blereader’s Comments (group member since Dec 21, 2014)

blereader’s comments from the The Greener Reader group.

It's a wonderful book. Instead of posting links, give your own arguments. Read the primary material, think critically and write in your own voice. Be intellectual and do the hard work.

I've read Rachel Carson's book multiple times, and it's always enlightening. Posting links to videos is spam. If you don't know how to expound on your own reasoning and thoughts, then go back and read Silent Spring for yourself, and do the hard work.

Wheeler wrote: "I think what's being entirely ignored here is Carson's advocacy for importing species to fight other species.
Her blind advocacy for this approach is disturbing at best and downright evil at worst...."

What I wrote for the "faults" discussion in this same The Greener Reader group:
"#4 - Carson "advocates" for biological control, but also acknowledges that there are limitations to such methods. She states quite openly that "the predatory insect and its prey do not exist alone, but form part of an extensive framework of life, which should be taken into account in its entirety" (p308 in my edition, translated from Spanish). In addition, in highlighting their promise and examples of success, she also highlights the lack of thorough research into these methods that such early success would otherwise merit. In chapter 17 (p307 in my edition), Carson states that unfortunately many studies did not yet adequately measure the impact of species introductions and whether they were even effective."

Just found a 2015 research article that quotes Rachel Carson:

"Slugs are likely to consume neonicotinoids when they feed early in the growing season upon seedlings grown from coated seeds, but as molluscs they may not be sensitive to these insecticides. In Silent Spring, Carson noted ‘For some reason, snail-like mollusks seem to be almost immune to the effects of insecticides’ (1962; p. 257). This rule-of-thumb appears to hold for imidacloprid, which has low acute toxicity to Deroceras reticulatum (Simms,Ester & Wilson 2006; but see effects on freshwater snails,van Dijk, van Staalduinen & van der Sluijs 2013)."

Reference:
Margaret R. Douglas, Jason R. Rohr and John F. Tooker. Neonicotinoid insecticide travels through a soil foodchain, disrupting biological control of non-target pestsand decreasing soya bean yield. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 52, 250–260

Oh, and my own 2015 quote: "Carson rules!"

#1 - "Overly passionate" seems to imply that her message was frenzied and spirited. The marvel of Silent Spring is that it is a meticulous, orderly, and highly rational study into the reasons why the status quo of chemical pesticide use was inordinately damaging to the environment, human health, and even the very enterprise of eliminating the target pests. Her "passionate diatribe," if any, was against disorderliness and in favor of the methodical and sober weighing of pros and cons (including what we'd call today "secondary stakeholders") and the actual measuring of consequences.

#4 - Carson "advocates" for biological control, but also acknowledges that there are limitations to such methods. She states quite openly that "the predatory insect and its prey do not exist alone, but form part of an extensive framework of life, which should be taken into account in its entirety" (p308 in my edition, translated from Spanish). In addition, in highlighting their promise and examples of success, she also highlights the lack of thorough research into these methods that such early success would otherwise merit. In chapter 17 (p307 in my edition), Carson states that unfortunately many studies did not yet adequately measure the impact of species introductions and whether they were even effective.

#5 - The study of cancer was still quite in its infancy when the book was written. Watson and Crick's famous article in Nature had only appeared in 1953. Theories as to the origins of cancer were still emerging (in chapter 14, Carson mentions Warburg's theory, a theory that was viable at the time). Her writing on the topic of cancer and its possible link to the plethora of synthetic chemicals at low levels was highly forward-thinking, and what we'd call today "emerging contaminants." Even today, the problem she noted 60 years ago of the lack of knowledge on what the effects of such low-level contamination are is repeatedly expressed by scientists and agencies such as the CDC. As far a leukemia, however--a cancer that develops relatively quickly compared to others by the sheer frequency of blood cell proliferation--Carson does cite examples of those who had handled chemical pesticides that, suspiciously, later suffered from the disease. Today, high rates of leukemia is in fact often a major indicator that some chemical pollutant is in the environment.