It is important to remember that our respiratory system was developed, in the course of evolution, in an environment which was precisely fitted to support this system. In nature, the air is free of toxic substances that might, in contact with the rich blood supply in the lungs, readily penetrate into the body or damage the selfprotective processes in the lungs. It contains little else besides oxygen, nitrogen (which is chemically and biologically inert), some carbon dioxide, and water vapor. Having evolved in such an environment, the human body is not well equipped to tolerate the presence of any other airborne substances that affect bodily functions.

The chief point that I wish to make is that the natural composition of the air is being drastically changed by modern technology, and that these changes have set off a chain of events which lead to most of our present air pollution problems. This means, I am convinced, that in order to achieve a long-term solution to the air pollution problem, we must counteract the fundamental changes in the composition of the air.

A good example is provided by the problem of the smog due to automotive vehicles a problem which is becoming increasingly acute in St. Louis as it is in most other American cities. Smog is triggered by the presence in the air of nitrogen oxides-molecules in which nitrogen and oxygen are chemically combined. When nitrogen oxides absorb sunlight, they are converted to very reactive molecules which then combine with hydrocarbons-such as those in waste automotive fuel-and, following a complex and still poorly understood series of chemical reactions, lead to the appearance of the noxious substances that irritate the eyes and the lungs, and which, it is believed, may induce lung cancer.

Nitrogen oxides are not naturally present in air, for in the normal course of the biological processes which relate to nitrogen, this element is rarely able to combine with oxygen. The nitrogen oxides in the air are almost entirely produced by manmade technology; any technological process that elevates the temperature of the air to about 700° F. or more causes the nitrogen and oxygen in the air to combine, producing nitrogen oxides. One important source of nitrogen oxides in the air is the internal combustion engine which produces, in the United States annually, more than 3 million tons of nitrogen in this form. In addition, nitrogen oxides may be produced by the action of bacteria in heavily fertilized soil. That gasoline engines produce nitrogen oxides is a direct result of their technological improvement. In order to increase their power, the compression in the engine cylinders has been increased; this has raised the engine temperature to the point at which the oxygen and nitrogen in the air taken into the engine combine. Thus, we are troubled by smog because of the development of the modern high-compression gasoline engine.

It is commonly believed that we can control smog by introducing devices which reduce the emission of waste fuel from engine exhausts. While such devices can reduce the smog level, the nitrogen oxides remain unreacted, so that their level in the air will increase. The nitrogen oxides are themselves toxic, and since they are absent from natural air, there are no effective protective mechanisms in the body. In the Los Angeles area, where waste fuel control has been in effect for several years, the nitrogen oxide problem has become worsened.

Thus, while exhaust devices are capable of controlling smog, they only intensify other air pollution problems. Moreover, we know solittle about the chemistry of smog production that other side-effects are probable. For example, recently Dr. Austin Heller, Air Pollution Commissioner of New York City, has noted that the reduction of sulfur dioxide levels in New York air seems to have worsened the smog problem. Apparently, sulfur dioxide may be involved in the chemistry of smog and in some way which is not yet understood may sidetrack the chemical events that lead to the production of the noxious substances of smog. While it is, of course, essential to health that SO2 levels be reduced, this observation shows that the air pollution problem must be treated as a whole; if we reduce SO2 levels, we should at the same time control pollution from gasoline engines, in order to avoid aggravating one problem while attempting to correct another one. There has been an effort made to develop exhaust devices which act on nitrogen oxides. However, it has been found that the catalysts necessary to activate such devices are poisoned by the lead additives in gasoline--substances which have been added to fuel in order to control knock in high-compression engines.

Thus, if we attempt to control the pollution caused by the internal combustion engine by dealing with one pollutant at a time, we become caught in an endless web. Clearly, to achieve a fundamental, longterm control of air pollution, we need to get rid of the internal combustion engine as a means of urban transportation, or at least to modify it drastically so that it will operate at low temperatures and avoid the production of nitrogen oxides. This means that we will probably have to look to the use of electric-powered or steam-driven vehicles and to the development of effective mass transportation. systems. Clearly, any of these actions will involve very serious technological problems. They will require long-term planning and major economic readjustments. But if the people of St. Louis want to correct the smog problem, as I believe they do, these are the problems that we must face however difficult they may be.

