New work supports unified field theory A unified field theory of the weak and electromagnetic forces, which had seemed highly successful in explaining elemental particle behavior until some troublesome experiments appeared last year, has been further supported by experimental results disclosed last week at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). The theory, expounded in 1967 by Dr. Steven Weinberg of Harvard University and independently by Dr. Abdus Salam of Imperial College, London, unifies electricity, magnetism, and the weak force responsible for beta decay in a manner comparable to James Clerk Maxwell's 1865 unification of electricity and magnetism alone (C&EN, Nov. 14, 1977, page 21). A key prediction of the WeinbergSalam theory was the existence of a new type of weak force called the neutral current. This force would be similar to electromagnetism, though far more feeble, but would violate the symmetry of parity. That is, it would have different effects on particles spinning clockwise relative to their direction of motion than on those spinning counterclockwise. The neutral current force itself was
discovered in 1973. In the past two years, however, three independent attempts have been made to verify its parity-violating nature by measuring its effect on the atomic energy levels of bismuth. The experiment is exceedingly delicate and the results have been confusing: A Soviet group has found level shifts consistent with Weinberg-Salam, but British and U.S. groups both have obtained data consistent with zero parity violation. In this scheme a parity-violating neutral current would show up as a minuscule shift between the scattering cross section of clockwise- and counterclockwise-spinning electrons. And this, SLAC team spokesman Charles Prescott says, is exactly what was found in the recent experiment. As predicted by the theory, counterclockwise electrons scattered more often than the clockwise ones 200 parts in a million. Twenty physicists from Yale University and from SLAC worked on the project for more than a year. So delicate was the measurement, and so crucial was beam stability, that during the final three weeks of the experiment the 2-mile-long SLAC accelerator delivered its beam only to this experiment; ordinarily SLAC runs four to six experiments simultaneously. •
Industry, labor execs urc i fiber import curb In an unusual moment of cooperation late last month, seven top industry and labor leaders got together to urge the Carter Administration and Congress to take "strong and immediate action" to counteract a "stunning increase" in textile, apparel, and other fiber imports. At a press conference the executives noted that during the ïirst four months of this year textiles were imported at an annual rate of nearly $7 billion, and textile exports declined 11%. The textile trade deficit for the first four months of 1978 hit an annual rate of $4.5 billion, 94% more than for the same period last year. As a result of the steep rise in imports, AFL-CIO president George Meany says that the textile industry already has lost more than 350,000 job opportunities over the past decade and currently is losing jobs at the rate of 20,000 a year. These latest figures, according to Du Pont chairman Irving S. Shapiro, "are hard evidence that the current bilateral agreements are inadequate. They also say very forcefully that this is not the time to throw on the international negotiating table offers that will serve to increase textile imports."
Shapiro and other industry and labor representatives want the Administration to remove fibers, textiles, and apparel from the multilateral trade negotiations currently under way in Geneva. They argue that shoes,
stainless steel, and other importthreatened domestic industries have been exempted from the trade talks on grounds that lower tariffs would only increase imports, and they believe that textiles should get equal treatment. The Administration thus far has failed to agree with these arguments, contending that removal of textiles from negotiations would only add to the economic pinch of inflation. However, Meany counters by saying, "I have yet to see anyone document that the American consumer benefits from such imports. There is plenty of evidence on the other side that these low-cost, low-price imports are priced in retail stores right up there with American-made goods. So the idea that we are going to lose something in the fight on inflation is a total myth." For his part, Shapiro says that considering the current textile situation, "I cannot see how Du Pont or any other company in the man-made fibers industry can make a logical decision about significant investment in modernization or expansion of facilities in the U.S. We also must question how long we can afford to maintain a high level of R&D in the face of continued signals from our government that the domestic textile industry is being allowed to wither away." Having apparently failed with the Administration over the question of the Geneva talks, the group is turning to Congress for help. Legislation to exempt textiles from the talks has been introduced in both chambers with 26 cosponsors in the Senate and 168 in the House. Hearings on the House bill, H.R. 12243, are scheduled for this month. G
Meany: loss of Job opportunities
NRC cool to materials processing in space Tepid if not cold water has been thrown on the idea of producing materials in space. A National Research Council group considering the prospect says that no examples of economically justifiable processes for producing materials in space have been discovered. It recommends that "this area of materials technology not be emphasized in the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's program." That is one conclusion of a new study by the committee on scientific and technological aspects of materials processing in space, an ad hoc committee of NRC's Space Applications Board (SAB). The committee is somewhat more upbeat about scienJuly 10, 1978 C&EN 7
