When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962, one common argument made to discredit her book and its criticism of the indiscriminate use of toxic pesticides was that many seemingly benign substances such as aspirin or salt were toxic if used incorrectly.¹¹ This critique—voiced by industry spokesman Dr. Robert White Stevens and others—appeared ludicrous to Carson’s supporters insofar as it seemingly equated DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and other pesticides with salt and aspirin. But however disingenuous Stevens’s argument might have been at the time and however justified some of the subsequent ridicule might be, the argument itself, if considered with more dispassion, was not wholly wrong. It stemmed from the undeniable conclusion that “toxic” was not an absolute category: it hinged on context and application, and many substances could be poisonous depending on how they were used.

中文翻译：

---

我们为什么要毒害自己？

雷切尔·卡森 (Rachel Carson)在 1962 年出版《寂静的春天》( Silent Spring)时，一个普遍的论点是诋毁她的书及其对滥用有毒杀虫剂的批评：许多看似良性的物质，如阿司匹林或盐，如果使用不当，就会有毒。¹¹这种批评——由行业发言人罗伯特·怀特·史蒂文斯博士和其他人提出——在卡森的支持者看来是荒谬的，因为它似乎将 DDT（二氯二苯三氯乙烷）和其他杀虫剂等同于盐和阿司匹林。但是，无论史蒂文斯当时的论点多么不诚实，无论后来的一些嘲笑多么合理，论点本身，如果更冷静地考虑，也不是完全错误的。它源于一个不可否认的结论，即“有毒”不是一个绝对的类别：它取决于上下文和应用，许多物质可能有毒，取决于它们的使用方式。