-
-
LETTERS Words, Words Dear Sir: In your lead article, “Beyond acid rain” (ES&T, June 1987, pp. 51924), I note the repeated misuse of the word “toxin.” The four authors from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, at least two reviewers, and an unknown number of your editors have no idea of what a toxin is. A toxin is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism, not a catchall word for toxic chemicals. Kenneth A. Hooton Phoenix, Ariz. 85044
The authors reply: In response to Dr. Hooton, we stand corrected. The word toxin is formally used for the toxic products of living organisms. It is used as a synonym for poison, which is where we got into trouble. (See Roget ’s International The-
saurus, 4th ed.; Harper and Row: London, 1977.)
Water Quality Editorial Dear Sir: Robert C. Averett and G. Richard Marzolf call for more understanding of the controlling processes in water quality (ES&T, September 1987, p. 827). The “controlling processes” are irreversibly out of control as follows: Our waterborne sanitation treatment plants recover 100 pounds of sludge containing 5% nutrients per user. That is five pounds of nutrients retained per user annually. State of the art nutrient recovery systems, such as U.S. Process Patent 4,285,719, recover 1500 pounds of nutrients per user in the form of zerocoliform castings that allow for 1000bushel-per-acre crop yields when used as soil amendments. It is obvious then that 99.75% of the available nutrients in human waste go
right through our waste water plants and into the river. Even compared to the ageless inefficient Chinese methods, 99.5 % of the recoverable nutrients are lost. How can water be called “treated” when 99.5% of the elements causing overenrichment are not removed? Who are we kidding? Can there be any doubt of the eminent demise of the Chesapeake, the dolphins, or anything downstream of the flush toilet? The public may have the impression that the $100 billion in public funds spent over the past dozen years on our waterborne system was supposed to turn things around. Were they mislead? Will science now become adequately aware and act on the problem that E H. King and Sir Albert Howard publicized nearly a century ago? What will be done, and when? Jeremy F. Criss Sykesville, Md. 21784
GAIN
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIEW Keep up-to-date with weekly copies of CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS Enjoy substantial discounts on subscriptions to ACS’s internationally respected, authoritative journals and publications NetwQrkwith your fellow scientists at local, regional and national meetings Enhance your career opportunities with ACS employment services Save on insurance and retirement plans and tax deferred annuity programs Discover the latest advances in your discipline with a first-year-free Division membership
and thls is just the beginning.
Learn why 9 out of 10 ACS members renew year after year. Gain the Professional Edge: Join ACS now. For further information write or send the coupon below or call TOLL FREE 1-800-424-6747 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I
I I I I I I I I
Washington, DC 20036
YES! Please send information on the advantages of joining the ACS. Name Address
i
I I I I
1028 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 21, No. 11, 1987
American Chemical Society 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W.
I am most interested in the following science(s):
