“Silent Spring” and the effects of the politicization of science

Wow–it has been a WHILE. I’ve been pretty busy.  However, I just wrote my final essay for my history class (which has, on the whole, been disappointing). I felt like posting it here and since it’s my blog and I’m the master of my little blogiverse, I’m doing just that The question I was answering was how and why the modern environmental movement developed and what its future was. The professor mentioned Rachel Carson and provided links to two websites containing info about her:

http://www.rachelcarson.org/

http://ecotopia.org/ehof/carson/index.html

Note: Despite the fact that this is a college level course and “designed” to encourage critical thinking, the only websites the professor suggests are highly complimentary of Rachel Carson and “Silent Spring” and make no mention of legitimate criticisms of the science in her book.

The modern environmental movement developed around the concern that mankind’s increased reliance on synthetic chemicals to improve their quality of life was damaging to man and also his environment. Rachel Carson could be defined as the mother of the modern environmental movement; her book “Silent Spring” about her belief that DDT was harming people and the environment in irreparable ways brought the issue of protecting the environment nationwide attention. Since the publication of the book, the issue of the environment has grown both more politicized and publicized.

The fight against malaria would turn out to be the catalyst in the development of environmental consciousness among Americans. During and after WWI illnesses such as typhus and malaria were killing millions and American soldiers were having to be recalled from the front lines in tropical regions because of malaria. In 1939, Paul Muller discovered that the synthetic chemical DDT was highly effective in killing off insects; particularly the Anopheles mosquito, the only mosquito capable of transmitting malaria (Gladwell). DDT was so effective that it was literally sprayed from planes and was eventually responsible for the near eradication of malaria, particularly in the undeveloped world where malaria was often deadly. Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery of DDT.

In his article “The Mosquito Killer”, Malcolm Gladwell (2001) relates the story of Dr. Fred Soper’s aggressive plan to eliminate malaria. In a community contaminated with the disease, it would be necessary to spray 80% of the dwellings and any pools of standing water with DDT. This did not always go as planned as some people were reluctant to have their homes sprayed, some distributors watered down the DDT to cut down on their costs and various other problems arose that generally result when large groups of people try to accomplish something. These things caused the DDT to work less effectively and after a time it was discovered that some mosquitoes were resistant to the chemical. This would imply that eventually DDT would become even less effective as the resistant mosquitoes would be the only ones left to reproduce and pass on their resistant qualities. However, Dr. Soper believed that if DDT was used to kill the mosquitoes just long enough to let a community’s malaria outbreak run its course (about three years), then malaria could be eradicated since the mosquitoes were merely transmitters and not the cause of the disease. DDT also killed other insects which were beneficial to the ecosystem, causing other problems although the new problems were nowhere near as damaging as malaria outbreaks. Soper’s plan was not to use DDT indefinitely, so once malaria was eradicated the other insects would eventually repopulate, returning the ecosystem to its natural balance, minus malaria. The publication of Rachel Carlson’s “Silver Spring” combined with the difficulties Dr. Soper encountered with his eradication plan would combine to bring DDT use to nearly a standstill.

Today, malaria is perceived as a tropical disease but it did at one time affect North America. Our aggressive use of DDT has eliminated malaria from our neck of the woods. It was also used as a pesticide to increase productivity in the agricultural sector. It was very successful but did do some damage to the environment around it. Rachel Carson, an American ecologist, was disturbed by the damage being done to wildlife as a result of DDT exposure. She was inspired to write a book about the harmful effects of DDT. She titled the book “Silent Spring”, a reference to the decimation of the bird population caused by the pesticide. She also claimed that DDT was responsible for the increase in child cancer rates and related a story of a woman who supposedly developed leukemia and died mere months after her basement was sprayed with DDT. Carson would argue that the benefits of DDT were not worth the costs but never suggested an outright ban of the chemical. Her book was so popular with the public that the newly formed EPA reviewed the claims and banned DDT in 1972. In his book “Liberty and Tyranny” (2009), Mark Levin describes the banning of DDT as “an abuse of both the scientific and legal processes” (p. 119). After months of hearings on the possibility of harmful effects of DDT, Judge Edmund Sweeny concluded that DDT was not a harmful substance to humans. William Rucklehaus, an administrator for the EPA, banned DDT anyway despite the fact that he had attended none of the hearings nor read the transcripts. Inexplicably, the ban was allowed to stand even though Rucklehaus belonged to groups who were suing the manufacturers of DDT, effectively creating an enormous conflict of interest. While it is true that DDT had some negative effects on the environment, the science behind Carson’s ‘Silent Spring” has been questioned by many and developments in scientific research and knowledge since then have not supported her claims.

