00:00:00 The following program is produced by KQED and the American Chemical Society.

00:00:12 This is a sketch of the new St. Louis Arch.

00:00:16 That's not very funny when you look at the real thing.

00:00:19 This was Los Angeles.

00:00:21 This is Los Angeles.

00:00:24 New Yorkers who used to laugh at Los Angeles smog aren't laughing anymore.

00:00:29 The 360,000 tons of gassy garbage that are poured into our skies every day reaches everywhere.

00:00:37 The toll is enormous.

00:00:39 Monuments and buildings corrode.

00:00:42 Electrical wiring breaks down.

00:00:44 Plants wither and die.

00:00:48 The damage to tires and other rubber in the San Francisco area totals 2 million yearly.

00:00:54 New York City's yearly bill for air pollution has been put at 520 million.

00:00:59 What it does to people can only be guessed at,

00:01:02 but it's been blamed for a lung-choking disease called emphysema,

00:01:06 at one time peculiar to trombone players.

00:01:11 The causes are ridiculously simple.

00:01:14 The stuff that comes out of chimneys and cars.

00:01:17 The sulfur in coal and oil may become a powerful corrosive in the air.

00:01:22 Car exhaust driven by the heat, trapped by the geography and climate,

00:01:27 becomes smog whether in Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, or all the cities in between.

00:01:35 At one time, the solution to air pollution or any waste problem was simple.

00:01:39 Leave the cave.

00:01:41 Today, that's not possible.

00:01:43 Man, packed together into cities, abandoning the countryside,

00:01:47 building ever more concentrated housing,

00:01:50 can't get rid of his wastes fast enough,

00:01:53 except by dumping them into his air and streams.

00:01:56 Whenever that out is blocked, there's disaster.

00:02:00 That's what happened in Donora, Pennsylvania,

00:02:03 the Mears Valley in Belgium,

00:02:05 and London, England, where 2,000 died when pollution was trapped by a temperature inversion.

00:02:12 It's becoming clear that, as someone has said,

00:02:15 our planet is a spaceship without a home to come back to.

00:02:19 We have a limited space, and what we do with it is our business.

00:02:23 No one else cares.

00:02:25 The fate of the ship is our own.

00:02:27 We are all passengers.

00:02:42 Here is the moderator, David Perlman, science editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.

00:02:47 Good evening.

00:02:48 Our guests this evening are Dr. Sheldon K. Friedlander,

00:02:52 professor of chemical engineering and environmental health engineering

00:02:56 at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California,

00:03:00 Dr. Melvin J. Josephs,

00:03:02 managing editor of the American Chemical Society's magazine,

00:03:05 Environmental Science and Technology in Washington, D.C.,

00:03:09 and Dr. Paul Altshuler,

00:03:11 who heads physical science research and development program

00:03:14 at the National Center for Air Pollution Control in Cincinnati, Ohio.

00:03:19 And our question, of course, is about air pollution and about smog.

00:03:24 And perhaps the first thing we ought to discuss is where we are technologically

00:03:27 in the sense of can we control air pollution from stationary sources

00:03:32 and air pollution from automobiles.

00:03:35 Dr. Altshuler, what do you think?

00:03:37 Do we have the technology to do the job?

00:03:40 Well, the degree to which we have the technology depends on

00:03:45 which pollutant we're discussing.

00:03:48 If we're discussing particulates,

00:03:51 we have a good deal of the technology

00:03:54 and a portion of it isn't being applied to the extent that it might be.

00:03:59 By particulates you're talking about smoke and the stuff that's in it.

00:04:03 This is right.

00:04:04 And some of the smaller particles, which don't settle out immediately,

00:04:08 but which have effects on visibility or potential effects on health of individuals.

00:04:14 And here we certainly do have a technology which is being applied in part,

00:04:20 but which certainly could be applied to a greater extent than we're doing presently.

00:04:25 With respect to sulfur dioxide,

00:04:30 we are busily at work, of course, trying to develop a technology.

00:04:35 Our present options are mainly limited to the manipulation of fuels.

00:04:42 That is, trying to find sufficient amounts of lower sulfur fuels,

00:04:46 which can be burnt in power plants or other sources,

00:04:49 so as to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide going into the atmosphere.

00:04:54 Is it a matter of reducing the sulfur content of these fuels

00:04:58 or is it a matter of selecting fuels that have low sulfur content?

