Document b29gYga3bxO0v5om2bmBQwBo

March 15, 1349 *4*.. H,, a. byktor, Commissioner Bivision of $%$> Pollution Control Pept. ,f i!ti*ol0, and Welfare City of Cleveland I4&4 Saet Zitti Street '. Cleveland 14, Ohio . - . Beer hpv Byktor:' .' X em sorry to have been delayed in answering your letter of February 33 containing the draft of the statemente drawn up by the Committe oa Atmospheric Pollution for the American Medical Association. Pr. McCabe intimated in his letter that you had had a loss in year family. X would like to extend ay sympathy to you. X have reviewed your draft of the Committee report and have sad so suggestions for improvement of the wording. X do not believe tba.S~s.ny of these involve changes in meaning or content, ih.copy with the corrections' is enclosed herewith. tris, only serious change@ which X would like to: bring up in this letter, which will be distributed to the other mem bers of the Committee in case they wish to make comments, are as follows. . _ . 2t is ay understariding that we had agreed on some statement to the effect that engineering, knowledge Is frequently sufficient for, the design of equipment and processes for thetreatment of stack gases to remove objectionable fuses and odor. X consider this to be an 'Important statement; 'and a counterpart of paragraph 3 on scientific knowledge. Unless such a statement if made., little can, be offered to. industries faced with .the proble'of controlling a source.of atmospheric .pollution. X as. enclosing.here'llth and with the-copies of this letter, a recent editorial from Chemical jafijljfoglfflBEEiag fiSg. which, points out the position of science and: engineering in the atmospheric pollution problem. It sceme to me that Hr. Murphy has. "stated the case strongly and well. &c does not claim that all problems in atmospheric pollution can immediately be solved with an sconosic return; however, the new developments in the equipment for handling large quantities of gases hold put such hop for the solution of these difficult problems at a cost commensurate with the price that the public is willing to-pay for improved living conditions. -%t all of the solutions to these problems will yield ah economic return. Too such hope has been held kjt 001*5$ Mr. S. Pyktor ~ 3 March 15, 1348 forth in the past for this. *lm examples that hare been cited a w attractire, but la the fatm they will hare to be onsiSered :S; #3eptloas to the rale. Air pollution control, .in the long run, will cost industry and the public* - .. ; Sou Will note that I ha-re also suggested that para- .graphs ? nd 8 be cp#ine^: Co- thsb they res' s:die*? Scientific knowledge is generally available for developing mCceptab1C methods for measuring air pollu tion. However, ther^ is a .need for work to derelop standard 'oroosdtWa ^fopi '|ghisp:lii%;nnd::for assessment of dust, aerosols, end gases in the atmosphere eo that eosparlsofts bate##* different' *&ea# bay be made. . . 1 suggest that the new paragraph on engineering knowledge be brought in Immediateiy after that on scientifio knowledge. . - Finally, I cuesties-,whether your paragraph 13 pill pot defeat the purpose which we had in mind. Should we have ' an educational program to tell the community that the eliminatlon of air pollution is economically impracticable? X m not ' so sure that it is impracticable-. This Involves all of the costs: of air pollution, Including the effect on the health '. arid well being of the public, Can this be evaluated in dollar? I trust that these remarks- will be of some value to you. Very truly yours, H. F.Johnston Professor of Cheatcal Engineering HFJtolh Sup. so All Committee Members Mr 0015972