LETTERS Other TOC analyses
Dear Sir: The feature article titled “Determination of TOC in Waters” by Mr. Kehoe of Beckman Instruments (€S&T, February 1977, p 137) is interesting from an historical point of view. The classic technique of Van Hall et al., first described in 1963, certainly has been widely used since commercialization by Beckman Instruments around 1965. However, this is the only technique mentioned. An article that is described in the table of contents as “All about TOC Analysis” is hardly complete without mention of more recently developed techniques for this determination. For example, the reductive method utilizing conversion of organic carbon to methane followed by flame ionization detection was commercialized by Dohrmann in 1972 and has been referenced in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 199, Part II, October 16, 1973, as an applicable method for NPDES permit reporting. Persulfate oxidation, followed by infrared detection, is the basis of an instrument manufactured by Oceanography Internationaland is used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Furthermore, a newer technique utilizing ultraviolet-promotedoxidation was not discussed, although reference to the work of Goulden and Brooksbank was listed for “additional reading.” As a matter of fact, a variation of this method, using an acidic persulfate reagent, has also been commercialized by Dohrmann, and is currently used by the EPA Water Supply Branch as a method for both purgeable and non-purgeable organics in drinking water. The method is capable of detection at the 10-part-per-billionlevel, and does not share the problems alluded to by Mr. Kehoe in his discussion of TOC in potable water. Leon E. Hiam Envirotech Dohrmann Santa Clara, Calif. 95050 Automobiles everywhere Dear Sir: As a 7-y subscriber to ES& T not engaged in the chemical field, I have placed great value on your magazine as an information source on environmental matters. However, after reading your astonishing biased editorial and box, “Some myths about automobiles,” (January 1977), I am reluctantly forced to reexamine that faith. The feature article by Mr. lacocca was itself unsurprising and unremarkable. For the most part he limited the discussion to emission control and safety devices. His arguments were valid, though certainly debatable, within that very limited context. He made one point, though, which should have set off your editorial alarm bells. This 538
Environmental Science 8 Technology
was that new car sales are expected to double in the next 23 years. The economic, environmental, and social impacts of such a continued expansion would be enormous. After 50 years of road building, urban streets and highways are still nearly saturated. Cities with 25-60% of their land area already devoted to the automobile would be required to further decimate themselves with continuing massive road building. These same cities are even now experiencing difficulty in financing just the maintenance of existing streets. On top of this, gasoline prices will skyrocket as world oil production peaks out. Even assuming that the auto companies will not be successful in eliminating the 1985 27.5 mpg requirement, his happy prediction-is a formula for economic and environmental disaster. The fact that the automobile supports one-sixth of our economy is a testimonial only to its size, not its worth. In a similar fashion, our welfare system has become large, influential, and self-perpetuating; yet almost to a person we cry for something better. If you observe past and present history you will see that automobile dominance is not a requirement for healthy economics or societies. Alternative employment, such as construction of public transit systems, could easily become the “mainstay.” The question of why the automobile dominates transportation is far more complex than what is stated. Mobility, free choice, and symbolism have certainly all played a part, but so have governmental policies, lack of free choice, coercion, monopolies, and subsidies. You say people do not buy what they do not want. They also do not buy what is not available. It has been decades since the great bulk of Americans have had any real ground transit choice. A few buses or an ancient rail line are hardly attractive competition for millions of subsidized automobiles, parking lots, and roads. The key element here is subsidy. Since you are in the mood for myths, try the one about the automobile paying its own way. Practically every public activity has intimate and largely unperceived auto subsidies (the impact on personal values you speak of). City-owned parking lots, court expenses, police activities, assessment districts, lost property taxes are but a few of the less obvious subsidies. My own extrapolations, which are supported by other studies (ref. 7), indicate that auto subsidies from city governments alone add up to $4-8 billion yearly, coming largely from sales and property taxes. This is in addition to the coercive and selfperpetuating gasoline taxes, which can also be used only for roads. A concept that is rapidly gaining popularity in California is Full Cost Pricing (ref.
7). In this concept all identifiable autorelated costs will be paid for from automobile user taxes such as gasoline and registration taxes, with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in sales and property taxes. Thus the public will receive significant relief from one of its most vexing problems, and at the same time the true dollar cost of automobile usage will become readily apparent. There is also a vast body of institutional protection for the automobile. A glance at the various city ordinances and the makeup of public bodies will make this apparent. Organized or even conscious conspiracy need not be involved. The automobile has become so entwined with our economy and values that it is protected simply from individual self-interest. On that point we agree. But habits and promotions are not “needs.” When adequate alternative transit is available, it is used and it is successful. The demise of a number of freeenterprise trolley lines was caused, not by lack of profit or patronage, but from being bought out and ripped up by automobile interests (ref. 2). On the other hand, the restoration of transit requires much more than just being “better.” To catch up it requires large capital investments and favorable governmental regulations. In other words, it requires what the automobile has now. Obviously, I cannot do justice to my argument in so short a space. What I hope to have done is present a sufficient number of considerations to demonstrate the shallowness of your comments. Such biases should never be allowed in a firstclass technical magazine. Hopefully you will be inspired to publish a thorough and more even-handed article on the subject. Robert L. Williams Director, Modern Transit Society San Jose, Calif. 95150 References (1) “State Transportation Plan,’’ California
State Transportation Board, September 1976. (2) LeonardArrow, “Derailing America-GM’s mark of excellence,” Environmental Action, Vol. 5, No. 21, March 16, 1974. Comment
Our editorial statement was to the effect that the automobile is deeply important in the American value system and that Congress did not intend to alter that valuation with the passage of the Clean Air Act. It has a more modest goal, namely, to clean up present exhaust emissions. One may indeed argue that we need additional and more stringent regulation, or that present market place judgments reflect the lack of free choice, or deplore that in the human condition habits tend to become confused with needs. We agree, but that was not the point of the editorial. Russell F. Christrnan Editor, €SAT
