Talk:Rachel Carson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

older entries

Would somebody please check the external link on the subject page? I get an error message when I try it. -- isis 7 Sep 2002

---

I got a 404 error as well quercus robur

---

The quotation from J. Gordon Edwards does not provide a citation. It is from his article, The Lies Of Rachel Carson, 21st Century & Technology, (Summer 1992). According to an ArbCom ruling 9/2004, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Since 21st Century & Technology is a LaRouche publication, the quotation from the late Dr. Edwards will be deleted unless another source can be cited. ----Cronos1 19:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)Cronos1

It's been removed. Thank you for the notice. --Barfooz (talk) 29 June 2005 18:56 (UTC)

---

The Wiki on Rachel Carson repeats a right-wing thigh slapper about DDT having prevented 500 million deaths from malaria in its first 20 years of use. On the one hand, the citation to an NAS report is correct (although my memory is that the report was a few years later than 1965). On the other hand, the number is absurd on its face. A fairly extensive literature search strongly suggests that pre-DDT deaths from malaria were roughly the same a current deats from malaria -- that is, 1-3 million per year, mostly children and mostly in the tropics. If DDT had eliminated all of those deaths over a twenty year period (which never happened), that would be a maximum of 20*3 million or 60 millions deaths prevented. Although one of the purveyors of this myth was alerted several years ago, he continues to spread it.

Perhaps more to the point, and nicely documented in the chapter on malaria in Laurie Garrett's _the Coming Plague_, the US funded a 10-year DDT-based campaign to eradicate malaria in the late 50s and early 60s. It was only a ten-year campaign not because it succeeded, but because it failed, at least partly due to anophelene mosquitos developing resistance to DDT.

Jim Dukelow

This article needs to be reverted back to 11/7 version...Cronos1

"For political rather than scientific reasons, Carson opposed DDT. She found an ally in EPA director Rucklehaus and magazines like Time."

Has been removed. Please provide a source. Cronos1 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

Cut from Silent Spring and DDT section:

Some went further to attack Carson's scientific credentials because her speciality was in marine biology and zoology, not in the field of biochemistry. Some went as far as characterizing her as a mere birdwatcher with more spare time than scientific background, calling her unprofessional, and some fringe of her critice accused her of being a communist.

These ad hominem attacks are irrelevant to the controversy over DDT. The central question is whether scientific facts supported the ban which she fought so hard for. Mentioning attacks by nasty men on the nice lady merely develops sympathy for her. --Uncle Ed 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored to previous version. The ad hominem attacks may or may not be relevant to the 'controversy over DDT' (or right wing fantasy thereof), but they are very relevant to an article about Rachel Carson. As you well know, the nasty attacks establish a pattern continued to the present, of outrageous smear campaigns directed at Rachel Carson (tho the real target appears to be the public's right to regulate industry) ;) Cronos1 (UTC)

Clearly this adds bias to the article. --Logos

Clearly your statement is not specific enough to respond to. But I'll give it a try; spurious charges attacking Rachel Carson's scientific qualifications/abilities/temperament were used from the beginning to discredit her work. This is a matter of historical record. As stated above, this pattern of behavior by Rachel Carson's critics continues to this day (J.Gordon Edwards' publications in the LaRouchite press for example). This is is relevant to the article. Cronos1 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

More about DDT and bird eggs

Scientists tested the popular shell-thinning hypothesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed birds for 112 days on a diet with 100 times as much DDT as they were getting from the environment. No thinning of egg shells was found. The DDT had no effect on the birds. One experimenter, to demonstrate eggshell-thinning, fed quail a diet with DDT but containing only one-fifth of the normal amount of calcium. His experiment succeeded in producing thinner eggshells, but his deception was exposed. [1]

Don't take this the wrong way, but The American Spectator doesn't really rate as an unbiased scientific journal, particularly in an article that talks about a nonexistent "DDT ban" and portrays USAID as a villain for not spraying DDT "where treated bednets are more cost effective". While you're searching for a primary source for your assertions:

