English Research Paper: Spring Is Silent No More

Rachel Carson, the woman who would become a writer and scientist of legendary proportions, was born in Springdale, Pennsylvania on May 27, 1907(Graham 4). Even as a child, she loved exploring nature and enjoyed its beauty (4). This passion stayed with her all her life. When she went to college, she planned on studying to become a writer (another passion she had had since her childhood), but her plans changed when she took a biology class in her sophomore year of college, and she switched to a biology major (4). After a few teaching jobs, she applied for and received a job with the United States Bureau of Fisheries (5). However, her interest in writing never left her. On the contrary, “‘It dawned on me,’ she wrote, ‘that by becoming a biologist I had given myself something to write about’” (Kort 36). In 1941 she published the first of her three books about marine biology: Under the Sea Wind (36). This was followed by The Sea around Us in 1951 and The Edge of the Sea in 1955 (36). These books were written with a poetic beauty and simplicity that appealed to the public and won her a spot in their hearts. Her next book was not so passive and sweet. Troubling findings regarding the world’s new “miracle chemical” – DDT – began to crop up in the 1950s. Her growing concern eventually led her to start another book; this time she would be attacking a new and seemingly promising industry of chemical pesticides to defend the unpopular position that something could be going dreadfully amiss in mankind’s plot to control nature (Graham 15, 19). This book, Silent Spring, became the spark that ignited controversy and activism that continues to this day.

Few will question the fact that Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring has had a tremendous effect on American environmentalism – in fact many credit her with the catalysis of the environmental movement. One source eloquently states that “Silent Spring played in the history of the environmental movement the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played in the abolitionist movement,” and later testifies that the existence of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “may be said without question to be the extended shadow of Rachel Carson” (Lewis). Yet do people realize just how impressive her imprint on society was and how it continues to this day? Through a look at the impact of her book on the nation’s environmental policy and an investigation of public reaction to the book, this paper seeks to give the reader an idea of the magnitude of her contributions.

It would be absurd to say that Carson’s book was the sole factor that brought about the various laws pertaining to environmental protection in the decade following her book’s release, but with the explosion of new policies concerning the environment following the book’s entry into American affairs, its effect can’t be ignored. On the state level, over forty bills were introduced to limit pesticide use by the end of the same year in which Silent Spring was published (Graham 72). The federal government was slower to respond, but bit by bit over the decade following the book’s publication several landmark laws had been passed.

The most direct impact of Carson’s book was the movement towards a ban on DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane), a highly potent and widely abused chlorinated hydrocarbon that was considered a cure-all for battling the likes of gypsy moths (Carson 156), fire ants (161), elm bark beetles (105), and other pests. The use of this chemical was more lambasted than any other in Carson’s book, and, as will be discussed later, was defended more ardently than any other pesticide attacked by her work. This chemical is classified as an endocrine disruptor (Hosansky 59) and could lead to liver damage and cancer, temporary nervous system damage, and reduced reproductive success (“DDT”). Carson gives many accounts of the damage that this chemical caused to birds (Carson 103-127) and fish (129-152) in particular chapters of her book dedicated to these two types of animals. Not only did animals and possibly humans suffer from the over-use of DDT, but the chemical was beginning to lose its effect on the intended targets; insects were becoming resistant to DDT. By 1970, 150 species of insects had become resistant to DDT (Graham 15). In 1971, partially due, no doubt, to pressure from an anti-DDT movement that gained impetus after Carson’s book was published (Hosansky 59), the EPA began to enact policies that would move the country towards an end to use of DDT (59). In 1972 William D. Ruckelshaus, administrator of the EPA, declared a ban on DDT (59) after three years of government research brought him to the conclusion “that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health,” (“DDT”). Carson’s blunt criticism of the unnecessary use of DDT had won a victory.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was passed in 1970 (Hosansky 83):
The purposes of this act [were]: To declare a national policy which [would] encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (NEPA of 1969). Because of this act’s revolutionary implications, Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin considered NEPA to be “‘the most important piece of environmental legislation in our history’” (Lewis). The most important provision of this act was that it required Environmental Impact Statements to be presented to this Council on Environmental Quality for critical review whenever a federal agency planned a project that could have major implications for the environment (Lewis). Up until that point, it was deemed completely unnecessary that federal plans for insecticidal action be reviewed by any other authority (Carson). The fact that Carson directly pointed out this lack of federal regulation is good reason to suspect that the existence of this law can be at least partially attributed to her influence.

