Environ. Sci. Technol. 1902, 16, 439-440
(4) Rees, T. F. In Lyon, W. S., Ed. “Radioelement Analysis
Quality Laboratory in Denver.
Progress and Problems”; Ann Arbor Science: Ann Arbor, MI, 1980; pp 199-206. (5) Bondietti, E. A.; Reynolds, S. A. In Ames, L. L., Ed. “Proceedings of Actinide-Sediments Reactions Working Meeting, Seattle, WA, February 10-11, 1976”, Report BNWL-2117, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA; pp 505-530. (6) Morris, D. A. “Hydrology of Waste Disposal-National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, Annual Progress Report, 1962”,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report issued by U.S.Department of Energy as IDO-22044, April 1963.
Literature Cited (1) Cleveland, J. M.; Rees, T. F. Science (Washington, D.C.)
1981,212, 1506. (2) Robertson, J. B.; Schoen, R.; Barraclough, J. T. “The Influence of Liquid Waste Disposal on the Geochemistry of Water a t the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 1952-70”;U.S. Geological Survey OpenrFile Report published by U.S.Department of Energy as IDO-22053, February 1974. (3) Barraclough, J. T.; Jensen, R. G. “Hydrologic Data for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site, Idaho, 1971 to 1973”, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report published by U.S. Department of Energy as DO-22055, January 1976.
Received for review September 8,1981. Accepted February 25, 1982.
CORRESPONDENCE Comment on “Automobile Traffic and Lung Cancer. An Update on Blumer’s Report” SIR: The article by Polissar and Warren, in spite of extensive use of scientific survey language, did not really demonstrate any proofs for the claimed results, which appears to be in marked contrast to the Blumer study. To a considerable extent the different findings are attributable to the entirely different character of the survey areas used in the two studies. Being familiar with the conditions prevailing in both the Seattle and the Swiss locations (the latter happens to be the place where many decades ago I was born), I should like to point out that the study in the Swiss region took place at a location that is singularly suitable to studies of automotive exhausts and its consequencies. To understand this statement, it is necessary to describe the particular geographical and topographical features of the test area. The Swiss area under study was a stretch of highway in a narrow mountain valley, flanked on both sides by high mountains. The principal highway at the time of the survey was the only possible automotive communication between towns of that valley. All traffic had to use it. At the time of the survey rows of buildings on both sides of the highway were abutting that artery, with only 50 to 60 feet of space between the front walls of the structures on either side of the highway. Traffic at all other locations in that area was of strictly local character, with traffic of only a minute percentage of that of the main artery. It was a combination of circumstances that lent itself ideally to the kind of study Dr. Blumer et al. carried out; circumstances that would indeed be difficult to duplicate even in present-day Switzerland and practically impossible in US.cities, with their wider traffic arteries, less cluttered and wider spaced residential building patterns, and a much greater choice of routesinstead of the one main artery with no alternatives. Seattle, on the other hand, is entirely different. It is hilly and windy, and buildings generally are widely spaced, providing for no concentration of exhaust gases, with consequent entirely different results. It also does not 0013-936X/82/0916-0439$01.25/0
provide, as the Swiss community did, a sharp contrast between very heavily travelled roads and others with absolutely minimal or no automotive traffic at all. The small scope of the Swiss survey made it possible to obtain very detailed information on the length of time the various residents were exposed to exhaust gases. The Seattle report does not give that sort of information-at least not in the published excerpts. Because of the ideal natural configuration, the Swiss study can lay greater claim for demonstrating the differences between heavily travelled and lightly travelled locations, and its findings may indeed be more significant than those of the Seattle study. The Swiss town where Dr. Blumer et al. made their studies almost had the character of a laboratory situation, while Seattle was not favored by nature and traffic pattern with such ideal conditions. It would appear that the results of the Swiss survey can hardly be dismissed by a mere comparison with the results of the Seattle study. A detailed analysis of the basic conditions under which the Blumer study was made might easily explain the drastic difference between the findings at the two survey locations. Alphonse A. Kubly 777 Beach Road Sarasota, Florida 33581
SIR: Thank your for the opportunity to respond to Alphonse Kubly’s letter concerning our study ( I ) , which was an investigation of the findings of Blumer et al. (2,3). We would like to discuss Kubly’s main points in turn. First, we take Kubly’s comment on our use of “scientific survey language” as his concern that Blumer’s findings might be disregarded or discredited due to our study. Such should not be the case, When we read Blumer’s first paper (2) in translation, we felt that it was an excellent scientific study. We feel that our finding of an excess (but nonsignificant) risk for females partially supports Blumer’s results. The extent of reported risk is certainly different in the two studies, and it would be worthwhile finding out why this is so.
0 1982 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 7, 1982
439