In his article “Fact Versus Fears”(1998), Adam Liebermann of the American Council on Science and Health reviewed the events leading up to the ban of DDT, the science behind the ban and whether long term damaging effects had resulted from DDT use. Upon reviewing the studies that claimed that DDT use was thinning bird egg shells resulting in the reduction of bird population, it has been discovered that often the experiments were faulty and once re-performed a link between DDT and thinning egg shells could not be proven. Additionally, there is still no definitive link between DDT and cancer. In fact, one of the possible reasons Carson believed that the incidence of childhood cancers was on the rise was due to the decrease of other illnesses (Levin p.118). Tragically, the ban on DDT has cost millions of children in undeveloped nations their lives; children and pregnant women are those most vulnerable to succumbing to malaria. It is estimated that between 1 and 2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, bringing the total to between 30 and 60 million since the ban was implemented (Seavey). It is further estimated that, had the ban not been enacted, the eradication rate of malaria would be 98% (Lieberman). There is a powerful contrast between the people who have died from malaria and those who have died from DDT exposure. Despite so much evidence to controvert Carson’s claims, “Silent Spring” is still used as teaching material in American schools without the exploration of views that contradict her claims (Moyers). What the lesson of “Silent Spring” teaches us is that the emotions of the public are easily manipulated and legislation based on these emotions is easily enacted.

We can see this scenario being played out at this very moment. Just this past Friday, the EPA declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant that threatens public health and welfare. According to Brian Walsh’s article “EPA’s CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’s Head” this decision is monumental because it has potentially removed regulation of carbon dioxide from Congress to the EPA in the event that cap and trade regulations stall in Congress. The fact remains that there still is not an unpoliticized scientific consensus on whether or not the Earth is warming and if it is, if carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the warming. In fact, as recent scientific data has not upheld outrageous claims of impending disaster, the term “global warming” has been replaced with “climate change”. A mere four decades ago, the crisis du jour was global cooling. If nothing else, these facts should lead the public to be wary of sweeping policy change based upon highly politicized environmental issues. However, much like “Silent Spring”, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has blurred the lines between science and entertainment using rhetoric and imagery to communicate a “truth” that is still a matter of scientific debate. As in the 1960’s and 70’s, the American government is chomping at the bit to do what the public feels is right despite the fact that neither the public nor the scientists researching the issue have all the facts. The lesson we should be learning at this point is that there is absolutely no room in science for politics.

The modern environmental movement is more than just a raising of public awareness of environmental issues. The legislation enacted following the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” catapulted the environmental movement into the political arena. Unfortunately, as legislation is reactionary and sound scientific conclusions take time to reach, the two are often incompatible. What results is increasing numbers of laws and policies being implemented without an accurate understanding of the consequences of such policies or the science behind the issues. If the progression of the environmental movement from the 1960’s to today is any indication, the future of the environmental movement will continue to be inflation and escalation of public panic for the purpose of furthering environmental causes, be they scientifically sound or not.

Bailey, R. (2002). “Silent Spring at 40: Rachel Carson’s Classic is Not Aging Well”. Retrieved from http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

Gladwell, M. (2001) “The Mosquito Killer”. Retrieved from http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm

Levin, M. (2009). Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lieberman, A. (1998). “Facts Versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times. Retrieved from http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html.

“Rachel Carson”. Bill Moyers Journal. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/educators/rachelcarson.html

Walsh, B. (2009). “EPA’s CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’s Head”. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1892368,00.html.

I’m including my references since there are several articles that are worth reading all of in relation to this issue. I apologize if I’ve bored, but then I’m assuming if you’ve read up till this point and you’re bored, it’s your own damn fault for not stopping

Also, much thanks to Mark Levin. Had I not read his chapter on Enviro-Statism and Rachel Carson, I probably would have spent far longer writing a crappy essay on one of the other lame topics my professor assigned.

