians work short term but greenhouse gases are a long-term problem. Canada's federal government agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10 percent of current levels till the end of this decade. But unfortunately, “the fellow who announced this policy, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, is likely to be out of office long before the promise comes due” (265).
As we could learn from the CFCs problem, the scientific proof wasn’t enough but economic benefits were needed for the real changes which were needed to be led by the government. Devra Davis wrote to encourage clean energy through subsidies and discourage dirty energy through tax and other penalties. She is a smart scientist who understands that this strategy will be hated by free-market economists and she’s smart enough to understand that the free market itself is not an end when it’s not benefiting public welfare. Specifically, it can be effective to give each individual and corporation certificates to put a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the air and charge them for the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.
“Fundamentally, we need to motivate the whole society-not just the well intentioned or those with the extra bucks to spend on being green. … The only way to do that is to create genuine, lasting incentives that make it cost more to release carbon into the air. We have to put more money back into people’s pockets if they spend for cleaner fuels” (272). For example, Washington State provides financial incentives to encourage energy-efficient improvements such as grants for energy retrofits in public buildings and cost savings at state facilities and schools. Also, politicians tend to focus on short-term issues rather than long-term problems like greenhouse gases. Therefore, creating new long-term political roles, specifically for climate change, could be helpful. The UK and Japan have already set an example by appointing ministers of loneliness to deal with the increasing problem of loneliness in society. This approach could be applied to climate change as well, as it highlights how politics should be flexible in handling new phenomena.
May 21, 2014
If you're interested in the political relationship between science and public health in the US, this book is for you. I thoroughly enjoyed this book cover to cover, and Devra Davis is now one of my personal heroes.
Some types of scientific advances, such as new technology for your smartphone, are easily gobbled up by the public. Others, such as scientific evidence regarding environmental toxins, are a lot harder for the public and the government to swallow.
This book is about human experience of environmental health, and the colossal effort it takes to enact change in government bodies. Devra mostly talks about industrial air pollution, and also includes an interesting history on the way that legislation and beliefs about tobacco smoke has changed over time. However, this book is not only for people who are interested in air pollution. The lessons and stories will inspire anyone interested in any type of environmental health, the process of making large scale change in society, and the frustrating task of getting people to believe in science.
The autobiographical details add to the narrative in a way that makes this non-fiction book truly engaging. This is not a story from some objective outsider's perspective, it is the story of a woman who lives her life by fighting unrelentlessly for what she believes in.
Some types of scientific advances, such as new technology for your smartphone, are easily gobbled up by the public. Others, such as scientific evidence regarding environmental toxins, are a lot harder for the public and the government to swallow.
This book is about human experience of environmental health, and the colossal effort it takes to enact change in government bodies. Devra mostly talks about industrial air pollution, and also includes an interesting history on the way that legislation and beliefs about tobacco smoke has changed over time. However, this book is not only for people who are interested in air pollution. The lessons and stories will inspire anyone interested in any type of environmental health, the process of making large scale change in society, and the frustrating task of getting people to believe in science.
The autobiographical details add to the narrative in a way that makes this non-fiction book truly engaging. This is not a story from some objective outsider's perspective, it is the story of a woman who lives her life by fighting unrelentlessly for what she believes in.
February 4, 2012
Devra Davis is great. She's a great role model for girls: a brilliant woman scientist who is not afraid to speak the truth.
February 7, 2015
A little hard to get through, but very informative. Really a must read to understand how much business can change perceptions hiding and covering up the truth.
July 30, 2017
Environmental epidemiology is what Devra Davis does. She is also from Donora PA. It was here that the first major air pollution episode caused deaths. She also goes into the Killer Smog of London and the obstacles to get cleaner air. Always the corporation and their pursuit of money and the health of the populace. Very good, well researched book to be used for my Env Sci class. I highlighted many parts and will use them to get the air pollution material and the importance of it across to the APES students. Princess cruise Dover to NYC.
March 1, 2023
A good intro to some of the early origins of environmental disasters, and the gradual realization that we could do better, starting in the coal country in Pennsylvania in the early 20th Century, and also London even before that.
