SCIENCE
Poison for all
PETER J. SMITH
If there be any truth at all in the dictu that what happens in America happe here five years later, it has surely b confirmed by the widespread publicity no being given to the pollution problem. Fo it was just about five years ago that th American anti-pollution lobby made first real impact through the national pr and the formation of action groups. A if, today, the number of Congression committees investigating environments quality, of individual Congressmen makin speeches about it, and of federal agent set up to deal with it, is any guide, the is a good chance that it will develop into greater political issue here than seep' appear to think.
Perhaps Mr Wilson has instinctive recognised this possibility by giving N Crosland the job of environmental o lord. On the other hand, the fact that h Crosland has done little, and said even about it so far—presumably because he h too many things to do in other directions suggests that his appointment may just another of Mr Wilson's notorious se stitutes for action. What is certain is t ,there is no shortage of problems for Crosland to tackle, either in the long the short term. He could make a start. f example, by simply ensuring that the CI Air Act is enforced throughout the wh country. It is customary these days to c gratulate ourselves on the enlighte attitude enshrined in this Act. But the fact is that large areas of the count including many industrial cities as well rural regions, have never heard of Sm Control Orders. Even in London wher thanks to the Act—the grosser smogs. s as the one which killed 4,000 people 1952, are conspicuous by their absence. amount of falling soot is far greater t any civilised society should tolerate.
If we haven't even the will to banish pollutants we can see, what chance is of forcing action on less conspicu hazards? For visible pollution is but fraction of the whole story. Between I and 1966, for example,• the quantity sulphur dioxide entering the British a phere rose from four to six million tons a year, mainly because of increased oil burn- ing. Sulphur dioxide, an invisible gas, combines readily with rain water to form sulphuric acid, a liquid, which eats away at human artefacts and stunts the growth of plants. Carbon monoxide, another invisible gas, emitted from vehicle exhausts, builds up to lethal proportions in certain locali- ties. Carbon monoxide concentrations recorded in Oxford Street at rush hours are sufficient to kill people in five hours. Petrol additives also produce lead deposits which build up in the body, leading ultima- tely to madness. Of Britain's 20,000 miles of river at least 5,000 miles are polluted beyond redemption for several decades. Industrial and human wastes have turned many rivers into open sewers. It is often said that if you fall into one of Britain's major rivers you will decay before drowning. This is an exaggeration, of course: but not merely a joke. The classic model is Lake Erie which must be the only stretch of water in the world classified as fire hazard. Last June it actually caught fire, destroying two bridges.
The increased use of chemical fertilisers on farmland has led to greater nitrate con- centrations in rivers and lakes. Adults are fairly immune to the effects of nitrates in water: but babies convert them to highly poisonous compounds which have produced death in some cases. Pesticides, too, wash down to rivers and lakes, concentrating in ater plants. eaten by fish. Ultimately, con- centrations get so high that birds which eat he fish die.
The other day it was reported that signifi- cant concentrations of DDT have been found n Antarctic snow—a discovery which aptly emphasises the global nature, and hence e magnitude, of the pollution problem. t also suggests that the difficulty in dealing ith the pollution is not so much one of ack of knowledge but of will and organisa- on. This applies at local and national vels too. In many cases the technology equired to deal with specific problems is vailable even now. Cost is frequently used s a restraining argument: but even where oney is available, action becomes stifled the legal, political and organisational angle. The Clean Air Act is a case in nt.
Thus the greatest contribution that Mr rosland could make is to explore ways in hich scientists, technologists, economists, st accountants, lawyers and politicians n join together to form effective prob- m-solving machinery. He certainly has a ar mandate to coordinate. The latest re- rt from the Select Committee on Science d Technology expresses grave concern at diversity of the whole anti-pollution chinery and urges immediate reorganisa- on of the-whole field. The situation at the oment is that research into the various rms of pollution (where it exists) and .onsibility for conservation policy is vided between numerous bodies and ablishments responsible to several fferent government departments.
But the organisation of effective action mist pollution and the polluters is a fun me job—not something to be squeezed tween transport and housing. There may may not be votes in it: but that is irrele- ot and certainly does not detract from seriousness of the problem. There are obably few votes in state support of the either; but no one seriously suggests a humane and civilised society should concern itself with these things.
Previous page