DDE was associated with significant eggshell thinning, egg breakage, embryo mortality, and reduced production per pair. Dieldrin alone was associated with slight but significant eggshell thinning, but not with reduction of breeding success. Ecological implications of the results are discussed; it is suggested that DDE had a much more severe effect on reproduction in wild raptors than dieldrin, which contributed to their decline primarily through adult mortality. Breeding success of barn owls (Tyto alba) fed low levels of DDE and dieldrin Vivian M. Mendenhall, Erwin E. Klaas, and M. Anne R. McLane Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Issue: Volume 12, Number 2 Date: March 1983 Pages: 235 - 240 Gzuckier 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it was "associated" but let's see some studies. If you lower the calcium in their diet, birds produce thinner egg shells; I understand that part. But what happens when you increase their DDT intake? Let's add some links to the article about this. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Science and public opinion

Cut from article:

, as much as good science;

This phrase implies that Carson's claims were based on sound science. In the best known case (DDT), we now know that that her claim was not science-based. Ruckulshaus even admitted it in a letter. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More cuts

• The fact that DDT contributed to thinning of the eggshells of raptors such as the bald eagle is well substantiated.

Not by anything cited in the article, before I started editing it this week. Maybe it's out there somewhere, and I just haven't seen it yet?

• This claim was backed latter by numerous scientific studies which show DDT having carcinogenic effect on some species of animal while consistently failt to show increased risk of cancer in human who came in contact with DDT.

This is misleading. The question is not whether SOME amounts of DDT cause cancer, but HOW MUCH? Does any Wikipedian know about a study - a replicated study, mind you - showing that DDT which escaped into the environment hurt birds or other creatures far away from where it was applied? (I'm not talking about harm to a field which was sprayed with too much DDT; everyone agrees that's stupid. I mean spraying a diluted solution on interior walls to stop mosquitoes, and stuff like that.)

Let's put some facts into these articles:

• DDT
• DDT ban
• Rachel Carson
• Silent Spring
• William Ruckelshaus

Readers want facts, not political opinions. Well, okay, some want both. Let's just try to be objective, at least about the scientific part. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Carson's Cancer

The article states that the evidence regarding DDT being a carcinogen are mixed or inconclusive yet states that Carson herself died "at the age of 56, from cancer due to DDT exposure during her research." The two statements are conflicting... 192.115.133.141 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Ori

Raptors and egg shells - need source for opposing POV

In the article:

The notion that DDT contamination in the wild contributed to thinning of the eggshells of raptors such as the bald eagle has never been substantiated, although studies show that huge quantities of DDT administered under laboratory conditions can have carcinogenic effect on some species of animal.

Tim Lambert's Edit Summary said egg shell thinning in raptors isn't seriously disputed but I didn't see any source for this assertion in the article. Did I overlook it, or what?

I'd like to see a couple of studies about egg shell thinning in raptors which are related to DDT contamination. Also, if there are people who don't take "seriously" the Fish & Wildlife study which found NO thinning with triple the actual dose found in the environment, then those people's names need to be in the article. We should leave it to the reader to decide whether the source is an advocate or simply being objective, but we can't do that unless we name the source. --Uncle Ed 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 206, 423 - 435 (2003) "Developing an international consensus on DDT: a balance of environmental protection and disease control" Kathleen R. Walker, Marie D. Ricciardone, Janice Jensen