tifîc prospects, but even with these its attitude is conservative. "A valid scientific basis exists for performing certain classes of experiments on materials in space," the committee reports. But the prospects for using space in this way "take the form of incremental advantages over earth-based processes, rather than breakthroughs into new science and technology." The SAB study came in response to a request from NASA to provide guidance for NASA's program. SAB established the ad hoc committee, consisting of members from industry, universities, and national laboratories. In making its study, the committee drew on comments and advice from more than 100 experts in materials science and technology. Space environment factors such as temperature, level of vacuum, or presence of high-energy radiation, the committee says, can be realized better and more easily on earth. It finds that the principal value of the space environment for experiments is low gravitational acceleration for long times. This environment appears to offer a number of opportunities—for example, research on solidification. The committee emphasizes two points: The space environment usually contributes at least as many problems as it solves. And space experimentation will have little value unless its planning is founded on substantial earth-based information and unless the results are coupled to those of complementary terrestrial programs. The committee report, "Materials Processing in Space," is available from SAB, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. D
OSHA carcinogen policy termed unrealistic Monsanto chairman John W. Hanley early this month assailed federal plans to control carcinogens in the workplace as "an unrealistic and inflationary approach." The proposal by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration would "promote an epidemic rise in regulatory activity, with consequent adverse economic results," Hanley said at lengthy Labor Department hearings in Washington, D.C., on OSHA's proposed hierarchical scheme to classify and regulate suspected carcinogenic substances used in U.S. industry. Chemical makers and other industries are adamantly opposed to such an approach and claim that it assumes a degree of precision in 8
C&EN July 10, 1978
Hanley: adverse economic results
identifying human carcinogens that does not yet exist. "[OSHA wants] to require American industry to reduce worker exposure to the lowest feasible level without any regard to the cost of that reduction, or more importantly to its
effectiveness in impacting cancer in the American worker," Hanley says. "OSHA has consistently taken the point of view that it doesn't have a legal obligation to calculate the economic effect of these regulations. We think it does," he adds. Hanley says that based on a study conducted for the American Industrial Health Council, an industry group, capital costs for complying with the OSHA proposals could be from $23 billion to $88 billion, and the annual operating costs could be from $11 billion to $36 billion. "These are funds that would not be available to do such things as build new factories and provide new jobs." However, he concedes, "If [the proposed regulations] would do the job, I wouldn't for one second object to the costs . . . but they will not do the job." The Monsanto chief executive ominously predicts that if OSHA's proposals were to be adopted now, "the net result would be a massive jam of the regulatory and judicial system." He notes, too, that a longer-term result of OSHA's current proposals would be to make the U.S. chemical industry less competitive with foreign firms. D
Bank hits EPA rules' higl cost to industry A warning that compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on pollution control could halt much investment in new construction scheduled for U.S industry has been sounded by a major U.S. bank. The First National Bank of Chicago, in a recently issued report, takes aim at the "formidable discriminatory authority [of EPA] backed up by a well-crafted web of state dependency on federal funds, and vested in an agency not noted for moderation and balance." EPA's authority cited by the bank derives from the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The bank notes that failure of a state to submit acceptable plans to EPA for implementation of the 1977 regulations will result in prohibition of any new industrial construction in that state and the threat of federal withholding of funds for highways, pollution control, and sewage treatment. States' plans for compliance must be submitted before next January and accepted by EPA on or before July 1, 1979. In its critique of EPA's authority, the First National Bank of Chicago says that the agency is using legislation that takes double-barreled aim at industry. The first barrel is the requirement for "best technology" emissions controls in new industrial
plants—regardless of proven need— which would, it is alleged, increase dramatically the cost of pollution abatement. The second barrel is the imposition of a "no significant deterioration rule," which means that local air pollution levels must be maintained without significant deterioration, even if they are currently found below federal pollution ceilings. The cost of pollution abatement and control has risen rapidly in recent years, and the bank puts much of the blame directly on EPA, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and other agencies, which it says add 0.75% per year to the inflation rate. Federal spending on pollution control for fiscal year 1979 is estimated at $7.4 billion, about 60% of all environmental outlays in the federal budget. But the bank also says that this will be dwarfed by the cost of complying with future federal and state regulations. Between 1972 and 1976, the total expenditure for pollution control (both government and private) rose at an annual rate of 21%—more than twice the rate of the nominal gross national product—and much of that was caused by the rush to meet deadlines specified in the original Clean Air Act. The new amendments threaten to make things even worse, in the bank's view. D