Guilt is Good

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday which marks the beginning of the Lenten season for Catholics around the world.  Lent is a time for us to reflect on ourselves as sinners, God’s unfathomable love for us, and ways in which we can improve ourselves and grow closer to God.  Lent is a time for introspection and penance; a special time of year to experience the grace of God’s forgiveness.

Catholic guilt is the butt of many jokes and generally the first thing people think of when you mention Catholicism. I was reflecting on guilt and shame  as I drove home with my family from Ash Wednesday service last night, our foreheads freshly anointed with ashes and the words “turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel” still ringing in our ears.

I began to wonder if guilt is the burden that our society seems to think it is. Has shame become irrelevant in our morally relativistic culture? What happens when it becomes socially unacceptable to acknowledge that some behaviors are indeed, bad or at the very least–irresponsible?

Last night I came to embrace the importance of guilt and shame in our personal development.  Knowing that “better” does exist can inspire us to do better, be better, expect more of ourselves. This is the root of our evolution as a society, not the attitude that refuses to declare some behaviors as irresponsible or bad.

After embracing guilt last night, I turned on the computer this morning and was confronted with the reality that we are becoming a culture devoid of it.

Exhibit A: Nadya Suleman

Despite enormous public outcry at a welfare mom using fertility treatments to conceive octuplets, Ms. Suleman has yet to even acknowledge that her actions were irresponsible and shows no shame at the fact that she and her brood will be a drain on the California economy at the worst time possible.

Exhibit B:  Parents complaining about cheese sandwich policy in Albquerque.

For those unfamiliar, the Albuquerque Public School system has instituted a policy of giving children whose lunch accounts are delinquent, a cold cheese sandwich, a piece of fruit and a carton of milk for lunch.  Parents complain that it singles out their kids as being poor. My suggestion would be, if you can’t afford hot lunch then make your kids a lunch at home. If you can’t afford to make your kids a lunch at home then chances are you qualify for free lunch –and if you don’t you should be grateful that your kids are being fed anyway.

Exhibit C: Minta Garcia’s $800,000 house

Why is it perfectly acceptable to ask the President to help you out with your mortgage? Contrast this with Deborah and Curt Sleeper’s reaction to charitable donations to help them keep their house:

http://caveland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/deborah-and-curt-on-the

My final exhibit, Exhibit D: The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

If this piece of legislation passes:

A claim may be reduced under subsection (b)(11)(A) only on the condition that if the debtor sells the principal residence securing such claim, before completing all payments under the plan (or, if applicable, before receiving a discharge under section 1328(b)) and receives net proceeds from the sale of such residence, then the debtor agrees to pay to such holder not later than 15 days after receiving such proceeds.

So, under this act the government can readjust the amount I owe on my mortgage regardless of how much I actually borrowed. Congress is leading the no shame revolution.

Guilt is good. I say we embrace its place in our own lives and pray for its return on a grander scale.

Taxation without Representation

At this point in our American experiment, to claim we have taxation with representation is like President Obama saying the stimulus bill has no earmarks: Technically both those statements are true but they skirt the real issue.

In order for the federal government to tax us, we must have representatives in Congress to (say it with me) REPRESENT us.  Our congressmen and senators cannot represent us when they admit that they have not had time to read the legislation on which they are voting.  Nor can they represent us when party leaders bar some of them from committee meetings.  We can’t express our opinions to our representatives when WE are not given a chance to read legislation. What happened to the President’s promise to make all legislation available online for 5 days for the public to read?  Unfortunately, transparency interfered with his timetable and Madame Speaker’s trip to Rome.

It should be unacceptable for our government to pass the largest spending bill in our nation’s history (with a price tag that exceeds the GDP of nearly every nation on this planet) when they haven’t had time to read it even once. Yet it’s not. They continue to plow ahead with what they deem is best for us. If I’m not mistaken, it was conduct like this that led the colonists to rebel against England.

Anyone up for a tea party?

(Thanks to @AmericanSweetie and @kasumi_gakure for the inspiration)

Take the TCOT Challenge

We all know about the pork laden stimulus package that could be passed in the Senate as soon as Monday. Maybe some of you support it because you know we need to do something and this is the only alternative. Au contraire mon frere!!!! I give you: the TCOT challenge!

