By Dick ClappÂ
Rachel Carson has been in the news quite a lot recently, first as the object of a diatribe by a U.S. Senator, and also in a series of news stories commemorating what would have been her 100th birthday last week.Â Tim Lambert at Deltoid has addressed the false allegations about Carson and DDT, so I will focus on Dan Gardnerâs rant (Ottawa Citizen, May 25, 2007) denouncing Rachel Carson and the Prevent Cancer Now coalition spokespeople, Liz Armstrong and Angela Rickman, which was startlingly wrong-headed and riddled with errors.Â
Gardnerâs piece was apparently intended both to respond to Armstrong and Rickmanâs eloquent column on the need for cancer prevention (published in the Toronto StarÂ earlier that week), and to undermine celebration of the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carsonâs birth a couple of days later.Â He begins by taking issue with the statistics about rising rates of childhood cancers in Canada, and invokes a quote from a 2004 Progress Report on Cancer Control.Â In fact, the childhood cancer statistics in the past two decades are steadily increasing, in Canada, the U.S. and Europe.Â In Ontario, the rates have been projected to rise through the year 2015, most notably for lymphomas.
Gardner then goes on to minimize the risk of childhood cancer by saying that the rates only rose from a âvery tiny level to a slightly higher but still very tiny levelâ which he describes as 0.0168 per cent annually.Â Here, he mistakes the annual incidence rate of 16.8 per 100,000 for a per cent risk of childhood cancer.Â The correct per cent, for children aged 0-14 is actually 0.23 per cent, 14 times higher than Gardnerâs calculation, using standard methods of which he is apparently unaware.
Then, in a particularly Orwellian section, he talks about the fact that cancer is becoming the number one cause of death is actually good news, not bad news.Â This is because other leading killers have been declining faster than cancer.Â He veers off to ridicule Rachel Carson for a quote in Silent Spring, noting that cancer accounted for a much higher per cent of deaths in 1958 than in 1900.Â In fact, Rachel Carson was referring to the growing awareness of cancer in 1962.Â In the sentence preceding the one Gardner quotes, she says âThe increase itself is no mere matter of subjective impressions.âÂ She was exactly right in this chapter, and Gardner is exactly wrong in his interpretation of cancer risk.
Gardner winds up with a straw man argument: Even if there were a cancer epidemic, it would be wrong to blame it on âcontamination of the environment by synthetic chemicals.âÂ He alleges that no reputable scientific body considers this to be the case.Â Setting aside which scientific body we should pay attention to, the point Rachel Carson and her many current supporters in Canada and elsewhere have tried to make is that we should seek to avoid carcinogenic exposures wherever possible and thereby prevent cancers.Â If that means producing less carcinogenic chemicals in the first place, or phase out synthetic chemicals that deplete stratospheric ozone so that we are more exposed to ultraviolet radiation, or find alternatives to using asbestos in manufactured goods, or help teenagers avoid taking up cigarette smoking, or support tobacco farmers who want to grow food crops or produce cellulosic ethanol, we should do all these things.Â Not a single case of cancer will be prevented by dismissing the prescience of Rachel Carson or the commitment of her present-day followers.
Dick Clapp is Professor in the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University School of Public Health, and co-Chair of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dr. Clapp served as Director of the Massachusetts Cancer Registry from 1980-1989 and worked in two environmental health consulting groups in addition to his teaching and research activities. He was a consultant to the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board in its 1995 and 2000 reviews of the dioxin reassessment.
One thought on “Rachel Carsonâs legacy under attack (on the 100th anniversary of her birth!)”
I note that the Biology Department of the University of Maryland, where Rachel Carson used to teach, sent a letter of support to Senator Cardin and Senator Mikulski for their efforts to hone Rachel Carson.
As full disclosure, my spouse is on the faculty and is one of the cosigners.
See letter below:
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
United States Senate
23rd May 2007
Dear Senator Cardin,
We are writing to you, as faculty members of the Department of Biology at the University of Maryland, to thank you for your intention to introduce a resolution in the U.S Senate to honor Rachel Carson.
Early in her career, Rachel Carson taught in the Department of Zoology at the University of Maryland. As faculty members, students and staff of the successor to that department, we would like to express our thanks to you for your efforts to have the Senate honor our former colleague on the 100th anniversary of her birth. We very much regret the hold that we understand Senator Coburn has placed on this resolution and offer our support to you and your colleagues in your efforts to overturn it.
Rachel Carson was a visionary scientist and educator. Her book, âSilent Springâ, inspired a profound debate about the risks and rewards of the application of industrial- age chemicals to the environment, with a focus on the insecticide, DDT. Her book presented to the public information about the accumulation of toxins in the fatty tissues of predators, the indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture and urban environments, the emergence of resistance to commonly used insecticides and the public health risks of environmental chemicals. The acceptance of her thesis that we should seek viable solutions to public health and industrial development that minimally disrupt nature is one of the greatest contributions of science to the 20th century. No matter where an individual stands on a particular issue, such as the use of DDT or the cause of global warming, the need to consider the environment as we develop new technologies is a scientific necessity for our survival as a species. We are appalled that a member of the U.S Senate cannot recognize Rachel Carsonâs achievement as an originator of this concept.
Should members of the faculty of the Department of Biology be of any assistance to you or your staff in making the case for honoring Rachel Carson, please do not hesitate to contact Richard Payne at the email address below .
Richard Payne, Professor and Chair Gerald Borgia, Professor
Avis Cohen, Professor Michele Dudash, Associate Professor
Eric Haag, Assistant Professor Matthew Hare, Assistant Professor
David Inouye , Professor Jenna Jadin, Graduate Student
Lisa Kellog, Postdoctoral Research Assistant Tom Kocher, Professor
Penny Koines, Instructor Sky Lesnick, Grad. student
Daphne Soares, Assistant Professor Leonardo de Carvalho Oliveira, Grad. Student Jonathan Simon, Assistant Professor Sergei Sukharev, Associate Professor
Gerald Wilkinson, Professor
Phone: 301-405-6884 (office) 301-314-6262 (fax) Email: rpayne [at] umd [dot] edu