Silent spring symposium, 1 of 2

Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is an attack on certain uses of chemical insecticides. The book is frankly a polemic. There is no attempt by Miss Carson to present the benefits to mankind of chemical insecticide usage. She is concerned only with presenting a case against what she feels are mis usages in a discussion of the book many questions have been raised around the central issue which might be phrased like this. Is our present day use of chemical insecticides dangerous to the general welfare. We've raised this question now for a group of University of Wisconsin faculty members gathered to give us their reactions to the book. Our program will be moderated by IRA Baldwin professor of bacteriology. Professor Baldwin. Today we have brought before the microphones five individuals in addition to myself who represent various departments around the university in fields which have a real

interest in the subjects discussed in Mr. Carson's book Silent Spring. There are many other people in the university who might have appeared on this program with equally as well as any of us. But we seem to be available at the time. So we're here. We have a representative from one department a wildlife management representative from the Department of Entomology presented from the Department of cancer research and representatives from the Department of Zoology. I think to start with I will call on these individuals introducing them to you and asking each to give a short statement of their general opinion following regarding the book. Following this we'll have a general discussion of a variety of points on which there may be some differences of opinion and we'll have an opportunity for each of us

to express our opinions on some of these more controversial aspects of the book. The first individual that I wish to introduce to you and asked to give you a brief statement as to his views of Mr. Carson the book or Professor Joseph Hickey of the Department of Wildlife Management My reaction to Miss Carson's book is that it is a very complex book. I don't why we wouldn't have a panel of five men here today to discuss it. And as a while I'd be college just I only feel competent to discuss perhaps three chapters in the book I want I'm wildlife losses which extends from Chapter Seven through eight and another one on the U.S. Department of Agriculture programs now from the point of view of a wild IP college just I think a lot of things that Miss Carson says here had to be said that this book in part has to be

judged by the environment from which it sprung. I don't think that wildlife conservation is getting a square break. In the United States at the present time from the use of insecticides I think that Miss Carson's book is a conglomeration of truths half truths misstatements and questionable statements. And perhaps later on I can try to dissemble Eason and point out where I think the element of truth lies where the area of fiction is present and where some of the things that she talks about are simply debatable. Well thank you Mr Hickey. I will now turn to Professor Bob Nick Bilton chairman of the Department of Entomology here in the university. Well Dr. Baldwin the theme of course is against insecticides.

I don't think I need to spend a great deal of time pointing out the need for these this need of course is extremely well documented. I think this matter of surplus and productive activity on our farms is certainly overdone. I'm quite certain that if we didn't have this surplus that our prices would certainly rise very considerably. We need this kind of a margin. Certainly I don't think this is a criticism. I rather think this is quite a blessing that we do have this overproduction certainly for the quality of products that our market is demanding particularly in such fields as in Orchard crops and truck crops and so on the need for all the kinds of control measures that we can possibly do. Lies are necessary. These are insecticides these are cultural procedures. Many others including biological control that we must use to the fullest. And I

can't possibly conceive that any one of these will ever do the job alone. Miss Carson just too easily brushes over the problems caused by a few beetles some annoying insects or some plants that we've labeled undesirable. This kind of thing. But she certainly is eloquent in her description and piss a patients of what could happen in er chapters. Nature fights back and the rumblings of an avalanche. Frankly many of us have heard these rumblings and we've seen this avalanche long before the insecticides in question came into being so we know something about the problems to which I think she has very appreciably discounted. I think this kind of nation the course was done by a real master. But I'm not so sure of the flimsy canvas in which she's presented this picture.

Frankly it isn't difficult to condemn but to suggest alternatives is very difficult indeed as Miss Carson found out. I think get to her book in the campaign rather fell apart in the last chapter the other road where the other suggestions to insecticides were made. I she has gone into many such as Kima starlets. I think we might point out later on that these are rather tricky chemicals and I'm not so sure at the moment that I would recommend them over the insecticides that we now have. She might have put them in her chapters a narrow window and so on. She suggests as suggested diseases are probably one of our best means of control and perhaps they are. Bacillus Thurn Gensis for example is now in use and in some cases successfully. But this of course does not mean it can be used in all of our past problems.