Also covers breast cancer environmental awareness, and male infertility likely caused by environmental / work factors.
And finally covering the latest (well, book came out in 2002) efforts by big industry to refute statistics and demand proof of causation before banning harmful toxins, opening things up to more harm...
Also covers breast cancer environmental awareness, and male infertility likely caused by environmental / work factors.
And finally covering the latest (well, book came out in 2002) efforts by big industry to refute statistics and demand proof of causation before banning harmful toxins, opening things up to more harm...
March 31, 2023
I hate to say how this book was kind of boring. There is so much to unpack here. Of course pollution is devastating & what happened to the folks in this book was awful. I just didn't care for how the story was told. It was like I could only read a few pages at a time so took a while longer than usual to finish. It wasn't really engaging even though it's important for people to know how mega corps pollute our water & air. There are better told stories out there.
April 14, 2019
I read most of this for my AP Environmental class and it was an okay read. It wasn't the most exciting and the chapters were long and dragged it but it would have probable been better had I read it on my own and not forced to.
January 5, 2025
This book is a like a modern version of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. The key difference, however, is that Davis creates a much more effective and nuanced approach to understanding pollution, making the book more interesting and informative as well.
July 15, 2019
A good reminder of all of the scientific, social, and political facts and forces that restrict environmental research told through various detailed case study
February 17, 2024
I really like reading older nonfiction because the early predictions can be either on the nose or completely wrong. Unfortunately, this is about corporate pollution and climate change so in 2024, the outlook is still pretty bleak. The topics bounced all over the place so that brought the rating down for me. I did enjoy how the author made so much of the book personal to her life experiences. Growing up in a valley that isn’t dissimilar from Davis’ hometown made me a little worried for my long term health. Davis grew up in a valley next to a steel mill; I grew up in a valley next to DuPont. The parallels are concerning given Davis’ conclusions.
September 5, 2025
This book is another reminder that only God can solve the worlds problems, not man.
May 21, 2014
If you're interested in the political relationship between science and public health in the US, this book is for you. I thoroughly enjoyed this book cover to cover, and Devra Davis is now one of my personal heroes.
Some types of scientific advances, such as new technology for your smartphone, are easily gobbled up by the public. Others, such as scientific evidence regarding environmental toxins, are a lot harder for the public and the government to swallow.
This book is about human experience of environmental health, and the colossal effort it takes to enact change in government bodies. Devra mostly talks about industrial air pollution, and also includes an interesting history on the way that legislation and beliefs about tobacco smoke has changed over time. However, this book is not only for people who are interested in air pollution. The lessons and stories will inspire anyone interested in any type of environmental health, the process of making large scale change in society, and the frustrating task of getting people to believe in science.
The autobiographical details add to the narrative in a way that makes this non-fiction book truly engaging. This is not a story from some objective outsider's perspective, it is the story of a woman who lives her life by fighting unrelentlessly for what she believes in.
Some types of scientific advances, such as new technology for your smartphone, are easily gobbled up by the public. Others, such as scientific evidence regarding environmental toxins, are a lot harder for the public and the government to swallow.
This book is about human experience of environmental health, and the colossal effort it takes to enact change in government bodies. Devra mostly talks about industrial air pollution, and also includes an interesting history on the way that legislation and beliefs about tobacco smoke has changed over time. However, this book is not only for people who are interested in air pollution. The lessons and stories will inspire anyone interested in any type of environmental health, the process of making large scale change in society, and the frustrating task of getting people to believe in science.
The autobiographical details add to the narrative in a way that makes this non-fiction book truly engaging. This is not a story from some objective outsider's perspective, it is the story of a woman who lives her life by fighting unrelentlessly for what she believes in.
November 23, 2009
This book was a very insightful glimpse of the history of pollution in the US. Her personal background made the book seem to mean more, since she had a personal stake in the matter. The history she gives of Donora, London, Los Angeles, all of these locations has a very unique history, but when it comes to their pollution, they are all surprisingly similar. I thought this was fascinating to learn about.
