Why Do Mark Levin And Other Conservatives Lie About Rachel Carson & Her 1963 Book, Silent Spring?

[Mustang]

Among all the other conservative claims about how climate change isn't really happening, or if it is happening, humans have nothing to do with it, I've both witnessed and felt a very strong anti-scientific sentiment from conservatives. On balance, it seems to be because the investigations of climatologists and other scientists are reaching conclusions that conservatives don't like AND because the proposed solutions lack a certain freewheeling free market capitalistic bent to them. That's not to say that free market capitalism won't or can't play a role in the solutions since I'm sure it will. But it seems as if the hostility is because of conservatives ire that governments (not just ours) would be playing a central role in helping to change (some would say forcing a change) in the energy and consumption habits of average citizens. And since conservatives hate government involvement from an ideological perspective, they only way conservatives can see to forestall any further gov't involvement is to try to discredit the science.

Enter Rachel Carson and her book, Silent Spring, which was published 50 years ago. Now, seemingly overnight, there seems to be a renewed assault on both Carson and the book and how it led to DDT being banned in the US. I've heard conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President, Mark Levin, say many times that Carson wrote a book that was alarmist in nature, and that DDT wasn't the danger she made it out to be. Furthermore, according to Levin, Carson is and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans because of the ban on DDT.

Really?

Well, it just so happens that I already knew something about DDT when I heard Mark make that statement which isn't the only time I've heard him say it. It's the fact that the use of DDT was not banned overseas. In fact, the US didn't have the legal authority to ban it's use anywhere other than here at home. But it wasn't even entirely banned within the US. Its use was merely severely restricted here in the USA. Furthermore, DDT continued to be used in Africa for many many years. What actually happened is that the efficacy of DDT was severely diminished from overuse once the insects that survived it's use multiplied. Had DDT been used more sparingly in the spraying of walls inside homes and other buildings instead of being used in a wholesale fashion in fields and farms, it could have been used for years. It was the OVERUSE of DDT which led to it becoming ineffective. But the point is that DDT wasn't banned by the US, and the book didn't lead to it being discontinued.

Now, it wouldn't take much work to learn this. So, whey do Mark Levin and other conservatives lie about Rachel Carson and her 1963 book, Silent Spring? Could it be because of a greater overall effort to discredit the environmental movement which is at the heart of the climate change debate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

 

[Borillar]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

 

[SSDD]

She lied...the book was a piece of environmentalist propaganda...Those who still take silent spring seriously have failed to recognize the enormous amount of data that shows clearly that she lied... Here is just a small sample of the published work finding that silent spring was a steaming pile of shit.

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 — 25 years before widespread use of DDT. [Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues. Data from Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140. State Thickness (mm) DDE residue (ppm) Florida 0.50 About 10 Maine 0.53 About 2 Wisconsin 0.55 About 4

U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970). [U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat”, but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles.” [Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]
Don't give me the crap that you care anything about the animals or environment, you 'Conservatives' have too many times said the hell with both in order for a rich man to make even more money.[/QUOTE]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked high intake of mercury from contaminated fish with eagle reproductive problems. [Spann, JW, RG Heath, JF Kreitzer, LN Locke. 1972. (Lethal and reproductive effects of mercury on birds) Science 175:328- 331]

The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. [Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre-DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to them as birds that “deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account.” [Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

he 1950′s and 1960′s saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction. [Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography in peregrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]

During the 1960′s, peregrines in northern Canada were “reproducing normally,” even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals. [Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE. [Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young. [Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded “There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.” [Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

Peregrine falcon and sparrow hawk egg shells thinned in Britain prior to the use of DDT. [Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210; Redcliff, DH. 1970 J Applied Biology 7:67; and Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210]

In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to “increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species.” [Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

The Audubon Society’s annual bird census in 1960 reported that at least 26 kinds of birds became more numerous during 1941 – 1960. [See Anon. 1942. The 42nd annual Christmas bird census." Audubon Magazine 44;1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942), and Cruicjshank, AD (editor) 1961. The 61st annual Christmas bird census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2); 84-300]

Great increases inmost kinds of hawks during the DDT years were reported by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association (Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania). [Taylor, JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migrations of raptors, 1934 to 1970. In Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Newsletters]

National forest studies from Wisconsin and Michigan reported an increase in nesting osprey productivity from 11 young in 1965 to 74 young in 1970. [U.S. Forest Service, Milwaukee. 1970. Annual report on osprey status in national forests in Wisconsin and Michigan]

A study of fish-eaters at Funk Island (on the North Atlantic coast) reported that, despite diets contaminated with DDT, gannet and murres pairs increased by 1,500 percent and 10,000 percent from 1945 to the early 1970s. [Bruemmer, F. 1971. Animals Magazine, p.555, April]

