hale air which contains unknown quantities of gases and dust particles day and night. The city dweller—and here I speak from the experience of having lived 5 days of every week, for 15 years right in the city of Boston-has found the increasing problem of just keeping a home clean. This is positive evidence of the pollution that exists in our communities. We are aware of the much discussed ground smog conditions in certain sections of our country and I am sure that you are acquainted with the efforts now being made by some of our cities to control their air pollution problems. Few of us realize, however, that these same conditions exist to a greater or a lesser degree over nearly every city and industrial area throughout our country.

Here in our Metropolitan Boston area we have air pollution control regulations which are the outgrowth of our efforts to control smoke discharged from locomotives and industrial plants in the soft coal era. Recently we have had a mobile air pollution laboratory on Boston Common engaged in filtering the air in an endeavor to ascertain the amounts and kinds of pollutants which we breath daily as we go about our various activities. These instruments will undoubtedly indicate the scientific results of this survey, but once more I remind you that I represent the homemakers who live within any large city and who are concerned primarily with the health of their families.

Recently I attended a national convention on air pollution problems in Washington, D.C., and since then over and over in my mind have run the words of a telegram which was read at that meeting"Enough has been said-let's clear the air." In flving from Washington to Boston across what is called "Megalopolis U.S.A.," that continuous urban area of our eastern seaboard which stretches from Maine to Virginia, through the blanket of smog, I have looked down upon it from the clear air above. This clear air was our heritage and should be our inherent right to be enjoyed by us and our children, and we have allowed it to become polluted and we should have the courage and initiative to clean it up.

We have heard of the dangers of atomie fallout, the harm to wildlife and vegetation of chemical sprays, and most recently the cigarette report has warned us of the dangers of excessive smoking; but no one, to my knowledge, however, has been able yet to determine the extent of harm to the health of every man, woman, and child by the continual intake of polluted air.

The remedies for air pollution are known. We need expert scientific and technological assistance to commercially adapt them to solve the problem. We recognize that this may require the expenditure of substantial sums of money. However, as our population grows so does the problem and I believe that we must now demand action to prevent the development of even more serious conditions in the future. Industry has a responsibility in creating the problem that every person who drives a car or company that has a truck on our highway carries part of the responsibility. This is definitely a nationwide problem and requires the cooperation of all responsible agencies to provide a solution.

I urge you and your committee in behalf of the millions of organized women, mothers and homemakers, who are concerned with the health and welfare of their families to provide the leadership essential to guarantee for the benefit of future generations, this most precious natural resource.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAX. Thank you both for your statements, which I think quite properly point to the importance of dealing with this problem from the point of view of health primarily, but also from the point of view of other values. I think it ought to be noted for the record that this is a serious problem and we are going to have testimony before the day is over from people who can tell us something of the impact on health. Aside from the health problem, we are dealing with the damage to property on the scale of $11 billion a year in America, and I think that alone is enough to make us concerned; but we are at a stage in the problem when we can provide a lot of preventive medicine to avoid a lot of damage. We ought to remember in the case of the water pollution, in so many instances, the preventive stage is gone and we are dealing with the full-bloom problem.

Here we have a chance to apply preventive medicine, which is cheaper than surgery. This is not a problem which is going to disappear. This is a product of all of the consumption which takes places in a highly complex and technological society. It is a problem we know is going to grow unless something is done about it.

The fact that we are at point in the evolution of the problem where we can deal with it more cheaply than we can at any subsequent point ought to be some stimulus for us to take action.

Mr. Smith, you have worked in the field of respiratory diseases, and I expect that you have found that no sooner do you make headway against one such disease then you have another to deal with; isn't that so?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. It is true that respiratory diseases have become more widespread and more complicated in a sense than as time goes by? I know you have brought the TB to heal pretty well.

Mr. Smith. But one of the biggest problems, Senator, in respiratory diseases, pulmonary emphysema, which is a stretching of the lungs, and it has been said that many patients who have had long-term tuberculosis don't die of tuberculosis, they die with it because emphysema was the cause of death, and this is known to be aggravated by air pollution; although it hasn't been proven, as I understand it, as a causal connection at all at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the technical problem with which we struggle that establishes the actual causal relationship, but the testimony in Los Angeles is to the effect that there is a definite increase in emphysema, and the deaths from emphysema. How would you compare the health of the people or the lack of it, as compared to emphysema and as to asthma and other diseases which are more commonly known?

Mr. SMITH. I think the impact of air pollution is more on these other diseases other than tuberculosis, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis and asthma.

The CHAIRMAN. If our present guestimates are correct, these two are going to become increasing respiratory diseases because of air pollution.

Mr. SMITH. That is right. We say we don't have a causal link, but on the other hand we didn't have a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer until recently.

The CHAIRMAN. Still, you are sure there was one?

Mr. Smith. Yes, we need more money for research because we are on the right track but we have to have money for research to establish a causal relationship.

The CHAIRMAN. We know now there is a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Would it also be fair to say the cigarette smoker who enjoys his cigarette in a polluted city is even more susceptible?

Mr. Smith. Well, it seems that way, particularly with the hydrocarbons from automobile exhausts which are known to be cancerous.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Shepard, the $11 billion cost of air pollution which I cited a few moments ago doesn't really give us much of picture of the housewives' problem in dealing with air pollution. This involves dirt, I take it, it involves damage to paints ?

Mrs. SHEPARD. That is right, sir.
The CHAIRMAX. Damage to fabrics?
Mrs. SHEPARD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. As well as damage to health, would you agree with that?

Mrs. SHEPARD. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. So that really you housewives are in the frontline here of the sentinels of the dangers of pollution?

