projects were designed, but not carried out." In view of the statement in your article, we would appreciate the publication of this letter to correct any misconceptions about the nature of the Rulison project and the involvement of the Department of the Interior in investigations related to ROS.
ES&T
LETTERS Analyses Dear Sir: In the review, "Analyses from the Pittsburgh Conference" (ES&T, Vol. 16, No. 5, 1982, pp. 276-79A), some significant errors appear in the discussion of our paper on the chemical characterization of retorted oil shale (ROS) leachates. The paper, which was presented by S.J. Endersen rather than by me, dealt with a variety of leachates rather than "a composite aqueous sample" as your review suggests. More important is the incorrect description of the Rulison project as "an underground nuclear explosion conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior to generate oil or gas." In reality, the Rulison project was an experimental oil shale plant operated by the Bureau of Mines be-
C. L. Grant Professor of Chemistry University of New Hampshire Durham, N.H. 03824 tween 1925 and 1929 (see U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 315 and "History of Western Oil Shale," Paul L. Russell, Center for Professional Advancement, East Brunswick, N.J., 1980). Surface retorts were employed to process over 6000 tons of shale that was mined and conveyed to the retorts via a tramway. The spoil pile that was generated offers an unusual opportunity to study longterm weathering of ROS and potential impacts on water quality. This is the objective of the investigation being pursued by my group in collaboration with T. R. Steinheimer and his associates at the U.S. Geological Survey. According to Russell's book, "Nuclear explosives developed during World War II were considered for use in extraction of oil from oil shale and
BENZENE...
safely monitored for OSHA and EPA compliance testing with CENTURY Portable Organic Vapor Analyzers. The CENTURY Organic Vapor Analyzers (OVA) offer a convenient means for monitoring and analysis of benzene concentrations in a wide variety of samples. With the OVA, benzene concentrations can be monitored from less than 1 ppm to the percent level. In addition, the instrument is suitable for Class I, Division 1 hazardous areas. Get laboratory accuracy — and industrial ruggedness — in a compact, portable analyzer. Contact us today for complete details. Foxboro Analytical, A Division of The Foxboro Company, RO. Box 5449, South Norwalk, CT 06856 (203) 853-1616 TWX: 710-468-3054. With Foxboro, you have ambient air analysis under control. CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD
490A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 9, 1982
FOXBORO f t / A J m i U
Lead research Dear Sir: When I commented on Dr. Jerome Cole of ILZRO's selective use of industry-sponsored studies to argue that lead at low dose is of little consequence, I seem to have abraded a number of sensitivities. Four correspondents (Paul Hammond, Sidney Lerner, Robert Laureys, and John Sprague) have asserted in print that I was unfair and that their own work, while sponsored by industry, is uninfluenced by the sponsor. They flee where no one pursueth. I mentioned none of these people by name. Further, they should know that anecdotal assertions of objectivity are, like testimonials to miracle cures, of little scientific worth. What is needed is an epidemiologic study of the relationship of sponsorship to type of judgment about lead's hazards. A classification of studies in a 2 X 2 table, cross-tabulating sponsorship vs. outcome would suffice as a first step. I would be interested in the chi square value. Even more interesting would be to study the bibliographies of ILZRO contractées and consultants, classifying their conclusions, as to lead's dangers before and after they accepted support. Perhaps ILZRO will supply the data. I am not the only person to observe the possibility of such a relationship. In a column in Science (/) dealing with recent hearings before EPA on lead in gasoline, the reporter noted that "several physicians and researchers described the hazards of lead pollution in horrific terms . . . . The only witnesses who challenged the physicians head-on were the lead manufacturers and their scientific consultants." Herbert L. Needleman, M.D. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pa. Reference (1) Marshal, E. Science 1982, 216, 496.
