Email Interview with Dr.

Jim Deam- February 2nd, 2015

Interviewer: What is your background in the chemical industry?
Deam: Let's see, I was just recognized for 50 years of service to the
chemical industry. The longest part was 25 years with a major chemical
producer (Monsanto Co.) as a research engineer, a manager of process
engineering technology, and a businessman. My later career included
12 years as president of a smaller international petrochemical company
which did not produce chemicals, instead it developed latest
technologies on separating and purifying fluids and made them
available to oil, chemical, and engineering companies worldwide.
I still remain on its Board of Directors as an independent member.
By academic background, I have bachelor, masters, and PhD degrees in
chemical engineering.
Interviewer: What is DDT? What effects did it have on the
environment?
Deam: DDT is an insecticide used primarily to control insect
population. When I was growing up after World War II and perhaps 1025 years thereafter, I recall DDT being used primarily for controlling
malaria and diseases carried by mosquitoes and for improving farm
yields by killing soil-bound insects that destroyed farm crops. Later,
after widespread, long-term, and overuse, DDT, or the chemicals that it
degraded to, were found to persist in the environment and have harmful
effects on human and bird life.
Interviewer: How did the chemical industry view the environment
before Silent Spring? Were there any regulations on the environment
for companies?
Deam: My experience as an employee in a major chemical company
was that in the design and operation of its chemical facilities, the
company was diligent in reviewing potential emissions within

and outside the facility and in monitoring and disposal of potential

harmful chemicals. In general, the emphasis was that the company and
employees wanted to act as good citizens and protect the environment.
I believe the major companies all acted this way, but I cannot say
whether all companies did. Most likely, responses would have varied
somewhat. There were laws and regulations in the
communities/states in which the companies operated. And there were
industry trade organizations which promoted responsible operation and
the use of best available technology at that time.
Interviewer: How did the chemical industry react to Silent Spring?
Were there any changes (morale, action, etc.) after its release?
Deam: I recall there were some denials of the author's claims, not so
much as her claims were false, but more toward her claims of dire
consequences. And that she had not balanced reporting the benefits
that chemicals brought to the public against harm they might cause.
After all, the public was demanding new and better products and some
risks had to be taken since there was not a whole lot of time to test for
or predict long term consequences. As example, DDT.
One of the best things to come out of this situation was the
communications that had to take place, regarding risk taking that
needed to be communicated to governments, customers,
and communities.
I believe the Environmental Protection Agency at a federal level was
established as a result of these conversations and concerns.
Interviwer: Was Silent Spring a "turning point" for chemical
companies?
Deam: In my opinion, it was not so much for the way companies
operated, as it was for the need by companies to communicate with the
public early and often on what they were doing, disclosing materials
they had on site, risks, restoring trust, etc. To me, the biggest turning
point for the chemical industry came later in the mid-1980s with the

explosion in a Bhopal, India chemical facility. The disaster highlighted

the need to quickly emphasize the rigor of fail-safe designs for
chemical processes and facilities. Such as doing more risk assessment
up front, performing rigorous what-can-go-wrong scenarios, etc.
Interviewer: Did the chemical industry make reforms after the
publication of Silent Spring?
Deam: Other than the communication needs described previously, I
believe more emphasis was placed on "tightening" processes to produce
fewer unwanted and potentially harmful by-products (waste). Also
more emphasis to produce products that once they get into
the environment, they will degrade into harmless materials and not
threaten the environment.
Interviewer: Are those reforms still relevant today?
Deam: They absolutely are. And I expect there will be more reforms
required in the future to meet newer challenges.