Rating: 
Summary: A Monumental Work
Review: Rachel Carson writes a truly amazing account of humankind's need to destroy itself and everything around us. What amazes me is that even after the first birds began to fall from the rain of pesticides, the government continued to spray year after year! The way in which we go blindly into the world assuming every new invention and chemical to be 'safe' because the companies that make them say so will never cease to boggle my mind. When iit comes down to making money, big companies will say anything about their products to get them sold. PBS just ran a very interesting documentary on the subject of chemicals in our workplace and environment see pbs.org for a time when it is to be rebroadcast.I must say that the book did seem a bit repetitive at times, but nontheless, I think this was Carson objective, to hammer home how truly stupid we humans can be.
Rating: 
Summary: A few comments
Review: While people were being galvanized about the DDT problem in the 1960's due to Carson's book, they remained unaware of pesticides such as dieldrin, a mercuric-oxide-based pesticide even worse than DDT. Dieldrin was in wide use in states such as Wisconsin in the 1940s and 50s, where it got out of control and killed an estimated 1 billion fish, birds, and small mammals. The bad thing about dieldrin is that it can accumulate all the way up the food chain to a much greater degree than DDT. However, one strange thing about DDT I learned is that it basically accumulates in fat cells. In a fascinating article I read some years ago, the author said that theoretically, someone who was very overweight, say 50 pounds or so, and who had been exposed to small amounts of DDT over time, could have a toxic reaction if they lost weight too quickly. This is because the DDT is relatively inert once it's sequestered in the fat cells. However, if this person started dropping weight quickly, perhaps as a result of a crash diet, the DDT would get dumped into the bloodstream because of all the fat the person was burning, thereby causing a toxic reaction. Anyway, Carson's book is still a classic and there is no doubt the wake-up call it sounded was responsible for galvanizing the public's awareness about these issues, as well as producing important legislation and policies relating to the environment.
Rating:
Summary: A revolutionary book...
Review: For anyone interested in biology, birds, and the conservation of life on earth - you must read this book. Everyone needs to have an appreciation of the biodiversity on earth - and this book hits home. Capitalism and Industry have done their damage - it's time to pay the piper - we need to clean up the abandoned oil wells, our polluted runoff, and our dumped chemicals. 'Silent Spring' is still going on - plants and animals are still being killed by our pollutive actions - reading this book is an excellent start into the understanding of what sort of impact a single species (i.e. humans) can have on a planet.
Rating: 
Summary: Junk Science
Review: A number of years ago I read a critical review of "Silent Spring" where the author of the review accused Rachel Carlson of making a very basic error in statistical inference. I went out and got a copy of the book to see for myself. To my surprise and great disappointment I found that yes Carlson exactly what the reviewer said. Carlson claimed that there was a dramatic increase in the rate of death from childhood leukemia between 1900 and (circa) 1960 and blamed the increase on chemical pollution. Carlson failed to understand the difference between rate (as she defined it) and incidence. In 1900 children died from many different diseases most of which were cured by 1960. So naturally a greater fraction of child deaths would be from leukemia. If we cured all childhood diseases except leukemia then 100% of the childhood deaths from disease would be from leukemia. You really should compare the incidence rate in 1900 with 1960. Carlson did not do this, either out of ignorance or because it does not give the answer she wanted. This is not just a trivial mistake. It reveals a profound lack of competence in drawing conclusions from data. If you want a feel-good polemic against pesticides then you will like this book. If you want to be informed about the dangers of pesticides then read serious works by qualified epidemiologists. Junk science books like this do a disservice to the cause of environmentalism.
Rating:
Summary: Revolutionary then and Now
Review: rachel carson's book, Silent Spring was and is a true classic. That book was the first one to bring the dangers of wreckless utilization of technology to light. The information in the bok is sound. The style of writing is not so academic, that it puts a person to sleep. Stylistically and academically, Rachel states the reasons for using pesticides, the hazardous effects of using pesticides and solutions to using those chemicals. This was truly a book that started the environmentalism movement in America much like Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed started the automobile safety movement in the U.S. Much of the information is still relevant today even though the book is has been published for 38 years. The book is a great book even though the pundants of that era did not give it an award.