Eight years after the publication of Silent Spring a pre-existing piece of legislation, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), was amended. This amendment shifted control of enforcement to the newly formed EPA and tweaked the focus of the act “from the control of pesticides for reasonably safe use in agricultural production to control of pesticides for reduction of unreasonable risks to man and the environment,” (FIFRA). Two major instances of unreasonably drastic responses to pest “epidemics” were outlined in Silent Spring. The first was the way that the Midwest dealt with the Japanese beetle which “at the peak of its depredations never justified the nightmare excesses of some of these Midwestern programs” (Carson 99). Pellets and dustings of aldrin, a chlorinated hydrocarbon many times more lethal than DDT, were showered in heavy doses over many suburban areas in hopes of controlling this foreign “menace” despite the fact that renowned naturalist from Michigan, Walter P. Nickell, testified that the beetle had been present in minimal numbers according to his observations(Carson 87). The fire ant extermination efforts in the south were also overdone, in Carson’s opinion (162). While it does appear that she understates the nuisance that the ants caused, it seems clear that they weren’t exactly a serious threat to life, limb, or dollar. The government’s program ended up costing them $3.50 per acre in toxic, widespread insecticide use while it could have cost them $0.23 per acre by using a more direct chemical with greater efficiency than the aerial downpour of chemicals (172). Had these plots for extermination been scrutinized, they would likely have been deemed “unreasonable risks to man and the environment” and would never have happened. Who knows how many similarly unfruitful and unnecessary applications of poisons were prevented by the amendment of this act?

The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (an addition to the previously mentioned FIFRA) was made in 1972 (Federal Pesticide). This act placed strict regulations on the registration of pesticides and required that each be classified as general or restricted use chemicals. If the poison was considered for restricted use only, only certified persons were permitted to use it (Federal Pesticide). Such requirements would help keep the more dangerous pesticides out of the hands of the common consumer, something that Carson addresses (Carson 174).

The Clean Water Act of 1972 dealt with the issue of industrial discharge of chemicals into waterways (Summary of CWA). According to this decree it became unlawful for industrial or municipal facilities to empty pollutants into a navigable body of water without a permit (Summary of CWA). This law also set standards for acceptable pollutant levels in surface waters. In waterways exposed to high concentrations of insecticides, whether from accidental run-off from farmlands, aerial dustings, or any number of other sources, the fish mortality rate was truly alarming. In some coastal streams inadvertently treated with DDT, the salmon mortality rate reached nearly 100% (Carson 138). A tale of river contamination near Austin, TX, tells of a massive fish kill that was observed ranging over 200 miles of river from the source of the pollutants that were found in high concentrations in the carcasses of the fish (144-146).These stories are not by any means unique and isolated occurrences, although they are more drastic than many of the others. It was clear that something had to be done to prevent further pollution of the waterways that housed the fish and other aquatic wildlife that so many people valued for economic and recreational reasons. The Clean Water Act essayed to do that very thing and succeeded in putting an end to many of the horrors described in Silent Spring.

