Document bBZ8wnx9GYR5j6BkQX13qy4z3

an "immediate need for a new institu tional setting ... to fulfill the tasks of evaluation, information, and research and development aimed at improving the management, productivity, effi ciency, and effectiveness of the health care industry." Specifically recom mended was the creation of an Institute of Health Care Studies by a consortium of organizations from the private sector. The agriculture and food group s rec ommendations included calling for a "strengthening of the research and de velopment organization, in both the basic and applied aspects," the Gov ernment to select "research emphasis on the basis of its contribution to the effectiveness of the total food system," and for the creation of a mechanism to "better assess consumer and social costs arising from regulatory controls." How many of these and other recom mendations of the science, technology, and economy minisummit will be adopted by President Ford in the com ing weeks remains to be seen. All groups taking part in the minisummit apparently felt compelled to argue for a sustained, if not increased, federal budget for R&D and of the importance of R&D to the national economy. And indeed, in Dr. Stever's presentation at the inflation summit, his concluding words focused on that issue: "And, Mr. President, finally you and the Congress must ensure that we continue to excel in science so essentia! to the long-range economic well-being of the nation." Whether Mr. Ford has been duly im pressed must await the details of his inflation fighting program--and per haps more pragmatically, the details of his fiscal 1976 budget, which promises to be for science and technology, aus tere at the least. Private sector participants: Dr. William 0. Baker, Bell Telephone Laboratories; Dr. Donald J. Blickwede, Bethlehem Steel: Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, International Busi ness Machines; Dr. Arthur M. Bueche. Gen eral Electric; Dr. Carleton B. Chapman, Commonwealth Fund: Dr. Paul F. Chenea, General Motors: Dr. Edward E. David. Jr.. Gould. Inc.; Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson. NAS Institute of Medicine; Dr. Norman Hackerman, Rice University; Dr. Hans L. Landsberg, Resources for the Future: Dr. Simon Ramo. TRW; Eric H. Reichl. Conti nental Oil; Vernon W. Ruttan. Agricultural Development Council, Dr. Kerr L. White. Johns Hopkins University; Dr. William C. White, Fertilizer Institute; Dr. Philip Han dler, National Academy of Sciences: and Dr. Robert C. Seamans. Jr., National Acad emy of Engineering. Invited experts: Dr. FT A. Crosby, National Conners Association, and Dr. Robert Lund. Massachusetts Insti tute of Technologv. Federal participants: Dr. H. ( luyford Stever. science adviser to the President and director of the National Science Foundation; l)r. Malcolm H. Currie, director of Defense Research and Engineer ing; Dr. Charles C. Edwards. Health. Edu cation, and Welfare Department assistant secretary for health; Dr. -James C. Fletcher, administrator. NASA; Dr. -John A. Hill and Hugh F. Loweth. White House Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Richard W. Roberts, director. National Bureau of Stan dards; Norman E. Ross. -Jr.. White House Domestic Council: and Dr. Alvin Weinberg, Federal Energy- Administration. EPA broadens its definition of carcinogen A new and apparently precedent-set ting criterion for determining the car cinogenicity of a substance was used in Environmental Protection Agency ad ministrator Russell E. Train's Oct. 1 decision to suspend all major uses of Shell Chemical's aldrin and dieldrin pesticides. Mr. Train is of the opinion that, for purposes of "carcinogenicity testing," tumorogenic substances and carcinogenic substances are "synony mous." This interpretation could have a far-reaching impact on EPA regula tion of chemical substances. However, it is in sharp contrast to policies of other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, which define carcinogenic substances as those that actually cause cancerous tumors. Since laboratory evidence has linked aldrin and dieldrin to liver tumors-- benign and malignant--in mice and rats, Mr. Train says that he has con cluded that the chemicals also can pose a "high risk of causing cancer in man." According to an EPA enforce ment official, this criterion will guide future EPA rulings concerning cancercausing substances. Indeed, an official in EPA's pesticide division tells C&EN. the words "tumorogenic" and "carcinogenic" won't be in the pro posed pesticide regulations that EPA intends to issue next week. In their place, "oncogenic" is used to designate any substance that will produce tu mors--cancerous or otherwise--in test objects. In Mr. Train's suspension order, he