
Frank Graham Jr., nature writer who updated ‘Silent Spring,' dies at 100
He added, 'I'd visit him in Maine, where he had a little island, and we'd be eating plants, and he'd also be picking spiders out of his kayak and identifying them.'
Advertisement
In addition to birds and insects, Mr. Graham wrote about threats to the environment. Ed Neal, the outdoors columnist for The San Francisco Examiner, described Mr. Graham's 1966 book, 'Disaster by Default: Politics and Water Pollution,' as 'a damning indictment of what industry and indifferent government have done to the nation's waterways.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
In 1967, after the book was reviewed in Audubon, the magazine asked him to write about the progress, if any, of pesticide legislation and regulation in the United States since the publication of 'Silent Spring,' a devastating examination of the ecological effects of insecticides and pesticides including DDT. A year later, Audubon named him its field editor, a job he held until 2013.
Advertisement
Mr. Graham's three-part series about pesticides for the magazine persuaded Paul Brooks, Carson's editor at Houghton Mifflin, to sign him to write an update of 'Silent Spring.'
The resulting Mr. Graham book, 'Since Silent Spring' (1970), described the years Carson spent researching and writing 'Silent Spring,' documented the attacks on her findings by agricultural and chemical companies and governmental interests, and chronicled the catastrophes caused by pesticides in the ensuing years. (Carson died in 1964.)
Mr. Graham's book came out several months after the federal government announced steps it was taking to ban DDT, vindicating Carson's message.
'One cannot read this book and escape the fundamental point that today's environmental advocates are attempting to make,' Francis W. Sargent, a conservationist and moderate Republican who was elected governor of Massachusetts in 1970, wrote about 'Since Silent Spring' in The New York Times Book Review. 'Man's environment has become so complex and interrelated that any action that alters one aspect of the environment may have a potentially disastrous impact on man's health.'
Looking back in 2012 in an Audubon article, Mr. Graham wrote that his book was one Carson 'should have written to rebut the all-out attack on her work and person.' He attributed the modest success of 'Since Silent Spring' to readers who were 'reluctant to let Carson go' and who had 'remained eager to see how her work and reputation had survived the assaults of the exploiters.'
Frank Graham Jr. was born March 31, 1925, in Manhattan to Lillian (Whipp) Graham and Frank Sr., a prominent sports reporter and columnist for The New York Sun and The New York Journal-American. Frank Jr. grew up mostly in suburban New Rochelle, N.Y., where his interest in nature was sparked.
Advertisement
During World War II, he served in the Navy aboard the escort aircraft carrier Marcus Island as a torpedoman's mate. He saw action throughout the Pacific, fighting in the Battle of Okinawa in April 1945.
After being discharged, he studied English at Columbia University and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1950; he had worked as a copy boy at The Sun during the summers.
With help from his father, Mr. Graham was hired by the Brooklyn Dodgers and promoted in 1951 to publicity director. He left the job in 1955, after the Dodgers beat the Yankees for the first time in the World Series.
Mr. Graham went on to become an editor and writer at Sport magazine, where he stayed for three years, and then worked as a freelance writer for various publications, including The Saturday Evening Post, The Atlantic Monthly, Sports Illustrated, and Reader's Digest.
He was also the author of 'Casey Stengel: His Half Century in Baseball' (1958), a biography of the Yankees' idiosyncratic and immensely successful manager; collaborated with Mel Allen, one of the Yankees' star broadcasters, on 'It Takes Heart' (1959), a book about heroic athletes; and wrote 'Margaret Chase Smith: Woman of Courage' (1964), about the trailblazing independent Republican US senator from Maine.
In 1981, Mr. Graham wrote 'A Farewell to Heroes,' which he called a 'dual autobiography' of his father and himself. The cover photograph shows Mr. Graham as a child at Yankee Stadium -- dressed in a jacket, tie, overcoat and Lou Gehrig's Yankees cap -- standing in a dugout beside Gehrig, the Yankees' slugging first baseman, who was a friend of Frank Sr.'s and a neighbor in New Rochelle.
Advertisement
Mr. Graham married Ada Cogan in 1953. An author herself under the name Ada Graham, she and her husband wrote several children's books together about the natural world. She is his only immediate survivor.
In 2013, Mr. Graham wrote in Audubon about the epiphany he once experienced in Central Park in New York when, using powerful new binoculars, he saw a black-and-white warbler.