00:05:02 Well, what we're doing right now, of course,

00:05:05 is selecting them to result in fuels which are burnt of lower sulfur content.

00:05:11 That is, going to lower sulfur content residue oils

00:05:15 or trying to find sufficient amounts of lower sulfur content coals

00:05:20 or, where possible, burn natural gas rather than coal or oil.

00:05:25 The other alternatives, of course, are preventing the sulfur

00:05:31 from being emitted in the boiler by addition of things like limestone or dolomite

00:05:40 to trap them in the ash

00:05:43 or to try and take the sulfur out of the flue gases by a variety of processes

00:05:52 which are in the research and development stage at the present time.

00:05:56 Of course, similarly, one can address oneself to removing the sulfur from the fuel itself.

00:06:03 With respect to petroleum products,

00:06:06 this is possible by present techniques at a cost per barrel,

00:06:12 which is a substantial but not overwhelming portion of the total cost per barrel.

00:06:18 With respect to coals, in principle, one can remove the sulfur from pyritic coals,

00:06:27 but no one, I don't believe, knows how to remove the organic sulfur content of coals.

00:06:33 And similarly, even with respect to the pyritic coals,

00:06:37 the question is whether we can find means of practically getting the sulfur out of the huge amounts of coal

00:06:45 which has to be processed at the mine each day.

00:06:49 Well, Dr. Josephs, a colleague of Dr. Altshuler's said not too long ago

00:06:54 that the critical ingredient of smog is simply politics.

00:06:57 And I think by that he meant that even the technologies available today

00:07:02 are not being applied by cities, by groups of cities.

00:07:06 Do you think this is a valid comment about the state of smog control?

00:07:10 I think it's an overstatement. It's a dramatic one.

00:07:14 There is a vast amount of technology, as in any system.

00:07:18 You have the technology to do certain things if you're willing to pay the price to do it.

00:07:23 This may be an economic price.

00:07:25 It may be a social price in the sense that you restrict an activity.

00:07:31 It just depends, really, on what price you want to pay.

00:07:34 Now, in the case of the removal of sulfur from oils or from coals, these can be accomplished.

00:07:41 With coal, it's a very difficult and very expensive process.

00:07:45 With oil, it's a difficult process, not nearly as expensive as coal.

00:07:50 The answer is yes, I think that's an overstatement.

00:07:54 The technology is available, but it's a very expensive,

00:07:58 in some instances, a very expensive technology.

00:08:01 And yet I'm struck by the fact, for example, that in New York City,

00:08:04 where much was made of the contribution to pollution from the electric utility companies,

00:08:11 and they announced that they could possibly cut sulfur from their fuel oil or get better grades of fuel oil,

00:08:19 when it was finally put to them that they'd darn well better do it,

00:08:22 they managed to find the sources and have entered into some kind of compact with the city,

00:08:27 which may result in cleaning up some of the city's air.

00:08:30 Right. This is one very good possibility.

00:08:35 But then this is only one instance,

00:08:37 and there is simply not enough available low-sulfur oil or low-sulfur fuels to satisfy this,

00:08:44 to give an answer across the country.

00:08:47 These are big users, and they can afford to go out and get this kind of material

00:08:53 to solve their immediate problems if they have to.

00:08:56 But again, they have to pay a premium for this type of fuel.

00:09:00 Well, Dr. Friedlander, down in your neck of the woods around the Los Angeles area,

00:09:05 there are kind of two observations I would make as a guy who flies in there all the time.

00:09:09 In the first place, it seems to have a magnificent smog control district

00:09:13 that has controlled stationary sources of pollution to a fairly well,

00:09:16 and every time I fly in there, I can't see the ground until I get on it.

00:09:21 Number one, then you get two questions.

00:09:24 Does the smog control district really work,

00:09:26 and does it work effectively from a political and technological sense?

00:09:29 And number two, why is it still so smoggy?

00:09:32 Well, I think that this brings up a question which Dr. Altshuler sort of alluded to before,

00:09:38 and that is the sources of smog or of air pollution in our industrial and urban areas.

00:09:45 And I think many of us know that there are two major sources of air pollution,

00:09:52 and the typical source is the typical kind of air pollution depends very much

00:10:00 on the nature of the geographical area in which you're living and on the origin of the pollutants.

