“Down Wind” DVD and download available

DownWind-DVD_largeDown Wind documentary is available for purchase from Sun News Networks now.

Consider doing a public showing in your area, or at the very least share with friends and family to get the word out.

15 thoughts on ““Down Wind” DVD and download available

  1. This is an open letter to Linda Lear, authour of


    Thank you for producing this remarkable reference about a wonderful person, Rachel Carson.

    There is much to learn from Rachel’s witness that you have impressively compiled in the book that was published by Henry Holt and Company in 1997.

    I am seeking your permission to excerpt the following passages. The purpose is to bring forward knowledge from the past and compare to our present circumstances.

    It’s described on page 141, in the chapter “Return to the Sea”, that Rachel Carson had made the

    ‘… decision to take on a project involving the mastery of
    an enormous amount of scientific literature, but presenting it in a literary
    style that was both comprehensible and interesting to a nonscientific

    page 205, “Kin This Be Me?”:

    ‘Carson’s fan mail revealed that The Sea Around Us had touched a
    deeper yearning for knowledge about the natural world as well as for a
    philosophic perspective on contemporary life. From these letters Carson
    sensed “an immense and unsatisfied thirst for understanding of the world
    about us, and every drop of information, every bit of fact that serves to
    free the reader’s mind to roam the great spaces of the universe, is seized
    upon with almost pathetic eagerness.” A nation fearful of the escalating
    nuclear arms race, made nervous by Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for domestic
    Communists, and reluctant to send their sons to fight a war in a far-off
    Pacific nation like Korea found in
    The Sea Around Us a longer perspec-
    tive on their problems and a larger dimension by which to measure
    human achievement.’

  2. ‘Of course Thoreau had the whole idea in a sentence–‘If
    thou art a writer, write as if thy time is short, for it is indeed short, at
    the longest.’

    page 185, “A Subject Very Close to My Heart”

  3. Carson had been thinking about her acceptance speech ever since
    she had learned her book was a finalist. […]
    Although Carson would address the growing elitism of science many
    times more, her remarks that night announced the themes of her future
    work. She did not shy away from revealing her personal feelings about
    those who would isolate science from the public and unmistakably chal-
    lenged the profession.

    “Many people have commented with surprise on the fact that a
    work of science should have a large popular sale. But this notion
    that “science” is something that belongs in a separate compart-
    ment of its own, apart from everyday life, is one that I should like
    to challenge. We live in a scientific age; yet we assume that knowl-
    edge of science is the prerogative of only a small number of human
    beings, isolated and priestlike in their laboratories. This is not true.
    It cannot be true. The materials of science are the materials of life
    itself. Science is part of the reality of living; it is the what, the how,
    and the why of everything in our experience. It is impossible to
    understand man without understanding his environment and the
    forces that have molded him physically and mentally.”‘
    [Rachel L. Carson, Speech, National Book Award, January 29, 1952, RCP/BLYU.]

    pages 218-219, “Kin This Be Me?”

  4. ‘Even before the Democratic Party lost the White House in the
    election of 1952, changes in the nation’s conservation policies were
    more benficial to business interests, particularly in the West. But when
    Oregon businessman Douglas McKay was appointed Secretary of the Interior
    in January 1953, critical personnel changes were made in the top staff of
    the department’s agencies that reflected the Republican administration’s
    desire to place more of the nation’s natural resources in private hands. In
    late April McKay dismissed Carson’s former boss, Albert M. Day, as
    director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Deeply disturbed by Day’s
    removal as well as by the firing of other experienced and competent
    career professionals and their replacement by nonprofessional political
    appointees, Carson took up her pen in protest.

    In a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post on April 22,
    [1953,] Carson suggested that Mr. Day’s dismissal signaled the beginning of
    a “raid upon our natural resources that is without parallel within the
    present century.” Reviewing Day’s career in wildlife conservation and
    recalling his courageous opposition against those who demanded the
    relaxation of wildlife conservation measures for private gain, Carson
    interpreted McKay’s decision to replace Day and others of like compe-
    tence as part of a plan to “return us to the dark ages of unrestrained
    exploitation and destruction.” In sharply critical language, Carson appro-
    priated the images of McCarthy supporters to her own purposes. “It is one
    of the ironies of our time,” she wrote, “that, while concentrating on the
    defense of our country against enemies from without, we should be so
    heedless of those who would destroy it from within.”‘

    “Nothing Lives to Itself,” page 257

  5. Stanford University
    Read this website and find out how the public is being manipulated about IWT issues and other “green” energy issues.
    Behaviour modification and conditioning proceedures are being used on the public.
    “Down Wind” and the above website should give everyone a good idea of what is taking place in Ontario.

    • ‘[excerpt] This integration of information is intended to overcome major communication obstacles that have stood in the way of maximizing program effectiveness and research productivity. These obstacles include the different lexicons of the fields, as well as the significant time it takes to search for relevant literature and professional contacts because they are widely distributed across work sectors and databases.’

      Fortunately some rural Ontarians have refused to be conditioned and so can serve as jurors.

