Document YDE7x3D53L2jrK3e6pzj6kJQ8

------"-usually; coin fi'0 areVfiryfelct- ive. So OMH-1 deliver high ; yields with a wide variety of j functional groups. The CH, groups do not appear to participate in reactions. . . j . tt,.....*.#1 ^ * * t -. - - ....................... V` - Letters Continued from page 36 |*> \i on one statement of this editorial, namely "that American corporations, via licensing agreements, foreign plant construction and other multinational arrangements have given away . . . this advanced tech nology and with It, the jobs it created." I do not argue the point that licensing agreements result in advanced tech nology and contribute to improved pro ductivity. However, they constitute only one factor In the struggle for competi tive position. In the rase of many prod ucts this factor hardly exists. It cer tainly does not explain why we used so many Christmas carls that were printed abroad, why the ma/ket in quality photo graphic equipment e dominated by Japa nese products and/why, until the Presi dent's price- and wage-freeze policy (in cluding the surtax, foreign automobiles gained ever increasing acceptance. One of the basic American industries that has been riurt severely in recent years is the stefel industry. Since many grades of stefl can now bo imported more cheaply Ahan they can be produced , in the USA/, Yhe industry has had to put up with/imports of about one sixth , of the total VS. market. / ` The deterioration\n the competitive position of/the steel mdustry has taken place in spite of licensing agreements granted b/ European to U.S. Arms. As it happens many of the recent advances in steel technology have come from Europe, atnong them the basic oxygen process, the fairly new Q-BOP process, and continuous casting. They have all contributed to a rise in productivity. Their effect, however, has not been enough to overcome rise in labor costs. There can be no question that in recent years union demands have contributed to price increases which, in turn, have re- . suited in rising imports and loss of jobs for American workers. Laughlintown, Pa. E. W. Volkmann SIRS: . . . [Mr Brenner] blames our willingness to pe mit the continued un restricted techn logy drain through multinational corj oration licenses to give away that Ameri an technology created at public exsense for the 5 or 10% profit represented e license fee. This, as the return on f iqested capital abroad results in unempi >ylhcpt plus balance of payments problen s . . .'The foreign pro ducer has not had to Invest in the educa tion, research and development, or the wages which support the American sys tem. That 5 or 10% profit creation, a genius j of the mind, is attained not only through i GLD012423 ) GLD012424 Th menace of Pb In the air SIRS: There have been several recent articles regarding the environmental haz ard posed by lead. Our laboratoiy group has worked in this area for a number of years and would like to bring up three points which do not seem adequately dis cussed. The first of these points concerns the unit used in reporting lead concentra tions- This concentration is usually ex pressed in jsg/m* of air. This unit does not tell the whole story, and fails to ex- f press adequately to the general reader the - astonishingly large amount of lead pres ent in the atmospheric dirt in our large metropolitan areas. A more appropriate way of expressing the concentration Is in terms of per cent lead in the atmospheric fallout, that is, the dirt that actually is breathed or that "salts" your food sup ply and dirties your curtains and house hold appliances. In a large metropolitan area, the lead concentrations may be as high as 6 or more but the total particulate may be only 200 pglm\ There fore, the dust which settles out would contain somewhere between 3 and 6% iead by weight. Since toxic materials are usually expressed in p.p.m., this value would be between 30,000 and 60,000 p.p.m. This is far in excess of any known per missible standard for lead. In fact, the Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District permits only 0.5 p.p.m. to enter its sewage system. The second of these points concerns the perhaps simplistic hypothesis of lead poi soning being caused in children as a re sult of eating paint and plaster. This may be one posable source. However, cases of lead poisoning are being reported among children who are unlikely to be exposed to chipped paint and piaster. This suggests that we are overlooking other sources of lead poisoning, for ex ample, the atmospheric lead. The third of these points concerns the matter of responsibility. The question of lead 'toxicity is' under hot 'debate.' How ever, the fact remains that we have vir tually saturated our large metropolitan areas with lead fallout, principally from automotive exhaust. This fact raises a i serious question of scientific responsibil ity. Every chemist is taught from his earliest courses that lead salts are toxic. Every chemist is aware that tetraethyl lead is added to gasoline. Every chemist knows that iead in some form is emitted in automotive exhaust. Why then have we allowed this situa tion to develop? Whose moral respon sibility was it to make sure that we were not doing irrevocable damage to the en vironment? This is a question posed to every chemist, not just the petroleum and automotive industries. It may instead turn out that lead is not as dangerous as some fear. If this is the case, we will have been lucky. Wouldn't It have been more pleasant to report that as a pro fession we had the social responsibility to thoroughly investigate the effects of lead on the quality of our life before we added one or two grants of lead to every gallon of our gasoline? Graduate Class in Environmental Chemistry Loyola University o.Cj]}cajp jr