"Within a few decades DDT's persistence and broad spectrum of toxic activity first seen as great virtues were identified as serious flaws that limited DDT's utility and threatened human health and the environment. The publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 raised public concern about the environmental damage caused by DDT. Carson based her book on over 15 years of research by wildlife biologists and entomologists (e.g. Cottam and Higgins 1946) that showed mounting evidence of DDT's negative impacts on wildlife. Later research showed both acute effects such as mass bird poisoning (Wurster et al. 1965) and severe chronic effects, most notably eggshell thinning and chick mortality among certain birds of prey such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons and oceanic birds such as brown pelicans (Ratcliffe 1967 Cooke 1973). Users of DDT also discovered serious technical problems. Continuous exposure to the widely applied and long-lasting insecticide stimulated the evolution of resistant pests as early as 1946 (Brooks 1974). DDT also created new pest problems because it tended to kill beneficial as well as pest organisms. This caused populations of previously minor pests to explode to outbreak levels when their natural predators were killed by the persistent chemical (DeBach and Rosen 1991). These technical limitations to DDT as well as the development of new insecticides contributed to a decline in use in the United States well before all agricultural uses were cancelled in 1972 (Hall 1964; USEPA 1975a; Maguire 2000).

"Since 1972, extensive scientific research has improved understanding of the environmental fate of DDT and demonstrated unequivocally its adverse impacts on wildlife (see reviews by WHO 1989; Beyer et al. 1996). Understanding and assessing the risks of DDT to humans and wildlife involves calculating the probability of exposure and the probable effects of such exposure. DDT and the other chemicals addressed by the POPs treaty all exhibit three properties - persistence, bioaccumulation, and tendency for long-range environmental transport - that increase the likelihood of exposure and make it difficult to prevent. When DDT enters the environment as a pesticide application, it may be metabolized into DDE or DDD, but these compounds generally resist further chemical and biological degradation. (Environmental measures of DDT and its metabolites are frequently combined as ΣDDT.) DDT typically shows a half-life of 4 to 12 days in air and 1 to 3 years in soil (Klecka 2000). In cooler climates, DDT residues exhibit soil halflives of 20 to 30 years (ATSDR 2000). Furthermore, DDT may be present far from application sites. Although only slightly volatile, DDT can move long distances, either as a gas or as a solid attached to soil particles. Significant concentrations of ΣDDT have been found far from regions of use, such as in Arctic soils, sediments, air and body tissue of wildlife, particularly marine mammals (Barrie et al. 1992; Muir et al. 1992; Fellin et al. 1996). The processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification further increase levels of exposure for certain wildlife species and humans by several orders of magnitude. Once DDT enters an animal's body, much of it is transformed into DDE which, like DDT, is highly soluble in fat but only slightly soluble in water. These characteristics cause DDT and DDE to accumulate in fat tissues. As predators high on the food chain eat prey contaminated with DDT, the contaminant body burden is magnified. For example, in their study of a coastal estuary in the eastern United States regularly treated with DDT for mosquito control, Woodwell et al. (1967) found residue levels of ΣDDT in birds to be one million times greater than concentrations in the water. In humans, dietary exposure to DDT in the United States led to typical ΣDDT concentrations in human fatty tissues of nearly 8.0 ppm in 1971 (U.S. EPA 1975b). Although levels have declined in the environment and in humans since 1972, DDT's persistence ensures that exposure will continue for several decades. In 1991, each adult in the United States consumed an average of 0.8 μg of DDT daily (ATSDR 2000).

"Once in the body of a living organism, DDT may exhibit toxic effects. As an insecticide, DDT kills many species of insects, both pests and beneficials, by disrupting sodium channels in nerve cells, although the exact mechanism is not known. DDT is also highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrates as well as fish and amphibians, particularly in juvenile stages (WHO 1989). Through different mechanisms, DDT and DDE exert both acute and chronic harmful effects in certain bird species. As mentioned earlier, one devastating effect is egg-shell thinning, which was a major contributor to severe population declines in sensitive species in the 1950's and 60's (Wiemeyer et al. 1984; Peakall and Fox, 1987; Bowerman et al. 1995). Since the ban, populations of bald eagles and other affected species have demonstrated dramatic recoveries (WWF 1999a). Based on the wealth of scientific data now available, there is a general consensus that DDT and its metabolites are serious hazards to the environment (WHO 1989)."