It was a warbler 'as I had never seen one: resplendent in its fresh nuptial plumage, every detail clear and sharp,' he wrote. 'It was a revelation. The memory of that long-ago bird has never left me; it amplifies my pleasure every time I see one of its descendants.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
11 minutes ago
- CNBC
PBS, NPR funding on the line as House nears final vote on $9.4 billion in DOGE-backed cuts
The House on Wednesday moved a step closer to approving President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cut package, which would codify some cuts originally proposed by the Department of Government Efficiency. The package would grant permission to the White House not to spend billions of dollars that had already been approved by Congress. The money would be clawed back from specific agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federally appropriated grants to National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Although the Wednesday procedural vote passed largely along party lines, a final vote expected Thursday could see some resistance from House Republicans who are uneasy about the popular programs that are being targeted, like PBS and National Public Radio. Given House Speaker Mike Johnson's narrow Republican majority, he can only afford to lose a handful of votes and still push the package over the finish line on a party-line vote. Johnson said earlier this week that he was "working on" getting enough Republicans on board to pass the DOGE package, CNN reported. Wednesday's vote also finalized changes to Republicans' "big, beautiful bill" that were required by the Senate before the measure was allowed to pass with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote Senate threshold. Budget measures like the "big, beautiful bill" can be considered under a special set of rules known as reconciliation. The Senate's parliamentarian, who acts as a sort of referee in disputes over Senate rules, had flagged some provisions in the package earlier that she said were incompatible with the chamber's reconciliation rules.


Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded.
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded. We texted 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests agitators that have no lives It will only escalate things These people just wanted to destroy suppressing freedom of speech out of control immigrants make America great This is how they responded. By Washington Post staff June 11, 2025 at 8:00 p.m. EDT 4 minutes ago What do Americans think about the protests in Los Angeles and President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines there? The Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School texted more than 1,000 people Tuesday — including more than 200 California residents — to ask. The survey finds Americans are divided in their views toward L.A. protesters and Trump's decision to send the National Guard and Marines to the city. California residents are more critical of Trump's actions, as are Democrats and political independents. Americans are also mostly negative on Trump's handling of immigration, an issue that was a strength for him early in his presidency. Participants' answers have been lightly edited for clarity and style. Do you support or oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the L.A. protests? Support 41% Unsure 15% Oppose 44% Deploying the military to crush political protest is classic authoritarian fascism, and must be opposed. California man, 38, independent Quell the uprising before it gets out of control. California man, 63, Republican It doesn't seem like the city or state asked for or wanted that support and seems to be escalating an already tenuous and difficult situation. Maryland woman, 37, Democrat Show more responses Americans are roughly split on Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests in L.A., while a majority of Californians oppose Trump deploying the military. Support Unsure Oppose California 32% In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Support." 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 58 In the "undefined" group, 58 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 43 In the "undefined" group, 43 percent of people responded with "Support." 15 In the "undefined" group, 15 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 76 In the "undefined" group, 76 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 86 In the "undefined" group, 86 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 48 In the "undefined" group, 48 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Most Democrats oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A., while almost 9 in 10 Republicans support it. Independents lean against Trump's action by a 15-percentage-point margin, 48 percent to 33 percent. Tuned-in Americans tend to oppose sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A. Support Unsure Oppose Paying a lot of attention to L.A. protests (34%) 37% In the "undefined" group, 37 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 54 In the "undefined" group, 54 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying some attention (40%) 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Support." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying a little/no attention (26%) 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "Support." 26 In the "undefined" group, 26 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 29 In the "undefined" group, 29 percent of people responded with "Oppose." The more people are paying attention to the protests in L.A., the more likely they are to oppose Trump sending in the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests. This is partly due to Democrats following the protests more closely, although independents who are paying more attention are also more critical of Trump's decision. Do you support or oppose the protests in Los Angeles against the federal government's immigration enforcement? Support 39% Unsure 21% Oppose 40% Americans are almost evenly split over the protests against the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts, with about 4 in 10 in support and opposition, and the remainder unsure. Riots are not peaceful protests. Damaging property and injuring people is not included in the right to assemble/protest. California woman, 56, independent Los Angeles is a county of immigrants who do a lot for our community & they are our friends. Most of them are hard working, great people. California woman, 72, Democrat I believe everyone has a right to disagree and protest ICE, however arson and violence is not acceptable. Florida man, 57, independent Show more responses Support Unsure Oppose California 45% In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 36 In the "undefined" group, 36 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 38 In the "undefined" group, 38 percent of people responded with "Support." 22 In the "undefined" group, 22 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 41 In the "undefined" group, 41 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 70 In the "undefined" group, 70 percent of people responded with "Support." 18 In the "undefined" group, 18 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 79 In the "undefined" group, 79 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 39 In the "undefined" group, 39 percent of people responded with "Support." 27 In the "undefined" group, 27 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Californians are more likely to support the protests, along with 7 in 10 Democrats. Independents are slightly more likely to support the protests than to oppose them, while about 8 in 10 Republicans are opposed. Do you think the L.A. protesters have been mostly peaceful or mostly violent? Mostly peaceful 35% Unsure 27% Mostly violent 37% Americans are also split over whether the protests in L.A. are mostly peaceful or mostly violent, with over one-quarter saying they are unsure. The protests in L.A. since Friday have been largely confined to a few city blocks. There have been sporadic, violent clashes involving a few protestors that prompted the mayor to impose a curfew. Mostly peaceful Unsure Mostly violent Democrats 60% In the "undefined" group, 60 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 16 In the "undefined" group, 16 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Republicans 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 66 In the "undefined" group, 66 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Independents/Others 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 32 In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Six in 10 Democrats say the protesters have been mostly peaceful while two-thirds of Republicans say they have been mostly violent and independents are split. Are police using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, not using enough force or handling it about right? Too much 31% About right 43% Not enough 26% About 3 in 10 Americans say police are using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, about a quarter say they are not using enough force and over 4 in 10 say they are handling it 'about right.' Too much About right Not enough Democrats 55% In the "undefined" group, 55 percent of people responded with "Too much." 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "About right." 9 In the "undefined" group, 9 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Republicans 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Too much." 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "About right." 50 In the "undefined" group, 50 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Independents/Others 34 In the "undefined" group, 34 percent of people responded with "Too much." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "About right." 21 In the "undefined" group, 21 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Most Democrats say police are using too much force, while half of Republicans say they are not using enough force. Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling immigration enforcement, including deportations? Approve 37% Unsure 12% Disapprove 52% The poll finds the public rating Trump's immigration policy — including deportations — negatively by a 15 percentage-point margin, 52 percent to 37 percent, an issue that was a strong point for him a few months ago. Approve Unsure Disapprove Voted for Trump 75% In the "undefined" group, 75 percent of people responded with "Approve." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 12 In the "undefined" group, 12 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Voted for Harris 5 In the "undefined" group, 5 percent of people responded with "Approve." 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 90 In the "undefined" group, 90 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Three-quarters of Americans who voted for Trump approve of the president's immigration policy, while 9 in 10 of those who voted for Kamala Harris disapprove.


