Document wj7qOwB6pO51n0450w6aBOgV

tons. we could achieve a balanced buc \s this asking too much? I consider one ol the pri mary goals of the society to continue to publish high-quality journals The Mure of JACS could also be put on solid financial footing m a number of other ways One Is obviously to streamline ACS operating costs and decide on priorities, of whd-i JACS seems to have presently a very low one. Orville Chap man suggested fret we could consider incor porating JACS on Its own and see whether It loses money, breaks even, or even makes money. (It seems that some private publishers can even achieve this miracle.) An increase In subscription rates may be necessary, and within limits, I'm sure acceptable H the quality of the journal is maintained. There are questions, however, to the latter. There seems to be reoent bms to tvn increasingly to theoretical papers and de-emphasueexperimental chemistry, such as synthetic organic chemstry, with a still unclanfied view on Communications. Surely this can result only In a decrease of subscriptions. Also, regardless of ihe editor's intentions to the contrary, after obligatory page charges, I predict Communications will become the major part of JACS. I don't consider, however, publication of the society's major journal entrely a financial van- tire If we want to make only money, I suggested in the past that we should turn to other types of more lucrative ''publications" with greater ap peal than a chemistry joirrml I feel, however, that the society has a mandate to continue JACS, as much as possMe, In its present highly successful and pmven form Imposing obligatory page charges indiscriminately will cause addi tional problems. Etiel emphasizes the hardship put on some when so-called, welt-supported authors do not pay page charges in full. I think this comment is quite istfair, I challenge senousiy that any author deliberately woJd avoid helping the jotrnal If he has sufficient funds Eliel. further, said nothing about the productivity of authors There ts a considerable difference r> paying page charges If someone pubhshes one or two papers a year, or when a productive group publishes a larger number of papers. The other side ot the coin would be a negative page charge to reward those members who do not publish at all, I would urge that by combining all financial resources available, we keep the journal alive n Its present form What we need on the part al ACS is a more energetic and dynamic effort to solve the financial problems and generate new funds We should try to convince agencies to finance publications which are published under thee sponsorship directly, as the Pefroieum Research Fund does, end ask industry to vol untarily support the loumal more generously. If Internal Revenue Service regulation would prevent higher Industrial subscription fees. JACS, m my view, stilt probably is the best asset the society has, and I don't think we should light-heartedly experiment with h. after a centiry of proven high standards and generally even successful financial performance. If soma support is needed, such as a dollar contribution of membership fees for publications, it is a small price to save the tounel In the form It served the whole of American end world chemistry so welt for a century. Even docile taxpayers can even tually revolt If their views are tar too long ne glected (remember Proposition 13 m Califor nia?) Membership tees should be used with some consideration of the contributors As signing 2% of cur feesto publications surely can not upset the ACS budget) I realize not all members feet so strongly about JACS as some of us w academic Ufe do. but at the same time, we are not asking too much. George A Olah University of Southern California, Los Angeles i Computing cancer rates SftM R V.Sahyun(C&EN. March 20. page 43) states that 13% to 21 % are the upper limit values "representative of the real environmental hazard owing to substances which are the subject of the `chemicals and cancer' debate and which are within ttie scope of our control " This conclusion derives from fuxSng out by how much (m per cent) the observed crude death rates (for all cancers) for the U S. n the years alter 1900 depart from the straight Ime pur porting to relate the "all cancer" death rates to expectation of life during the 1900-60 period. For 1974, this divergence is found to be+13% and for 1995 (which requires extrapolathg the observed bend m death rates) It is reported as +21 %: These two figives are then taken as the limit to the contribution of environmental haz ards to cancers. Quite apart from the appropriateness of the age adjustment method used and the use of death rates rather than incidence rates, the fact that "aH cancer" rates do, or do not. change with true bears tittle relevance to the issue of clari fying the etiology of cancers. The overall trend n cancer death rate is the sum of the individual trends for each