Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who's Afraid of Rachel Carson? Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and Countless Others

By Carl Pope, Huffington Post. Posted May 29, 2007.


One hundred years after her birth and decades since her death, there is a cottage industry on the reactionary right to blame Carson for almost all of the world's ills.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Carl Pope

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

For the centennial of Silent Spring author Carson's birth on May 27, members of Congress from her home states of Maryland and Pennsylvania introduced a resolution honoring her birth and another to name a post office in Pennsylvania after her. Coburn promptly put a "hold" on the bills to block them from being enacted. Why?

"Dr. Coburn believes the tremendous harm Carson's junk science claims about DDT did to the developing world overshadow her other contributions. ... Millions of people in the developing world, particularly children under five, died because governments bought into Carson's junk science claims about DDT. To put it in language the Left understands, her 'intelligence' was wrong and it had deadly consequences."

Coburn is a physician, but one who reads medical data very selectively. My one encounter with him occurred during the battle over setting new health standards regarding smog and soot levels. He was on the opposite side of a League of Women Voters debate on the issue. One of my co-panelists was a women whose son had asthma. On smoggy days, she regularly got calls from her child's school and had to take him to the emergency room. So when Coburn leaned over and said, "Will you come into my office and let me show you the scientific studies proving that smog has nothing to do with your son's asthma?" she was utterly unintimidated, and fired back, "I don't have time to come into your office because I may need to take my son to the hospital."

Even the Wall Street Journal, in a recent attack on the DDT ban, pointed out that Carson had called for careful use of DDT in fighting malaria -- not a ban. But the Journal did not go on to mention that DDT has never been banned for fighting malaria, and that Carson's advice, if followed from the start, might have avoided the build-up of resistant strains of insects and the toxic overloading of the feed chain that led to its loss of effectiveness. It was overuse of DDT that brought back malaria, not environmentalists, and certainly not Carson.

But Coburn is not alone. When the bill to name the post office went through the House in April, more than 50 Representatives voted "No," an almost unprecedented number for such legislation. Indeed, there is a cottage industry on the reactionary right to blame Carson for almost all of the world's ills.

Why is her memory still so charged? Perhaps because she was one of the first to use modern science to reveal the risks of over-use and over-reliance on technology. Science -- when she wrote her book -- was seen as a Promethean tool to conquer nature. She deployed science as a moral parable to warn us that we needed to walk more humbly in the world. Indeed, in this week's New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert makes a striking comparison between the kind of mindless reliance on pesticides like MIREX, which Carson exposed, and the current disdain for science shown by the Bush Administration.

So it's remarkable, but this quiet woman, decades after she dies, still stands as a focal point in the debate over whether or not we should take seriously the warning signs that science sends us and the debate over whether our efforts to control nature in the pursuit of short-term benefits can backfire and hurt us badly instead.

(Full disclosure: The Sierra Club receives some of the royalties that flow to Carson's estate from ongoing sales of Silent Spring, so her opponents may now argue that the Club's views on her legacy are tainted.)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: ddt, rachel carson

Carl Pope is the Sierra Club's executive director.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sentence fragment
Posted by: Jarmadi on May 29, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there supposed to be a page 2 to this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sentence fragment Posted by: xconservative
» You can read it here Posted by: JohnF
» RE: You can read it here Posted by: mombot
Umm... the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industry, maybe?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 29, 2007 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case you haven't noticed, there's been a huge push by the corporate sector to cover up the relationship between exposure to various toxins and cancer, liver damage and hormone disruption.

The why? is very simple: liability. See for example:
Chemical Exposure Creating a "Silent Pandemic" of Neurodevelopmental Disorders?

November 8, 2006 — An online review article published November 8 in the Lancet says environmental exposure to toxic chemicals in utero and in the early stages of life may be creating a "silent pandemic" of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Scientists criticize EPA chemical screening program
Scientists say the Bush administration is developing a chemical testing program that favors the chemical industry when it comes to judging whether certain substances in the environment might cause cancer, infertility, or harm to babies in the womb.

Now, do you think the rabid right-wing pro-life fundamentalist 'right-to-lifers' are going to raise this issue? Hardly - because they're a pack of hypocrites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People like Rachel Carson might cost someone some money
Posted by: JohnF on May 29, 2007 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Follow the money. The right these days seems bolder than ever in distorting whatever truth might cost some corporate CEO some money. In the past it was tobacco and cancer, among other things. Now it's climate change pesticides and other chemical toxins, again among other things. I've called this "ecocide for a quick buck."

With regard to things like pesticides and other synthetic chemicals, I think the recent evidence that sodium benzoate may damage DNA is a classic lesson. From about the 1940s on, we in the US were fed a load of propaganda to the effect that there were people who could tell us definitively which of these were safe. They would protect us. But, time and time again, chemicals which had been used for years in foods or as pesticides, which were believed to be safe, have been found to be anything but. Often they've been withdrawn from the market, though not always. We've had trouble breaking through that propaganda to learn the lesson that it's generally risky to mess with stuff nature didn't intend us to ingest, and that our science is nowhere near advanced enough to end that risk.

http://growthmadness.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ECLECTICIST, S JIM RODRIGUEZ
Posted by: SJR505 on May 30, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sound familiar to the present campaign by "BIG PHARMA" to pass the elimination and eradication to supplimental medicines via their '..CODEX ALIMENTARIOUS" approach and passing laws with the support of the RX"s companies...

