ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
COMMENT
Author Guidelines Available via Internet Authors, reviewers, and potential contributors to Environmental Science & Technology can now receive editorial guidelines via the Internet in a matter of minutes. These guidelines, published annually in the January issue, supply information on the different types of papers accepted by ES&T and instructions on preparing and submitting manuscripts. Six separate ES&T guideline documents are available via Internet. To receive one or more, simply send an e-mail message to
[email protected] and type the keyword phrase listed for each document. You will receive an e-mail reply containing the document requested. You can request a single document or several with one e-mail message. To receive one document, type only the keyword phrase in the "Subject:" line and leave the body of the message blank. If you are requesting several documents, type each keyword phrase on a separate line in the body of the message; the "Subject:" line can be left blank or it can contain one of the keyword phrases. Make sure that each keyword phrase entered in the body of the message starts at the beginning of a new line. • Editorial Policy. General guidelines for all types of ES&T manuscript submissions, including current research papers, Research Communications, Critical Reviews, Correspondence, Environmental Policy Analysis, and Feature articles. (Type: Author policy) • Peer Review. A description of how the ES&rpeer review process operates and general editorial advice to authors. (Type: Author review) • Current Research Author's Guide. A detailed description on preparing a research manuscript for submission to ES&T, including informatton on general editorial style, length, nomenclature, references, and supplementary material. (Type: Author research) • Manuscript Preparation: Text and Figures. Instructions for submitting an accepted research manuscript on disk for publication and preparing highquality figures and illustrations. (Type: Author prep) • Feature Articles. A brief description of the general objectives and format of ES&Tfeatures and how to go about writing one. (Type: Author feature)
Chemicals Don't Kill People . . .
W
ith the recent publicaiion of OUT Stolen Future, the threat to human health by syntheiic chemicals is again a topic of heated debate (ES&T, April 1996). Just how this controversy will shape the public consciousness is unclear, but, as the following observations from one hypotheiical John Q. Public illustrate, "chemophobia" is an issue that still needs to be wrestled with. —Editor "Dear Mr. Editor: "I hear that a lot of people have some form of chemophobia, and I guess that's so. Some of my friends even think that 'chemical' is a four-letter word, which doesn't say much for our schools, I guess. I heard the other day that it started with Rachel Carson, but I don't think so. My guess is her book got popular because it rang true with folks who already had some nasty experience with chemicals, probably where they worked. And then when they went home they saw belching smokestacks and fuming cars. Besides, most people nowadays don't even remember Rachel Carson or Silent Spring. They just believe tiiat chemical means bad. "I keep up with what the American Chemical Society has done to show folks that this is a bunch of foolishness. What they say makes sense, although the way they say it sometimes leaves me cold. Still, ACS has shown me the value of chemicals in improving my life. The chemical industry has also done a job on chemophobia on television. Some of the commercials are good. I especially like the ones from BASF ('We don't make XYZ, we just make it better') and DuPont ('I helped discover ABC and it made me feel real good'). But, why was 'better things for better living through chemistry' replaced by 'better things for better living'? I liked it better the old way. "So, as I was sitting on my front porch in die country tonight, I asked myself, 'What makes my life better?' I decided that my life is better partly because of chemistry, but not necessarily new chemistry. I like bricks, glass, and stucco—the products of some very old chemical technologies. I also decided I liked cedar, dogwood, and red maples—all chemical but not exactly products of synthetic chemistry. "But the more I thought about it, the more I decided that chemicals were the least important things in making my life better. That what made me really live better was my family and my friends. Yes, they're chemicals, but I'm pretty sure it's not their carbon or nitrogen that makes me love diem so. "And then I went inside, cranked up the CD, turned on my enameled gas stove, and cooked the salmon filet that had probably been shipped by jet from a fish farm a day or two ago. Then I went upstairs, crossed the carpet to my vinyl-covered desk chair, pounded out this letter on a Pentium-based computer in a polymer case, and printed it with a Laserjet. 'Case closed,' I said to myself. 'You're a chemophile if there ever was one.' Somehow, that really didn't make me feel all that good, and I'm not quite sure why. "So, I just thought I would write to you and tell you that all the work you environmental professionals are doing is so important. I hear that now you are promoting green chemistry, and if I understand what you mean, I think that's great. Keep up the good work! Maybe someday everybody will realize it's not chemicals that are bad, it's just bad what we do witii diem sometimes."
• Quick Help. Instructions on using this service. (Type: Author help)
0013-936X/96/0930-231A$12.00/0 © 1996 American Chemical Society
A
William H. Glaze Editor VOL.30, NO. 6, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 3 1 A
