TheMillerCircle.org

What do these four people have in common? Well the last three are ganging up on deceased Rachel Carson. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth. Her 1962 book "Silent Spring" is generally credited with the beginning of environmentalism which eventually led to the banning of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) by the EPA in 1972. Carson died of breast cancer just two years after the publication of her most famous, but not her favorite book. She was a naturally skilled writer and many consider "Silent Spring" to be among the best books of the 20th century: it certainly was that based on its influence. But, as the Republican movement against regulatory policies began in earnest with Ronald Reagan and the "free market economy" took hold, with Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and econcomists Hayek and Milton Friedman, Rachel Carson and her book were increasingly demonized and this 100 year anniversary seems to involve a broadside attack of "Carson bashing" from the right; some right wing websites have "Silent Spring" listed as one of the worst books of the 20th century. Tom Delay, a former bug exterminator, in his recent book "No Retreat, No Surrender: One American’s Fight" has claimed that Rachel Carson was responsible for large numbers of deaths and, had he stayed in Congress, he was going to sponsor a bill to bring DDT back into circulation. Our expert on environmentalism, author Michael Crighton, claimed in his 2004 book "State of Fear" that Rachel Carson’s book has been responsible for more deaths than Adolph Hitler because the banning of DDT resulted in a surge of malaria deaths that might have been prevented with more widespread use of DDT, rather than its banning. Great words from a loyal capitalist! Below you can see how utterly incorrect this silly notion really is, as it lacks the weight of longitudinal history.

It was quite astonishing just last month to see NYT science writer John Tierney chime in on this issue perpetuating what is now the right-wing mantra for Rachel Carson as something of an early environmental terrorist, or at the very least, the perpetrator of bad science. Tierney’s article joins in lock-step with the right-wing—let’s obfuscate the hell out of everything— and find a person to blame for all of our current problems, preferably someone left of center and dead. First "Silent Spring" was not a scientific publication but an attempt on the part of an experienced naturalist to convey a vision of what might take place if the unfettered use of DDT continued at its then widespread pace. Carson had a Master’s degree in Zoology, not a Ph.D., except for honorary degrees she received along the way. The major pesticide manufacturing companies got wind of this book before it was published and tried to prevent it from seeing the light of day. It was a moving book, written by someone who was trying to move and alarm the public about pesticide use: it took the country by storm because the public was primed and ready for it. There were too many mounting stories about environmental toxins in our food supply, like toxic cranberries and drugs with horrible side-effects, like thalidomide (a drug that was given for morning sickness, but one which caused birth defects; it was banned for use by the FDA in the US, but its widespread use in Europe produced shocking malformations in children); these were all on the radar screen when "Silent Spring" was first published. It was also written at a time when we knew very little about toxicology at the cellular or systems level, and we knew next to nothing about how toxins might effect genetic mechanisms. In fact we knew very little about the genetic mechanisms themselves as biological reductionism was just getting underway. The same year that "Silent Spring" was published was the year that James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for their work in revealing the structure of DNA. So, we had a long way to go.

DDT was not a discriminatory toxin, but killed most of the insects with which it had contact, at least at first. Putting malaria aside for the moment (see below), just imagine countries in which there were no pollinators, because the natural pollinators were all killed off by DDT. Come to think of it we are scarce on pollinators today, without DDT, but with bee keepers making a living transporting their portable bee colonies to regions where pollination is required and the bee population, whether domestic or wild, is diminishing at a rapid pace for reasons that are still not clear: bees go out but they don’t come back….go figure. Three quarters of our staple crops require pollination and alarms are going out about how we are decimating the natural pollinators with the use of chemicals and habitat erosion. Silent Spring? How about Empty Table? These issues, quite apart from DDT, are still with us in spades for many of the same reasons that Rachel Carson talked about. The science is better, but the problem will not go away.