St. Louis has a special air pollution problem which is related to the presence in our air shed of a number of chemical manufacturingplants. And again, if we look at this problem in fundamental terms, it becomes clear that any long-term effort to control air pollution will require actions with serious technological and economic consequences. These plans are engaged in the synthesis of a variety of manmadeorganic compounds. Such compounds and related waste products may be released to the air and contribute to air pollution problems. A specific example is the effect recently detected by Dr. Frederick Lanphear working in the center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Washington University. He observed damage to trees which resembled the effects of herbicides and was able to trace this to emission from a specific industrial plant. We know very little about the effects of othersynthetic organic compounds which are emitted into the St. Louis air shed on living things including people. That such compounds do pollute our air is evident from the frequent occurrence of odors characteristic of phenolic and related compounds. That some syntheticorganic compounds may be dangerous to health is dramatically illus trated by the recent action to remove cyclamates from the market.

Organic compounds which pollute the air may enter into biological cycles from the air itself. For example, recent studies show that benzpyrene, a powerful carcinogen which has been detected in the air of St. Louis and many other cities, is precipitated into the soil by rain and snow. Once in the soil it can enter crops, so that the possibility of some toxic air pollutants entering the body in food must be taken into

account.

These considerations emphasize the importance of developing rigorous control over chemical processing plants. In my opinion such plants will eventually need to operate as controlled closed systems, with all products, including wastes, being contained rather than released in the environment. This will require, of course, major revisions in the construction of such plants. Again, long-term control of air pollution will require serious technological changes and economic readjustments.

It is evident, then, that the air pollution problem involves a complex network of chemical and biological interactions. Like all other environmental systems, the air that we breathe, and we ourselves, make up an inherently complex system which is so tightly interconnected that any single change such as either an increase or decrease in the amount of any give pollutant-is likely to set off an intricate chain of side effects. For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the result of controlling any single pollutant unless we have some understanding of the system as a whole.

I believe that these considerations have important implications for the strategy of air pollution control. If the present trend toward an increased incidence of pollution-related disease is to be reversed, an intensive national effort against air pollution is urgent. Now that we have taken the first steps to control the most obvious and accessible pollutants we must move quickly to master the problem as a whole. Otherwise we may find that the effort to control a single pollutant only exchanges one air pollution problem for another. Without a broad intensive attack on the total problem there is a real danger, I believe, that urban air pollution may quickly outrun the present efforts to control it and erupt in a series of catastrophic episodes.

This points toward the urgency of finding the necessary technical, economic, and administrative solutions to the whole air pollution problem as quickly as possible. In a problem which is so complex and intimately connected with the intricacies of our entire urban life, solutions cannot be found in the laboratory alone. What is required, in addition to laboratory research, is a pilot program in which possible solutions are quickly put to the test of practice, and perfected in

use.

I believe that until a pilot program is established to work out practical methods for rapidly rolling back the total level of air pollution there is a grave danger that the worsening of health hazards will outrun the present efforts to control air pollution one pollutant at a time. The establishment of a pilot airshed program for total control of air pollution is, I believe, essential to the success of the national program to control separate air pollutants.

Such a pilot total air pollution control program would require (a) the closest possible correlation between analysis of the problem and action to control air pollution; and (b) total mobilization of the airshed's resources for an all-out attack on the problem. To meet the first

of these requirements we would need to develop an intensive pollution monitoring service, which would produce frequent analyses of SO, and its oxidation products, dust levels, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide ozone, and other oxidants, metals, and of synthetic organic compounds, and a number of points in the airshed. These data would guide the overall strategy of air pollution control: As specific control measures are enforced, the effects on other pollutants would be noted, and new control steps devised which would take into account the impact of earlier actions. At the same time plans for the long-term technological changes, such as replacement of internal combustion engines, would be developed, their effects on the region's economy evaluated. Finally, with the development of the necessary fiscal plans, the necessary industrial changes would be put into effect.

A pilot program designed to carry out these steps in a single airshed would permit tests of different alternative control techniques and an evaluation of their effectiveness. Such information would be of great value to many other airsheds and, by permitting rapid, realistic evaluation of control measures, considerably speed up the entire national program to control air pollution.

