Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

What was even the purpose of this book? The authors say that "Silent Spring" was never properly criticized, so now it is time for them to do so. That in itself is an erroneous statement. Anyone alive at the time remembers that the book and the author were dragged over the grill of public, media, scientific, political, and industry criticism until the day of her death. What on earth could have been left out at the time? The authors say, "Despite her reputation as a careful writer widely praised for building her arguments on science and facts, Carson’s best-seller contained significant errors and sins of omission." A "sin of omission" is by definition an omission that someone is aware of. Obviously if there was an omission, Carson wasn't aware of it: that wasn't her style. So there were no "sins" committed in writing her book. They accuse her of "deliberate ignorance." Anyone who knows anything at all about Rachel Carson would bite their tongue before accusing her of unethical behavior of any kind, much less "deliberate ignorance." It's a simple insult leveled by simple people. They continue: " Much of what was presented as certainty then was slanted, and today we know much of it is simply wrong." "Slanted" is certainly an opinion. Many held that opinion. Many others did not. But an investigation to uncover the fact that things that were known 50 years before are "simply wrong" today is not a very productive use of these gentlemen's time. Much of what ANY scientist knew 50 years ago is known to be wrong today. Not, in other words, a heart-stopping statement. (And anyway, "much" is quite an exaggeration). It is perhaps better to examine the author's impact in terms of what she herself wanted to achieve (by her own words). She wanted the aerial spraying of DDT to end. This was achieved. (And by the way, the bald eagle is no longer an endangered species thanks to her). She wanted people to know about bio-accumulation and the development of resistance. This was achieved. She wanted people to learn that life on earth was a delicately balanced system. This was achieved. She wanted farmers to start considering the use of biological control agents. This was achieved. She wanted the public to stop passively condoning the irresponsible use of chemicals without adequate review from independent agencies. This was achieved--at least insofar as politics has allowed. She wanted the public to understand the capitalist underpinnings of chemical development, use, and funding of scientific research so they would no longer view the government as their friendly Papa. This was achieved. Even Rachel Carson's impact on the biological sciences cannot be underestimated. Her thoughts were pioneering: today these subjects are regularly taught in classrooms as a part of the science of Ecology. We owe much of our scientific progress to biologists like her who were willing to risk the wrath of public agencies and industry. If we're able to rescue our natural resources from abuse at all, we will owe a large debt to Rachel Carson. Edited Dec. 4, 2015, per new information. Would you like to know who the author Andrew Morriss is? He's an Alabama law professor. He likes to write, too. This might still mystify us: why would an Alabama law professor make a book criticizing "Silent Spring" and Rachel Carson? And why so insulting? Et voila, I have an answer for you. He put together this book for the Cato Institute, a libertarian "think tank" founded by Charles Koch, of the Koch brothers. And here's what he said: "It’s not polite to talk about brown and black people dying because rich white people in America feel better about themselves when the brown and black people don’t get to use DDT..." Which is incredibly bizarre, because his touching concern about "brown and black people," in the parts of the world where malaria is a problem, is misplaced. DDT was NEVER BANNED. It was never banned to control any disease. That is part of why all humans today carry DDT, a potent endocrine disrupter, in their blood. Still, malaria persists. Why? A big problem is RESISTANCE. Yes, mosquitoes, just as Rachel Carson predicted, are developing resistance to DDT. But all of this would seem to be irrelevant--because Carson never even asked for a "ban" on DDT. Yes, for those of you who are curious, this is a book with an agenda: it is yet another anti-liberal propaganda book put out by the leaders of the world's biggest industries: those "rich white people" Morriss, a rich white man himself, so piously attacks.