¶ … Rachel Carson, she asserts that water is our most precious natural resource and goes on to state that "most of the earth's abundant water is not usable for agriculture, industry, or human consumption because of its heavy load of sea salts" (1) and therefore "in the midst of this plenty we are in want" (1). Okay, so let's examine this particular argument; first she says that the earth's abundant water is not usable for consumption etc., due to the fact that the water contains a heavy load of sea salts. Really? Rachel offers no facts and no figures to back up her assertion, instead she implies that we are desperately in need of drinking water because most of the water is so heavily sedated with salt that it is undrinkable.

Even assuming that her assertion was true, the logical answer to the dilemma is that the water would have to be cleansed of the salt, thereby ensuring its potability. However, Rachel does not provide any grounds to support her claim, or even come up with a solution such as the one stated by this essay. Her essay contains no material at all to support her assertion. Instead, what she offers in a rambling, meandering way is a denigration of mankind's indifference to chemicals in the drinking water. The essay never mentions why or how chemicals in the water have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that water is not usable...

An intelligent reader of Carson's essay might wonder at the danger posed by chemists manufacturing chemicals that nature never invented. After all, chemists have been experimenting with chemical compounds for centuries, not just since the 1940's as asserted by Carson.
It could be that Carson is playing to a kooky environmental group that bases its whole philosophy on down with evil men and up with good nature. If her intended audience is a group of environmental whack jobs, then she has to play fast…