In her 1962 book, Carson claimed to be using the scientific works of Dr James DeWitt as evidence of the dangers posed to wildlife and to humanity by the widespread use of pesticides. According to Carson:
"Dr DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched."
She either misunderstood his experiments, or deliberately lies about the results. In her book she claimed that DDT caused egg shell thinning in birds, causing them be more susceptible to breakage. She postulated that the continued use of DDT would result eventually is decimation of the bird population.
In addition, she predicted a massive epidemic of cancer throughout 100 percent of the human population because of a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle aged trout. Later research found that the epidemic was actually caused by aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of fungi.
What her book failed to mention about the experiments conducted by Dr DeWitt, was that they disproved everything she postulated in her book. She failed to report:
DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson omitted mentioning DeWitt's report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than "control" pheasants.
She based her theory on the endangered status of certain raptor birds, such as the American Bald Eagle. She claimed that the extinction of the Bald Eagle could be laid at the feet of DDT. But the facts do not support her theory.
What she failed to report is that the Bald Eagle was well on its way to extinction as early as two decades before DDT came into use. The Bald Eagle, despite being the symbol of the United States, was considered a nuisance by farmers and was regularly hunted -- nearly to extinction -- before a 1940 federal law was passed protecting the birds.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
Once Silent Spring became the Environmental movement's bible, anyone who dared to dispute the "facts" in the book were labeled as tools of the chemical industry or anti-science.
From that badly flawed and clearly biased Wiki article:
According to Time magazine in 1999, within a year or so of its publication, "all but the most self-serving of Carson's attackers were backing rapidly toward safer ground. In their ugly campaign to reduce a brave scientist's protest to a matter of public relations, the chemical interests had only increased public awareness."
Despite the environmentalists efforts, eventually the matter of the dangers of DDT were brought before a judge.
Still, anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge during 1971-72.
After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
But that was merely a court of law, not at that time, a political entity making political policy decisions. The EPA banned the use of DDT -- based entirely upon the junk science of her book. That ban, became a worldwide ban as the United Nations and the World Health Organization joined the political side of science.
Up until that moment, it appeared that the scourge of Malaria was on the verge of being wiped out. The use of DDT as a deterrent against the mosquito-born disease appeared to be about to eradicate it. Today, because all other methods of fighting the disease are so much less effective, estimates are that more than 50 million people have died, who otherwise would have lived, had DDT not been banned.
In 2006, the World Health Organization finally embraced the use of DDT, coming out from behind the veil of junk science. "We must take a position based on the science and the data. One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT," said Arata Kochi of WHO.
But this year, bowing to pressure, the WHO has once again reverted to old practices. While it no longer outright bans DDT use, it is now advocating less effective methods.
Citing a five-year pilot program that reduced malaria cases in Mexico and South America by distributing antimalaria chloroquine pills to uninfected people, U.N. officials are ready to push for a "zero DDT world." Sounds nice, except for the facts. It's true that chloroquine has proven effective when used therapeutically, as in Brazil. But it's also true that scientists have questioned the safety of the drug as an oral prophylactic because it is toxic and has been shown to cause heart problems.
"Sadly, WHO's about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists. Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also don't benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes," according to Africa Fights Malaria spokesman Roger Bate.
The deadly legacy of Rachel Carson lives one -- even if millions of impoverished don't. Happy Birthday, Rachel -- and move over Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin, you were all pikers compared to the little lady who wrote fiction as science and murdered millions.
This is an excellent editorial.
And did you know you were linked at the Hill? Congrats.