She accepts C word of specialists of course that these are not harmful to man. I think if we want to be facetious we could really build a very thrilling story about the disaster that might occur through the spread of bacillus whether this be a pest of insects or not. But seriously some of the suggestions that she has made about the use of viruses and I'm not so sure that with the highly mutagenic agent such as a virus that I should like to propagate this in my laboratory and disseminated freely over the country not biological controls of course I may say something a little more about this later. Miss Carson again is a little bit hard put as I would be to show many glowing examples of how biological control has solved the multitude of problems that we have. She points out that her one best example of natural control Carse's and screw worm eradication.

This is natural but the implications should not be made that this is permanent by any means. I read reintroduction of the screw worm in this area chorus to start the whole thing over again and so the implication that chemical controls are nothing but stopgaps. This I will agree. In fact all of our controls are nothing but stopgaps. We're working with an organism that is extremely adaptable not just to chemicals but to cultural practices to diseases and whatever we might throw against them. Thank you Mr. Digby. I think now we will turn directly to Mr. James Miller of the department of cancer research and get his views on this book. Well I certainly agree that Miss Carson is a skillful writer and she has a specific message to get across that I think this is a one sided

view of possible hazards from the use of pesticides. Oh in my opinion the book will do some good if it promotes the careful use of pesticides about the farm and home. But I think it's going to do some harm if it convinces many people that they're being poisoned by the careful improper use of pesticides there's simply no evidence for this. Miss Carson herself supplies none in my opinion the whole situation valving cancer and the other aspects in this book is one of balancing the extremely remote risks involved in the proper use of pesticides against the obvious great benefits from their proper use. She scarcely mentions the benefits and in my opinion she greatly exaggerates the risks. And as we will see later. As for cancer the fact that Miss Carson's chooses to use her rather carefully in her waved with dire possibilities and I'm justified assumptions.

Facts that she does not use simply would weaken her case if she mentioned. I think this it's rather necessary to look upon this book not as a balanced scientific view of the problem but as a deliberate one sided picture of our modern environment. Thank you very much. Miller turn now to pressure John Kass of the little Department of Entomology whose prime interests are in the field of the SEC decided chemistry and toxicology to see what his views are on this book. Thank you. I certainly echo Dr. Miller's last comment that the book was written without scientific objectivity and that it adds little new to the available information that has already been presented on pesticides pesticides have been dealt with very thoroughly by committees at the National Academy of Science level the president's scientific

advisory committee level and a special committee within Wisconsin appointed by the governor and headed by the late president Conrad LVM. In her book she presents evidence that is new possibly to the reader but adds nothing to the available information which scientists that much smh us judge on pesticides use in this judgment. It does confuse the information and makes it so mixed with her opinions that it's difficult for the uninitiated reader to sort the fact from the fantasy. It is particularly difficult because of two literary devices which Miss Carson has widely used. She uses these to support her thesis. One of these is name dropping or quoting or referring to renowned scientist out of context a

statement divorced from its original meaning is then approximated to an opinion of the author or else to a question posed by her with an implied answer the reader is led to conclude thereby that the authority mentioned is in accord with the author's position. I know many of these people personally. The quotes taken out of context were far from the original meaning that was intended. Another device which further confuses it is that the reader must wade through a large amount of unintelligible scientific jargon discussions on irrelevant processes and some of these are not presented in a concise are sometimes even accurate scientific matter. Thank you Mr cash for the offer the last man on our panel will turn to the apartment of the Lala G Professor John Neves who's interested in

the broad field of ecology. I must say that in general I applaud this book. This is without having expected from it the qualities of a scientific treatise or a scientific article. The book was directed at the general public and true enough there are certain risks in writing something which is designed deliberately to pry in people but I don't think this was Miss Carson's intention. I think it was her intention to rouse people and to direct their attention to certain problems that they haven't been able to see very clearly up to the present time. I think that the average citizen. I don't know whether it's fair to use an expression like that perhaps there isn't any such thing as an average citizen and the average reader a person who would have read this book has been taking for granted for a long time that he can benefit to a great extent from the various technological advances in including

insecticides including many different things. He isn't always aware of the fact that some of these things can damage him and damage his environment. He ought to be led to the state of mind where he is inclined to question every new advance in technology. In two ways what can it do for me and what will I have to pay for the benefit that I achieve from it. He shouldn't omit to consider either of these things now. I think that the main intention of Miss Carson the book was to was to try to develop the tendency to ask what the price of technological advances in certain areas. Her journalistic devices will help her to accomplish this no doubt no matter how objectionable we as scientists find them I find a lot of her. I find her technique of writing objectionable at times I find it too smooth. At the same time as I find it attractive but I'm also glad that you wrote the book. And I'm also glad that the book has been given very wide publicity.

