nRequirementsnThe Silent Springs Critique paper is worth 260 points and will be graded on quality of information, use of citations, use of standard English grammar, sentence structure, and overall organization based on the required components (as summarized in the directions and grading criteria and rubric).nCreate your manuscript using Microsoft Word, which is the required format for all Chamberlain College of Health Professions documents.nFollow the directions and grading criteria closely. Any questions about this paper may be posted under the Q & A Forum.nThe length of the paper is to be no fewer than four and no greater than seven pages, excluding the title page and reference pages.nYou must use APA format for both a title page and reference page. Use the required components of the review as Level 1 headings (upper- and lowercase, centered, bold).nNote: Write an introduction to the Silent Springs textbook, but do not use ?Introduction? as a heading in accordance with the rules put forth in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.nnCritique the Silent Springs thesis from diverse sociopolitical perspectives.nCritique the Silent Springs thesis from diverse ethical-legal perspectives.nCompare and contrast organization, structure, and function from national versus international perspectives related to environmental healthnWrite a conclusion.nPreparing the PapernThe following are best practices for preparing this paper.nnWhen introducing the Silent Springs textbook, be sure to identify appropriate background information regarding the author, her work, and the context (who, what, where, when, and why).nWhen reflecting on the Silent Springs thesis, critique the author?s work from diverse sociopolitical perspectives, and be sure to fully describe the potential impacts of each perspective using current evidence and environmental health examples.nWhen reflecting on the Silent Springs thesis, critique the author?s work from diverse ethical-legal perspectives, and be sure to fully describe the potential impacts of each perspective using current evidence and environmental health examples.nWhen reflecting on the Silent Springs thesis, critique the author?s work from national versus international perspectives related to environmental health.nSOLUTIONn?Silent Springs? by Rachel Carson is considered the most important book of the 20th century. Dichloro-Diphenyl- Trichloroethane(DDT), which was developed in 1939 was the most powerful pesticide the world had ever had contact with (Friis, 2019). DDT was capable of eradicating all types of insects unlike most insecticides whose capability was killing one or two types of insects. In 1945, it became available for civilian use and a few people started to question the composition of the pesticide (Friis, 2019). One of the few people who raised questions was Rachel Carson, a nature enthusiast and writer. She proposed an article to Reader?s Digest about the tests conducted in Maryland on DDT but the idea was rejected. It was not until 1958 when her interest in exploring the dangers of DDT was rekindled (Thorson, 2019) .nnIt took Carson four years to finish the Silent Spring (Thorson, 2019). She did ample research on the effects of DDT and employed her writing skills to inform the public on her findings. The book explicitly described how DDT is introduced in the food chain, how fat accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals and human beings, and how this leads to cancer and genetic defects (Clark, 2017). She wrote that a single application not only killed targeted insects but more than necessary. This eradication went on for weeks and months from that single application. The environment remained toxic even after dilution by rainwater. In her book, Carson indicated that DDT and other pesticides had insistently caused harm to animals and had poisoned the world?s food supply.nnIn tandem, this essay seeks to critique Silent Springs from sociopolitical, ethic-legal, national and international perspectives in environmental health.nn Reflection from a Sociopolitical PerspectivennThe first sociopolitical perspective is the interconnectedness between environment and human health. The implications of the environment translate to the human health. In the past the environment and human beings were believed to be different aspects. However, human activities that affect the health of environment are just an attack on themselves (Friis, 2019). This is evidenced by how environmental pollution causes health implications on human beings. When the natural environment is well protected it can also enhance human health. For example, pharmaceuticals are obtained from plants and animals, proving the need for preserving the environment.nnSilent Springs challenged the initial popular school of thought that the ecosystem and human life were separate. In the famous chapter ?A Fable for Tomorrow,? Carson clearly stipulates how the health of the environment translates into the impeccable human health (Clark, 2017). She describes how the use of DDT accumulates in the fatty tissues of human beings. This meant that it was more detrimental to the health of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children by causing genetic birth defects in the fetus and progressive health implication in children (Murphy, 2018). However, the thesis disregards the effectiveness of DDT on preventing malaria and how this improved human health.nnThe current evidence of how the environment is interconnected to human health is the recent Australian Forest fires which were caused by human actions affected the health of the residents near the forests. The residents developed eye and respiratory tract irritations from the effects of smoke exposure and inhalation. Other serious disorders that the residents acquired include reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbated asthma and premature death.nnThe second sociopolitical perspective is that things labeled progress isn?t necessarily good. People easily trust large corporations without questioning the effects of what they produce (Clark, 2017). During the production of DDT, chemical companies were thought to be making life better and to be honest in some ways they were. However, the superficial belief in unproven claims has caused the public?s healthnnCarson challenged the companies and the scientists that produced the DDT. She stated that though DDT reduced the rate of mortality caused by malaria, it caused more health risks that outweighed malaria. She stated that??????????.