I don't it is helpful to the reader to put one cherry picked study up against the scientific mainstream. --TimLambert 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the eggshell thinning and chick mortality among certain birds of prey such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons and oceanic birds such as brown pelicans (Ratcliffe 1967; Cooke 1973) part. If someone will look up those two studies and summarize them, they'll make an excellent addition to the article.

As for the weasel-worded quote from the United Nations (WHO), "DDT may exhibit toxic effects", I'd like to see something more solid. Like with numbers. How much DDT? What toxic effects? What species? (Not humans, because we already know you can eat a spoonful and not die.) --Uncle Ed 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Page needs editing

This page badly needs fixing. For instance it currently has this:

Nonetheless, with her shrill denunciation of DDT - a chemical which humans can safely consume by the spoonful - she painted with too broad a brush.

Not only is this POV ("shrill"? come on), it is dangerously wrong. A tablespoon of DDT has a fair chance of killing you.

There is other stuff that is just as bad, like the absurd claim that she lies with the Schwietzer quote. I propose deleting the really bad stuff and fixing the scientific claims with stuff from peer-reviewed journals and not Larouchite magazines. Any objections, speak now. --TimLambert 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take out "shrill" - I wrote that in haste. If you have evidence of a tablespoon of DDT killing a human being, please add it to the article.

"In 1994, one fatal poisoning was reported in the US involving a child who ingested one ounce (28g) of a 5% DDT and kerosene solution(13)." PAN UK That's 1.5g of DDT or 1/3 of a teaspoon.

I think the whole sentence should go, along with the Schwitzer nonsense.

By the way, Talk:D._A._Ratcliffe mentions raptors and egg shells. --Uncle Ed 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What killed the child, the DDT or the kerosene? Sounds like you personally think DDT is harmful. Let's stick to facts. Please name a researcher who regards DDT as (a) poisonous to humans or (b) harmful to bird eggs. And put it into the article with a web link so readers can compare your POV with the facts. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I quoted you a large part of a peer-reviewed journal paper. You somehow think that this is trumped by an opinion piece in a newspaper. I've already provided a scientific source that can be used to make the article factual. Unless you have something of you own to offer (and newspaper opinion pieces or Larouch magazines don't count), I'm going to go with the scientific paper, thank you. --TimLambert 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rv'd to TL, for the obvious reasons. Ed, do you know any more about this than about GW? It looks like not... William M. Connolley 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Science and politics

• For 81 year-old entomologist Gordon Edwards, famous for swallowing a spoonful of DDT in front of students for decades, the decision was “an abject capitulation to professional environmental extremists and a tremendous defeat for science and mankind.” Crichton calls it “one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America.” Nor did green activists let up. Shiva Murugasampillay, Head of WHO’s Southern Africa Malaria Programme, says “countries have problems getting DDT supplies, because globally, the environmental lobby has tried to close down most production. [2]

Which proves that the author of the piece doesn't know what he was talking about. The toxicity of DDT has been well studied. A spoonful might not kill you, but it would make you sick. Look at DDT. --TimLambert 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion you've drawn there. You may be right, but I think Wikipedia has a rule against original research. Do you have a source for A spoonful might not kill you, but it would make you sick? --Uncle Ed 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Answering my own question:

• Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects.

I forget where I read about a "spoonful" but 35 milligrams is about 1/1000th of an ounce - which is a lot less than a spoonful. Let's dig into this more! --Uncle Ed 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Another quote:

• But as to human exposure to DDT, Dr. Edwards has been pictured on the cover of a national magazine eating DDT out of a box by the spoon full 200 times the claimed safe level of exposure. [3]

I guess this was not pure DDT but some kind of powder containing DDT. --Uncle Ed 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The J. Gordon Edwards' character assassination of Rachel Carson appeared in the Lyndon LaRouche publication 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine and was originally removed (& documented above!) from this article last June; the Wikipedia guidelines are clear:

Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Any attempt to re-insert this material or use as a source will be taken before the arbitration committee. Cronos1(UTC)

3RR

I'm not sure of the counts, but I guess that was my 3rd undo of an unexplained revert in 24 hours. You guys teaming up like that has me beat, so I'll have to wait until the clock resets.