explains his criterion and why aldrin and dieldrin are carcinogenic to man. He defines a carcinogenic substance as "one that increases the incidence of benign or malignant tumors in exposed animals, decreases the latency period between exposure and onset of tumor, or results in unusual tumors." To Mr. Train, the distinction between benign and malignant tumors is not a reliable indicator of carcinogenicity, because, "in the thinking of most experimental ists, the induction of a benign tumor is merely a stage in the subsequent oc currence of a malignancy." His opinion is backed by a Health. Education, and Welfare advisory panel that has recom mended that a "finding of carcinoge nicity" be made when a substance is "judged positive for tumor induction in one or more species." Although Shell protested during EPA suspension hearings on the pesti cides that mice were an inappropriate test species and that there is no corre lation between mice and human be havior, Mr. Train points out that not only does Shell use mice in their own cancer experiments, but that mice re sponse is similar ''pathologically" to that of man. In addition. Mr. Train re futes arguments that carcinogens are species specific, in that, for instance, aldrin and dieldrin might affect mice but not any other species, including man. He cites research data from orga nizations such as the International As sociation for Research on Cancer, which have found species specificity "unsubstantiated." Further, Mr. Train says it is impos sible to establish a "safe level" of expo sure of aldrin and dieldrin to man be cause no one has been able to deter mine the relationship between the dosage of these two chemicals fed to test animals and the subsequent can cerous response. Nor has anyone come up with a threshold level of carcino genic effect for the chemicals, Mr. Train points out. He does think that there is a theoretical "no-effect" level although it has not been demonstrated conclusively in laboratory studies. The lowest tested dose of 0.1 p.p.m. aldrin Cancerous cells show up in this mouse tumor. EPA may now interpret results from such animal studies differently and dieldrin still produced "significant tumors" in mice. Anyway, Mr. Train concludes, any substance that will induce cancer in animals "at any dose level, no matter how high or low," should be treated with caution. He admits that high doses of the chemicals were given to the test animals, but points out that, with a limited number of animals, this is necessary to determine gross effects. For instance, Mr. Train says, a chemi cal that causes one cancer in every thousand men is considered disastrous, but there are very few laboratories that can accommodate 1000 animals and even then, he says, one incidence of cancer "might be disregarded as chance." Suspension of the major uses and production of an estimated 10 million pounds of aldrin and dieldrin in 1975 will remain in effect during cancella tion proceedings, which, when conclud ed. would ban permanently production of the pesticides. Cancellation hearings on the risk vs. benefits of the chemi cals have been in progress for a year, and no early end to the hearings seems in sight. 23701001 T- Oct 14. 1974 C&EN .............................- T 13 River Shale Oil Corp., which is de veloping another lease in Colorado. Walter Sanford, of Sun's Dallas of fice, tells C&EN that the White River group is still thinking about a 100,000 barrel-per-day plant around 1980. However, the final de cision on a commercial plant awaits the results of the development pro gram, similar to that of the Rio Blanco group. A fourth consortium is Paraho Development Corp., involving Sohio and 16 other companies. Harry Pforzheimer, director of the Paraho program, is still optimistic about the future of shale oil devel opment but also believes that things could change quickly if oil prices come down. Most of the shale oil development projects now under way are keyed to an oil price of about $11 per barrel. If oil prices stay above $11 per barrel, most de velopers think they may be able to compete, providing inflation slows down and the Government estab lishes a clear energy policy. Concern grows over worker cancer risk Recent developments underscore the heightening concern over cancer risks that employees face from ex posure to some chemicals in their work environment. Ralph Nader's Health Research Group has charged Rohm and Haas Co. with withholding data on lung cancer among its workers from it and from the Government. Twenty-two workers at the firm's plant in Phil adelphia have died of lung cancer so far, apparently from bis-chloromethvl ether exposure. Meanwhile, Dow Chemical has learned from an Italian scientist that vinylidene chloride apparently