After fifty-seven years, Rachel Carson’s book is not aging well. It will always have its defenders, though.
[Not sure why headline says “at 40.”]
[Thursday-morning update]
OK, it’s because the article is from seventeen years ago. Unlike Carson’s book, though, it does still hold up.
When the article was written in 2002, “at 40” was correct…
D’oh! I wonder why Reason just tweeted it today?
Like malaria itself, articles about it can re-emerge years later.
Probably related to the recent PBS hagiography.
One of the lines of evidence pointing to the possible dangers of DDT in Silent Spring was the “cancer epidemic.” In view of the fact that what little cancer epidemic there was was largely due to tobacco, is it possible that the tobacco industry played a role in publicizing Silent Spring in an effort to distract attention? Just ask yourself, “Who benefited from the cancer-epidemic hysteria?”
The best defense is a good offense …