Thank you. Press release this bring it before the panel now to the general views of each member. I'm interested in one of the comments. Pressure needs made us the price we pay for any advance. I think there's no question that every time science research technology brings something new to us that is a real value we pay certain penalties from certain prices for that. I'm wondering whether the prices and the penalties are greater in the fields or wildlife or greater in the fields of human health. Mr. Carson touches on both Lisa's point. Mr. Hickey what do you feel. It seems to me that every now and then someone comes out and discusses the great agricultural advantages of pesticides. Now this item is supposed to condone the entire use of pesticides and I'm sure this is not so.

I have here a little letter written to the Bulletin of the American Institute of biological sciences by an entomologist excuse me for rice but when we depart from the fields and orchards conditions are by no means comparable to the widespread application of poisons cannot be justified by the fact that the use of these chemicals on farms is necessary. I mean Miss Carson's book you will notice that the use of chemicals on farms is not discussed that that is the farmer's use. What she talks about a major control programs the Japanese beetle program of the Department of Agriculture the use of Dutch Elm Disease Control with DDT the gypsy moth program of the plant pest control a vision of the department and the fire ant program of the same outfit. If we can distinguish between the fact that there are good uses usages of

pesticides and we in Wisconsin have found that the major use of pesticides in this state at least is on agricultural fields with very low wildlife densities. This in no way condones the fact that there are misuses of pesticides. And these missing missing usages as she brings out matter clearly a lot I think imperfectly. The Japanese people program to me was a colossal blunder in both Michigan and Illinois. The Dutch Elm Disease Control Program to me still remains unexplained. The bald eagle story which he discusses is a phenomenon we perhaps can talk about later it's essentially something that is an unproved phenomenon is there but the at implication of insecticides remain unproved. And I don't think the IF I AM program is something that we should have a passel of them. Looks to me as if it was a bureaucracy in Washington that put these programs over and we've been spending 2.1 million dollars a year to control fire ants

and ice and a program that was never justified. Well it's very apparent that your interest in wildlife and don't seem to be much worried about what she says about the effect of this on the human. Let me turn to Professor Miller who didn't live to deal with humans. See what he thinks about the matter. I would have to disagree with Professor Hickie in some respects about that Miss Carson is not concerned with the use of these on the farm because she's obviously concerned with the minute effect amounts of pesticides that so-called residues that do get into our food stuffs even with the proper use of these materials on the farm. Maybe she has exaggerated the situation greatly as to the possible harm that these minute amounts of pesticides might do to us now or in the future. As for cash you got any views on the object of these substances on humans or on wildlife either one.

I will comment on the effect on humans. An attempt is made before any new pesticide reaches the market. To evaluate the toxicity of that pesticide under potential use conditions to match. This is done with high return animals in large part. The studies with laboratory animals are made by feeding different levels of the pesticide for a long period of time a life time study two to four year periods with at least two species of animals. The results from this are interpreted with a wide variety of chemical and bio chemical evidence to try to evaluate what might be a safe level for man then admitting the fallacy of animal experiments. This value is divided by 100 a 100 fold. Safety is available at the time that the pesticide is released. The

experimentation she implies continues at the time that it is released and that humans are the guinea pig. If so they have a hundred fold safety factor to begin with and any discrepancy that appears very quickly results in removal of that pesticide from the available market within a few years after each pesticide comes out. There follows a series of studies with human some of these are admittedly accidental studies calculations made from symptoms occurring on spray operators. Certainly not calculations from residues because there is no reported case yet have any human symptoms from residues. But when the summited information is considered a man comes out with a far better chance to survive through the on coming generations than Rachel Carson implies.