Judging solely by the fact that more than 500,000 hard-cover copies of Silent Spring were sold (Kort 37), it can be inferred that the book became popular and was widely read. It was an eye-opener to the public. While some of Carson’s strong statements such as “a few minutes’ research in any supermarket is enough to alarm the most stout-hearted customer” (Carson 174) or “when the public protests … it is fed little tranquilizing pills of half-truth” (13) caused some to panic, others turned these warnings into productive endeavors. She had intended to spur the common consumer into becoming more aware of what exactly was being sold to them in hopes that they would pressure the chemical companies to make changes, not in an effort to cause pandemonium. As was mentioned earlier, a public movement against the use of DDT was bolstered by Silent Spring (Hosansky 59), and the book was said to have “crystallized public anxiety about environmental degradation” (83). Most histories of the environmental movement give a tribute to the impact of Carson’s book on the development and rise in popularity of the movement. Schools have been named after her, stamps have been made commemorating her, and other honors have been bestowed upon her memory. Last year marked what would have been the woman’s 100th birthday, and celebrations both national and local were held in honor of her work (Larson).

However, not all remember Carson with fondness. Because of the attack against the wanton use of DDT in Silent Spring, most countries stopped using it as a tool against the spread of malaria. While Carson herself only advocated the reconsideration of the widespread use of DDT in the Americas, her followers often took the radical route of working towards a total ban of the chemical. Many critics therefore blame her for the deaths caused by malaria in third-world countries (primarily in sub-Saharan Africa). It is true that the chemical could have been – and could very well still be – a valuable weapon against malaria, but its effectiveness would have been quickly reduced had the trend of mass application been continued. As early as 1949, three years after successful control using DDT, mosquitoes from the race that serves as a vector for the malarial protozoan were to be seen in treated areas (Carson 269). This indicated that a few of the mosquitoes had a natural resistance to the chemical and were therefore able to reproduce and create additional resistant mosquitoes. By 1970, more than 150 pest species had become resistant to DDT (Graham 15). Based on this, it is logical to assume that if pesticides had been applied in such massive proportions as they were in the era of the publication of Silent Spring, DDT would no longer be effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Carson’s adherents were probably too hasty in their efforts to wipe out the chemical before they considered its benefits, but a reduction in its use was necessary.

As a powerful writer and a respected scientist, Rachel Carson possessed the key skills needed to bring issues of chemical overdose to the attention of the public and the government. Evidence suggests that her book accomplished that very thing, whatever anyone may say about her over-zealous fans.


Works Cited

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1962.

“DDT.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 January 2008. U.S. EPA.20 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm>

“FIFRA Statutes, Regulations, and Enforcement”U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 31 October 2007. US EPA.20 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/fifra/fifraenfstatreq.html>

Graham, Frank. Since Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.

Hosansky, David. The Environment A to Z.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2001.

Kort, Carol. A to Z of American Women Writers. New York City, NY: Facts on File Inc., 2000.

Larson, Christina. “Party Smashers.” Washington Monthly. October 2007.MAS Ultra – School Edition. EBSCOhost.Finneytown HS Library, Cincinnati, OH. 20 April 2008

Lewis, Jack. “The Birth of EPA.” U.S Environmental Protection Agency. November 1985. U.S. EPA. 3 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm>

“The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, as amended”Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America.1 January 1970.

“Summary of Clean Water Act.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.6 March 2008. U.S. EPA. 20 April 2008.

Toth, Stephen J. “Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations” March 1996.20 April 2008.

Happy Earth Day!

I really didn't do much to celebrate earth day, except remind people what day it was. Although I do enjoy my role as a steward of the gift of the earth and its life forms, I didn't have time to do anything "special". I spend a lot of my time doing "earthy" things anyway.

Note that I said earlier that I'm a steward of the earth. I don't want to be its saviour, redeemer, or whatever else you may think of, since it's going to cease to exist sometime anyway. I believe it's good for people to take care of the earth because it's one of God's gifts to us, not because its spirit and mine are entwined in one big fat cosmic one-ness. Unfortunately, it seems like all my environmental friends are rather monistic about the earth, and they aren't the only ones. I was trying to find some quotes about nature to use in an art project, and more than half of what I found had at least an overtone of pantheistic monism, if not more. Then I got the idea that a search of Bible verses might give more of what I was looking for, and everything turned out nicely. But now I ramble. I do that a lot.

Anyway... to sum up what I've been trying to get at here, do something nice to the world as a service to others or as a token of appreciation to the God who gave is to us. Not because we all share the same essence of spiritual being that unites the world. We don't.

