Letters
Strip mining SIR: Although I disagree with your editorial criticizing President Ford's veto on the strip mining bill (C&EN, Jan. 13) and have sympathy with the issue taken by Gabriel Gibs (C&EN, Feb. 24, page 5), I think that mining should really stay within the scope of state affairs. It is most unfortunate that the federal government has lost lately the view of its real functions, being progressively influenced by large enterprises, but especially by environmental clubs whose apparent aim is the weakening of our economy by handicapping our basic industries. Most of us would like to see again some fresh and glorious issues professing patriotism and self-sufficiency against the egoistic "style of life" view of small groups of citizens. EvaldoL. Kothny, Ph.D. Orinda. Calif.
Time is our worst enemy SIR: In reply to your recent editorial on use of technology to solve problems (C&EN, Jan. 20), and the letter on page 5 (C&EN, March 17), Hoffman states that fragmentation bombs add unnecessary brutality and cruelty to war because of their special power to maim. War is hell. War as a solution to political problems is a priori proof that other methods have failed. If a nation must resort to force, it is assumed that that nation wants to win the war, at some price. A usually unstated reason for war is that the belligerent nation is overpopulated and in need of more living space (true up to World War II, but not in the present social revolution cases), thus war is a crude population control device. As a former 1st Lt. in the Chemical Corps, it is a military fact that killing people is the slower way to win a war. Whereas, to inflict casualties not only depletes the fighting force but ties up vast numbers of medical, support, supply personnel, etc. Wounded people need care, food, etc. The dead need only a grave. The shock value of such massive casualties (Hiroshima), which can take on the proportions of a national disaster (earthquake, etc.) can end a war by paralyzing a nation. The technology behind mustard gas, WP shells, fragment bombs, the M-15 rifle, bamboo spikes, etc., was used correctly for the military objective. It is our western sensibility that is shocked. Time is our worst enemy. Our inability to react quickly, whether in war, energy crises, or politically, will be our undoing (Khullar's letter, C&EN, March 17, page 3). The Chinese know the western mind (Porkchop Hill, Korea). Also, the story goes: The first week of "The War," 200 million Chinese surrender; the second week, 200 million Chinese surrender; the third week, 200 million Chinese surrender.
What happens in the fourth week of the war? Either the enemies of the Chinese surrender, or soon run out of food, or we make the Germans at Dachau look like pikers. The Arabs can also play this game, just substitute "withhold x million barrels of oil/week" or, demand payment in gold, and see what happens. Technology is a tool but not a solution (Sen's letter) if time is not on your side (Holloway's letter). Time is later than we think. Technology has been a tool either good or bad to bring us to our present state, even creating new problems along the way. Technology cannot and will not solve the basic problem. PaulO. McCoy, Ph.D. Petrochemicals Research. Cities Service Co.. Cranbury. N.J.
Fire/flame retardant SIR: In your article "Sales off for textile fire retardants*' (C&EN, March 3. page 10), use of the word "fire retardant" in conjunction with wearing apparel instead of the more technically correct "flame retardant," mars what otherwise is a very informative article. The National Fire Protection Association uses "fire" in the sense of a very high heat flux, namely a conflagration, for example, a burning building. The word "flame" implies a low heat flux and a small ignition source, for example, a match, candle, cigarette, stove burner, etc. Consumer Product Safety Commission data show that in 1973, cooking, playing with matches, using matches or lighters, and falling asleep while smoking accounted for 4 1 % of the ignitions in burn injuries. Retardants for textile apparel generally protect only against small ignition sources. Only specially designed protective clothing, such as might be worn by firemen, will resist fires and conflagrations, but then only for a limited time. Herbert T. Pratt Technical Service Section, Information Services. Du Pont, Wilmington
Supersonic transports SIR: In the Jan. 27 issue of C&EN, you described the contents of the Department of Transportation's report of findings concerning the environmental impact of supersonic transports. When the DOT report first appeared on Jan. 21, your correspondent telephoned me; I gave a brief statement, which you quoted. However, I said I preferred to see the report before stating any conclusions with respect to it. I have now seen the DOT summary report, and I want to state my careful reflections on it. The DOT report is packaged in a deceptive manner. The principal conclusions are worded so as to turn around the meaning of the body of the report and the findings of the $20 million, three-year study. The first principal conclusion is that 30 Concorde-like SST's will cause undetectable "climatic effects." Climatic effects are one thing, and health effects are another. Climatic effects concern temperature, rainfall, winds, etc. Nobody ever implied that 30 Concordes would change the climate, and it is trivial to assert that they won't.