00:10:08 The type that we have in Los Angeles is now due largely to the automobile exhaust products,

00:10:16 and the type that is commonly experienced in the east, though,

00:10:21 is to a great extent the result of emissions from stationary sources from power plants

00:10:27 and from the heating of homes.

00:10:30 So simply talking about smog in itself is not sufficient.

00:10:37 You have to recognize the existence of these two types of smog.

00:10:41 Both of them, of course, are associated with energy production,

00:10:44 which is, of course, characteristic of our civilization.

00:10:46 We're a very energy-rich kind of society, but the byproduct of this energy production,

00:10:53 whether it's for the heating of homes or generation of electricity, is air pollution,

00:10:59 or whether it's for the production of power for automobiles, again, is air pollution.

00:11:05 Well, and we tend to think of west coast smog as being different from east coast smog

00:11:09 because of the fact that the auto exhausts emit fumes,

00:11:12 which are transformed by our wonderful California climate, our sunny days,

00:11:18 into the various photochemical products that cause eye irritation and so forth.

00:11:25 But isn't there much of that same photochemical smog in eastern cities too,

00:11:31 at least when the sun is shining?

00:11:32 Yes, this is certainly right.

00:11:34 I think we have to divide the problem several ways.

00:11:37 One is carbon monoxide.

00:11:39 It's a product from the automobile.

00:11:41 It's just as much a problem in the summer or winter, any time of the year,

00:11:44 in New York City as it is in Los Angeles.

00:11:46 Sure, I'd never take a job as one of those guys stationed in a small tunnel.

00:11:50 Right.

00:11:51 They don't stay in the tunnel very long.

00:11:54 Fortunately for the citizens in the eastern United States,

00:12:00 or unfortunately because they don't have quite as much sunshine

00:12:06 as you have out in the west coast,

00:12:09 they have a smaller problem,

00:12:11 a problem which seems to show up during certain days in this period,

00:12:17 May through September.

00:12:19 But one definitely sees elevated concentrations of ozone in these cities.

00:12:25 One sees reduction in visibility.

00:12:28 But, of course, now this can be due either to the sort of air pollution

00:12:33 associated with coal burning,

00:12:35 or it can be due to photochemical air pollution.

00:12:37 And the citizen really can't distinguish between the two,

00:12:41 but it's entirely possible for the summer haze to be due to photochemical air pollution

00:12:46 and the winter haze to be due to the burning of products and stationary sources

00:12:54 and reduction of particulates and sulfur oxides.

00:12:58 But the photochemical air pollution is there.

00:13:00 Now the question, of course, is, well, then why aren't the people in the eastern United States

00:13:03 complaining in the same sense?

00:13:06 I think one can just attribute this to several factors.

00:13:09 I think perhaps the most important from the standpoint of public opinion

00:13:13 is the fact that it is true that eye irritation complaints

00:13:18 are very minor in the eastern United States compared with Los Angeles.

00:13:25 And even though the ozone is elevated,

00:13:28 it isn't elevated as high on the average as it is in the Los Angeles area.

00:13:33 And, of course, again, this is a chemical measurement,

00:13:36 which isn't readily apparent except through some degree of odor,

00:13:40 which isn't quite as bad probably as far as the citizen is concerned as eye irritation is.

00:13:45 And, again, the haze is something which you can't really directly attribute

00:13:49 unless you are fairly knowledgeable about the situation to photochemical air pollution.

00:13:55 So I think the answer is, yes, there is photochemical air pollution.

00:13:58 There is elevated ozone.

00:14:00 There is plant damage.

00:14:02 There's probably reduction in visibility in the eastern United States on summer days.

00:14:07 But the problem has not reached as critical a stage as it has in the western United States

00:14:14 or in California in particular.

00:14:17 I think it's interesting that you should have picked carbon monoxide as one case in point

00:14:23 because, for example, in Times Square, it doesn't really matter.

00:14:26 You can't get any more cars in the center of Times Square now than you could 30 years ago.

00:14:31 The carbon monoxide concentration really in these areas, some of these areas,

00:14:35 has really not changed all that much in the good old times.

00:14:40 They can have bigger engines.

00:14:43 It hardly matters much.

00:14:45 Well, that's a relief in any event.

00:14:47 No, really, the situation, it's not a scare situation.

00:14:51 It's a time for reasoned action but not to be alarmed.

