Talk:Rachel Carson/Archive 1

message: Cut from Silent Spring and DDT section:
:Some went further to attack Carson's scientific credentials because her speciality was in marine biology and zoology, not in the field of biochemistry. Some went as far as characterizing her as a mere birdwatcher with more spare time than scientific background, calling her unprofessional, and some fringe of her critice accused her of being a communist.
These ad hominem attacks are irrelevant to the controversy over DDT. The central question is whether scientific facts supported the ban which she fought so hard for. Mentioning attacks by nasty men on the nice lady merely develops sympathy for her. --Uncle Ed 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hominem attacks 

message: :Scientists tested the popular shell-thinning hypothesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed birds for 112 days on a diet with 100 times as much DDT as they were getting from the environment. No thinning of egg shells was found. The DDT had no effect on the birds. One experimenter, to demonstrate eggshell-thinning, fed quail a diet with DDT but containing only one-fifth of the normal amount of calcium. His experiment succeeded in producing thinner eggshells, but his deception was exposed. 
::Don't take this the wrong way, but The American Spectator doesn't really rate as an unbiased scientific journal, particularly in an article that talks about a nonexistent "DDT ban" and portrays USAID as a villain for not spraying DDT "where treated bednets are more cost effective". While you're searching for a primary source for your assertions:
:::DDE was associated with significant eggshell thinning, egg breakage, embryo mortality, and reduced production per pair. Dieldrin alone was associated with slight but significant eggshell thinning, but not with reduction of breeding success. Ecological implications of the results are discussed; it is suggested that DDE had a much more severe effect on reproduction in wild raptors than dieldrin, which contributed to their decline primarily through adult mortality. Breeding success of barn owls (Tyto alba) fed low levels of DDE and dieldrin Vivian M. Mendenhall, Erwin E. Klaas,  and M. Anne R. McLane Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Issue:  Volume 12, Number 2 Date:  March 1983 Pages: 235 - 240 Gzuckier 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More about DDT and bird eggs

message: Cut from article:
:, as much as good science;
This phrase implies that Carson's claims were based on sound science. In the best known case (DDT), we now know that that her claim was not science-based. Ruckulshaus even admitted it in a letter. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science and public opinion

message: *The fact that DDT contributed to thinning of the eggshells of raptors such as the bald eagle is well substantiated. 
Not by anything cited in the article, before I started editing it this week. Maybe it's out there somewhere, and I just haven't seen it yet?
*This claim was backed latter by numerous scientific studies which show DDT having carcinogenic effect on some species of animal while consistently failt to show increased risk of cancer in human who came in contact with DDT. 
This is misleading. The question is not whether SOME amounts of DDT cause cancer, but HOW MUCH? Does any Wikipedian know about a study - a replicated study, mind you - showing that DDT which escaped into the environment hurt birds or other creatures far away from where it was applied? (I'm not talking about harm to a field which was sprayed with too much DDT; everyone agrees that's stupid. I mean spraying a diluted solution on interior walls to stop mosquitoes, and stuff like that.)
Let's put some facts into these articles:
*DDT
*DDT ban
*Rachel Carson
*Silent Spring
*William Ruckelshaus 
Readers want facts, not political opinions. Well, okay, some want both. Let's just try to be objective, at least about the scientific part. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More cuts

message: The article states that the evidence regarding DDT being a carcinogen are mixed or inconclusive yet states that Carson herself died "at the age of 56, from cancer due to DDT exposure during her research." The two statements are conflicting... 
192.115.133.141 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carson's Cancer 

message: I'm not sure of the counts, but I guess that was my 3rd undo of an unexplained revert in 24 hours. You guys teaming up like that has me beat, so I'll have to wait until the clock resets.
Or you could simply begin to explain the reverts. Is there anything specific you object to? Anything I left out, which should go back in? 
I'd love to see something other than politics - you've got access to journals on-line, haven't you, William? Can you look up the dozen research studies which refute the lone journal article claiming "thinning"? That's a good lad ... --Uncle Ed 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Cut from article:
:In addition, many critics repeatedly asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides, despite the fact that Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem.
Which critics? Sources, please.
Made it clear? Quotes, please.
What does "responsible and carefully manage use" mean - in contrast with, say, totally banning indoor use of DDT to prevent human deaths by malaria?
What does "an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem" mean? Sounds like code words for acceptance of the point of view that DDT is so persistent in the food chain that it ought to be banned.
Are we saying that Carson did (or did not) seek a ban on any pesticides? specifically, did she favor or oppose a ban (or any limitations) on DDT use?
Did she do any advocacy at all related to the ban of DDT? --Uncle Ed 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want source, add a source tag, don't just cut it. Also "quick repairs" is somewhat deceptive - that would imply you're going to fix it; just asking Q's isn't going to get a quick fix. Your questions look more like excuses for cutting something you dislike William M. Connolley 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning pesticides

message: Restored the "vindication" of Carson/Spring statement with Citation. The statement is hardly 'highly biased', similar staements appear on many web sites, including the EPA. If  LaszloWalrus can substantiate that the committee disavowed Carson/Spring, then statement should be eliminated.
Cronos1 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "vindicating" implies a degree of finality that overstates the case. The committee supported Carson's scientific claims as, on most issues, has subsequent research. I've added a date to help anyone who wants to research further JQ 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Science Advisory Committee Statement

message: I've removed a para on the DDT ban, which is adequately covered in the relevant section of this article. The material removed is only peripherally relevant to Carson, and belongs in the main DDT article. JQ 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've pointed out before, the question of interior wall spraying vs bednets (which also use insecticide, BTW) for malaria is absolutely irrelevant to Carson's criticism of broad-area spraying of DDT. This issue is properly treated in the DDT article, and does not belong here JQ 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JQ: Your edit of  21:43, September 15, 2006 inserted a paragraph (inadvertantly?) which specifically addressed these topics as if they were relevant. It is a moot point now. Cronos1 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy