favorable future, needs to spend part of its time and effort outside of its laboratories, factories, and offices t o understand some of the powerful forces of shifting public opinion." Mr. Merck cited four major objectives of management in his own company in dealing with the public. One consisted of building understanding and good will among their workers. Another, they must be good citizens in their own community. Irritants must be removed. Third, they sought to bring about greater understanding (beyond the home town) of scientific advances, and fourth, they wanted t lie general public to know from their deeds that their motives are dominated by a
genuine urge to serve. The American people, he said, are "ends-minded" rather than "means-minded." Much that has been accomplished by the chemical industry has raised the standard of living, not only here but abroad, he concluded—in I^atin America, in the British Commonwealth—and will in Kurope again "if events do not outrun recovery." At the beginning of his address, which was entitled, "Scientists and Management in the Chemical Industry," Mr. Merck interrupted his talk to introduce two foreign guests. One was Jean F. Monet, director and executive patent officer of the Société des Usines Chemique
Underground Sites for Factories B A H N G R K L L W . B R O W N , University of W y o m i n g , L a r a m i e , W y o . T h e c o n s t r u c l i o n . of factories a n d laboratories u n d e r g r o u n d p r o m i s e s fewer working hazards to employees a n d m i n i m i z e s dangers involved i n a t o m i c work a n d " h o t " l a b processes Β EFORE bringing otit the special con siderations it might be well briefly to sur vey the development in this country of the concept of underground defensive sites. Any advantage we would find for a normal factory installation in an underground site would be duplicated when applied to atomic research laboratories. Considerable interest in underground sites was taken by t h e joint Army-Navy Munitions Board during and directly after World War I I . Its interest, however, was almost entirely confined a t first to a survey which it was making of natural caverns. "The revolutionary concept of underground defensive sites has not received the pub licity in this country that usually intro duces new ideas. The public appeal of the idea has fallen short. Occasionally in the press one finds a brief word "expressing the view of the Army Air Forces" that complete underground factories would be the most practical protection against air attacks, or quoting a retired general who is urging that industry "start now to design new factories for protection against atomic attack" [CHEM. ENG. NEWS, 25,
280 (1947)]. Germany had 143 under ground factories at the close of the war, and in Sweden underground sites have proved their economic worth. Aside from the strictly defensive angle, there are the added efficiency and eco nomic advantages that underground instal lation offers. The military side is being worked out in the War College. I t should be emphasized that there is no inherent danger in a n underground instal lation. There is no safer place in the world than an underground room properly de signed against inroads of water and fumes. VOLUME
Such a structure will stand against storm, flood, earthquake, fire, and bombs. Bu reau of Mines reports indicate that an un derground structure is far safer than a sur face structure in t h e event of an earth quake. Fires and poison gas can be easily checked in the underground installation if positive ventilation and air control are maintained. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the element of surprise in warfare has be come strategic. The· purpose of the first blow will be twofold, to cripple the industrial potential and hinder further technical progress. Therefore, the prin cipal targets will include critical industrial and laboratory installations. flow Deep and in What WayIt is only natural that in the face of the absolute weapon t h e thought should be. that we "dig in." But, how deep and in what way? T h e mining engineer is best qualified to state what can and what cannot be accomplished underground. Let us consider from a strictly mining stand point some of the advantages under ground for a laboratory or pilot plant oper ation dealing with dangerous radioactive materials. There is always the danger of fire. In a surface installation near centers of popula tion that danger becomes serious when the installation is dealing with hazardous ma terials. If through fire, earthquake, or ex plosion, radioactive fumes are released, there is no way to control them in a sur face installation. But underground the danger of fire can be minimized by posi tive air control and local fires can be muffed out by introducing carbon dioxide
2 5, N O . 4 7 » N O V E M B E R
2 4, 1 9 4 7
Rhône-Poulenc, French chemical manufacturers. The other guest was Sir Harry Jephcott, managing director and board chairman of Glaxo Laboratories, who was knighted for his contributions to the industrial production of penicillin. The personal side of the medalist was discussed by John P. Marquand, writer, playwright, and his personal friend. His technical accomplishments were discussed by A. N. Richards, University of Pennsylvania, the wartime chairman of the Committee for Medical Research. Actual presentation of the Cchemical Industry Medal to Mr. Merck was made by S. 1). Kirkpatrick, editor of Cfiemical Engineering.
into the air stream. Parallel with the control of air is the added advantage of simultaneously establishing controlled ven tilation and effective air conditioning which can be maintained underground with less cost. Because of the low thermal conductivity of rock, temperatures can be maintained a t a more healthful constant. Humidity can be better controlled and it oven becomes feasible to control bacteria and virus. In total, an underground in stallation can be made a comfortable and healthful place. If the installation is engaged in atomic work and "hot" lab processes, it must be guarded against possibilities of theft and sabotage. An underground installation is easier .to guard because ingress is thor oughly in control. Protection from Normal Hasards The section of the installation that is ra diation "hot" would have to be secured from personnel working in other parts. In the case of surface works operating in the multicurie range expensive protective measures are involved. Underground the working place could be carved out of virgin rock with the limiting thickness of protect ing rock walls written into the building specifications. Control cables for remote operation of electrical or mechanical link age could be carried through inexpensive drill holes. In this way, workers in an un derground installation could be completely protected from the normal hazards of their work. Their ventilating system could be designed entirely out of range of any pos sible break through to the hood system. The public reaction should be consid ered. There have been several disasters involving the general public stemming from handling of dangerous materials. Science cannot afford to t ike on a Franken stein aspect in the eyes of the people. Our laboratories engaged in dangerous research should consider the advisability of going underground both as a measure of safety to themselves and to the nearby population. 3497