Some of us ARE already advocating the fight against BIG PHARMA".RECORDAR(REMEMBER): the Leader/Owner of the German Bayer company had been convicted for leading the gas chambers for , you guessed it, HITLER, and was sentenced to prison under the Nuemberg Tribunals...He surfaced later and began this Codex caca...

We have been warned...

S. JIM RODRIGUEZ=ECLECTICIST SPIRIT SEEKER+

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rebel Ruggles
Posted by: Raymond Ruggles on May 30, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same old garbage. The guy who says smog is not bad for respiratory problems should be laughed at and the post office should be named in spite of his assinine opinions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DDT and Population Control
Posted by: editorial@21stcenturysciencetech.com on May 30, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DDT was in effect banned for malaria control once the United States banned it in 1972. The State Department then prohibited aid for programs that used DDT or other banned substances. Thus the poorest countries, dependent on such aid, could not use DDT. The NGO aid groups adopted the same policy.

DDT was a lifesaver, from the time it was dusted on troops and refugees in World War II, to its postwar use in malaria control. It has saved millions of lives—more than any other man-made chemical. Its ban has resulted in the death of millions. Now that the WHO has okayed it use for indoor spraying, it will again be able to control malaria, unless the anti-DDE forces prevent it from being used.

Behind the ban is a policy of population control, particularly of black and brown populations. The founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, Alexander King, admitted this forthrightly, saying that he had supported the use of DDT during the war but later on, he saw that by controlling malaria it was allowing the increase of population—a bad thing in his view (and also in the view of many environmentalists today).

Bertrand Russell advocated the “culling” of population every decade—by famine, war, or disease. Prince Philip, a founder of postwar environmentalism, agrees. He, after all, said he wants to be reincarnated as an AIDS virus to help in this process. The question for the environmentalist movement as well as for the right-wingers, is whether the policies they support will have the result that Bertrand Russell and Prince Philip advocated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coburn and science...
Posted by: fanny666 on May 30, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Coburn is a physician, but one who reads medical data very selectively."

Yeah, that's a nice way of saying it. Here's a quote from the good doctor:

"...And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows. . . . In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."

-Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Coburn and science... Posted by: wisegalah
gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on May 30, 2007 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coburn is just another inbred Okie cretin, elected by a similar constituency. I was born and raised in Oklahoma

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gathaiga Posted by: willymack
Rachel's Work is Not done!
Posted by: vissermel on Jun 3, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Carson’s 100th birthday remembrance certainly brought out a diversity of viewpoints. Was she a visionary who eliminated toxic chemicals from America’s environment, or was she a crack pot whose radical actions are responsible for millions of malarial deaths?

I hope that the 200th anniversary of her birthday will put her accomplishments into proper perspective. In a day in which any chemical that could be safely manufactured and used was approved, she pointed out environmental and human health problems of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), chemicals designed to kill, occurring beyond their manufacture and use points. The process of democracy at its finest allowed the analysis, debate and banning of these chemicals over two decades. There is no other arena in history where man has reversed a technological course for environmental reasons. Yea human race!

The use of PCB, DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor, Lindane, Aldrin, Dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexane and hexachlorobenzene were banned in the developed countries because they were suspected of causing cancer or were acutely toxic in the environment. Yea Rachel!

As these bans were pursued in developing countries, argument focused upon malarial vector (mosquito) control. Why? The real battle should have been the use of DDT in general agriculture. When developing countries banned agricultural DDT, what did they use to control pests? Toxaphene? Banning DDT on grains and its discriminate use for mosquito control would avoid the spread of DDT in dangerous quantities and controlled mosquitoes. The DDT ban fight became a smokescreen for the use of all the other POPs.

Now toxaphene, probably the most used pesticide on the planet, circulates through the air from its uses in developing countries and pollutes cold, clear waters from the northern Great Lakes to the Arctic. Lake Superior, a lake the size of the state of Maine with depths going to below sea level … its waters if spilled over the continental United States would cover the area to a depth of six feet … is frightfully polluted with foreign toxaphene. Its trout harbor 5 parts per million of toxaphene, ten times the level that would classify them as hazardous waste!

Arctic polar bear and killer whales are on the edge of survival or decimated by “banned” pesticides and PCBs. PCBs and pesticides circulate through our air in hundreds of millions of molecules per breathful quantities … amounts that are now being connected to asthma, diabetes and cancer. Inuit ingest 15X a tolerable quantity of poisons.

Rachel Carson was on the right track. Unfortunately, her work is not complete and the planet is still at risk. See the web site coldclearanddeadly.com for more details on how pesticide use in developing countries affects the Great Lakes and the Arctic..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carl Pope should clean up his own house (Sierra Club) while he's at it.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jun 3, 2007 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sierra Club once took conservation seriously enough that it had an honest population and immigration policy.

All that changed when a bunch of open-borders hypocrites took over, through rigging the Club's elections so brazenly the Republicans could learn lessons from them.

You won't hear a peep out of the Club's leader (and author of this article) about any of this.

That's why I (and other conservationists) quit the Sierra Club after having been a member for over 20 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]