Health effects concern nitrogen oxide increases in the stratosphere, ozone decreases, increased biologically damaging radiation at ground level, and increased skin cancer. The principal conclusions never identified the health threat, and this omission was deceptive. According to the body of the DOT report, even 30 Concordes present a calculable health hazard; they would increase U.S. skin cancers by 1200 per year. The 375 Concordes projected for 1990 by the Environmental Protection Agency would, according to the body of the DOT report, increase U.S. skin cancers by 15,000 per year. 500 Boeing SST's as described in 1971 would increase U.S. skin cancers between 100,000 and 200,000 per year. For economic justification, 500 SST's were the number promised to Congress in 1971. The second principal conclusion of the DOT report is that SST engines and fuels can be so readily cleaned up that future harmful effects of SST's will be avoided. In the body of the report one finds that they think NOx emissions can be reduced a factor of 60, and their optimism is based on this assumption. They want to initiate a globally health-hazardous industry on the optimistic assumption that NOx emissions will be reduced as much as necessary. Instead of protecting the public interest by impartially finding and communicating the essential facts, as a governmental agency should, DOT in its report of findings plays the role of an advocate of the SST industry. Harold S. Johnston University of California. Berkeley
Ozone depletion SIR: Your editorial in C&EN of Feb. 10 strikes me as a most sensible approach to the present controversy in the matter of ozone depletion in the stratosphere. This problem has been under discussion since 1971 when Dr. Harold Johnston had calculated the effect of nitrogen oxides potentially supplied by SST planes if introduced on commercial schedules. Since that time several other possible sources of ozone destruction were considered, the most recent one being fluorocarbons. I am as interested as you are and certainly most persons in the field of applied sciences in connection with environment and ecology. I also agree with you that conclusions drawn from the laboratory studies are—as you state it—"overreactive" and could even turn out to be a nuisance. The point is, I quote you again, that "we don't really know what is happening in the stratosphere." You mention as an illustration the measurements of "total ozone" over the U.S.; indeed variations of a few per cent up or down really mean very little and may not be significant at all. If I am taking the liberty of giving my personal opinion in the matter, I do so because I have been involved experimentally in the study of the mechanism of ozone formation and destruction, though—you will be surprised—this dates back to the early years Continued on page 58 April 21, 1975 C&EN
5
Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps, Vol. 2: The Production, Manufacture and Application of Perfumes. W. A. Poucher. viii + 379 pages. Halsted Press, 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1974. $24. Physical Properties of Inorganic Compounds. A. L. Horvath. xiii + 466 pages. Crane, Russak & Co., 347 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017. 1975. $64. Polymer Handbook. 2nd Ed. J. Brandrup, E. H. Immergut, editors. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York. N.Y. 10016. 1975.$34.50. Polymer Molecular Weights, Pt. 1. Philip E. Slade Jr. ix + 286 pages. Marcel Dekker Inc., 270 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $24.50. Progress in Polymer Science Japan, Vol. 7. T. Otsu, M. Takayanagi, editors, x + 380 pages. Halsted Press, 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1974. $29.95. Powder Coatings Technology. M. William Ranney. xii -I- 426 pages. Noyes Data Corp., Mill Rd. at Grand Ave., Park Ridge, N.J. 07656. 1975. $36. Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 19. Stephen J. Lippard, editor. 367 pages. John Wilev & Sons Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $22.50. Pyridine and Its Derivatives, Supplement Pt. 4. R. A. Abramovitch, editor, xiii -f- 720 pages. John Wilev & Sons Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $65. Recent Analytical Developments in the Petroleum Industry. D. R. Hodges, editor. ix + 337 pages. Halsted Press, 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $32.50. Reviews in Macromolecular Chemistry, Vol. 12. George B. Butler, Kenneth F. O'Driscoll, Mitchel Shen, editors, xii + 390 pages. Marcel Dekker Inc., 270 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $29.50. The Role of Additives in Plastics. L. Mascia. vii + 172 pages. Halsted Press, 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $12.50. Scientific Analysis on the Pocket Calculator. Jon M. Smith, xii + 380 pages. John Wiley & Sons Inc.. 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1975. $12.95. Stripping Voltammetry in Chemistry Analysis. Kh. Z. Brainina. xii + 222 pages. Halsted Press. 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1974. $23.
