In A Silent Spring By Rebecca Skloot: An Analysis

A positive consequence of DDT is its effectiveness, even in the face of pesticide resistance in the anopheles mosquito. The eradication of malaria in the United States and the health of US Soldiers while fighting in World War II can be greatly credited to the use of DDT

In 1975, seemingly absurd predictions made in Rachel’s Carlson Silent Spring (1962) on human health and ecosystem hazards caused by DDT materialized in our James River, Virginia. Irresponsible chemical disposure from Life Science Products made workers ill from neurotoxin exposure, suffering from symptoms of nosebleeds, headaches, chest pains, and dizziness from neurotoxin exposure (Goldfarb, William). Ecosystem was destroyed animals leaving the area with 200,000 pounds of Kepone found on almost all land surfaces, and parts of the river (Wilson, Sarah).

The book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” brings up a problem in society that was a serious obstacle in the field of medicine in the 1950’s. This problem is that the individual rights of a human versus the general need of humanity. The general need of humanity is much more important than the rights of a human.

The following involves the second chapter of Carson’s book, Silent Spring that was written in 1962. In this chapter Carson argues persuasively the adverse impacts of pesticides upon the environment and the risks on human health and the environment associated with these “genetic invaders” (Carson, 1962). Many of the extremely diverse people from Carson’s audience targeted were under the impression that chemicals like DDT, at that time in history, were safe for their health. Carson reconciles and attempts to persuade the public to consider the idea that DDT, which in the 1950s and 60s was one of the many chemical pesticides being manufactured and sold to

DDT is a very controversial product… but why? DDT was a pesticide used in the 1950s and it was very effective at killing mosquitoes. This was good because mosquitoes carry a very deadly disease called malaria. But soon the government banned its use in the USA. It supposedly has been decreasing the populations of bald eagles. They think that it makes the eggshells thinner, so when the eagle it trying to keep the eggs warm it might break the eggs on accident. Many people are happy about this ban and others are not. Some researchers feel that evidence supports a ban on DDT while others feel that it is an over reaction to an environmental concern. DDT has been shown to help control the malaria parasite. Evidence supports the banning

DDT has been used since WW2 as an insecticide to control the outbreak of malaria and typhus among troops and civilians. This is because malaria is spread by mosquitos and DDT was considered to be a powerful in eliminating these populations, thus decreasing the infection rate for malaria. Since it was first discovered as an insecticide, worldwide it was used in very large amounts because nobody knew any better and it was considered to be revolutionary. It wasn’t until 1962, when biologist Rachel Carson first outlined the potential harm DDT has on the environment, believing it caused cancer in humans and harmed bird wildlife. This led to the United Stated ban of DDT use in 1972, and later, a worldwide ban under the Stockholm

One reason why DDT should not be used is because of its harmful effects on humans. First, research had shown that the consumption of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) had caused many people to contract many dangerous diseases including Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, kidney and ovarian diseases. Studies had also linked the use of DDT to be a carcinogenic, causing breast cancer in women. A study of 9,300

DDT is a chemical that is widely known for is properties as an insecticide. When humans discovered this “wonder product” the whole country was on fire! The one company that made the most money was Montrose Chemical Corporation. From 1942 - 1971, when DDT was banned, the MCC pumped out DDT tons at a time. However, the bigshots were faced with a problem. Where do you dump all the leftover byproduct? Hey, why not the ocean! When DDT byproduct, DDE, was dumped into the ocean, fish and other seafood had it leached into them. This meant the bald eagles’ main food source was contaminated. When the bald eagles ingested their main source of food, the DDE became very concentrated in them. When bald eagles attempted to lay eggs, barely any would hatch! The DDE caused their eggs to be porous, and the eggs fail to hatch. This meant the bald eagles’ total extinction on the Channel Islands by the 1950’s.

