LETTERS Environmental industry hit by prevention Dear Editor: In your recent news article on the state of the environmental industry (March 1,1998, p. 124A), a Department of Commerce study is cited that puts the blame for the unprecedented rate of environmental firm closings and record drop in revenue growth on (1) waning regulationinduced growth, (2) the industry's fragmented structure, and (3) U.S. government environmental regulation. The study suggests mat the remedies to these problems are reforming the regulatory mission of EPA reforming the government's own environmental activities and revamping governmental suDDort for technology developand diffusion Although some of the above reasons that revenues are dropping and environmental companies are going out of business may be correct, the main reason for this turn of events is due to companies in major industrial sectors turning to the more economical and cost-effective pollution prevention activities rather than costly chemical, physical, and biological environmental remediation. The editorial in the same issue (p. 115A) states, "In the future, the focus will be on new applications of technology to emphasize pollution prevention and control of old processes. As an example, one only has to look at 3M's successful 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) program and its savings of hundreds of millions of dollars at its manufacturing facilities. And a group I am involved with at North Carolina State University has been working on a project in the dye and textile industries that would replace toxic chromium cobalt copper and nickel with innocuous iron in preparing important metal acid mordant and formazan dves (Reife A Weber CHEMTECH Oct 1997 DD 17-25) I firmly believe that pollution prevention, waste minimization, and
source reduction rather than chemical, physical, or biological remediation should be and will be given top priority in solving environmental problems. ES&T will attract more readers if more articles on pollution prevention, waste minimization, and source reduction are published, as is done in Pollution Engineering and the Water Environment Federation's Industrial Wastewater. ABRAHAM REIFE 60 Oakside Dr. Toms River, NJ 08755
Pollution plume photo misleads readers Dear Editor: I am writing to criticize ES&T for using a photograph of a "steam" plume to illustrate an article on air pollution ("Where Is Mercury Deposition Coming From"? April 1, 1998, pp. 176A-179A). I would also like to inform readers of how easy it is to distinguish steam plumes from particle plumes. Particles of condensed water vapor that constitute steam plumes are not pollutants nor is the opacity of steam plumes a violation of visible emissions standards. Photographs of steam plumes to illustrate pollution deceives readers into believing that these plumes are evidence that undesirable materials are introduced to the atmosphere. No such conclusion should be drawn. While such photographs are graphic and exciting, they mislead the public. Steam plumes have sharp, welldefined boundaries and end abruptly, when the water droplets evaporate. Particle plumes, on the other hand, have diffuse boundaries and persist as they drift downwind and are diluted by atmospheric air. Steam plumes appear white when the sun is behind the observer, but are dark and ominous when the light is in the observer's face. Photographers seeking dramatic images exaggerate steam plumes by back light-
ing; this was the case in the ES&T article. Back lighting is particularly objectionable because people knowledgeable about opacity know that observations of opacity must be conducted when the sun's rays are within a 140-degree cone to the observer's back (EPA Method 9). Editors that use alarmist photographs to arouse public anxiety about pollution engage in propaganda. Such hyperbole avoids discussing whether the risk is significant and impedes rational discussion about whether the cost to abate the pollution is commensurate with the benefits it brings. It is particularly disturbing that a journal as prestigious as ES&T uses back-lit steam plumes from an unspecified source to illustrate an article on mercury pollution from coalfired boilers. Readers of ES&T expect a higher level of integrity. The practice is as egregious as a national broadcasting network that staged fires for TV to illustrate that a fire will occur when a pickup truck with side fuel tanks is struck by another vehicle. Environmental engineers and scientists should be equally appalled when back-lit steam plumes are used to illustrate articles on air pollution ROBERT J. HEINSOHN College of Engineering Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802-1412
Readers are encouraged to ccmment on articles published in ES&T and on other issues facing the environmental community. Contribuiions are limited to 500 words. Send letters to the Managing Editor within two months of the publicaiion date of the original article. Submissions are subject to editing for clarity and length. Send letters to ES&T, 1155 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036, or via e-mail to
[email protected].
SEPT. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 9 3 A