Paperbacks International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, Symposium No. 8. Per-Olov Lowdin. xii + 517 pages. John WTiley & Sons Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. 1974. $25. The Mechanism of Photosynthesis. C. P. Whittingham. vii + 125 pages. American Elsevier Publishing Co., 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017. 1974. $5.95. Monographs in Virology. Vol. 9. J. L. Melnick. vii + 148 pages. Albert J. Phiebig Inc., P.O. Box 352, White Plains, N.Y. 10602. 1974. $35.75. Technical Report Writing. 2nd Ed. Herman M. Weisman. x -I- 181 pages. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio 43216. 1975. $5.95. 58
C&EN April 21, 1975
Letters Continued from page 5 of nuclear science, some 60 years ago, when the understanding and tools available still were quite rudimentary compared with the present facilities of computerization. But the basic chemical reactions remain the same. At that time we measured (it was my doctoral thesis published in 1911!) the effect of the concentration of oxygen in mixtures with nitrogen on the formation of ozone under the impact of electrical discharges (as we called it). The ozone formed and measured is the result of the equilibrium established between the concurring reactions of splitting O2 to form O3, and of O3 to form O2. Such equilibrium is respectively determined by the prevailing concentration of oxygen on one hand and the level of radiation impact on the other, and of course is also influenced by the presence of compounds reacting with the ozone, such as nitrogen oxides in our old case and fluorocarbons in the present instance. Now, the question arises what do we know about the variations of oxygen concentrations in the stratospheric layers, due to—for instance—diffusion besides other phenomena? A case in point, regarding the effect of the intensity of radiation, are measurements carried out last year by Bell Laboratories scientists using a novel method of laser spectroscopy; it was found that the daytime value of nitric oxides in the stratosphere is a multiple of that in the nighttime. Implicitly this is also an indication of corresponding and more or less correlated variations in the ozone values. I am certain—though it may have escaped me—that all this has been taken into account; but it may perhaps not have been underlined as clearly as one other instance of insufficient understanding of "what is happening in the stratosphere." Victor L. Erlich Consultant, New York, N.Y.
Cancer research SIR: In his letter of March 10, Antonio Caldarelli raises the question as to whether any research has been done along the lines of reactions of carcinogenic compounds with proteins of cell cytoplasm or the nucleus. At Midland Macromolecular Institute, Dr. Robert Kostelnik has been exploring this problem. Although his work, which is sponsored by the Elsa U. Pardee Foundation, involves reactions or interactions of carcinogens with nucleic acids and proteins in vitro, one may postulate that the same reactions occur intracellular^. It seems that a complete understanding of the mechanism of carcinogenesis can only be realized by understanding the factors involved at the molecular level. It is this approach which has been adopted at MM I and, no doubt, other research institutions. Admittedly, the surface of this problem is barely scratched, although some advances have been made. Hans-G. Elias President, Midland Macromolecular Institute
Twice as much-not so SIR: The "Department of obscure information" (Nov. 11, 1974, page 40) repeated a loose statement which has been making the rounds, namely that a self-defrosting refrigerator uses about twice as much energy as one that is not self-defrosting. From what I have been able to ascertain, the "twice-as-much" allegation is a gross exaggeration. According to an article in Reader's Digest, November 1973, the frost-free costs 50% more to operate. Tests by the Good Housekeeping Institute showed that the extra energy consumption was only 20% {Good Housekeeping, November 1973, page 6). Finally, a letter that I received in February 1975, from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers Inc., states that the extra energy consumption by the self-defrosting, as compared with the nonself-defrosting, ranges from 17% to 40%. Please publish this in the interests of scientific accuracy and to dispel guilt feelings among those readers who, like me, are owners of a self-defrosting model. Donald F. Chichester Gainesville, Fla.