  6. ‘Closer to home, Carson found other evidence of the hazards of
    scientific knowledge misapplied. Her friends in the D.C. Audubon
    Society, particularly Irston Barnes, were alarmed by the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture’s (USDA) announcement of a new program to spray thou-
    sands of acres of crop- and forestland in the South and Southwest with
    powerful pesticides in an effort to eradicate the fire ant. The USDA’s
    program was, in part, a response to complaints from southern farmers
    about crop and livestock losses due to the stings of a species of fire ant
    that had been introduced from Brazil during World War II. But it was
    motivated equally, if not more, by the desire of the department’s bureau-
    cracy to expand its influence and leadership in American agriculture
    through the application of science and technology.

    Research conducted by the Department’s Agricultural Research Ser-
    vice (ARS) suggested the effectiveness of massive aerial spraying with
    powerful chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides such as chlordane, dieldrin,
    and aldrin, chemicals that, like DDT, had been developed during World
    War II. Such weapons promised not only to control insects and other
    pests but to eradicate them altogether. These new chemicals were the
    agricultural equivalent of the atomic bomb–the ultimate weapon; these
    pesticides promised to redefine the ancient warfare between farmer
    and insect. But the American public knew just as little about the long-
    term effects of these chemical weapons as they did the effects of atomic

    “One Must Dream Greatly,” page 305

  7. “I Shall Rant A Little, Too,” page 333

    ‘An important but little recognized component of Carson’s research
    network, however, came from her own connections with government sci-
    entists, librarians, Smithsonian Institution scientists, associates in con-
    servation organizations at the national level, and the regional Audubon
    Society. Her nearly sixteen years in government were key to her ability to
    find the information she needed or the one person who knew where the
    information could be found. […]

    From this same wellspring of goodwill Carson found individuals in key
    places, who, at great risk to their jobs and reputations, were willing to give
    her confidential information if she protected them. With their private
    help and that of anonymous friends, Carson’s sleuthing, particularly
    inside govnerment and other Washington-based institutions, was highly

    Rachel made steady progress with her research during the early fall. […]

    When Paul Brooks visited Rachel in Maine that summer, he brought
    with him a copy of a new Houghton Mifflin publication, The Affluent
    Society, by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, which he left
    with Carson. She read it that fall with interest, telling Brooks that she
    had found much in Galbraith’s analysis of contemporary society that car-
    ried over to her thinking about the problem of pesticides and human atti-
    tudes toward insect control. “I do feel that the rather sorry picture I have
    to paint can be illuminated with some broad conceptions that will reveal
    the futility and the basic wrongness of the present chemical program–
    even better than by ranting against it, though doubtless I shall rant a
    little, too.”
    [RC to PB, September 11, 1958, RCP/BLYU]

  8. [continued] ‘From what she had read and from those she had interviewed, Carson
    tended to separate most scientists into two broad groups: positivists like
    Wayland Hayes, who denied any damage from pesticides because the evi-
    dence of damage had not been conclusively demonstrated, and those like
    George Wallace at Michigan State, who were willing to take the next
    logical step and assume damage might be possible and move on to con-
    sider alternatives to chemical spraying. She found entomologists, particu-
    larly those who worked in applied science rather than basic research,
    especially closed to any suggestion that alternatives to chemical spraying
    might exist.

    The reaction among some local entomologists and ornithologists to
    C.J. Briejer’s article on insect resistance surprised her. “The idea of bio-
    logical control as something workable seemed new to them, and they
    were vastly intrigued with the idea of something positive that they could
    support, instead of just being ‘agin’ sprays,” she told Brooks. “Inciden-
    tally,” she wrote, thinking about the range of scientific reactions to the
    fire ant program, “I’m convinced there is a psychological angle in all this:
    that people, especially professional men, are uncomfortable about coming
    out against something, especially if they haven’t absolute proof the
    ‘something’ is wrong, but only a good suspicion. So they will go along
    with a program about which they privately have acute misgivings. So I
    think it is most important [for me] to build up the positive alternatives.”

    Unlike Marjorie Spock, who had firsthand experience with corporate
    and government advocates and had seen the kind of cloak-and-dagger
    retaliation taken against those who disagreed, Rachel was still optimistic
    about changing official attitudes…’

    • Just a note to temper what you wrote…

      Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson provided a basis for much of the pesticide hysteria — especially DDT. They later refuted their own research!


      In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10

      In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12


      Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19

      In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.20

      Note that the same doctors that did the original research later refuted their own findings.

      Be very careful of what you cite as scientific evidence or proof that a cause of harm will be found if we look hard enough. Sometimes it’s just plain bad science.

      I am not disputing harm from wind turbines — just suggesting extreme caution be taken with the examples chose.

      Cheers and wish everyone a happy election! (gag!)

      • Hey David Robinson,
        It’s good to hear – you are not disputing
        ‘harm from wind turbines’;
        but, what’s the ‘extreme caution’ about?

      • Be careful about reading health books.
        You may die of a misprint.
        Mark Twain

  9. This mind manipulation was one major aspect of this present situation that we had no proof that this was taking place.
    There are those who do not hesitate to manipulate peoples’ minds to get what they want.
    Urban Ontarians were and are much more fertile grounds for this to take place as the IWT issues by and large don’t affect them anyway.

  10. Haven’t seen “Down Wind” yet and did people give their names and/or the names of the IWT projects?

  11. I hated to leave a comment on such a old email! – but I have not rec’d any emails from this website in some time????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *