Environmental agenda

     To the editor:
      In its lead editorial on Feb. 24, the Review-Journal made a serious error. The source of this error is readily establishable, and casts doubt on the credence of other "facts" which are noted. This provides an insight on the agenda of those which the Review-Journal appears willing to believe unquestioningly on matters of importance to our future well-being.
      According to the editorial, "A single Alaskan volcano in 1976 poured as much hydrochloric acid into the atmosphere as 570 years worth of industrial 'greenhouse gas' production." This statement, presented as fact, is wrong by a factor of at least a thousand.
      The source of this myth is readily established. It has been addressed by Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, the president of the American Society for the Advancement of Science, the umbrella society for all American scientists. In his 1993 presidential address, Dr. Rowland noted that the late D.A. Johnston, of the U.S. Geological Survey, had written a scientific paper in 1980 which speculated on the possible release of hydrochloric acid into the Earth's atmosphere by the 1976 eruption of Mt. Augustine in Alaska. Mr. Johnston estimated that this eruption might have emitted an amount equivalent to between 18 and 36 percent of the Earth's 1975 annual industrial production of chlorine in the form of chlorofluorocarbons. This is the value that the Review-Journal should have quoted, not the factor of 570. Even so, it is not clear that Mr. Johnston's estimates are not erroneously high.
      Where did the Review-Journal's erroneous value come from? In his paper, Mr. Jackson went on to speculate that if his assumptions about Mr. Augustine were correct, and that if the eruption 700,000 years ago that formed the Long Valley caldera (where Mammoth Mountain Ski resort is now located) were similar, it might have emitted a very large amount (the 570-years' worth) of hydrochloric acid. The Long Valley eruption was one of the truly great eruptions in recent geological history. Certainly, nothing like it has happened recently. Nor, of course, do we have any idea how much hydrochloric acid it emitted, and there the speculation should have ended.
      However, those opposed to the idea that man-made generation of CFCs was affecting the Earth's atmosphere (in particular, augmenting the "ozone hole") seized upon Mr. Johnston's calculations, in the process attributing the possible ancient Long Valley hydrochloric acid production to the 1976 Alaskan eruption. So much for scientific truth and accuracy.
      The first culprit here is the late Dixie Lee Ray, former head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. It is in her book, "Trashing the Planet," that the substitution is first made. Since then, Rush Limbaugh has been fond of quoting Ms. Ray's mistake as gospel truth.
      While volcanos do certainly contribute somewhat to the atmosphere's burden of hydrochloric acid, that contribution is small compared to man-made sources. This has been established by comparing the trends in atmospheric amounts of both hydrochloric acid (HCI) and hydrofluoric acid (HF). Both have been rising steadily for more than 40 years, HF faster than HCI. However, there are practically no natural sources of HF. This compound comes almost entirely from photo-dissociation of CFCs. This fact, plus the only minor bumps in HCI concentration (at the few percent level) seen after the recent largest volcanic eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo and El Chicon) would appear to establish that indeed CFCs contribute most of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere. It is this chlorine which attacks the ozone layer.
      If this is the kind of information that the Review-Journal gets from a "heavily-footnoted, 450-page tome," I suggest its editorial writers buy another book. Let's go back to the original references, rather than taking as truth the compilations of intermediaries with an agenda.
     DAVID B. SHAFFER
     Henderson
     
     -- To the editor:
      In response to your Feb. 24 editorial, "How clean is clean":
      For a long time I have said that the heads of the environmental movement have some type of neurosis and environmental phobias. Your editorial was right on target, giving us some of the facts and figures about how things have changed for the better over the years, and how acts of nature can create far greater concentrations of "greenhouse gases" in a single event than man does in centuries.
      Envirophobes will trade your freedom and prosperity to make themselves "feel" better. One of the largest battles fought by environmentalists in the 104th Congress was against the so-called takings bill, which attempted to define various environmental regulations as Fourth Amendment takings because they limited private property rights. Believe it or not, the Sierra Club argued the law would be budget-buster because it would have forced government to start paying for the land it devalued or seized. Since when is the Sierra Club worried about the federal deficit or the amount of money it costs you to implement the extreme regulations favored by envirophobes? Only if they can use it to impose their agenda.
      Envirophobes claim 66,000 lives each year are lost to air pollution. Would the new Clean Air Act save those 66,000? Would it save half that amount? How many months would be added to our life span?
      Here is the flip side to the 66,000 lives lost to pollution: How many lives would be saved if we were able to enjoy the fruits of our labor by not having to work two jobs to pay for the cost of regulation built into most of the products we buy? How many lives would be saved if we did not have to pay 40 percent of our earnings in various taxes and user fees that feed the bureaucrats? Poverty has been shown to reduce a person's life span by nine years. Even smoking only reduces the average life span by two or three years.
      Maybe if we had a little less regulation and a little more income we could live life to the fullest. Maybe there would be a few more jobs floating around and the entire country would prosper. Maybe some of our most poor would have these new jobs, adding nine years to their life span.
     CRAIG CASTLEBERRY
     Boulder City
     
     -- To the editor:
      After my environmentalist wife read your Feb. 23 and Feb. 24 editions, she brought Kate O-Beirne's article ("Eco-brats are trained to target their parents") and your unbelievably biased editorial ("How clean is clean?") to my attention.
      First, the reason teachers are trying to inform children about the environment and what they can do to make it better is because our generation has been a poor steward of the environment. Our only hope is to instill a reverence for the planet at an early age that will continue into adult life. If one of the adverse effects of this policy is having a nagging eco-brat at home, it is a small price to pay. If parents would pay attention to the eco-brats just 10 percent of the time, it would be a step in the right direction.
      Second, your editorial, "How clean is clean?" clearly demonstrates your true anti-environmental attitude. While there is some truth in your facts regarding the actual improvement of air quality in the cities due to the cessation of burning coal and wood for heat, which contributed huge quantities of particulate matter, smoke, and carbon monoxide, you missed the big picture and have some erroneous information.
      The cities have become cleaner because much of our heat and cooling is produced by power plants in rural areas that send the electricity to us over high-tension wires. The coal is being burned in remote areas now but still contributes significant sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide to the global load. If you don't think this is a problem, I recommend you take your family to the Grand Canyon for a vacation and tell me how clean the air is when you look across the rim. Although the power plant at Page, Ariz. is over 100 miles away, it contributes significantly to the haze at the Grand Canyon not to mention the air from Los Angeles and Las Vegas that gets mixed in.
      In your editorial you stated that "93 percent of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere comes from trees." I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry, with honors, from the University of Illinois. I also have a medical degree from the University of Illinois. I have completed courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry and have never heard of trees producing carbon monoxide. Trees do not produce carbon monoxide. They do carry on a process called photosynthesis that converts the carbon dioxide produced by normal respiration of animals and the combustion of organic material into oxygen.
     MICHAEL J. KRAMER
     Henderson