Gas chromatography detected DDT in samples of wildlife and soil collected before DDT was even produced. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 ("Many reports relating reproductive declines of wild birds (and body stores in those birds) to DDT and DDE were based on analytical procedures that did not distinguish between DDT and PCBs."); Sherman, RW. 1973. Artifacts and mimics of DDT and other insecticides. J New York Entomol Soc 81:152-163 (Robin collected in 1938); Coon, FB. 1966. Electron capture gas chromatograph analyses of selected samples of authentic pre-DDT origin. Presented at the Conference of American Chemical Society in New York (Gibbon collected in 1935); Frazier, BE et al. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring J 4:67-70, 1970 (Soil collected in 1911); Bowman, MC et al. 1965. J Econ Entomology 58: 896-902 (Soil collected in 1940); Hom, W. 1974. Science 184:1197-1199 (1930-vintage Santa Barbara basin sediment)]

DDT was mistaken for other organochlorines. [Glotfelty, DE.. 1970. Anal Chem 42:82-84 (Misidentifications of DDT resulted from interference by "pigment-related natural products in photosynthesic tissues."); Hylin, JW. 1969. Residue Reviews 26:127 ("Organochlorine compounds in plants can cause interference in residue analyses "); Sims, JJ. 1977. Press release, June 15, 1977 (Certain marine algae produce halogen compounds that are detected by gas chromatography and may be misidentified as DDT metabolites);George JL and DEH Frear. 1966. Pesticides in the Antarctic. J Appld Ecology 3 (suppl): 155-167 (Antarctic samples of fish and birds widely touted as containing DDT residues likely contained PCBs instead that leached from the plastic containers they were stored in for 6 months prior to analysis)]

And I could go on and on and on....

 

[SSDD]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

 

[Mustang]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

Fine, then answer the question about why conservatives have lied about the banning of DDT being the reason why millions of Africans have died when DDT wasn't even banned and its use continued for years until they just gave up because it was obvious by that point that it no longer worked anymore.

 

[SSDD]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

Fine, then answer the question about why conservatives have lied about the banning of DDT being the reason why millions of Africans have died when DDT wasn't even banned and its use continued for years until they just gave up because it was obvious by that point that it no longer worked anymore.

I am afraid that it is you who is misinformed....DDT was in use here in the US up till the ban went into effect...I remember the trucks driving through neighborhoods fogging the whole area during the summer...Millions of people have died because of that ban and it never reached a point where it no longer worked...DDT is as effective against mosquitoes today as it was at the time it was banned.

 

[elektra]

Quote marklevinshow, no quote shows you need to lie to hide the truth.

 

[Mustang]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

Fine, then answer the question about why conservatives have lied about the banning of DDT being the reason why millions of Africans have died when DDT wasn't even banned and its use continued for years until they just gave up because it was obvious by that point that it no longer worked anymore.

I am afraid that it is you who is misinformed....DDT was in use here in the US up till the ban went into effect...I remember the trucks driving through neighborhoods fogging the whole area during the summer...Millions of people have died because of that ban and it never reached a point where it no longer worked...DDT is as effective against mosquitoes today as it was at the time it was banned.

From Wikipedia:

DDT - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Mosquito resistance
Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[105] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[28]

Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that "resistance has appeared after six or seven years."[26] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[106]

In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[107] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989 and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[108] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[109] and one study had concluded that "DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[110]

Studies of malaria-vector mosquitoes in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa found susceptibility to 4% DDT (the WHO susceptibility standard), in 63% of the samples, compared to the average of 86.5% in the same species caught in the open. The authors concluded that "Finding DDT resistance in the vector An. arabiensis, close to the area where we previously reported pyrethroid-resistance in the vector An. funestus Giles, indicates an urgent need to develop a strategy of insecticide resistance management for the malaria control programmes of southern Africa."[111]

DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[112] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[110] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitoes out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoes – encouraging the development of resistance to these agents.[112] Others argue that the avoidance behavior slows the eradication of the disease.[113] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires long exposure to accumulate a lethal dose; however its irritant property shortens contact periods. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT."[106] In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[114] Genomic studies in the model genetic organism Drosophila melanogaster have revealed that high level DDT resistance is polygenic, involving multiple resistance mechanisms.[115]

 

[elektra]

The ban stopped the manufacture of DDT. No DDT.

So why is there no DDT, because it was banned.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Mustang]

Still haven't gotten an answer.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD illustrates why denialism is not harmless. If he and his fellow cultists had been allowed to have their way, millions in the developing world would have died of malaria.

Now, most deniers are not deliberately genocidal, having been duped by their masters into supporting genocidal policies. That's of little comfort if those policies killed you, so decent people are morally obligated to oppose denier-types. A few of those deepest in the cult, like SSDD, have a proud history of Stalinist tactics, so they see the killing of millions as a desirable outcome.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD illustrates why denialism is not harmless. If he and his fellow cultists had been allowed to have their way, millions in the developing world would have died of malaria.