Obviously this would require an unprecedented effort and a new level of cooperation among industry, Government agencies, university scientists and citizens generally. I believe that many scientists and engineers would be prepared to volunteer their services to establish task forces, in collaboration with existing agencies, for the rapid collection and analysis of pollution data, for the solution of specific industrial problems, and for the planning and development of new departures in industry and transportation. If local industries were assured of such extraordinary technical support, I believe they could more effectively meet their responsibilities toward the analysis and solution of their own specific pollution problems. And given this kind of encouragement citizens might be more ready to support the new expenditure that will be needed.

Such a pilot program would also need, and in view of its importance to the national air pollution program would certainly merit, extraordinary Federal support. Here would be the place, for example, to try out on a small scale the efficacy of various kinds of financial incentives to industries which are engaged in extraordinary efforts to control pollution. Federal support could also enable rapid field trials of control techniques developed by the national program of air pollution research. Federal support might provide valuable staff assistance to small industries, or in developing new methods of pollution control. The St. Louis-East St. Louis airshed is an ideal and perhaps unique place to set up such a model program. This airshed has most of the types of pollutants found in urban areas-sulfur dioxide, smog, dust, and a good share of the special pollutants produced by cars and trucks, by steel plants and foundries and by chemical plants. It is therefore a good testing ground for a wide variety of control measures. Because this airshed is isolated and nearly all pollutants are produced locally, it would readily reflect, in its own air, the impact of new control measures, thus yielding information on their effectiveness. I believe that the industrial and economic features of the St. Louis-East St. Louis airshed are also well suited to its choice for a pilot program. The administrative problems in the two-State area, like the technical issues,

are very complex and here, too, a great deal could be learned of na tional significance by mounting a special effort locally. The economic and industrial structure of the airshed is varied, thus providing opportunities for working out the different types of economic adjustment that may be needed to absorb the financial impact of pollution control. In the excellent work of our newspapers and civic groups such as the environmental coalition, we have the promise of the kind of intense promotional effort that would be needed to enlist citizen support for the program. Finally, this area has a unique asset in the Committee for Environmental Information which has a proven capability for developing the kind of public information that is essential to the development of the most fundamental ingredient in any such program--an informed electorate.

For these reasons I believe that we in the St. Louis-East St. Louis airshed ought to take the lead and establish here, as a combined local and national effort, a pilot program for total control of air pollution to serve as the testing ground for the new effort which the entire Nation must make if we are to survive the growing menace of polluted air. I believe that we ought to make St. Louis a model for the Nation-The pilot city, where basic cures to air pollution as a whole are first worked out. In this way, we can help the entire Nation learn what it takes to clear the air.

I am aware that what I am proposing is an effort enormously greater than anything that has thus far been contemplated to control air pollution. The program would place unprecedented demands on our financial and human resources. It would demand a huge investment, in money and human effort. But the alternative is, I am convinced, the continued deterioration of the environment to the point of disaster. The investment would be enormous, but in return we could gain what no smaller effort can assure us-the survival of this city, and of the Nation, as a suitable place for human habitation.

The point I am making, then, is that we are confronted with very serious long-term problems if we want to handle the air pollution problems that we have become aware of. I think that without a broadscale, intensive attack on all aspects of the problem, there is a great deal of danger that the pollution will outrun our present efforts to control it and erupt into a series of catastrophic episodes like the ones that occurred in August. I think that we have got to handle the problem as a whole. I think we must realize that the problem is going to require enormously serious technical changes.

Take smog: There is no way in handling the smog problem, I believe, without getting rid of the present type of internal combustion engine. I think that is a fact. If we are talking about air pollution in relation to the people in St. Louis, then there is no point talking about standards of emission or air quality standards unless we realize that to do something effective about it, we are going to have to keep the internal combustion out of the city of St. Louis. Otherwise, I think we are fooling ourselves. Immediately, that means that we are going to have to have some technological changes.

In Chicago, they are putting rapid transit lines along the superhighways. Well, why haven't we planned that here? It seems to me that if we really believe in getting rid of smog, we are undertaking the vast job of developing mass transport or of insisting that new types of cars be used.