ShareThis Page
In defense of St. Rachel |

In defense of St. Rachel

| Friday, May 14, 2004 12:00 a.m

While it’s hard to take seriously any article that uses the phrases “left-liberal-environmental-wacko media” and “enviro-weenies,” Bill Steigerwald’s column (“Are the ‘greens’ killing blacks?” April 25) requires a response to his attack on, as he put it, “Pittsburgh’s great junk scientist, Rachel Carson.”

The first of many problems with Steigerwald’s ranting column is his illogical conclusion that somehow it is environmentalists’ fault that millions of people are dying from malaria every year. He feeds into an industry and right-wing myth that calls environmental actions to limit pesticide usage a hysterical, dangerous response that will halt all usage and leave us awash in mosquitos and other insects, weeds and fungi.

In fact, most environmentalists (and even Carson herself) call only for sane pesticide policies. Most environmentalists support the limited use of DDT where it is proven to have a major public health benefit. It is, as Steigerwald points out and then seems to forget later in his column, the foreign-aid agencies that dictate DDT policy, not environmental groups.

Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” warned a mostly unknowing public of the very real dangers of the widespread, unchecked overuse of pesticides. These dangers include not only killing birds, but also getting into the food chain, water and air, and posing a serious health hazard for any living, breathing organism — including humans.

Fiona Fisher and Michael ShribergSpringdaleThe writers are board members of the Rachel Carson Homestead Association.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.