Rating:
Summary: profoundly wrong
Review: Despite the power of Carson's argument, despite actions like the banning of DDT in the United States, the environmental crisis has grown worse, not better. Perhaps the rate at which the disaster is increasing has been slowed, but that itself is a disturbing thought. Since the publication of Silent Spring, pesticide use on farms alone has doubled to 1.1 billion tons a year, and production of these dangerous chemicals has increased by 400 percent. We have banned certain pesticides at home, but we still produce them and export them to other countries. This not only involves a readiness to profit by selling others a hazard we will not accept for ourselves; it also reflects an elemental failure to comprehend that the laws of science do not observe the boundaries of politics. Poisoning the food chain anywhere ultimately poisons the food chain everywhere. -Al Gore It is the premise of Silent Spring that the Age of Chemicals represents an impending disaster for mankind, that use and overuse of chemical compounds is going to cause enormous health problems by both direct contact and as they work their way up the food chain. Carson seized on declining bird populations as an early warning sign that the effects were already being felt in animal populations. She used the metaphor of a Silent Spring, a Spring without birdsong, to convey the horror of where we were headed. As Al Gore laments above, her warnings were largely unheeded and the use of chemicals has grown rapidly. So, we should all be dead right? That's the problem with calling this one of the "Best" books of the century. The title "Best" should indicate that the book conveys some fundamental and timeless human truths. It would be more accurate to say that Silent Spring is a "great" book. Even then, Silent Spring is undoubtedly an important and influential book, but it is great only in the sense that Thomas Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) was great (or The Communist Manifesto and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf for that matter). It is great because it had a profound influence on attitudes and actions, despite the fact that it was completely wrong. At the end of a Century that has seen the widespread use of chemicals accompany tremendous lengthening of human life spans, deep cuts in infant mortality rates and the revival of most endangered species, isn't it time to acknowledge that the argument of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was a complete fallacy? Apparently the intelligentsia doesn't think so. GRADE: F
Rating: 
Summary: Carson Got Lots Wrong
Review: Try Dennis Avery's book 'Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics' for a much more scientific book. Millions of people are dying in Africa of mosquito-borne illness because of irrational and unfounded fears of DDT. Rachael Carson and her emotionally laden legacy deserve blame for this situation
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for anyone who cares about the planet
Review: This book should be mandatory reading in all high schools. The issues identified decades ago are even more relevant today. This author made a major contribution to the world before her death. Now it is up to us to heed her early warning call.
Rating:
Summary: Ludicrously perfectionist
Review: As a class assignment in (of all things) language arts, we had to read one chapter of this book and do a research project on it. To me, this book was completely BORING. It's the first book I haven't liked, and I've read a lot of the classics, including Gone Witht the Wind, and other books thought to be unbearable by many. I slowly waded through my chapter and finally gave up, weary and disgusted, in hopes that my partner had managed to finish the selection. I have a big vocabulary for my age, but some of those words defied explanation. It was extremely difficult, and I am in a language arts class way above average. I am usually interested in science-related items, but this was ridiculous! As you can figure, if this is my reaction to one chapter, imagine the whole book . . . ouch. This is, however, is an EXTREMELY concise book, and is better than any encyclopedia or internet site (believe me, I know) if you're looking for exact information on pesticides or other environmental issues. But I definitely would not suggest this as a pleasure novel - no way.
Rating:
Summary: Science made available to general public
Review: Rachel Carson had the ability to communicate to a broad audience. She wrote to the point but with a skill that makes reading Silent Spring enjoyable. Speaking as a scientist that reads many dry "scientific" books and journals, I found Rachel Carson to be an enjoyable, informative read.
| 