Testing toxic substances SIR: I was distressed to read your editorial "Testing for safety" (C&EN, March 24), in which you favored the Toxic Substances Control Act. It appears that what you are saying is that the chemists who are running the chemical industry cannot be trusted and need government agencies to restrain them. Admittedly, some would say this, but surely not a spokesman for the chemical industry. Legislation is usually the result of adversary action in which one group would say the chemical industry needs rigid controls and others would say the industry knows what it is doing and can be trusted. Then a compromise could be worked out which would be reasonable. There are plenty of people around to say that the chemical industry cannot be trusted and needs rigid restrictions. If the editor of Chemical & Engineering News won't speak for the chemical industry, who will? It is as though the American Rifle Association came out for gun control or the American Federation of Labor for right-to-work laws. Your editorial recognizes two of the very serious defects of the proposed legislation. You admit, "This bill will not, of course, catch all the dangers. Some of the adverse effects occur in such unique circumstances or after very long times (up to 20 years in some cases) that it would be extremely difficult to diagnose their dangers." Can you imagine any bureaucrat ever being willing to approve a chemical until the most extensive testing has been completed so that this would not occur? In effect, this bill will force the chemical industry to such exhaustive testing that at least $100,000, and possibly as high as millions of dollars, will be required for each new chemical. Continued on page 67
Letters
INDEX TO ADVERTISERS IN THIS ISSUE
Continued from page 58 Small-volume chemicals cannot stand this expense. The other difficulty in the bill that you suggested is that "chemicals that are synthesized solely for use in research and testing should be exempted from the premarket screening provision of the bill." I would certainly agree with this provision, but when you start from your position that the bill is really needed, then you have given away any bargaining power and it is unlikely we can even obtain a reasonable and vital compromise such as this one. You say, "If I have to make a choice between inflation and my safety, I'll take my safety every time. I think almost everyone else would also." This implies that safety is the only consideration in determining what course of action we need to take. Half the people in this country smoke cigarettes even though they are warned repeatedly of the dangers to their health. This indicates that safety is not the only consideration. Furthermore, the fact that people still use automobiles in spite of the fact that 55,000 get killed every year also bears this out. This does not mean that I recommend wreckless abandon when introducing new chemicals, but if we are practical, we must recognize there are risks in living in the 20th century, but the advantages brought about by the introduction of new chemicals far outweigh the calculated risks. You criticized the Manufacturing Chemists Association's position by saying, "It would be impossible for this bill to cause a 15% loss in production. My forecast is that there will be no loss in production at all. The comments of such figures are 'scare tactics.'" If this bill does not reduce the production of chemicals, then it certainly will not accomplish anything. I think the loss will be far greater than 15% if the bill is enforced. I don't see how the small chemical company can survive. Although the large companies may be able to spend the necessary money to get approval of their major products, it will be difficult for them to obtain the many specialty chemicals made by the small companies, such as catalysts, inhibitors, and additives, which they need to conduct their business. If you represent a majority of the people within the American Chemical Society, then it is high time that those of us who disagree withdraw our support from that society. On the other hand, if you support only a minority group within the American Chemical Society, you should be more careful in expressing your opinion. Admittedly, the footnote says that editorials represent only the views of the author, but when that author happens to be the editor, it is far more than just a personal opinion. For instance, I doubt you will give this letter the same play your editorial received. In fact, the last time I wrote a similar letter on this same subject, it wasn't even carried. Elmer A. Fike President, Fike Chemicals, Nitro, W. Va.