The right-wing anti-science advocates also fault Rachel Carson for drawing a connection between DDT and cancer. While the cancer threat of DDT never materialized as a significant health risk (but the ban of DDT might have eliminated a longer term threat of cancer), one has to keep in mind that Carson’s warnings about that possible association took place two years years before the Surgeon General announced that cigarette smoking was associated with lung cancer, the first ever cancer-related environmental relationship in which a common habit was proving deadly. So the failure to get that one right is hardly a mark against her. Look how long it took for the cigarette companies to accept that association: denial is still going on with many of them and completely so with regard to second hand smoke issues. Did Carson’s book reduce the obstacles for the Surgeon General’s report on smoking? I think it made acceptance of that idea far easier for the public. Today a new story is emerging in which Parkinson’s Disease, a degenerative disorder involving dopamine containing cells in the Substantia Nigra of the brain, with subsequent disturbances in motor control, has a significant correlation among farmers, suggesting to some that a prolonged exposure to pesticides may contribute to this disorder. Furthermore, alarming studies have been carried out in mice, demonstrating that the pesticide rotenone causes a Parkinson’s-like state when given in low, chronic doses far lower than the higher tolerance levels recommended by the FDA.

One feature of the right-wing anti-science writers, that might itself involve some limitations of the brain, is the incapacity for them to cohesively view a problem in a broad, longitudinal perspective, fully recognizing of course that such an objective does not serve their best interest, because they have a goal which has nothing to do with health. To fulfill their fiduciary obligations, they have to wear a set of blinders. Rachel Carson never advocated the banning of DDT and she recognized the need for pesticide control (the banning took place nearly ten years after she died), but she was speaking out against widespread, indiscriminatory application, in much the same way that we admonish the widespread use of antibiotics today, for the same reason— rapid spread of resistant strains. In India today, malaria is carried by DDT-resistant mosquito vectors. Indeed, one can argue that the widespread use of DDT for agriculture, by producing a broad population of DDT-resistant vectors, actually increased the incidence of malaria, as has been argued by knowledgeable observers of its history. None of the right-wing advocates of DDT ever mention the problem of insect resistance, something that is unavoidable particularly when widespread use of the agent is involved. It is very likely that if DDT had been continued, we would have today increasing regions infested with DDT-resistance mosquito strains plus all the other baggage that DDT brought with it. If its use is low, resistant animals may not be able to pass on their immunity, assuming that it is genetic. But a more widespread use can create a population sufficiently resistant that their mating produces a new species so to speak that is highly favored by natural selection.

DDT is not biodegradable and long after Rachel Carson’s death, we increasingly recognized that DDT accumulated up the food chain by residing in the fatty tissues of animals. The high levels found in predatory birds, such as eagles and falcons, caused defects in the gas exchange through the membranous eggs that prevented normal development of the chick, making successful hatching less likely: the American Eagle went on the endangered species list because of DDT and was just taken off decades after its banning. The continued use of this pesticide would very likely have eliminated this American symbol from the landscape in addition to pelicans and other predatory birds. Who in their right mind would accept the elimination of predatory birds as a legitimate outcome for chemical agents we introduce into our environment?
John Tierney argues that DDT is very safe, but anyone who knows anything about the physiology of nerve cells knows that DDT has powerful affects on nerve cells, perhaps related to its mechanism of action on insects, in which the speed of repolarization of the nerve impulse is reduced and tends to enhance the excitability of the cell, often giving rise to multiple impulses instead of one. T. Narahashi worked all of this out decades ago in research that seems long forgotten, but the work itself was very solid. Now imagine, you are going through life with the knowledge that each and every cell of your body is slowly accumulating DDT molecules because DDT is fat soluble and that’s where it winds up…that and the fatty tissues in your body. So here you are wondering when or whether the levels of DDT will reach the critical state or concentration which will then trigger the seizure disorder or the motor symptoms of DDT toxicity. Thank God we never had to develop a toxicological science on this topic, as DDT was banned just as these kinds of issues could be addressed in more scientific detail. But, the thought of making ourselves the reservoirs of increasing, cumulative, membrane lodging molecules of DDT or any other chlorinated hydrocarbon does not resonate very well with me and neither does it resonate with the public. But, the right-wing seems to be OK with it. Maybe they will offer themselves up for scientific testing of the chronic effects of DDT.
The World Health Organization (WHO) currently advocates that we bring back a limited use of DDT to paint on walls of homes in malaria infested areas. South Africa experienced a significant decline in Malaria by using DDT applied in that way, although this practice has been stopped. They were one of the few African countries that could afford a spraying program without help from aid organizations and continued to use DDT after it was banned in the United States. By 1996, South Africa reported fewer than 10,000 malaria deaths annually. That year, it switched from DDT to another insecticide. The new chemical was also sprayed to control agricultural pests, and mosquitoes quickly developed resistance to the widely used chemical. By 2000, the number of annual malaria deaths had spiked to more than 60,000. The position of the WHO for limited use is opposed by the Wolrd Wildlife Fund (WWF) who does not want to see DDT come back in any form because of its environmental effects.