00:14:55 And just recently a 10-year study completed in Philadelphia

00:14:58 showed that the daily particulate matter put out by the industrial stacks in the Philadelphia area

00:15:08 are 1,200 tons a day less than they had been 10 years ago.

00:15:12 Perhaps we become more concerned with each passing year about what might be termed

00:15:19 more minor insults to us than we were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

00:15:23 Well, I would like to suggest that perhaps, and this is kind of a broad question

00:15:26 which doesn't necessarily have to do with air pollution,

00:15:28 but I'd like to suggest that our environment is getting loused upper

00:15:32 in so many different ways at a progressively greater rate

00:15:36 that we've become annoyed by things that at one time we were willing to tolerate.

00:15:39 Well, I think we've gotten very sophisticated about this.

00:15:42 You know, it's a popular thing.

00:15:44 We talk about pollution problems.

00:15:47 You may not be affected by it physically or health-wise,

00:15:52 but you open the window and you smell something that's bad.

00:15:57 It just is offensive to you, and consequently you feel it's polluted.

00:16:02 In your social relationships, it's a common topic of conversation,

00:16:08 and these things build on each other.

00:16:10 I think there's an awareness in the country to solve these problems,

00:16:14 and there is an awareness that there are funds and technology available

00:16:19 to begin taking corrective steps.

00:16:23 Well, Shell, the suggestion that the physical effects may be somewhat minor,

00:16:29 how does that strike you as someone who's interested in the public health aspects of air pollution?

00:16:34 I think it's fair to say that the greatest concern about smog,

00:16:39 and of course the invention of the word, was initiated in the West Coast,

00:16:46 and L.A. was a prime example of the problem of smog in an urban area.

00:16:52 But at the same time, as far as I know,

00:16:56 the definite proof of damage to health by L.A. smog is still lacking.

00:17:04 There are some indications that it can be damaging under certain circumstances.

00:17:09 Well, we know it irritates eyes.

00:17:11 Exactly.

00:17:12 But we've had no incidents comparable to the types of incidents

00:17:15 which were mentioned in the introductory remarks to our discussion here.

00:17:20 Those in the Meuse Valley in Belgium,

00:17:23 or the Dinora disaster in Pennsylvania,

00:17:26 or the famous London disaster,

00:17:28 the figure that I heard quoted was 2,000 here,

00:17:31 but the one that I know of is 4,000 people died

00:17:37 over and above the normal mortality rate in December of 1952 in London

00:17:42 as a result of the sulfur dioxide particulate kind of pollution,

00:17:47 not the kind of pollution that we normally have in Los Angeles.

00:17:52 So while the sensation is a very unpleasant one,

00:18:00 when tears come streaming down your eyes,

00:18:02 at least you know that you have a chance of surviving until you reach your door,

00:18:06 and this wasn't the case in these other...

00:18:09 This is true, but of course I think we're all concerned not only about deaths,

00:18:15 but about the person who already has emphysema,

00:18:18 who has further discomfort in Los Angeles,

00:18:22 or the child who has asthma and has further discomfort because of it.

00:18:27 In the case of the child,

00:18:29 you might say that the child is being deprived if because of air pollution

00:18:35 the child has to spend part of the day indoors rather than playing outdoors, for example.

00:18:40 I'd like to go one step farther.

00:18:42 I really believe that...

00:18:45 Health is not the absence of disease.

00:18:49 Or death.

00:18:50 Or death.

00:18:52 But I really do think that the important part is that man, me,

00:18:56 I have a right to look on the positive face of health,

00:19:00 and I believe that this is a...

00:19:02 I should have this right.

00:19:03 Well, I guess you can't escape it if you're surrounded by these various irritants,

00:19:09 as you mentioned.

00:19:11 Let me get back to the question of photochemical smog,

00:19:13 because it leads directly to the automobile,

00:19:15 and everybody who's buying a 1968 model car in the United States

00:19:19 is now aware of the fact that he's got a smog control device on his car for the first time.

00:19:24 Richard Morse of MIT said last January to the Society of Automotive Engineers,

00:19:30 and I think it was reproduced in your magazine,

00:19:33 you know,

00:19:34 we have yet to see the public announcement from the auto industry

00:19:37 of pollution control concepts more effective than those required to meet the current standards.

00:19:42 This ostrich posture makes an interesting target.

00:19:47 If this is true, what's the matter with the automobile industry?

00:19:52 I hear a dead silence.

00:19:55 Well, I would like to respond a little bit to that.

00:19:58 I don't think there's anything wrong with the automobile industry.

00:20:00 It's a profit-making enterprise.

00:20:02 I just happen to believe that they, like a good many others, us included,

00:20:07 just do very little more than we have to.

00:20:10 This is a competitive business.

00:20:12 Putting an expensive piece of equipment on an automobile

00:20:16 eats into the profit margin of the automobile industry.

00:20:21 What if they kick the price out?

00:20:23 If they make 10 million automobiles a year

00:20:26 and can save 10 cents an automobile,

00:20:29 this is a million dollars that goes into their pocket without any problem.

00:20:32 So then if it's an expensive device,

00:20:35 it becomes a very expensive thing to put on.

00:20:37 Legislation can resolve the problem.

00:20:40 It goes across the board throughout the entire industry.

00:20:43 They're all in the same competitive nest,

00:20:46 and they'll be responsive to that.

00:20:48 It's the same way with the controls on the stationary sources of pollution.

00:20:56 One company is not willingly going to spend

00:20:59 five or six million dollars for cleanup equipment

00:21:03 if its competitor doesn't have to spend that.

00:21:07 It's not economic.

00:21:09 David, I think one of the purposes that discussions of this type can serve,

00:21:15 I think, is to try to alert the citizen

00:21:19 to the problems that we have in the field

00:21:22 and to get him to stimulate political action

00:21:25 and also, of course, to get him to be aware of the fact that

00:21:29 this is, in many respects, an economic question

00:21:33 as well as a technological question

00:21:35 and to encourage him to think along those lines.

00:21:38 I could point out that the...

00:21:40 I think Paul perhaps can correct me on this,

00:21:42 but it's my understanding that the total budget for the National Center

00:21:47 is, I think, this year about 73 million dollars for air pollution research,

00:21:51 which amounts to something less than

00:21:54 the cost of one day of the war in Vietnam

00:21:58 at current levels of spending.

00:22:00 I think that budget figure is close to correct.

00:22:03 There's a supplemental that's somewhat...

00:22:06 being worked out right now.

00:22:08 Well, is this something that's adequate to do

00:22:10 the kind of research that's adequate to develop the technology

00:22:13 that's really going to clean up the dirty air in American cities?

00:22:17 Or am I putting you too much on the spot

00:22:20 since you work at the National Center for Air Pollution Control and do research?

00:22:23 Well, scientists always want more money than they have.

00:22:26 I think this is a generality, isn't it?

00:22:29 We have much more than we had.

00:22:32 Certainly with respect to the program

00:22:35 in controlling sulfur dioxide,

00:22:38 rather considerable sums of money have been put into

00:22:42 contract work for developing new processes

00:22:45 for control of sulfur dioxide.

00:22:48 With respect to automotive pollution,

00:22:51 I think there is a feeling that since this is

00:22:54 a little bit more specialized industrially,

00:22:57 at least for the bulk of automobiles,

00:22:59 the limited number of companies,

00:23:01 and because the device has to be part of the whole package,

00:23:05 that one has to depend to a greater extent

00:23:08 on the activity of the automobile industry itself

00:23:13 in coming up with a package which they consider

00:23:17 acceptable for a production automobile.

00:23:20 Here we get to a difficult point, of course,

00:23:23 the difference between something which is technically feasible

00:23:27 in the laboratory in the way of a control device on an automobile,

00:23:31 as you put it on one automobile,

00:23:33 and you run it under more or less idealized conditions in a laboratory,

00:23:38 and it gives you very fine results

00:23:40 in terms of removal of hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides.

00:23:45 And the problem of the automobile industry

00:23:49 in translating this into a production device

00:23:53 on nine million automobiles,

00:23:55 I think very often their argument isn't with

00:24:00 whether or not the device is technically feasible,

00:24:03 but whether they can put it into mass production.

00:24:06 It has to work in the winters of Maine and in the heat of Texas.

00:24:12 Well, but we've had these devices required by law for some years in California,

00:24:18 and I'm sure that if they hadn't been required by law in California

00:24:22 as far back as they were,

00:24:23 we wouldn't be at the stage nationally where we are today.

00:24:26 Don't you think that's true?

00:24:27 Yes, it is.

