Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

A number of years ago I read a critical review of "Silent Spring" where the author of the review accused Rachel Carlson of making a very basic error in statistical inference. I went out and got a copy of the book to see for myself. To my surprise and great disappointment I found that yes Carlson exactly what the reviewer said. Carlson claimed that there was a dramatic increase in the rate of death from childhood leukemia between 1900 and (circa) 1960 and blamed the increase on chemical pollution. Carlson failed to understand the difference between rate (as she defined it) and incidence. In 1900 children died from many different diseases most of which were cured by 1960. So naturally a greater fraction of child deaths would be from leukemia. If we cured all childhood diseases except leukemia then 100% of the childhood deaths from disease would be from leukemia. You really should compare the incidence rate in 1900 with 1960. Carlson did not do this, either out of ignorance or because it does not give the answer she wanted. This is not just a trivial mistake. It reveals a profound lack of competence in drawing conclusions from data. If you want a feel-good polemic against pesticides then you will like this book. If you want to be informed about the dangers of pesticides then read serious works by qualified epidemiologists. Junk science books like this do a disservice to the cause of environmentalism.