Hundreds of millions have died in the developing world because of the ban you idiot. Did you get some memo directing you to deny what you and yours have done and try to blame it on the other side?

 

[chikenwing]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

Fine, then answer the question about why conservatives have lied about the banning of DDT being the reason why millions of Africans have died when DDT wasn't even banned and its use continued for years until they just gave up because it was obvious by that point that it no longer worked anymore.

Have millions died or not?

 

[ogibillm]

Among all the other conservative claims about how climate change isn't really happening, or if it is happening, humans have nothing to do with it, I've both witnessed and felt a very strong anti-scientific sentiment from conservatives. On balance, it seems to be because the investigations of climatologists and other scientists are reaching conclusions that conservatives don't like AND because the proposed solutions lack a certain freewheeling free market capitalistic bent to them. That's not to say that free market capitalism won't or can't play a role in the solutions since I'm sure it will. But it seems as if the hostility is because of conservatives ire that governments (not just ours) would be playing a central role in helping to change (some would say forcing a change) in the energy and consumption habits of average citizens. And since conservatives hate government involvement from an ideological perspective, they only way conservatives can see to forestall any further gov't involvement is to try to discredit the science.

Enter Rachel Carson and her book, Silent Spring, which was published 50 years ago. Now, seemingly overnight, there seems to be a renewed assault on both Carson and the book and how it led to DDT being banned in the US. I've heard conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President, Mark Levin, say many times that Carson wrote a book that was alarmist in nature, and that DDT wasn't the danger she made it out to be. Furthermore, according to Levin, Carson is and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans because of the ban on DDT.

Really?

Well, it just so happens that I already knew something about DDT when I heard Mark make that statement which isn't the only time I've heard him say it. It's the fact that the use of DDT was not banned overseas. In fact, the US didn't have the legal authority to ban it's use anywhere other than here at home. But it wasn't even entirely banned within the US. Its use was merely severely restricted here in the USA. Furthermore, DDT continued to be used in Africa for many many years. What actually happened is that the efficacy of DDT was severely diminished from overuse once the insects that survived it's use multiplied. Had DDT been used more sparingly in the spraying of walls inside homes and other buildings instead of being used in a wholesale fashion in fields and farms, it could have been used for years. It was the OVERUSE of DDT which led to it becoming ineffective. But the point is that DDT wasn't banned by the US, and the book didn't lead to it being discontinued.

Now, it wouldn't take much work to learn this. So, whey do Mark Levin and other conservatives lie about Rachel Carson and her 1963 book, Silent Spring? Could it be because of a greater overall effort to discredit the environmental movement which is at the heart of the climate change debate?

that doesn't fit into a bumper sticker mindset.

 

[Vigilante]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

 

[SSDD]

Actually researching an issue is something the 'Conservatives' simply don't believe in.

Who needs research and scientific evidence when you have an ideology?

Her book was ideology...she ignored mountains of data that contradicted her claims....

Fine, then answer the question about why conservatives have lied about the banning of DDT being the reason why millions of Africans have died when DDT wasn't even banned and its use continued for years until they just gave up because it was obvious by that point that it no longer worked anymore.

Have millions died or not?

Yes. millions upon millions upon millions...mostly children have died as a result of the ban on ddt.


Bring Back DDT

Millions Have Died Because of DDT Ban UK Column

Tragic Consequences Of The Campaign To Ban DDT

DDT s Lifesaving Comeback - The New York Sun

 

[Mustang]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

 

[Mustang]

Now, that I've made my point about the FACTS surrounding the use of DDT in Africa as opposed to the revisionist history that's being proffered by some conservatives, it's time to address a larger point that is only indirectly tied to the disinformation about DDT.

Here we go...

I'm frankly disturbed by the herd mentality of some people who blindly believe X or don't believe Y based on the source of the information or who it's about. A everyday good example of that might be when someone makes an accusation against a certain person. Fans refuse to believe it might be true, while detractors seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that it might be a lie. With that said, I can understand that some people may be skeptical about climate change since it's so technical in nature, and it's not the kind of topic that lends itself to easy understanding by people who don't have a significant scientific background.

With that said, the whole revisionist history of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, is verifiable through historical records. If certain people will lie about a book that was written 50 years ago which led to restrictions of DDT here in the USA some 40 years ago even as DDT continued to be used quite freely in other parts of the world, doesn't it seem reasonable that people should begin to question the honesty and integrity of these revisionists when it comes to other environmental issues like climate change? Or does it make sense to continue to just blindly believe someone once they've been exposed as either liars or woefully ignorant?