00:24:28 I don't know whether 275 parts per million of hydrocarbons

00:24:33 as an emission standard is going to effectively help out in smog control.

00:24:40 I understand there are devices now in the works that will cut that by 75%.

00:24:46 Well, this is true.

00:24:48 Of course, there's always a certain reservoir of information

00:24:51 which can probably be pumped in to improve the situation.

00:24:55 We get back to what Noah was referring to

00:24:57 in the question of the position of the automobile industry

00:25:00 in making that reservoir of information available.

00:25:05 But, of course, you can only even stretch that so far

00:25:11 in terms of what's available.

00:25:14 I think the comment that you made is probably technically correct

00:25:19 in terms of an automobile you can run in the laboratory.

00:25:23 But again, we get back, of course, unfortunately,

00:25:26 as we so often do, to an economic question.

00:25:31 If such a device costs the motorist,

00:25:34 in order to make it technologically feasible,

00:25:37 $300, say, per automobile

00:25:40 because of the materials of construction necessary and other factors,

00:25:48 do you buy it as a citizen?

00:25:50 Well, you may have a good deal of resistance to buying it.

00:25:52 That's perfectly true.

00:25:53 On the other hand, Los Angeles, as you indicated,

00:25:57 certainly has spent a great deal of money

00:26:01 and quite successfully in controlling its stationary sources of air pollution.

00:26:06 The people wanted it and they demanded it

00:26:08 and they got a tough smog control district, didn't they?

00:26:11 Now, the question is whether people are going to want

00:26:15 and demand this same kind of tough action nationally

00:26:19 and in other cities, both for moving sources and stationary sources.

00:26:24 This is, of course, exactly where the citizen should express himself

00:26:27 and just how tough he wants government to be.

00:26:30 Well, indeed he has through the air quality control.

00:26:34 Yes, this is right.

00:26:35 But, of course, this gives you freedom to act,

00:26:41 but in each specific instance of action with respect to control

00:26:46 you still have an individual decision to make.

00:26:48 But we still don't have a single interstate functioning air pollution control agency

00:26:54 that is really cleaning up air that I know of in the United States, do we?

00:26:58 Do we, Mel?

00:26:59 Well, the Air Quality Control Act required Secretary Udall

00:27:05 to set up regions to establish criteria and eventually standards

00:27:09 exactly as they've done as we have seen happen in the water system.

00:27:13 Excuse me, it was the Secretary of HEW, wasn't it?

00:27:17 Right.

00:27:18 I'm sorry.

00:27:19 Health Education and Welfare, HEW.

00:27:22 But these are regional setups and steps are being taken.

00:27:26 This actually is related to a point that I wanted to bring up before

00:27:29 when you were talking about technology.

00:27:31 I think that, as you indicated, Paul, there is certainly technology

00:27:35 available to handle many of the problems which have appeared in the air pollution field.

00:27:40 But to me as an engineer, one of the most fascinating kinds of problems

00:27:44 that's developed in this field is the need for quantitative approaches to human ecology,

00:27:51 that is, the big picture, how we relate technology to man

00:27:55 and the impact of technology, say in the form of air pollution, for example,

00:27:59 on human populations and, at the same token,

00:28:04 the production of these problems by the human populations.

00:28:08 And that is what kind of technology we don't have at this point.

00:28:11 We're lacking a quantitative approach to human ecology

00:28:15 where we bring in engineering and biology and economics

00:28:19 and develop a mathematical model suitable for this.

00:28:23 I would agree completely with this.

00:28:26 I'm going to have to interrupt you.

00:28:27 I'm glad you agree, and I'm glad we've just opened up another multimillion-dollar area

00:28:32 of research into human ecology as well as the ecology of the automobile.

00:28:36 Thank you for being with us, and good evening.

00:28:41 Our guests for this program were Dr. Melvin Josephs, Managing Editor,

00:28:51 Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical Society.

00:28:55 Dr. S. K. Friedlander, Professor of Chemical Engineering

00:28:59 and Environmental Health Engineering, California Institute of Technology.

00:29:04 Dr. A. P. Altshuler, Chief, Chemical and Physical Research and Development Program,

00:29:09 National Center for Air Pollution Control.

00:29:13 The moderator was David Perlman, Science Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.

00:29:19 We wish to thank Engelhardt and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

00:29:22 the General Electric Company, and the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District

00:29:27 for their cooperation in providing visuals used on this program.