Original image
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

9 Facts about Silent Spring Author Rachel Carson

Original image
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Although she spent most of her career as a marine biologist, Rachel Carson (1907–1964) is remembered mostly for raising the alarm over the dangers of pollution and pesticides. Her book Silent Spring detailed how harmful chemicals like DDT could have unintended consequences; both the work and the public’s reaction to it helped usher in the modern environmental movement. Take a look at a few facts about Carson’s inspiring life.


Carson’s love of nature was no doubt due to early exposure. Her family lived on 65 acres of farmland roughly 14 miles outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She also loved writing: At age 10, Carson wrote a story about a downed fighter pilot, “A Battle in the Clouds,” and submitted it to St. Nicholas, a magazine geared to young writers that had also published pieces from William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Her story was accepted and published in 1918.


Carson pursued formal education with zeal, winning a scholarship to the Pennsylvania College for Women. At the time she began attending, Carson had her sights set on earning an English degree and becoming a teacher and writer. She switched her major to biology—one of only three women at the school to join that department—and later earned her M.A. in zoology from Johns Hopkins University in 1932.


In 1935, Carson’s aptitude for communicating science earned her a job with the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. She continued to write articles for both government and mainstream publications that presented elegant arguments on the need to preserve our natural world, including the oceans. Part of her duties involved writing seven-minute radio scripts for a segment called “Romance Under the Waters.” The following year, she was promoted to junior aquatic biologist, one of only two women of such stature at the bureau. In 1952, having become the editor-in-chief for all of the bureau’s publications, she left the agency to write full-time.


While freelancing for publications like The Baltimore Sun, Carson feared that readers would dismiss her pro-environment message if they knew the writer was a woman. Science then was a male-oriented endeavor. To reduce that chance, she published pieces under the byline “R.L. Carson.”


Carson was revered as a science writer because she turned the sterile, dull copy common in environmental research into something of interest to a wider readership. In Under the Sea-Wind, her 1941 book on marine life, Carson wrote about fish feeling fear and other animals wearing expressions. Other science writers scoffed, but those creative flourishes helped Carson deliver her work to a broader audience.


From an early age, Carson had been cognizant of the environmental effects of toxic chemicals. Her farm was near a glue factory that slaughtered horses, and the smell often compelled neighbors to abandon their porches and run indoors. Later, when Carson became a science writer, she felt the urge to warn people about studies indicating DDT could be harmful—but she knew that whoever did so would be making enemies of powerful people. Carson tried to get other writers, including E.B. White, to tackle it. When no one offered, Carson took it on herself.


In the years following her death, Carson was sometimes criticized for helping to foster a growing hysteria about the use of pesticides like DDT. But she wasn’t the first health expert to question their impact on the environment. In 1957, five years before the publication of Silent Spring, the U.S. Forest Service banned DDT from being sprayed around select aquatic areas. Nor was Carson advocating for a complete ban. What she wanted, she said, was to make sure people were informed about the potential hazards.


When Carson was working on Silent Spring in the early 1960s, she was suffering from a series of maladies that sapped her strength: viral pneumonia, ulcers, and breast cancer. Knowing she was being critical of the pesticides industry, she kept her health conditions largely a secret in case her adversaries wanted to say she was blaming her problems on chemicals. True to her fears, pro-chemical businesses did lob personal attacks, calling her a communist and a cat-owning spinster.


When Silent Spring was published in 1962, President John F. Kennedy felt it was a crucial wake-up call for the environmental movement. To help offset any pushback from the chemical industry, Kennedy announced that the Department of Agriculture, among other government agencies, would be examining the role pesticides play in human illnesses. He then announced a special advisory board to study the questions Carson posed in the book. When the results of the board’s work were published in 1963, they supported Carson’s belief that the general public should be better informed about the potential hazards of such chemicals. DDT was eventually banned entirely in 1972.

Original image
Live Smarter
Trying to Save Money? Avoid Shopping on a Smartphone
Original image

Today, Americans do most of their shopping online—but as anyone who’s indulged in late-night retail therapy likely knows, this convenience often can come with an added cost. Trying to curb expenses, but don't want to swear off the convenience of ordering groceries in your PJs? New research shows that shopping on a desktop computer instead of a mobile phone may help you avoid making foolish purchases, according to Co. Design.

