EDITORIAL Pollution control should proceed from a sound base There are sufficient data to make a strong case for pollution control programs without having to rely on scare tactics
W
hen two youngsters in automobiles race toward each other down the highway median stripe, the name of the game is “chicken.” When unions and managements parade in public their goals for upcoming talks, the name of the game is “bargaining.” When responsible officials, well-intentioned citizen groups, or reader-seeking publications cry pollution at the drop of an unburned hydrocarbon, a rusty tin can, or a dead fish, the name of the game is “trouble.” The scare tactic can be as devastating to the cause of pollution control as the efforts of obstructionists who deny everything or the ostriches who do nothing and hope the problems will go away. The scare tactic causes diversion of funds, effort, and priority perhaps all to no avail. The scare tactic misrepresents or exaggerates the truth and subverts it to devious uses. Scare tactic incidents are many and certainly are not restricted to matters pertaining to pollution control. But with the sudden realization by the American public, industry, and government that pollution is a destructive and hostile force that has been loosed on the nation, there have emerged those opportunists who would subvert, either intentionally or by happenstance, the efforts of their neighbors. Thus, the cry of “pollution” can be related to the cry of “wolf,” and soon perhaps no one will believe or be willing to do anything about it. Recently in a newspaper in one of the nation’s large cities there appeared a major article proclaiming that planes using the area’s airport were spilling 35 tons of air-polluting, incompletely burned fuel on the area each day. The article went on to say
that the rate was such that each year 8000 acres around the airport would be covered with a total of 12,775 tons of contaminants or about 1 tons per acre. And at that, the article continued, the amount being dropped today is half what was being dropped by half as many planes 10 years ago. Fine. A good, exciting, readercatching article. When ES&T called that day to check thc details, we were told that detection equipment placed directly under the planes as they lifted off the runway at the airport was unable to detect any increase i n unburned hydrocarbons above background levels. And the next day’s paper carried a refutation by thc Air Transport Association. All commercial planes i ti the area, according to ATA, together drop on the area each day only 2ll2 tons of unburned hydrocarbons. an amount that is equivalent to 1 to 2 7 of the total air pollution in the area. Because of this kind of article and other misleading presentations in the press. on the radio, in books, or on television, the public now is sated, confused, and, therefore, frequently not willing to listen to facts when they do appear. The threats of pollution are real. Their economic consequences are real. Their health consequences are real. There are sufficient data to make strong cases based on facts. There is no need for the charlatan, for the rabble-rouser. or for the well-intentioned but misguided zealot. Let the work toward cleaning our environment and restoring it to a desirable wholesomeness go forward. But let it proceed from an honest. efficient, and scientifically sound base.