Politics plays a huge part in this book, as it does in the realities of the environmental movement, and trying to get basically anything done regarding environmental health taking on big corporations. It's a sad reality, and it makes me so angry that so much of our country's current policies are not at all what is best for the people, but what is in the best interests of the most powerful corporations in the country. As a current grad student studying environmental health, it makes me want to fight so hard to better the health of the country, even if it means taking on the richest, most powerful companies of the US, perhaps even the world.
Politics plays a huge part in this book, as it does in the realities of the environmental movement, and trying to get basically anything done regarding environmental health taking on big corporations. It's a sad reality, and it makes me so angry that so much of our country's current policies are not at all what is best for the people, but what is in the best interests of the most powerful corporations in the country. As a current grad student studying environmental health, it makes me want to fight so hard to better the health of the country, even if it means taking on the richest, most powerful companies of the US, perhaps even the world.
January 31, 2017
When Smoke Ran Like Water is an excellent book that continues the path set by Rachel Carson, with emphasis on how the companies who produced pollution systematically cut down the reputations of scientists who found that their products caused severe health problems. Those companies fought to continue the pollution that was known to kill people to avoid cutting their own profits.
It's particularly poignant to read this in the first week of Trump's presidency, as all the thoughts I would have had weeks ago - "surely they believed that the risks were less than the scientists found" or "maybe they just didn't understand how scientists quantify risks to human health" - are simply gone. The lobbyists and lawyers and company PR people who spoke against those scientists knew what they were doing, and they knowingly condemned innocent people - particularly children and the elderly - to poor health and higher risk of death from the pollution they fought to continue creating. Protest marches aside, this has not been a good week for faith in humanity.
It's particularly poignant to read this in the first week of Trump's presidency, as all the thoughts I would have had weeks ago - "surely they believed that the risks were less than the scientists found" or "maybe they just didn't understand how scientists quantify risks to human health" - are simply gone. The lobbyists and lawyers and company PR people who spoke against those scientists knew what they were doing, and they knowingly condemned innocent people - particularly children and the elderly - to poor health and higher risk of death from the pollution they fought to continue creating. Protest marches aside, this has not been a good week for faith in humanity.
August 1, 2007
Read this as an assigment for a profile I was writing (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05332/...). It was nominated for a National Book Award, I think not so much on the strength of its writing as on its vociferous message. Dr. Davis is an activist scientist, I think it's safe to say, who believes there is enough evidence of health damage from environmental pollutants, whether in the air or in plastics or other substances, to warrant intervention by the government to prevent the possibility of later disease and injury. The beginning of the book includes her personal journey, which was heavily influenced by growing up in Donora, a Western Pennsylvania mill town where, in 1948, 20 people died and 6,000 became ill when a cold air inversion trapped the residents in a suffocating blanket of fumes from the town's zinc, steel and coke mills.
June 9, 2010
Can't say that I read this ENTIRE book--it was a little too scientific-documentary for me! We read it for book club and it was sold to us by our EPA friend, Sherri as a "memoir" of this woman's experience growing up in a polluted town in PA, which at one point this century got so bad it killed over 40 people in one weekend because of settling smog from the steel and zinc factories.
It turned out that the first chapter was about the town in PA and each individual chapter following was about a different pollution disaster in a different city/era. I loved the story about Donora, PA--very interesting how the town carried on while people were keeling over! However, I would not recommend this book unless you are the scientist-type who enjoys complex scientific explanations....hey wait! Grandpa Dick, YOU are the only one I can think of who would like this book! :-)
It turned out that the first chapter was about the town in PA and each individual chapter following was about a different pollution disaster in a different city/era. I loved the story about Donora, PA--very interesting how the town carried on while people were keeling over! However, I would not recommend this book unless you are the scientist-type who enjoys complex scientific explanations....hey wait! Grandpa Dick, YOU are the only one I can think of who would like this book! :-)
December 5, 2011
Sobering stuff from the epidemiologist who later wrote "The Secret History of the War on Cancer." "Smoke" is about how industrial pollution has consistently been underestimated as a cause of disease. Davis grew up in Donora, Pa., site of an infamous killer toxic smog. (Many in her family later died from cancer, not necessarily because of that episode but likely due in part to the heavy industry in the town.) Other examples range from the London smog of 1952 (thousands of deaths were falsely attributed to influenza) and the long battle oil companies and automakers fought to keep lead in gasoline. Davis gamely and wittily profiles the heroes and villains, but never loses sight of the underlying theme.
