letters

Missouri water quality standard

DEAR SIR: In the Environmental Currents sec-

tion of the September 1970 issue of ES&T (page 717), you report that the compromise language for the dissolved oxygen criterion for the Missouri River was not included in the approved standards.

On July 30, 1970, the Department of Interior approved the action taken by the Board, and that did include the statement on low dissolved oxygen. The dissolved oxygen standard for the Mis- souri River reads in full:

The dissolved oxygen concentration shall be maintained at a minimum 5.0 mg/liter or greater. I t is recognized that this standard is violated at fre- quent intervals for periods of two to three weeks during rising river stages or flooding in the basin. The specific sources which cause such depressions include major contributions from sur- face runoff (urban areas, farms, and associated activities) which have not been clearly identified. We recognize the need for a coordinated effort on the part of the tributary states and federal government to inventory these waste sources so that implementation plans can be developed to remedy the dissolved oxygen deficiency,

Peggy J. Keilholz Missouri Water Pollution Board Jeflerson City, Mo. 65101

Scientists lose credibility

DEAR SIR: Your editorial in the September is-

sue (“Crying wolf once too often”) made some excellent points. However, I should like to suggest that if the pub- lic is beginning to grow indifferent to cries of havoc, it must surely be cyni- cally yawning over the many times sci- entists and governmental regulating agencies fail to act when they do know the effects of a pollutant.

We may rightfully deplore the mass media’s penchant for attention-getting cataclysms, but we must also deplore their general lack of interest in expos- ing the temporizing of scientific bodies when confronted with clear evidence of environmental damage.

More study and research are cer-

tainly needed, but perhaps faster and better action may be forthcoming if less importance is attached to econom- ics when applying cost-benefit analysis to the results of the research,

It would seem the most frightening prospect is for the scientist to lose his credibility to a public that watches him introduce ever more destructive elements into the ecosystem, and then display hesitancy and incompetence in allaying the damage they cause.

John F. Wilson Wisconsin Ecological Society Green Bay, Wis. 54305

Two for the price of one

DEAR SIR: I am writing in regard to your cov-

erage of Biocide 233, no. 73 in the New Products department of the Sep- tember issue of EWT. You have inad- vertently combined descriptions of Bio- cide 233 and Biocide 284.

Biocide 233 is a water soluble, non- metallic organic compound used as a preservative for water-containing sys- tems such as latex and resin emulsions, adhesives, paper coatings, and cutting fluids. Biocide 284, 10% methylene bisthiocyanate, controls bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and most other organ- isms in industrial systems, and has been especially formulated for use as a slimi- cide in paper mills and cooling towers.

You combined the characteristics of both of these chemicals as those per- taining to Biocide 233.

Donald Kent Spiegel & Laddin, Inc. New York, N .Y . 01016

Sophistication in air monitoring

DEAR SIR:’ Your Outlook story, “Air monitor-

ing: how much is enough?” (ES&T, September 1970, page 723) described a growing feeling of suspicion of the need for sophisticated monitoring sys- tems. Now, a backlash against sophis- tication by some is predictable; there’s an understandable drive to appear ul- trapractical. But all the evidence must be weighed, not just that which sup- ports a convenient point of view.

For instance, response time and data reduction cost must be included in weighing the level of sophistication suited to a particular air monitoring system. Anyone who has had to re- duce yard after yard of strip-chart data, day after day, or who has been respon- sible for employing people to do it, is aware that if bright enough techni- cians can be hired, they will be bright enough to tire of the onerous job quickly. This leads to file-cabinets full of strip charts which are much less likely to be used than computer mem- ories with the same data.

Solving this problem doesn’t always require telemetry-there are several in- termediate levels of sophistication available in bridging the gap between sensor and computer, such as on-site, machine-readable recording. But, when data reduction costs are honestly weighed with response capability (and other considerations), telemetry will always prove cost-beneficial for large systems. This can be readily demon- strated.

To limit the collection of data to legal constraints (“if n o control action can be taken, the data are useless”) is equally myopic. In the first place, not much data, if any, would have been collected in the past if this had always been a ground rule. Second, there are several kinds of desirable “actions.” Most local meteorological data involve little control action, but advisories are used by nearly everyone. Third, usefulness is not restricted to immediate actions; historical data are of immense use in local air quality pro- grams. Historical data on strip charts in file cabinets are seldom disinterred.

Finally, because of the lead time re- quired for designing, installing, and debugging adequate systems, cities with no real action plans now, but with mahogany atmospheres, should think of real-time public demands dur- ing future certain episodes. Again, it has been shown that telemetry and computerized data reduction are al- ways the cheapest way to go if the system is large and the problem is real.

Daniel L. Esau Litton Systems Inc. Camarillo, Calif. 93010

1086 Environmental Science & Technology Circle No. 3 on Readers’ Service Card +