editorial
Report urges s t a r t on improving environment Enough is known about the science and technology of the environment to make an early start in improvement both feasible and essential
L
ater this month, subscribers to ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE& TECHNOLOGY will receive in the mail a copy of an ACS report entitled, “Cleaning Our Environment-The Chemical Basis for Action.” This report is the result of several years of work by many people, and is one of the few documents crossing your desk this year that will truly be must reading. A special four man subcommittee of the ACS Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs has been overseeing the preparation of the report. Heading the subcommittee is Lloyd M. Cooke, manager of planning for Food Products Division of Union Carbide; the other members are William 0. Baker of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Arthur M. Bueche of General Electric Co., and Franklin A. Long of Cornell University. The subcommittee work on the report stemmed from a 1965 decision of the (then new) Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs to highlight environmental improvement as an area in which it would contribute to public awareness of the benefits of chemistry to society. Dr. Cooke, in his preface to the report, explains the two goals of the writing project. One is to give an objective account of “the current status of the science and technology of environmental improvement”; the other is to analyze the material assembled in meeting the first goal and to recommend a number of specific measures which, if adopted, “should help to accelerate the sound development and use of that science and technology.” The report, in fact, gives 73 such recommendations concerning the air and water environments, solid wastes, and pesticides. Technical data on which the report was based were generated by a task force under the leadership of Thurston 0. Larson, James J. Morgan (Editor of ES&T), James P. Lodge, and Daniel MacDougall. Kenneth Reese, Contributing Editor on Chemical and Engineering News, worked with the task force and subconi-
nittee in editorial preparation of the report. The ACS Office of Chemistry and Public Affairs, headed by Stephen T. Quigley, provided liaison. As the first draft of each section was written, it was further reviewed by technical experts. As technical questions were resolved, the report took shape. Perhaps, the most important conclusion reached in the ACS report is that existing science and technology, while “primitive” in some respects (understanding of low-level, long-term effects of pollutants, for example), nevertheless is adequate as a base to permit the U.S. to make “enormous strides, now, toward a cleaner environment. . . . The crucial requirement,” says the report, “is that sufficient energy and support be devoted to the task.” Although it is confined generally to scientific and technological matters, the report specifically recognizes the need for legislation, particularly at the federal level, to provide the incentive for pollution control. l n fact, the report is aimed largely at non-scientists-legislators among them-although the nature of the subject matter makes it required reading for scientists in the environmental field. This report is reassuringly realistic in several respects; it makes no bones about the fact that citizens are, in one way or another, paying for the costs of pollution and will have to pay for its control. Jt recognizes also that there will not likely be any “fiscal” profit in control, just better health for everyone. There are, too, some cautionary remarks in the report: the reader is warned not to imagine that environmental problems will easily be solved by sweeping solutions or simply applying “the systems approach.” In short, the road to a controlled and healthful environment will be long, hard, and uphill. But, since we do have enough fuel to start the journey, there is every reason to start now. This new ACS report shows the way in admirable style.
Volume 3. Number 9, September 1969 Circle No. 48
.--
on Readers’ Service Card-
787
