Maybe I can explain it for you this way:
When Rachel uncovered DDE, it became scientific fact. Every lab in the world was capable of biodegrading DDT and observing the resulting chemical. Further, they were and are all capable of establishing the impact on an individual, environment and generations from the chemical given concentration in a medium. All of the calculations have been made since DDE was discovered by Rachel.
There's no mystery. There has never been a mystery.
Everyone knows, and has known since the 1960s, exactly what DDE is, how it appears, what it does and everything else. The debate has always been balancing the harm against the benefit of controlling malaria. Some say more, some say less, and that changes over time according to population, habitat, weather and other factors.
Once again:
DDE is not a question. It's not a mystery. We know everything about it and we have since Rachel discovered it.
We knew instantly to stop using it for agriculture. So it was banned for use in that purpose (thank God). We didn't stop using it for malaria, but we started employing a cost benefit equation.
One cannot blame Carson for us knowing about DDE and taking precautions based on the scientific fact established. Yes, we did cut back on use against malaria - in places where the cost exceeded the benefit. And yes the debate about how much continues and always will because circumstances change. But no matter what, we gotta consider DDE. It impacts generations via an individual, a mutagen, a teratogen. It creates the stuff of nightmares, like a heavy metal.
