and the same with rachel carson. it was about categorizing things and in a way that they would measure thei their bones and cut their teeth and that is the way that it was perceived. day after day she was seeing the world as a whole web. so they were grounded in the physical and they were not afraid of being intuitive or of workingbe hard. thus objective wasn't considered very professional, but they worked hard in the status quo of their field and they were not afraid to use personal anecdote. they were all incredibly beautiful writers said they wouldd leave these things as a part of their argument and so they were able to put a human face on very big question about where to the country was going in that speech because they had a different orientation. >> so, again when we are dealing with somebody like a patient's claim who runs off and does her own thing and it's time period how do you approach those from a biographer's perspective? this not only did she shunned the limelight she was appointed the first editor at t

and the same with rachel carson. she the time that she was working, biology was about hounding and categorizing things. and in the way that zoology, they killed wild animals and then measured their bones and count their teeth and that was the way it proceeded. and carson was really in the natural world day after day watching and seeing the world as a whole web. i think the fact they didn't know better and they were grounded in the physical and in their sense, they were afraid of being intuitive, they weren't afraid of looking hard and the subjective wasn't considered very professional, they were part of their field in many ways and they were also not afraid to use personal attitudes in the writings. they're all incredibly beautiful writers they would weave in stories of things they seen and doneas part of their arguments . so they really were able to put a human face on a very big questions about where the country was going and that was perhaps because they were women but perhaps because they just had a different ori

rachel carson had a book that was an account of chemical pesticides can their way up -- working their way up the food chain. it became a national sensation. an inspiration that made americans question both the quantity and types of pesticides they were pumping into their environment. certain public offense, a massive oil spill that ended up washing up on the california's previously pristine beaches. the ignition of a decently sized body of water, a river in cleveland, thanks to decades of accumulated pollution also got people's attention. we generally tend to think of water as something one uses to it out fires, not something that spontaneously combust. they raise this questions about what exactly people have been putting their, right? and what other damage it was potentially doing. the evidence that americans were destroying the natural world was becoming an overflowing sewer, it was not limited to public events. middle-class americans began to see an overtaxed natural world, allowing their personal ways to come public back into their lives. overtaxed septic systems, these big tanks