Rating: 
Summary: Chlorine - not a poison but a benefit
Review: The author appears to have a distinct anti-science bent. But without chlorine and science, you would find yourself living without medicine, clean water, bulletproof vests, and the list goes on. Moreover, the author gives no viable alternatives to replace all the benefits of chlorine. If I had not been made to read the book, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
Rating: 
Summary: A compelling case for change on a critical problem
Review: The best environmental book I've read in years! It is clearly organized, accessible to read, but incredibly thorough in the case it makes. The most compelling argument I've ever read that chemicals are damaging the health of the general public. The best thing about the book -- in contrast to many other environmental exposes -- is its treatment of just how to solve the problem. Pandora's Poison explains why the current system for regulating chemicals has allowed this horrible problem to develop, and it lays out a program for how we need to change industrial technologies and environmental policies to fix it. The solution is ambitious, but after reading this book it seems like just common sense!
Rating: 
Summary: A Pandora's Box of questions...
Review: The introduction of the book sounds remarkably similar to the toxics campaign information on the Greenpeace web site - not surprising, I suppose, since the author is a former Greenpeace campaigner. Read a bit farther, and it becomes obvious that the book is little more than a political statement, transparently cloaked in a thin whitewash of scary-sounding "facts" that don't stand up to careful scrutiny. Look closely, and you will see that the author labels his book outright as a work of advocacy rather than objectivity. Thornton stresses the need for a "chlorine sunset" - making it sound lovely and natural and "green" - sunsets are beautiful things, right? But what would it really be like if the author's solutions were implemented? Thousands of people would die from waterborne diseases if we banned chlorine for water treatment. Without pesticides, many more would die from malaria and other bug-borne diseases and thousands of acres of land would have to be sacrificed to make up for the loss of agricultural productivity. Sounds like a great environment, doesn't it? The author also proclaims the failure of the current regulatory systems for chemicals, when in reality, stricter policies over the last 20 years have drastically reduced emissions of most chemicals into our air, land and water. The system is not perfect by far, and has a long way to go - but it is still doing a much better job of protecting our planet and the people who live on it that any of the author's proposals possibly could.
Rating:
Summary: Another Recycled Advocacy Polemic
Review: This appears to be a compilation of papers that Mr. Thornton previously wrote on behalf of his former employer, Greenpeace. So, if you are still curious, save your money and just browse the Greenpeace web site. Like the original papers, this book is an advocacy piece that does not address or reference contrary data or interpretations. Apply the precautionary principle in digesting Mr. Thornton's ideas.
Rating:
Summary: Pandora's Pablum
Review: This book is an appalling, hyperbole-laden, utterly misinformed assault on the scientific basis of environmental regulation. It reflects the growing anti-science trend that is masquerading as the "democratization" of science. It is an unfortunate example of how science can be deceptively manipulated to make seemingly reasonable policy arguments. The author not only fails to acknowledge the tremendous gains that have been made in environmental quality since the environmental regulations he deplores have been put in place, he also fails to acknowledge the tremendous work done by others to move towards a more "holistic" strategy to control chemical contamination. This book is dishonest, misleading, and pious.
Rating:
Summary: One of Best Popular Science Pieces of New Century
Review: This book, like Silent Spring, should and does scare the hell out of the chemical industry. I suspect that anyone who disses the book as badly as the first reviewer probably works for the industry, who really don't want you to read this masterpiece. Why should it scare them? Because 1) it's loaded with clear, well-referenced arguments on why and how to phase out the most dangerous group of chemicals invented (organochlorines); and 2) it challenges the silly (corporatist) notion of "objective" policy-making, without giving up on the facts. If you like science writers (Barry Commoner, Carl Sagan, Norman Myers) who drop the insider-jargon in order to make a sophisticated argument about environmental science accessible to all, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A great environmental book
Review: This extremely well-written book makes a powerful argument for a fundamental but practical change in the way government and the chemical industry do business. It is amazingly well referenced and makes a powerful case that synthetic chemicals based on chlorine are harming everyone's health -- not just people who live in polluted areas but the general public, because hundreds of these chemicals can now be found all across the planet. And the book shows in a very fresh and convincing way that this problem has occurred not because we have no regulations but because we have the wrong kind. The new strategy the author discusses is a big change from the current system of bureaucratized pollution, but its strength is that it is based on principles that, after reading the book, seem like just common sense. A secondary theme is a very interesting discussion of how corporate power shapes environmental science in both subtle and obvious ways, and the implications of this for our assumptions about science and democracy. Well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: A well crafted deception
Review: This is a mojor work, with much of the science and logic extremely sound. Unfortunately, it a a misleading and deceptive argument, based on the classical flaws of logic used by rabid environmentalists to mislead the public. It is so well documented and reasoned that it requires complex arguments, not generally comprehesible to other than the technical specialist to understand. The author therefor starts by discrediting technical specialists as being stooges in the pay of the chemical industry. Good move. Among its other flaws is to show that some orgaochlorides are very dagerous and others are pervasive in the environment. It then condems the entire class of chemicals, first just because they are manmade (un-natural). It does not admit that the chemicals which are pervasive are the least harmful, or not harmful at all, and those that are harmful are not pervasive. One statement I particularly enjoyed is that, loosley quoted, the public should not allow scientific information or method to cloud their opinion of organochlorine chemicals! All in all, a great read for those who need to understand the flawed and false logic of the "rabid" enviromentalists. The author is a former executive of Greenpeace.
Rating:
Summary: It's What He Leaves Out That Hurts
Review: This is an ambitious book that has a lot to teach us, but it is flawed by what the author chose to hide from his audience. For example, he fails to report the dramatic decline in human exposure to toxins during the past 20 years; the major methodological flaws in research he cites as "proof" of a negative effect on human health from exposure to background levels; the very tenuous and often false assumptions that lie behind his proposed "new paradigm" (and the fact that this paradigm isn't new at all, but standard fare for many years from Greenpeace and other anti-technology voices); and more. I give Thornton credit for admitting his anti-corporation and pro-government biases at the outset and, at the end, calling for a socialist reorganization of the U.S. economy and higher education. Discerning readers will recognize just how far from the intellectual mainstream Thornton and this book are. I do not recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Confusing and Disingenuous
Review: Though the grand perspective of the book is initially compelling, there are disturbing techniques and faulty brush strokes that warp and distort what is presented as an objective picture of the world. A prime example is the inconsistent status accorded science - in some instances the author rejects science (e.g., because it does not always provide definitive answers) while in other cases science is needed to help with difficult decisions. Another example is the dark and menacing tone of the picture (e.g., the world's health is failing) which completely ignores the steady progress in the status of human health. A third example is what's missing from the picture - the studies that provide a more complete view of a complex world (e.g., charts on levels of dioxin in the environment stop at the years with the highest recorded levels but do not continue to show the steep, steady decline since.) A little work on the Internet uncovered sufficient examples of half-truths in the book to reach the conclusion that the author is more concerned with a colorful picture than one of substance and depth that warrants serious consideration.
|
