LETTERS
Environmental achievement prize Dear Sir: Readers of ES&T are invited to nominate individuals or institutions of any nation for the 1986 51er Prize for Environmental Achievement, The prize is given in recognition of outstanding achievement in the areas of protecting, maintaining, and improving ecological and environmental conditions anywhere in the world. The prize was established in 1973 by John C. and Alice C. 51er as a result of their distress over the increasing evidence of the ravages of pollution and the imbalance it was causing to the environment. They wished to reward those who had dedicated their lives to environmental protection and enhancement. In 1980, selection criteria were broadened to encompass the discovery, further development, or understanding of new and known sources of energy. Sixteen environmental laureates have received awards for their outstanding achievements in these areas. The Tyler Prize is the largest achievement award presented by a U.S. institution and is now widely recognized as the most important environmental prize in the world. Since 1973, more than $1.4 million has been awarded by the 51er Prize fund, with annual awards ranging from $150,000 to $200,000. Past honorees include Arie Jan Haagen-Smit, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, Maurice Strong, Ruth Patrick, Abel Wolman, Charles S . Elton, Rene Dubos, Eugene F? Odum, Russell E. Train, Carroll L. Wilson, Harold S . Johnston, F. Sherwood Rowland, and Mario J. Molina. The 1984 honorees are Roger R. Revel1 (University of California, San Diego) and Edward 0. Wilson (Harvard University). The winners of the 1985 awards will be announced in May. Those wishing to submit nominations should provide a vita or resum6 for the candidate, a summary of the candidate’s accomplishments, detailed descriptions of contributions, two or three 204
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 3,1985
examples of published material or other evidence of the nominee’s contributions, three letters of reference, and the names of three to five additional references. All nominations must be received at the address below by Oct. 1, 1985. Supporting materials must be received no later than Nov. 1, 1985. Jerome B. Walker Executive Director The 51er Prize University of Southern California Los Angeles, Calif. 99089
January editorial Dear Sir: Although the effectiveness of a scientific investigation often depends on the numbers generated, that of a poem depends on its words. So in both cases, cite the right ones. Frost’s two roads (Guest Editorial, January 1985, p. 3) did not diverge in a “narrow” wood. In the first line of “The Road Not Taken,” they diverged in a “yellow wood”; in the 18th line, simply “in a wood.”
John C. Cannon Envirosphere Company New York, N.Y. 10048
Laboratory testing Dear Sir: I would like to comment on “Proficiency testing of environmental laboratories” (ES&T, January 1985, p. 8). First, I entirely agree with the authors’ belief that proficiency testing provides a strong incentive for environmental laboratories to maintain high standards of quality. However, I believe that several inherent flaws in the program outlined in the article should be addressed. Two of these flaws are technical; one is economic. The first of these is that although basing the acceptance limits on the standard deviation of results compiled by all participating laboratories helps to eliminate any bias associated with standard preparation, it does not address bias associated with the analysis, which
depends on the relative competency of the participating laboratories. It also does not account for the variety of techniques and methodologies available to complete these analyses-each of which has individual accuracy and precision. Second, it was stated that one criterion for failure in a given category was having one-third of the reported results outside acceptance limits. What controls does New York State have to prevent a laboratory from reporting only those parameters it feels it has done a good job on, thereby increasing its chances of satisfactorily analyzing more than one-third of the parameters in a category? Finally, many of these proficiency programs (including EPAs water supply and water pollution series) require laboratories to analyze several parameters using essentially the same technique, such as flame or flameless atomic absorption spectroscopy. This places an unnecessary economic burden on the commercial laboratory with no apparent gain in information regarding laboratory quality. If the reasoning behind these requirements is to test a laboratory’s capabilities, then surely during a visit the inspector can determine whether the laboratory has all of the required ancillary equipment for determining a multitude of elements. Because I am affiliated with a commercial laboratory that is required to obtain several state certifications in order to work in those states, I know the financial burden can truly be substantial. As a solution to this problem, I propose that individual regulatory agencies consider reciprocal certification based on satisfactory performance in EPAs ongoing water supply and water pollution performance evaluation studies. Ralph J. Tella Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. Boston, Mass. 02108