Recently Kristen Weir , writing in Salon, has addressed the issue about Malaria. As she points out, when DDT was banned, the world had already given up on eradication of the disease through chemicals and had focused on a cure through medical treatment because, by providing evidence for improved living conditions and reduced morbidity and mortality, money was easier to raise and donors were more readily satisfied that funds they gave were doing something tangible: with eradication that was more problematic. So, with the use of chloroquine to control malaria, African deaths from malaria dropped from 18% of total deaths before 1960 to 12% in the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately those numbers have been on the rise, not because of any DDT issue,but because of chloroquine-resistant strains of malaria. One of the new hopes for this scourge of man is the development of a vaccine.
Whether DDT will be used again on a significant scale is unclear. Certainly malaria continues to be a major health problem, especially in poor equatorial countries. But the debate about its use is properly centered on balancing the scientific merits of use vs the dangers of overuse. And as we have seen from the right, whose main approach seems to be the permanent demonization of Rachel Carson and her book, you can readily appreciate that they play no meaningful role in this debate. Now, doesn’t that tell you something significant about their role in our society? Who are their constituents? In reality, the entire right-wing anti-science movement is funded by industry and they are simply trying to derail and minimize the impact of science on industry and make sure that little or no regulatory influence spins out of our research laboratories. Their efforts have been hugely successful and that is one reason why Ronald Reagan has been nominated for deity within the Republican Party. Industry wants unfettered access to whatever they want to do, without regulatory influence from the government or anyone else. They offer the negative, but never the positive, unless you believe as they do, that market forces will resolve all issues—it just may take a few million more deaths to get there…somehow.

One can hope that someday the American Public will see through this complete sham and allow science to come back to the dinner table of decision-making in Federal policies. Until then we have George W. Bush to thank for this continued state of intellectual collapse.

One final note is worth passing on and thinking about. In Jared Diamond’s book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," on p-518, Diamond explores what we have done to populations of people in the world who are completely innocent of making any contribution to our toxic environment. He points out that, for the Inuit (Eskimos) people of Eastern Greenland and Siberia, people who have no direct knowledge of what is happening to them, their blood mercury levels are in the range associated with acute mercury poisoning and the levels of PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) in Inuit mother’s breast milk falls into the range that is high enough to be classified as "hazardous waste." The documented effects on Inuit children include hearing loss, brain development abnormalities and suppressed immune functions with higher rates of infection. What do Tom Delay, Michael Crighton and John Tierney have to offer the Inuit, except more of the same by bringing back DDT. If DDT had not been banned in 1973, these same Inuits would have high levels of DDT in all of their cell membranes and nerve cells and perhaps then we would have had the opportunity to assess whether there is a toxic human impact of DDT.
RFM