Mankind has always sought to advance its knowledge of the world and to make life easier and better for its citizens. However, some scientific breakthroughs have led to unintended consequences. We as a community have the responsibility of guaranteeing our new technology doesn’t have unintended consequences or become dangerous. That includes allowing obsession and/ or abhorrence of it get in the way of caring for the community. However, in Rebecca Skloot‘s captivating story of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, this responsibility goes deeper than the community when a group of overly ambitious doctors do whatever they can to use Henrietta Lack’s cancer cells

When DDT became available for civilian use in 1945, there were only a few people who expressed second thoughts about this new miracle compound. One was nature writer Edwin Way Teale, who warned, "A spray as indiscriminate as DDT can upset the economy of nature as much as a revolution upsets social economy. Ninety percent of all insects are good, and if they are killed, things go out of kilter right away." Another was Rachel Carson, who wrote to the Reader's Digest to propose an article about a series of tests on DDT being conducted not far from where she lived in Maryland. The magazine rejected the idea.

According to Maine’s Claim to Fame, “In 1958, Rachel received a letter from friends Smart and Olga Huckins of Duxbury, Massachusetts, whose small nature sanctuary had been devastated by air spraying of DDT, virtually wiping out all birds and beneficial insect life. Shouldn’t something be done about it?

In the book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s main concern is the widespread use of synthetic pesticides and their impact on the environment. Carson concentrates on a commonly used pesticide in the 1950s called DDT. She opposes the indiscriminate spraying of DDT because it has profound consequences on the environment, humans and animals. Carson collected information about how the DDT can cause cancer in humans, harm animals such as birds and remained in the environment for long periods of time. Subsequently, the chemicals in the pesticides are extremely harmful so she tries to raise awareness and convince others that there are better alternatives.

Pesticides have a very negative stigma in today 's culture. Monsanto, their GMOs, and countless pollutants have frightened the American (and frankly world) populace. As such, their benefits are accepted only with chagrin; modern agricultural techniques, despite being laden with the echoes of Malthusian pessimism, have allowed society to profit and proffer further progress. Narrowing in, however, the most celebrated villain is positively infamous in name alone: DDT. It would be hard to deny DDT is anything but an artificial product of a highly-developed society. As such, to study its implications is to meditate essentially upon the whole of like-minded technologies. DDT is genocidal in purpose. It is designed to kill insects. And yet, it preserves human life in ways that will be later demonstrated. Other pesticides continue to be used to keep crops alive and ensure food is not only present but plentiful. If shown effective are pesticides the solution to an ongoing problem? How much value does a human life have to morality, and how is it calculated in terms of developing an ethic? Is the indefinite preservation of human life in itself moral? How does non-human life figure into the ethical calculus? Is this moral? Put forward is this claim: if human life and the preservation thereof is to be valued by an ethical system, then DDT (and pesticides in general) are to be regarded as a moral good in spite of their faults because of the benefits they garner the human species.

It would appear that DDT would be the obvious choice to prevent cases of malaria in developing nations and all over the world. However, DDT is not without its potential hazards. DDT was used as a pesticide in the United States until it was banned in 1972. First employed as an insecticide in 1939, the white powder would kill massive amounts of mosquito larvae. Paul Müller actually won the Nobel Prize for first using the chemical on insects. The pesticide was used throughout the United States to combat more kinds of insect-pests such as gypsy moths. It was not

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) a stable chemical compound that is high in chlorine pesticide levels, notorious for its agricultural purposes (Martin et al, 2013) it has with no doubt aroused debates around the idea of its use. Silent Spring has clearly caused a debate for decades, one of the quotes from the book was “It is not my contention, that chemical insect - ideas must never be used. I do not content that we have put poisonous and biologically potent…” (Carson, 1962). Carson was not against the idea of DDT but simply its overuse, its great use regarding insect transferred diseases was of great help, still is (Souder, 2012). The following essay describes opposing views on the use of DDT, has its use led to a co-existence between humans and nature(Chris Park, 2013) or a more technology and science orientated belief (Chris Park, 2007). Sri Lanka and South Africa are two of the most successful countries that have used DDT to eliminate Malaria. Since 2007 no deaths have been reported as a result of malaria in Sri Lanka (World Health Organisation, 2012) and over 85% cut malaria related deaths in SA().