And with that, I wish you a Happy Earth Day once more.

Adventures in Driving

Being a newly licensed driver brings its share of adventures. Actually, being a driver at all brings its share of thrills. Today I had all sorts of fun on the way to and from Laser Web.

To get there, we were supposed to take Winton to Kemper to Dixie Highway (yes, the territory of the Archdukes of Dixie Highway) to Laser Web. We got from Winton to Kemper just fine, but after being on Kemper for nearly a half-hour, we began to fear that something had gone wrong. It was only supposed to take a half-hour total to reach our destination. Jonathon called back home, and my mom confirmed that we had indeed gone way too far.

Before I continue, I must make note of a detail that resurfaces later on. We came to an intersection with a road called Springfield Pike and waited at the stoplight behind a certain oldish navy blue car with a troop support magnet on the back, and we stayed behind the car for some uncertain amount of time.

My mom told us to turn around and go back, this time watching for an intersection with a UDF on one corner and a White Castle on another. When we turned around, we were facing west and the setting sun sent beams of light through the clouds - doubtless a sign that we would make it.
We drove for about fifteen minutes before reaching an intersection with the correct landmarks - the intersection between Kemper and Springfield Pike, not Dixie Highway. Once again, we were stopped at this stoplight, and when I looked at the car in front of us, we realized it was the same one we had been behind before. We argued about whether or not it might be the right street with the wrong name, but I insisted that we keep driving (wtill behind the navy blue car with the magnet) because the name was wrong. After driving a couple blocks, I had Jonathon call mom again, and she told us to pull over while she rechecked the directions. I took the first turn, and by shocking coincidence, so did the navy car in front of us. After that we didn't see our friend car again, as Rachel named it.

My mom casually commented that Dixie Highway had sixteen names (of which I only knew two up until tonight) and she could have given us the wrong one. We waited for several minutes in some random person's driveway while my mom did some researching and learned that another name for Dixie Highway was none other than Springfield Pike. We weary travelers turned our coach around once more and got to Laser Web forty minutes late, but without further mishap. A few other potentially ugly but in reality harmless events took place during our journey, but I will not enumerate them at this time.

On the way back home, I realized to my dismay that I was wearing my glasses rather than my contacts. When I wear my glasses at night, my vision is blurred and I can't read road signs. I knew I had to turn right off of Dixie Highway/Springfield Pike/Route 4, so I stayed in the right-most lane. I realized a few seconds too late that I had been separated from the rest of the road by a concrete barrier and was now on the entrance ramp to 275. Not having any other choice, I stayed on 275. Crisis was averted when I saw that the next exit was to Springdale and Glendale. I figured I would know where I was in either of those places. I was right, and we actually ended up getting home faster that way. Driving through the park with blurred vision was somewhat frightening, but I made it through just fine.

Quelle soirée!

Old Parky Had a Farm - E I E I O

And on this farm they were seeking a new employee - EIEIO
They made a phone call here and a phone call there
Here a call
There a call
Everywhere a call call
And then Old Parky called me too - EIEIO



I had my first job interview an hour ago! A month or so ago, I applied to Parky's Farm, and a few weeks ago I got a call saying that they were going to be conducting interviews to fill a few spots that had recently opened. My friends Joe and Hannah work there already, Charity and Katie also have interviews this week, and Paige and Sophie work at the riding center on the same piece of land. Finneytown students could control Parky's! Today the farm, tomorrow the world. Hannah would definitely be up for a little world domination, even if nobody else was.

If I get the position, I'll be doing one of three things (well, technically one of four things, but the fourth is a combo of the other three). There are three "posts" that employees rotate between: the play barn, the pony rides, and the petting zoo (they called it the "encounter pen" or something weird and somewhat ominous like that). If I was in the play barn, I would just make sure that everyone plays safe and nice. For pony rides, I would lead kids on pony rides. At the petting zoo/encounter pen, I would keep everything in line and answer questions about the animals. Pretty self-explanatory. The fourth responsibility is birthday party attendant. Birthday parties at Parky's are two-hour affairs that involve cake and ice cream, pony rides, time in the play barn, and time in the petting zoo/encounter pen. I'd also do things like cleaning up after animals, opening and closing the farm, and other tasks like that.

I hope I get the job; it sounds like it would be a good one for me. I'll find out early next week if I get hired or not.

College Visits

Today marked marked my third college trip out of the three I had been considering. Unfortunately, only five schools in the area even have a general botany major. Four of those have environmental majors (I would prefer that to just plain botany), and three also have horticultural science (which is actually my first choice). All had art programs of some sort, and since I plan on minoring in studio art, that was a must. Each visit was a very different experience from the last.

First came Rio Grande. I'm not going there, end of story. They just had an environmental major, but in order to be in that program I would first have to get an associate's degree from a local technical institute. Their campus was in a shady neighborhood (not as in shaded by trees, but as in it looked as though it housed some unwholesome fellows). It was actually a community college, which is not exactly what I was looking for. They barely have an honors program, and when my mom asked about AP credits, the guy gave a blank stare and said he had no idea what their policy was on AP credits. I don't know if he had ever heard of an AP class. They also had no orchestra and no low-commitment choir, both of which I would be interested. In addition, the only way to help with technical theater was to major in it. On the aesthetic side of things, the architecture was horrible, and of the few students we saw, at least half were smoking.

Over spring break I visited University of Kentucky. It was much, much better than Rio Grande. The major I would go into there would set me up for careers in both plant conservation and landscape design. I haven't quite decided which of those two I'd like to do. When I went, it was raining steadily for most of the time with the occasional rumble of thunder and flash of lightning. Ca me fait heureuse. I have to say it was the prettiest of the three campuses as far as landscaping goes (perhaps architecture-wise, too). There are plenty of large trees well-suited to climbing, so I could shimmy up a tree and escape the world for a while if necessary. The library was pretty swell. It has more books than any other public library in the country, and Harvard is the only private college with more books. To maximize storage space, the shelves are packed close together, and to go between them you push a button that makes the shelves move to allow you to fit in between. I didn't like the dorm that we toured, but the guide said it was the worst they had. The biggest down-side of UK was bad enough that I might choose not to consider it solely for this reason: everything about the art program was dark and creepy. The program is housed in an old, graffitied tobacco warehouse on the bad side of town. Nothing grows anywhere near it. The student artwork on display was almost all dark and disturbing, and the few people in there were also disconcerting. I was extremely nervous and uncomfortable in that place. Unlike Rio Grande, they do have an honors program, they give AP credit, and they have an orchestra. They also have these things called learning communities within the dorms, and they sound interesting.

Yesterday I visited Purdue, the place where my parents, my dad's parents, his dad's dad, my mom's dad, my dad's brother, and several of my mom's cousins all attended college. It went swimmingly well. The weather was gorgeous, the dorms and food were nice, they have a specific Ag major for both fields I'm interested in, and the art department had happy art. It wasn't as pretty as UK, but the all-girls dorms are castle-esque, which fills me with glee. I've always wanted to live in a castle-esque place (but trust me, I'm not making my choice solely based on architecture). They, too have an honors program, fledgling learning communities, and an orchestra. Purdue is currently my first choice. If it weren't for their creepy art, UK would be tied with Purdue.

There were two others that I considered. Ohio State has the majors and minor I want, and based on all the nice mail they've been sending me, I could get quite the handsome scholarship out of them without much trouble. Unfortunately, the crime rate makes my parents nervous. They also don't have nearly enough green space for my emotional well-being. I'm exponentially more stressed out when I'm isolated from plants than when I'm with them. Miami has a botany major (I know a woman who got her degree in botany from Miami and now runs a greenhouse of indigenous species), but it has its negative points. My parents are very concerned about the alcohol consumption on campus. I personally know way too many people there for my comfort. I would enjoy being around a few of them, but I would rather not encounter the majority of the people I know there.