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Immaturity': Rand Paul rips White House after being ‘uninvited' from picnic
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had harsh words for the White House on Wednesday after he said he was 'uninvited' from its annual picnic, a snub that came amid the Kentucky Republican's vocal opposition to President Trump's tax cut and spending package. Paul — who has criticized the debt limit provision in the 'big, beautiful bill,' along with its impact on the deficit — said he had planned to attend the White House picnic on Thursday with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and six-month-old grandson, but he was informed on Wednesday that he was no longer welcome. 'I've just been told that I've been uninvited from the picnic; I think I'm the first senator in the history of the United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,' Paul told reporters. 'The White House is owned by the taxpayers, we are all members of it, every Democrat will be invited, every Republican will be invited, but I will be the only one disallowed to come on the grounds of the White House.' 'I just find this incredibly petty,' he added. 'I have been, I think nothing but polite to the president. I have been a intellectual opponent, a public policy opponent, and he's chosen now to uninvite me from the picnic and to say my grandson can't come to the picnic.' Paul continued, saying 'the level of immaturity is beyond words' before tearing into Trump himself. 'I'm arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the public,' he said. 'It really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.' The senator said he was not offered an explanation for the rescinded invitation, and noted that he was not sure who at the White House made the decision. The Hill reached out to the White House for comment. The White House has been hosting picnics for decades — under both Democratic and Republican presidents — inviting lawmakers from both parties to mingle on the lawn. This year's confab comes as the administration is trying to muscle its sprawling agenda bill through Congress — specifically the Senate at the moment — which has been met with some opposition. Paul, a Libertarian-minded Republican, has expressed opposition to the inclusion of a $4 trillion debt limit increase in the bill, voicing concerns about the ballooning deficit. He has said on multiple occasions that he will not support the legislation if the debt limit provision remains. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said Congress must raise the borrowing limit this summer to avoid an economic default. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, can only afford to lose three votes and still squeak the package through the chamber, making Paul's opposition a point of concern. On Wednesday, Paul suggested that the White House's rescinded invitation did not help move him closer to supporting the behemoth bill. 'When they tell you your grandson can't come to a picnic at the White House that all of Congress is allowed to come to, I don't know, it just shows such a pettiness,' he said when asked if the snub makes him less likely to back the bill. 'But they have shown over the last week they don't care about my vote at all,' he added. 'Because I've told them I can and would vote for the bill if the debt ceiling were taken off of it. So conceivably, there might be some situation in which they needed my vote. Instead they have decided to try to attack my character.' 'They're afraid of what I'm saying so they think they're going to punish me, I can't go to the picnic, as if that's somehow going to make me more conciliatory,' he added. 'So it's silly in a way, but it's also just really sad that this is what it's come to. But petty vindictiveness like this, I don't know, it makes you wonder about the quality of people you're dealing with.' Paul also offered criticism of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who earlier this week had attacked Paul over his criticism of the bill. Paul speculated the rescinded invitation could have come from a White House staffer, rather than Trump himself. 'It could be from lower level staff members, but these are people that shouldn't be working over there. But I mean, you have people that are basically going around casually talking about getting rid of habeas corpus,' he said, presumably referring to Miller's proposal earlier this year. 'And the same people that are directing this campaign are the same people that casually would throw out parts of the Constitution and suspend habeas corpus. So I think what it tells that they don't like hearing me say stuff like that, and so they want to quiet me down. And it hasn't worked, and so they're going to try to attack me. They're going to try to destroy me in other ways, and then do petty little things like social occasions or whatever.'