The plan is simple: Reduce all personal and corporate income taxes by half for the year 2009. Follow the link, tell us what YOU would do if you could keep more of your own money!!!!! Then pass it on! We have a very short time to convince our three “bipartisan” Senators (Maine’s Collins and Snowe and Pennsylvania’s Specter) that the stimulus must die. No compromise is suitable, the bill is flawed beyond rescue.

Time is of the essence. Pass the TCOT challenge on TODAY!!!

Same Message; Different President

Today President Obama said that “failure to act [on the stimulus bill] would turn crisis into catastrophe”. Isn’t that essentially the same line we were fed by President Bush in the days leading up to the 700 billion dollar bailout? The same message that scared some of us into supporting a bailout that we once opposed? The same bailout that we have no idea where half the money went and the other half hasn’t even been spent? The same bailout that required such urgent action that nobody had a chance to truly dissect it and think of better alternatives?

I’m sorry–fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me. America should be ashamed if they let another politician scare them into supplication.

So Long Statute of Limitations, Hello Lily Ledbetter

I may have to convince myself to get rid of my television because it seems like everytime I turn it on I get to see President Obama making yet another asinine decision. Truly, it’s almost not worth the annoyance it causes me.

Lo and behold, I turn on the tube this morning and there’s Mr. President, all grins, signing into law the Lily Ledbetter Act. What the Ledbetter Act will do, essentially, is nearly eliminate the time limits imposed on Title VII discrimination claims. According to Title VII, a wronged employee had 180 days from the discriminatory action to file a claim against their employer.  The Ledbetter Act states that each time a paycheck is issued, the discriminatory act occurs and the statute of limitations begins anew.

Andrew Grossman points out that there are more moderate solutions that would solve the issue with Title VII:

[One] option is to augment the current limitations period with a carefully drafted “discovery rule” so that the time limit on suing begins running only when an employee reasonably suspects, or should reasonably suspect, that he or she has been discriminated against.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm2236.cfm

It seems to me that that would solve the problem without giving people an endless amount of time in which to file their claims. I’m guessing that sort of provision won’t line the pockets of the trial attorneys so many Democrats are beholden to.

Get ready for some serious discrimination suits to come crawling out of the woodwork. I’m so glad too, a more litigous society is just what we need. Feminists need not complain when companies begin screening employees for those who seem more likely to file lawsuits–they brought this on themselves.

Back to School

Ok, I’ve totally been too busy and/or lazy to post anything lately and the busy trend looks to continue through May 3rd, which is when my finals are. On second thought, the busy trend may continue right through June since I signed on to be the director for our church’s Vacation Bible School.

I have to say I am impressed so far with my online professors. All the previous online classes I have taken have been taught by extremely liberal professors who didn’t do much to disguise their bias.  So far, no political nonsense in my classes this semester. On one hand it’s nice but on the other I kinda got used to being the hated one in class for things like: aggressively championing Machiavelli, attacking the theory of the gender wage gap,  and challenging the theory of global warming. My personal favorite was during a disagreement about the wage gap when my sociology professor lamblasted my sources as “conservative think tanks” then referenced sources she had read but couldn’t remember where and had no citation information for them.

I will definitely post if anything like that happens again simply for the amusement of it all But, I am hoping for a political free zone in my online classroom this semester. It will just make focusing on the actual material that much easier.

Will the Real Religion of Islam Please Stand Up?

For years I have listened as those of us who flirt too closely with anti-Islamic sentiment have been told that Islam is actually a religion of peace and has been hi-jacked by radicals using the faith to further their political agendas.  Fine, I’m willing to accept that. I have just one question: Where is the proof? Where are the moderate peace-loving Muslims decrying this sort of behavior?

It’s plain to me that not all Christians murder doctors that perform abortions or disrupt military funerals with their vile demonstrations. In fact, those sorts of behaviors are the exception rather than the rule. Those people are regularly condemned by mainstream Christians who struggle everyday to live out their faith of loving God and neighbor.

However, the opposite seems to be true of Islam. What we typically see are large protests involving gunfire and signs calling for the beheading of *insert current defiler of Islam here*.  If this is not indicative of the Islamic faith, where is the condemnation from those who find these displays as offensive and vulgar as the rest of us do?