Or you could simply begin to explain the reverts. Is there anything specific you object to? Anything I left out, which should go back in?

I'd love to see something other than politics - you've got access to journals on-line, haven't you, William? Can you look up the dozen research studies which refute the lone journal article claiming "thinning"? That's a good lad ... --Uncle Ed 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yawn, the usual reversion while refusing to talk. See you in a couple of days. --Uncle Ed 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Banning pesticides

Cut from article:

In addition, many critics repeatedly asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides, despite the fact that Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem.

Which critics? Sources, please.

Made it clear? Quotes, please.

What does "responsible and carefully manage use" mean - in contrast with, say, totally banning indoor use of DDT to prevent human deaths by malaria?

What does "an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem" mean? Sounds like code words for acceptance of the point of view that DDT is so persistent in the food chain that it ought to be banned.

Are we saying that Carson did (or did not) seek a ban on any pesticides? specifically, did she favor or oppose a ban (or any limitations) on DDT use?

Did she do any advocacy at all related to the ban of DDT? --Uncle Ed 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want source, add a source tag, don't just cut it. Also "quick repairs" is somewhat deceptive - that would imply you're going to fix it; just asking Q's isn't going to get a quick fix. Your questions look more like excuses for cutting something you dislike William M. Connolley 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored Science Advisory Committee Statement

Restored the "vindication" of Carson/Spring statement with Citation. The statement is hardly 'highly biased', similar staements appear on many web sites, including the EPA. If LaszloWalrus can substantiate that the committee disavowed Carson/Spring, then statement should be eliminated.

Cronos1 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "vindicating" implies a degree of finality that overstates the case. The committee supported Carson's scientific claims as, on most issues, has subsequent research. I've added a date to help anyone who wants to research further JQ 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to quibble, and will accept the phrase as cited (largely backing Carson's scientific claims) but, if the OED is to be believed, "finality" is not implied by the usage of "vindicated". I believe the definition in this context is d. To provide justification for (something); to justify by facts or results. This being noted, I would say that to characterize the report as something less than the vindication of the main thesis of Silent Spring would be disingenuous. Here is how the NY Times summarized in Rachel Carson's obit:

"In May 1963, after a long study, President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee, issued its pesticide report.

It stressed that pesticides must be used to maintain the quality of the nation's food and health, but it warned against their indiscriminate use. It called for more research into potential health hazards in the interim, urged more judicious care in the use of pesticides in homes and in the field.

The committee chairman, Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, said the uncontrolled use of poisonous chemicals, including pesticides, was "potentially a much greater hazard" than radioactive fallout."

Also see: http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/bakerr/v600/rachel_carson_and_silent_spring.htm

Cronos1 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I've removed a para on the DDT ban, which is adequately covered in the relevant section of this article. The material removed is only peripherally relevant to Carson, and belongs in the main DDT article. JQ 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

JQ:

Your edit of 9/15 says: 'rv: erroneous claims about WHO -check the DDT article on this.' Is in error. The quote comes from the WHO news release. If you wish to add comments about nets, and deaths, fine. Please do not remove WHO qualifying phrase.

Cronos1 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, the question of interior wall spraying vs bednets (which also use insecticide, BTW) for malaria is absolutely irrelevant to Carson's criticism of broad-area spraying of DDT. This issue is properly treated in the DDT article, and does not belong here JQ 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

JQ: Your edit of 21:43, September 15, 2006 inserted a paragraph (inadvertantly?) which specifically addressed these topics as if they were relevant. It is a moot point now. Cronos1 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)