Mrs. SHEPARD. Yes, and we appreciate being able to bring it to your attention. There is this very strong wave of interest in what you and your committee recommend, because our resolutions in our organization which are adopted at our convention provide guidelines that direct all of our activities, continuing education and community service activities, and they are based on our resolutions and our support of legislation or our position in legislation is based on these resolutions.

We have two on our general federation books. One adopted in 1955, urging air pollution controls; and one in 1959 at the time of the radiation furor, you remember at the time there was quite a bit about that; here in our State federation we have one adopted in 1961, and these were used in support of legislation on all levels.

The CHAIRMAX. Mr. Smith, in New York, the State TB association, the Associated Industries group, and the State department of air pollution have formed action for clean air groups to further public education and action to control air pollution; is that kind of activity contemplated here in Massachusetts or is it something that could be useful in Massachusetts ?

Mr. SMITH. Senator, we would like to do that here in Massachusetts. I have already been talking with the legislative counsel, Mr. McCarthy from Associated Industries of Massachusetts, who is strongly interested in air pollution, and Mr. Stanley, the State health department.

I think we would certainly hope that it would be possible to get these interests together in some way, because I think we all have an interest in this; and it is necessary to bring the people with a great deal of concern about it together.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much for your statements this morning

Our final witness of the morning, Mr. Earle W. Tibbetts, chief, sanitary engineering services, of the Main State Department of Health and Welfare.

Mr. Tibbetts, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning, and our friends from Massachusetts are going to wonder why Maine is concerned about air pollution.


Mr. TIBBETTS. Thank you, Senator.

I am Earle W. Tibbetts, chief, sanitary engineering services, Maine State Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Sanitary Engineering. I have been employed as a public health engineer for over 20 years, and I have prepared this statement in the absence of Dr. Elmer W. Campbell, director, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Maine Department of Health and Welfare, who is on vacation. I know he would have liked to have been here.

No recognized general air pollution problem exists in Maine, probably due to the fact that there are no large industrial concentrations and few metropolitan areas. The National Air Sampling Network has maintained a station in Portland for some years measuring suspended particulate matter, and benzine soluble material. The results indicate measurable pollution somewhat in line with other cities of similar size. It appears likely than much of the indicated air pollution is due to the burning of fuels, primarily coal and oil.

Nuisance conditions caused by pollution are known to exist in several isolated areas in the State. Many of these conditions are caused by emissions of sulfate process pulpmills. An investigation of one such facility was carried out, and aid obtained from the Public Health Service in an effort to properly interpret the problem. The consensus of opinion was that the problem had a demonstrated nuisance value, but no health hazard was established.

Kraft process pulpmills are becoming more common in Maine, probably due to their ability to use hardwoods, to reduce river pollution, and because of economic advantages. We believe that industry has made a real effort to control the nuisance-causing emissions to atmosphere common to this process; but presently there appears to be no economical method for removing the trace amounts of material responsible for the characteristic odor.

Powerplants and industrial furnaces have been involved in complaints relating to air pollution, as well as fishmeal, feather processing, and other industrial or production installations.

Present efforts to control air pollution must utilize the general nuisance and health laws, which provide for an appeal to the courts by a person or group hurt by a nuisance condition, or allows the local health officer to control conditions, when sickness can be demonstrated. These laws are largely ineffective as a practical control of air pollution.

At the present time the department of health and welfare has no definite program in relation to air pollution, has no personnel specifically trained in this discipline, and no money has been allocated for this phase of the public health program.

A bill, Legislative Document No. 1061, an act to provide for the control of air pollution, was introduced at the 101st Maine State Legislature in 1963. It was referred to the next legislature for possible action. This bill provided for an air pollution control board, which could make investigations, consider complaints, hold hearings, and order actions as indicated by circumstances to cause the abatement of pollution. It allows for the adoption and promulgation of reasonable rules and regulations, and the bringing of appropriate action to enforce its final orders and determinations. The bill further provides that the department of health and welfare woud carry on the usual technical matters involved in air pollution investigation and control. This bill provided for $15,000 each year for 2 years to carry out the purpose of the act. It also allowed accepting of enabling funds from Federal Government.

The Federal Government appears to properly have an interest in air pollution, and we believe it should establish standards and determine allowable safe concentrations of air pollutants.

Research is needed to determine economically feasible methods to remove or reduce air pollutants from many industrial processes.

Increased training facilities, providing for both short courses and opportunities for graduate courses and advanced studies at universities are desirable.

A grant program to provide a portion of the funds, which States must spend in order to evaluate and correct existing problems, is desirable and necessary.

We believe that regulations and enforcement should be a function of local governments, States, and multi-State compacts.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the testimony of Dr. Frechette. In fact, in Massachusetts there are tax exemptions of air and water pollution facilities which are installed by industry.

I don't think in Maine we have such exemptions, do we?
Mr. TIBBETTS. I know of none.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think this might be a useful thing for the legislature to consider?

Mr. TIBBETTS. It might be useful, but I think at the present time many of our problems await a little technical development. Truly, in the pulp industry reductions are made in many of the mills now, and I think all of the newer mills as they come along will be made to bring this down to what normally would be a low level, but the nuisance factor of these pollutants is of the rank of less than a part per million in the atmosphere; so that it is finally a tiny amount that must be removed.

The CHAIRMAN. I was thinking, also, of water pollution.

Mr. TIBBETTS. Water pollution; there certainly is an opportunity there and probably in air pollution, but I don't think tax exemptions or certain amount of money is necessarily the answer without some basic research in the problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Have the paper companies, for example, ever suggested that there ought to be some consideration, by way of tax relief, of their problem in meeting the cost of controlling water pollution?

Mr. TIBBETTS. They haven't to me; I am with the bureau of health, and as you know we have a separate water pollution control agency in Maine, and I wouldn't be surprised that they have felt that situation

« ForrigeFortsett »