ES&T
LETTERS The lead debate Dear Sir: Scientific debate con tinues about the existence and inter pretation of subtle effects of lead, notwithstanding the conclusions reached by Mr. Budiansky {ES&T, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1981, p. 243). Lowlevel exposure and minimal neurobehavioral effects of lead are difficult to quantify and isolate from a multitude of confounding variables. Dr. Nee dleman reminds us that six govern mental agencies are each trying to prove a particular point about lead. Are we to assume that all investigators are biased towards the interests of their funding sources, or rather, and as I would hope, that scientific work should be judged on its own merits? The broad and unsupported allegations Dr. Needleman makes (ES&T, Vol. 15, N o . 11, 1981, p. 1250) of bias in stud ies supported by industry may justly do
more to discredit the accuser than the accused. Sidney Lerner, M.D. Institute of Environmental Health Associate Clinical Professor of Environmental Health University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 Dear Sir: In a recent issue you published a letter by Dr. Herbert Needleman (ES&T, Vol. 15, No. 11, 1981, p. 1250) that illustrates quite clearly why the lead debate has been clouded with emotional overtones that obscure the scientific elements of the debate. Dr. Needleman discredits the work of others on the basis of support from industry-derived funds. He, in effect, accuses scientists so funded of dishonesty by association. Fortunately,
this approach to the evaluation of science is rare—at least in my experi ence. I have in recent years received some funds from the lead industries to sup port investigations of the health effects of occupational lead exposure. Some of this work has been presented at an NIH-sponsored symposium (by invi tation) and some has been published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine. Acknowledgments as to industry sup port have been clearly indicated in both cases. No one has ever suggested that the work is tainted thereby; but I presume Dr. Needleman thinks it is, if he is at all consistent in his approach to the evaluation of scientific literature. In my dealings with lead industry sponsors (I.L.Z.R.O.), there has never been any interference with my freedom to report data as I wished. Further, I.L.Z.R.O. continues to fund our studies in spite of the fact that findings published to date clearly indicate that the health of some lead workers has not been adequately protected. Paul B. Hammond, D.V.M., Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Health Institute of Environmental Health Kettering Laboratory ( # 5 6 ) Cincinnati, Ohio 45267
mm
The RAC Digital Staksamplr provides accurate digital temperature readouts for six (6) different points in the system on one display panel. Individual push buttons are actuated to obtain temperature readings; 1 ) in the stack, 2) at the probe, 3) in the sample case heated compartment, 4) at the outlet of last impinger in the sampling train, 5) at the dry gas meter inlet, and 6) at the dry gas meter outlet.
FEATURES: • Ruggedness and durability, first and foremost as on all RAC sampling equipment • Thermocouples used to monitor all temperature points (Type J and Type Κ thermocouples available) • Push button selector for positive switching between temperature points • Repeatability: ± 1 degree • Overrange (for open or burned-out thermocouples) indicated by blanked digits while polarity sign remains lighted in display • Combination system pricing available
RESEARCH APPLIANCE C O M P A N Y
Call Toll Free 800-638-9566
Moose Lodge Road, P.O. Box 265 Cambridge, Maryland 21613
CIRCLE 18 ON READER SERVICE CARD Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 3, 1982
145A