American Can Company 36 Ted Colangelo Associates, Inc. Bench Scale Equipment Company . 27 Odiorne Industrial Advertising, Inc. Brinkmann Instruments, Inc 25 Blatt Advertising, Inc. Celanese Chemical Company 28, 29 Hartel, Catalano & Associates Chattem Chemicals 68 Charles Tom bras & Associates, Inc. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals 42 Howard Swink Advertising Commercial Solvents Corporation 37 Conahay & Lyon Inc. Advertising Crown Zellerbach Corporation 32 Bernadette Talbott Advertising Eastman Kodak Company 9 Rumrill-Hoyt, Inc. Emery Industries, Inc. 31 Northlich, Stolley, Inc. Esterline Angus Instrument Corporation 27 Odiorne Industrial Advertising, Inc. Evans Chemetics, Inc. 30 Daniel H. Price, Inc. DuPont Company 50 N. W. Ayer & Son, Inc. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company IFC The Griswold-Eshleman Company Hodag Chemical Corporation 16 Har she-Trot man & Druck, Inc. Humko Sheffield Chemical 2 The Wilk Connecticut Company The Lubrizol Corporation 42 Creative/3 Inc. M & T Chemicals, Inc. 1 Keyes, Martin & Company Matheson Gas Products 42 Kenyon Hoag Associates Microelectrodes, Inc. 42 Microelectrodes Advertising Services National Starch & Chemical Corporation 33 Marsteller, Inc. Perkin-Elmer Corporation 11 Marquardt & Roche, Inc. P-L Biochemicals, Inc. 43 The Brady Company Research Publications, Inc 27 CMGM, Inc. Salsbury Laboratories 42 Ken Schmidt Company, Inc. Scientific Products IBC Mitchel Suttner McPhilliamy, Inc. Sherwin Williams Chemicals 34, 35 Harris D. McKinney, Inc. Union Camp OBC Gaynor & Ducas Advertising Union Carbide-Linde 38, 39 Y& R Enterprises, Inc. Ventron Corporation 12 Impact Advertising, Inc. Waters Associates 19, 40 Edward W. Fischer & Associates West Coast Technical Service, Inc. 42 Michael Weiss Advertising DIRECTORIES Chemical Exchange 66 Classified Advertising 59-66 Equipment Mart 66 Technical Services 66
Advertising Management tor the American Chemical Society Publications
CENTCOM, LTD. Thomas N. J. Koerwer, President; Clay S. Holden, Vice President; Benjamin W. Jones, Vice President; Robert L. Voepel, Vice President; C. Douglas Wallach, Vice President; 50 West State Street, Westport, Connecticut 06880 (Area Code 203) 2267131 ADVERTISING SALES MANAGER C. Douglas Wallach SALES REPRESENTATIVES Atlanta, GA . . . Donald Hanson, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: WX 2586 Boston, MA . . . Robert Kelchner, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: ENT2108 Chicago, I L Douglas Wallach, Tom Felgen, CENTCOM, Ltd., 540 Frontage Rd., Northfield, II. 60093 Telephone: 312-4416383 Cleveland, OH Donald Hanson, CENTCOM, Ltd., Century Bldg., 17 East Orange St., Chagrin Falls, Oh. 44022 Telephone: 216-247-7576 Dallas, TX . . Benjamin Jones, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: 215-643-2586 Denver, CO Clay Holden, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: 213-776-0552 Houston, TX Benjamin Jones, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: ENT 70124 Los Angeles, CA Clay Holden, CENTCOM, Ltd., 8820 South Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 215, Los Angeles, Ca. 90045. Telephone: 213-776-0552 New York, NY . . Alfred L. Gregory, Robert Kelchner, CENTCOM, Ltd., 60 East 42nd St., New York, N.Y. 10017. Telephone: 212-972-9660 Philadelphia, PA . . . Benjamin Jones, Alfred L. Gregory, CENTCOM, Ltd., 535 Pennsylvania Ave., Fort Washington, Pa. 19034. Telephone: 215-643-2586 San Francisco, CA . . . Clay Holden, CENTCOM, Ltd. Telephone: 213-776-0552 Westport, CT Robert Kelchner, CENTCOM. Ltd., 50 West State St., Westport, Ct. 06880. Telephone: 203-226-7131 London, England . . . Malcolm Thiele, Technomedia Ltd., Warwick House, 9 Warwick St., London, WIR 6LS. Telephone: 01-4375461 Manchester, England . . . Malcolm Thiele, Technomedia Ltd., 8 Fernhill, Mellor, Stockport, SK6 5AN. Telephone: 061-4275 Reading, England . . Malcolm Thiele, Technomedia Ltd., Wood Cottage, Shurlock Row, Reading, RG10 OQE. Telephone: 073-581-302 Paris, France . . . Jack Anderson, Technomedia Ltd., 18 Rue Gounod, 92 SaintCloud, Paris. Telephone: 602-24-79 Tokyo, Japan . . . Haruo Moribayashi, International Media Representatives Ltd., 1, Shiba-Kotohiracho, Minato-ku, Tokyo. Telephone: 502-0656
PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT Production Director Joseph P. Stenza Production Assistant Alice M. Hansen Classified Advertising Nancy Lally Brewster April 2 1 , 1975 C&EN
67