Question ace What are your opinion on the penalties that were paying for the use of these insecticides. Well I have a question or you're talking largely about what one might call acute toxicity you know what do you really know about about. Chronic toxicity it seems to me that these are the materials that she's talking about have been in use for maybe 15 years or so or something like that there was a great upsurge in the invention of various chemical insect toxic and some other things in about the end of the of the war. It would seem to me that something of the order of a generation or maybe even more than that would be necessary before one has any real idea about the long term effects of these mushroom Miller I see you would like to point out that a two year study in mice and rats is essentially a full lifetime study in the species just in terms of generation time but is that

really the only thing it's so important that important how about the absolute time of exposure to an animal that lives longer than a mouse does like a human being. Well we know from studies with carcinogens in humans. Accidental exposures and history to be sure that the time for the development of cancer and human is an appreciable fraction of the lifespan something of the order anywhere from 10 to 30 years depending on the compound we find exactly the same situation in the mouse the rat the hamster. Other experimental species takes a similar fraction plus or minus the lifespan to develop tumors. So we feel it's justified to make the extrapolation from these experimental animal studies with high levels of compounds or lifetimes to the human in trying to estimate the possible hazards as a bacteriologist. I like to refer to one item that Mr Carson talks about she talked about

the use of DDT way back during World War 2. Pro the purpose of killing the body a louse and hence preventing typhus fever. OK she makes the point that probably there was some kidney damage done with these people when they used the DDT. They didn't die of typhus at least I don't know whether they had kidney damage or not. As cassava you got any opinion on that. The long term feeding studies in addition to being running around with rats and mice are also run with dogs. The indications on the first sign of poisoning there would appear with DDT are not that to the kidney but rather to the liver. It's a little difficult to directly answer your question. Human human data is she points out it is rather difficult to obtain on a chronic

basis it's much easier to obtain an acute toxicity basis although there is surprisingly little evidence really from the acute toxicity basis when you consider that the number of deaths from insecticide accidents each year are less than those from aspirin intoxication each year. That's a huge poison. That's a cute poison saying that all killing we don't know what the chronic effects of using aspirin long periods of time in our history is going to be going to nor do we know as much about the mode of action of aspirin as we do about the mode of action of most of the insecticides. Well let's turn to another subject for a moment Fessor Dick. You said you were not too impressed with the alternate which would she should guesstimate for the use of the various types of pesticides. Do you have any better alternatives that she cashed. No I would be quite hard put to find alternate So if

I were to help Ms Carson write this book because at the moment I don't feel we have them. I like at this point though to follow up on something that was brought out a moment ago. I think it all depends on where you are sitting and looking at this problem as to what you would use in case a problem was brought to your attention. It's very easy to say that in Dutch elm disease for example. I am not particularly interested in films but if it is your responsibility to protect these elements. You then have to weigh the public's opinion and I don't much care I have maples in front of my house. But I do know that if the elms are lost in our particular neighborhood these would be more sorrily missed than robins and I'm sorry to say that this is the choice you may then have to take. If it were one or the other. If I were sitting at the position in a position of a decision making board as to whether I would

risk Robins against elms I'm afraid because of the desire of the public I might have to risk Robin and I think it's pretty easy to sit back here and say I think that these fire and programs of Japanese beetle program and this sort of thing is stupid. It's done by a bureaucracy. Because the story is not mean made known to most people I'm sure they didn't do this just for the fun of it ought to satisfy somebodies whim. There must have been a real need to control these insects and I'm sure this need is here and I'm not sure that you would know either unless you were in decision decision making board to decide on what must be done with this particular pest. Again it's a point if you order yourself because you think that it's not right for people to wish to have a backyard for your past. That people who might go on a particular outing in the outdoors should not

be free of mosquitoes. It is their right to have this kind of atmosphere as much as the one who wishes to have no disturbance of natural areas and I think these are things that you have to decide how do you feel about this problem. Churches they all have this business of Rama's vs.. Seems to me to be a question that. Control people try to force on us. I don't think that's the decision that has to be made. The first thing I want to see is an explanation to one and I don't like in public as to why it is so necessary to incorporate the use of DDT with a sanitation program. I want to see an extension paper in which the public as it is told why programs that have been successful in other states

will not be successful in the Middle West. I as a while I because I just do not want to be put in the position of telling the public how these trees are to be saved. This is for my colleagues in other departments but I think the public is entitled to understand why these control decisions are being made and my point is that in the Middle West this information has not been made available to us. I don't think that we have to necessarily truly choose between robins and and entrées they haven't done that in Buffalo they haven't done it in Yonkers they haven't done it didn't Scarsdale and Bronxville know New York City and we have.