cancer (lung, stomach, acute leukemia, etc.) and for each population subgroup, defined according to sex, age, place of residence, occupation, etc Such grou|>specific time trends vary considerably both r direction and magnitude and this is completely lost vtfien the trends are combined. For example, in the U.S , from 1950 to 1970, the stomach cancer rates have been failing markedly m both sexes and m blacks and whites, whereas lung cancer rates have very markedly increased, but more m blacks than in whites, and within each ethnic group, more in males than in females. Examination ot group-specific lime trends may provide useful pointers, but It is no solution to the problem of the identification of ebologic agents nor to the quantitation of their role. Moreover, even a groisHspecific time trend may provide misleading suggestions. Thu difficulty can be illustrated by an example Suppose that some factor (increased use of refrigeration, for example) has contributed to a decline m the In cidence rates ot some specific cancer (say liver) over the period observed; and that some other factor (the widespread introduction ot a new industrial chemical) has contributed to an in crease m the incidence rale of this cancer over the same period In this case the net effect on liver cancer incidence might be either a rise, a fall, or no discernible change From this, it should be clear that inspection of the time trend in death rale, even tor a specific cancer, cannot provide information as to the proportion of such cancers which are attributable to a specific cause, or group of causes Is is a biological truism (sometimes neglected) thal tor the development of any disease, in cluding cancer, both genetic and envronmenbki components are necessary. In this general tense It is legitimate to say that as many as tOO % of earners are "envronmenlally related." the concrete challenge for environmental re search bang to find out whal the relevant envi ronmental cwnponente are At this point, thekey practical issue becomes (as the author of the letter rightly stresses) whether these environ mental agents depend on "controllable human activities.'' It is known today that in developed countries, for a substantial traction of human cancers (see e.g. Higginson, J. and Muir, C Cancer Defection end Prevention, 1,79,1976;' Schneiderman, M. A., "Persons at high risk of Cancer," Fraumeni, J,, ed,, Academic Press, 1976) the environmental causes are well Iden tified. Cigarette smoking leads the way, followed by excessive consumption of alcoholic bever ages, and by a number of ndustrial (asbestos, vinyl chloride, etc.) and medicinal exposures (arsenic, dwthytstilbestrol, etc.) Detailed in formation on these Is provided in the interna tional Agency for Research on Cancer senes of monoiyaphs "Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man," which atso indicates that, in addition, there are more than 100 substances present to a varying extent In the human environment for which there is clear-cut evidence of animal carcinogenicity with no (or no adequate) epfdemioiogieal data available In this situation, the immediatB and relevant question is not an esti mate of the proportion ol cancers which may be "environmentally related" (whatever this elusive expression may mean) or which may be ulti mately preventable, but: "What actions can be implemented now to control those human 80ttvlties impeding the reduction or removal from the environment ot agents well identified or strongly suspected as carcinogens for man?" Dr. R Saraod Dr. J Cooper I UrJtofEpiOernaiogySBiostalishcs, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France Phosphorus in our environs SIR: I have several concerns relating to your article on phosphorus in the April 24 issue, page 11, it contains several nusleadng opinions as to the potential impact ol phosphorus on the en vironment which I want to address. Phosphorus has been established as the limiting nutrient since 1971 for all of the Great Lakes and most of the nland lakes wrlthvt the Great Lakes Basin in the last several years farsighted legislators In Indiana. New York, Canada, and the city ot Chicago have Imptomenled total detergent bans. These bans dem onstrated that phosphorus enrichment of lakes can be a reversible process Effects oi a par ticular source of phosphorus can be reversed when the soiree is removed As a resulL Mich igan moved m October ol 1977 to a complete ban after five years ot a partial ban Minnesota has enacted a ban but has been enjoined from enforcement Wisconsin has recently passed a detergent phosphate ban Ohio Is considering a bill to ban phosphorus in detergents There is little doubt that emphasis on dis solved rather than total phosphorus nputs to lakes represents an extremely important dis tinction This must be kept n mnd by anyone measuring phosphorus inputs, identifying Continued on page 43 STG 2 4 3 4 2 6 7 July 17. 1976 C&EN 33 RSV0033811