Comments on: 10 Books that Changed America

By: timbo

timbo — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:10:02 +0000

“This book caused DDT to be made illegal, and helped save the Bald Eagle, among hundreds and hundreds of other animals.”

The DDT connection has been proven false for some time now, and millions of people in Africa die needlessly of malaria.

By: badjokebob

badjokebob — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:33:41 +0000

Silent Spring has caused the deaths of many millions of people! World wide eradication of malaria mosquitoes was well under way and the end of misery and suffering for millions of people was in sight when this bit of junk science hit the bookshelves! Ms Carson may have saved the bald eagle but she is responsible for the death of MILLIONS OF HUMANS!

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:22:55 +0000

Absolutely right Thor! The only thing I'd add is DDT caused MILLIONS of deaths, and Carson herself felt remorse for the tragedy that was Silent Spring.. All for a few species of birds. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Kinda missed the REAL impact there Jamie!

By: aristotleltotsira

aristotleltotsira — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:06:26 +0000

…poetry is dead? who killed it? is that worldwide? or is it an isolated case…

By: Emma276

Emma276 — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:18:51 +0000

I simply cannot believe that no one mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird. I mean, it’s considered America’s best book of the century, and it didn’t receive recognition? Wow, it’s really surprising. But nevertheless, we all know it’s a great book and it changed the way White people treated Blacks back in the days.

By: kking

kking — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:35:53 +0000

Pretty good list. Silent spring is one of the reasons I resent radical environmentalists…they have their priorities messed up.

kenny65: you realize you’re a human, right?

By: kennypo65

kennypo65 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:26:48 +0000

After reading the comments on this list and on many others, given a choice between birds and humans, I’ll take birds. The only good thing about humans is that they are mortal.

By: eclecticpoet

eclecticpoet — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:18:26 +0000

If you look at the EPA’s own data (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm), detrimental effects were not seen until you reached 5ppm in the diet of the mice. If you look a little further down you’ll see a study that found damage at all levels, but the lowest level tested was 20ppm. In the three other studies mentioned quickly after the previous one, the scientists found no harm done in concentrations much higher than any of the previous studies.
While I’m not saying that DDT is harmless, it is much less dangerous than it has been made out to be. This is especially true when you consider that the estimated amount retained in the bodies of the general population at a time when 80 million tons of the stuff was being used per year was much much lower than 5ppm (something like 0.01ppm I believe).
Randall, I am sorry about your father’s pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, none of the animal tests showed damage to the pancreas. Two of them did show damage to the liver as previously mentioned. Diabetes mellitus, being over age 60, eating a diet high in meat, and simply being male have all been shown to be risk factors for developing pancreatic cancer. It is very tempting to latch onto a banned chemical as the culprit, but none of the scientific data backs it up. Unfortunately, cancer just happens sometimes. My aunt died of leukemia without industrial carcinogen exposure or family history.
I think the biggest point to take away is that the amounts needed for preventing malaria would result in small enough exposure to preclude any risks that have been identified. That plus the enormous amount of human life lost without the use of DDT in malaria fighting efforts should make it a no-brainer to use the stuff in areas where malaria risks are high. Sadly, many of the malaria-free countries of the world (US included) continue to work against using this time tested and proved chemical in the areas that needed. It’s ironic that we deny them the very chemical that we used to remove the threat of malaria from our shores.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:27:33 +0000

Hello and excuse me, how can “Catcher in the Rye” not be included on this list?

By: Corey

Corey — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:13:07 +0000

I’m proud to say I’ve read all of these, and I’m pleased that they were on the list. I expected almost all of them.

I have to say, I was a little surprised to see “Common Sense” at number 1 – only because it’s always been referred to as a “pamphlet”. It seems like if you are to include “Common Sense”, you could probably include the Constitution or similar documents.