Rachel Carson’s stance on DDT pollution is that it should be studied and used properly. I believe her stance on DDT, along with her book Silent Spring, led the way for the Right to Know Act, in which employers are mandated to provide Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for the products their employees use. Her dedication to getting the government to research the effects of DDT probably saved hundreds of lives. Also, having the government research chemicals and pesticides before they are distributed throughout the United States most likely saved not only human lives but also saved the lives of  many animals as well.

I believe there are many cases in which pollution should be eliminated. For example, if a product released exceeds the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) threshold, the product should not be released or discharged. Also, if the product causes chronic illness, it should not be emitted.

It's hard for me to think of reasons why a society may actually want pollution, especially in today's world with all the research conducted on its negative effects. The only reason I could see a society being okay with pollution is if a factory were making a product to help its citizens while also monitoring how much pollution they are emitting. For example, a steel factory is providing an important product while also employing thousands of people. As long as the amount of pollution is being monitored and contained, I think this level of pollution is okay.