Ying Zhu, a marketing professor at the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, recently led a study to measure how touchscreen technology affects consumer behavior. Published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, her research found that people are more likely to make more frivolous, impulsive purchases if they’re shopping on their phones than if they’re facing a computer monitor.

Zhu, along with study co-author Jeffrey Meyer of Bowling Green State University, ran a series of lab experiments on student participants to observe how different electronic devices affected shoppers’ thinking styles and intentions. Their aim was to see if subjects' purchasing goals changed when it came to buying frivolous things, like chocolate or massages, or more practical things, like food or office supplies.

In one experiment, participants were randomly assigned to use a desktop or a touchscreen. Then, they were presented with an offer to purchase either a frivolous item (a $50 restaurant certificate for $30) or a useful one (a $50 grocery certificate for $30). These subjects used a three-point scale to gauge how likely they were to purchase the offer, and they also evaluated how practical or frivolous each item was. (Participants rated the restaurant certificate to be more indulgent than the grocery certificate.)

Sure enough, the researchers found that participants had "significantly higher" purchase intentions for hedonic (i.e. pleasurable) products when buying on touchscreens than on desktops, according to the study. On the flip side, participants had significantly higher purchase intentions for utilitarian (i.e. practical) products while using desktops instead of touchscreens.

"The playful and fun nature of the touchscreen enhances consumers' favor of hedonic products; while the logical and functional nature of a desktop endorses the consumers' preference for utilitarian products," Zhu explains in a press release.

The study also found that participants using touchscreen technology scored significantly higher on "experiential thinking" than subjects using desktop computers, whereas those with desktop computers demonstrated higher scores for rational thinking.

“When you’re in an experiential thinking mode, [you crave] excitement, a different experience,” Zhu explained to Co. Design. “When you’re on the desktop, with all the work emails, that interface puts you into a rational thinking style. While you’re in a rational thinking style, when you assess a product, you’ll look for something with functionality and specific uses.”

Zhu’s advice for consumers looking to conserve cash? Stow away the smartphone when you’re itching to splurge on a guilty pleasure.

[h/t Fast Company]

Elusive Butterfly Sighted in Scotland for the First Time in 133 Years

Conditions weren’t looking too promising for the white-letter hairstreak, an elusive butterfly that’s native to the UK. Threatened by habitat loss, the butterfly's numbers have dwindled by 96 percent since the 1970s, and the insect hasn’t even been spotted in Scotland since 1884. So you can imagine the surprise lepidopterists felt when a white-letter hairstreak was seen feeding in a field in Berwickshire, Scotland earlier in August, according to The Guardian.

A man named Iain Cowe noticed the butterfly and managed to capture it on camera. “It is not every day that something as special as this is found when out and about on a regular butterfly foray,” Cowe said in a statement provided by the UK's Butterfly Conservation. “It was a very ragged and worn individual found feeding on ragwort in the grassy edge of an arable field.”

The white-letter hairstreak is a small brown butterfly with a white “W”-shaped streak on the underside of its wings and a small orange spot on its hindwings. It’s not easily sighted, as it tends to spend most of its life feeding and breeding in treetops.

The butterfly’s preferred habitat is the elm tree, but an outbreak of Dutch elm disease—first noted the 1970s—forced the white-letter hairstreak to find new homes and food sources as millions of Britain's elm trees died. The threatened species has slowly spread north, and experts are now hopeful that Scotland could be a good home for the insect. (Dutch elm disease does exist in Scotland, but the nation also has a good amount of disease-resistant Wych elms.)

If a breeding colony is confirmed, the white-letter hairstreak will bump Scotland’s number of butterfly species that live and breed in the country up to 34. “We don’t have many butterfly species in Scotland so one more is very nice to have,” Paul Kirkland, director of Butterfly Conservation Scotland, said in a statement.

Prior to 1884, the only confirmed sighting of a white-letter hairstreak in Scotland was in 1859. However, the insect’s newfound presence in Scotland comes at a cost: The UK’s butterflies are moving north due to climate change, and the white-letter hairstreak’s arrival is “almost certainly due to the warming climate,” Kirkland said.

[h/t The Guardian]


More from mental floss studios