I’m not trying to be facetious nor am I trying to suggest that all Muslims are this radical–I would truly like to know why more moderate Muslims aren’t speaking out. Are there really so few of them that their voices aren’t being heard? Are they outnumbered by the radicals in their communities and are afraid to speak out? Do they identify with the sentiments expressed but deplore the violent ways in which those sentiments are manifested? What part of this puzzle are we missing?

I think it is crucial for us as Americans to answer these questions. This video was not taken in a Middle Eastern country, it was right here–in our country. This is not an issue that is going away.

Thanks to Tom Trento for documenting the protest and posting his video on youtube. I’ve provided a link to his site:

 https://www.watchobsession.org/

Happy New Year

Yikes, haven’t posted in quite sometime. My husband has been on vacation since Christmas so we’ve both been very reclusive and just trying to enjoy some down time as a family before we plunge headlong into tax season.

In the meantime, I’ve finally decided to forgo the traditional “I’m going to lose X amount of weight this year”. In fact, I’ve pretty much resigned not to make any resolutions at all. When you think about it, resolutions really only make a difference when something inside you has changed (ie, a way of thinking) not when you make them cuz you think you’re supposed to.  I resolved many times to quit smoking but never succeeded until it came about as a natural process as opposed to a vague living up to New Year tradition.

In light of that fact, I’m skipping the obligatory resolution and focusing instead on a particular goal–one that is important only to me and doesn’t feed into my twisted desire to remain as I once was. Unlike resolutions, I’m not ready to go public with my goal just yet. Sometimes it seems the discussing of a resolution is it’s own death knell. For now, I will keep it to myself and hopefully allow that to convince my subconscious that, this time, it is a goal worth pursuing–not just talking about.

The Pastor Warren Paradox

Ok, I know it’s been a few days since it was announced that Pastor Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Life fame) would speak at President-Elect Obama’s inauguration, BUT it’s taken me a few days of reflection to come to the conclusions that I have.

My inital reaction (and you can label me as extreme as gay rights activists and Prop 8 opposers if you so choose) was that I was slightly appalled that this Pastor (obviously pro-life) would agree to speak at the inauguration of a President-Elect who felt that the issue of defining personhood was “above his pay grade”. In fact, I was deeply disturbed by Pastor Warren’s seemingly overlooking of this issue. It’s a pretty big issue–one in which there is rarely a compromise between those on each side. Not to mention the fact that President-Elect Obama has one of the more atrocious pro-abortion records in the U.S. Senate.

I watched the condemnation of angry Prop 8 opposers and began to wonder if there was something wrong with me. Should I be ashamed for having the same misgivings, albeit for a different issue? Should I be remorseful that I felt somewhat betrayed that a pastor of the reputation of Rick Warren would put aside his differences with Obama to speak at what is an historic inauguration?

I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is no. The fact remains that over the last who knows how many years, conservatives have tried to make themselves more appealing to the “mainstream” by setting aside their differences with the left when it really matters. On the other hand, the left simply continues to bitch and moan that we haven’t made enough concessions (which I suppose to them means abandoning our principles) nor made enough effort to be inclusive of the entire nation.

Now we have a prime example in Pastor Rick Warren. He is setting aside an enormous cavern in belief between himself and President-Elect Obama in what I’m assuming is to be an intrepreted gesture of unity intended to help heal our nation. However, who is receiving the credit for making concessions and being inclusive? President-Elect Obama. Nobody bothers to mention the problems that Pastor Warren might have with Obama’s politics, just the problems they have with Pastor Warren’s (all the while neglecting to see that Pastor Warren and Obama agree on the issue of gay marriage).

I watched in horror this election season as John McCain experimented with just how far left conservatives must travel in order to appear “middle of the road” and the fact is that the journey carries us much too far into liberal territory for us to truly call ourselves conservatives should we decide to play the role of appeasers. As we can see with the controversy surrounding Pastor Warren; there is no concession great enough that we can make that will register as even a blip on the liberal radar screen. At what point will we get the credit we deserve? I suspect a cold day in hell. In light of that, we must find a way to articulate our message clearly and concisely and unapologetically. If we don’t, we are doomed.