causes a liver cancer in rats. Among the Nader group's charg es are that by 1967 Rohm and Haas knew the ether compound caused cancer in animals and that a statis tically significant number of human lung cancer cases had occurred. But workers were not informed of these results until 1971, and then only of the animal data. The alle gations, however, "grossly distort the facts and leave a false and mis leading impression concerning Rohm and Haas' actions and atti tudes," says Vincent L. Gregory, Jr., the firm's president. Rohm and Haas took the primary initiative to uncover the cancer hazard, Mr. Gregory adds. Animal tests were run and outside experts consulted. And Rohm and Haas workers were given various medical waste in the Gulf pending a hearing tests. on an application to renew dump Nevertheless, the company held ing held in Pensacola, Fla. (C&EN, as late as 1971 that "a scientifically July 29, page 5). convincing case" for the ether com EPA administrator Russell E. pound's carcinogenicity to humans Train on Oct. 3 turned, down the "had not been made." However, it recent Du Pont application. At shut down operations and modified press time, Du Pont was studying its plant in 1971 so that workers' unspecified recourses open to it to exposure to the chemical was limit- handle the waste. Just a day later, a hearing on the Shell proposal, held in Houston, saw an unusual alliance of EPA, the National Wildlife Federation, and Shell combine to push the plan. It involves incineration of the waste on board the ship Vulcanus, owned by a Dutch company, Ocean Combustion Services, a subsidiary of Hansa Lines. The Vulcanus, which for some time has been used in European waters to dispose of wastes by burning, is equipped to burn waste at temperatures ranging from 1400 Gregory: grossly distort the tacts to 1650 C. Because of the high cal orific value of the organic chlorides ed. In July 1974, though, a "signifi and other materials in the Shell cantly higher" mortality rate was wastes, little auxiliary fuel is ex found among workers exposed to pected to be needed to maintain chloromethyl methyl ether (an in the temperature at or above 1400 termediate for anion exchange C., according to an EPA evaluation resins of which bis-chloromethvl of the ship's capabilities. ether is a by-product) than in work If the permit is approved, an ini- ers not exposed or in a comparable tiol V\ n t /"> V-> ( A Of\f\ motri/' t or\c tbo Philadelphia population. waste will be carried to the burning There are indications--from what site in the Gulf about 105 nautical a Dow spokesman describes as pre miles south of Galveston, Tex. The liminary information--that vinyli burning rate would be 20 metric dene chloride is carcinogenic to rats tons an hour. Hydrogen chloride in inhalation studies in concentra produced during burning would tions of 100 to 200 p.p.m. in air. disperse in the atmosphere and The findings were obtained by Prof. eventually fall into the ocean where P. L. Viola of Regins Elena Insti carbonates would neutralize it. tute for Cancer Research in Rome. During the burning operation, ex Dow has notified U.S. regulatory tensive testing of biological effects, agencies of the early results, al possible pH changes, and combus though its own studies--still 18 tion efficiency (more than 99.75% is months from completion--show no required) would be carried out. The toxic effects at this time. Workers other 12,600 metric tons of waste at Dow are exposed to less than 10 stored by Shell could be burned p.p.m. of the chemical. later at a new site to be designated by EPA. Support for the proposal at the Shell seeks okay to burn wastes at sea hearing came from many sources including a local Congressman and other government officials. Kenneth S. Kamlet of the National Wildlife Tests using a ship to incinerate Federation, which often has op chemical wastes as an alternative posed EPA ocean dumping plans, to ocean dumping could take place advocated giving the proposal a if the Environmental Protection chance because of the nearly 3.5 Agency approves permits for Shell million tons of waste dumped in Chemical. dispose of The company wants to some 16,800 metric tons i the Gulf dumped and in nearly 4 million tons the Atlantic during of organic chlorides and other 1973. Opposition came from Texas wastes by burning them 130 miles and Louisiana state officials and out in the Gulf of Mexico. some local officials. Their views Shell stopped dumping the waste were chiefly that they had not had in the Gulf last November in com time to study the plans or that pliance with EPA requirements. Du tests using obviously harmless ma Pont also had stopped dumping terials could not be made first. 23701002 Oct. 14. 1974 C&EN 5 ........... . 1 --