August 3, 2015
Excellent book! Reminds me of "Woman: an intimate geography" which I read a decade or so ago. Dr Davis' book was published in 2002, the year I went to China. She also mentioned Mexico City - I visited 1996 and remember that I had to lie flat because I couldn't breathe and my back hurt so bad. Pollution was dreadful.
Hers is a book about pollution, public health, the environment, and the political forces that scientists have to battle against. She explains the link between pollution and chemicals and male sterility, breast cancer, heart disease, early deaths, and more.
I'd love to see an update of this book - a new edition about what's happened since. I guess I'll have to read her other books.
Hers is a book about pollution, public health, the environment, and the political forces that scientists have to battle against. She explains the link between pollution and chemicals and male sterility, breast cancer, heart disease, early deaths, and more.
I'd love to see an update of this book - a new edition about what's happened since. I guess I'll have to read her other books.
June 29, 2016
Despite being a hard and long read, this book is full of information and written in a very compelling way. It described the problems, the research, and the world's reaction without making the situation seem hopeless, which, considering the facts, is pretty impressive. I was continually impressed with Devra Davis' writing, as well as her expertise with the subject. If you want to read a book written by a true expert, this is it.
That being said, this is a book that takes time to get through and isn't something to read for leisure. It makes you think and comprehend the information for sure. I suggest making notes in the book just to retain the information. At some point, I will reread this again to truly grasp the huge amount of information fit into the 282 pages.
That being said, this is a book that takes time to get through and isn't something to read for leisure. It makes you think and comprehend the information for sure. I suggest making notes in the book just to retain the information. At some point, I will reread this again to truly grasp the huge amount of information fit into the 282 pages.
September 1, 2008
Good information presented well. Again I was outraged by how easily we are lied to by those who are in a position of power to make a difference and how money really speaks in our nation. People are still fodder for their plans for wealth. An informative book about the effects of pollution on our daily health. Such a relief not to live in Salt Lake City any more and be able to see truly blue sky and breath the air freely except when the waste ponds are ripe and the wind is blowing in the wrong direction:)
April 10, 2009
This book focuses on the decades of work behind establishing U.S. policies for regulating air pollution and highlights how difficult it is for scientists to be advocates. I found it particularly interesting how this book parallels with the battle to prove that human activity is causing global warming. I definitely recommend this book to my public health people! Also a great read for anyone interested in the politics and science behind the environmental movement.
August 28, 2007
This Pulitzer Prize nominee book taught me why environmental pollution causes breast cancer and how the once extensive light rail mass transit system in Los Angeles was systematically destroyed by automobile and gas companies.
The book, in summary, is a history of the fight for basic environmental, and specifically air-pollution, regulations in the United States and how Corporations were able to suppress them for so long.
The book, in summary, is a history of the fight for basic environmental, and specifically air-pollution, regulations in the United States and how Corporations were able to suppress them for so long.
November 18, 2007
Devra Davis is a well-known, well-respected public health researcher whose work and truth telling has had a private cost, and who shows linkages between environmental toxins and disease, such as breast cancer and how the chemical industrial industry has successfully fought such truths from emerging.
Currently reading
February 2, 2008So far so good with this one. Devra Davis has an excellent writing style. Very engaging, which is good since epidemiology could be a very dry subject! I am still in disbelief about the chapter on the Donora smog disaster. Davis also makes some extremely interesting connections in history--relating to how the state of the environment has influenced trends and behaviors in everyday life.
June 5, 2007
I wish this book would have been more interesting. It starts out well with the historical aspects of the small Pittsburgh suburb, but then the author delves into complex scientific equations and it's all over. I never did finish it.
February 11, 2009
Good book. It's a little preachy but on the mark as far as ideas. The book does have several clear and concise explanations of complex atmospheric phenomenon (and their effects on people) for the general public. I appreciated the time she spent putting those sections together.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews