‘
larger amounts of money
to expand the capacity of this one method in the
hopes that it will prove a cure—all.
All of this effort neglects a more critical look at the input end of our sym—
bolic sewer pipe where the fundamental processes and living habits of man
create the waste problem in the rst place—a problem that clearly has out—
grovæm anything but the most gigantic
treatment schemes. Analysis of that
root problem is not our purpose here,
but the importance of such an analysrs
is emphasized by this material. As the nal irony, when we reach the other
end of the pipe where the secondary treatment municipal plant is located,
discover that even this control has a major leak. This one promotes the Wide—
spread aquatic illness called eutrophication, which will be the subject of the
next chapter.
[1]
Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971).
[2]
B. Norris Shreve, The Chemical Process Industries, Second Edition (New
McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 6.
[3]
Nathaniel VVollman and Colbert W. Bonem, The Outlook for Water: Quality,
Quantity, and National Growth (Baltimore: ]ohns Hopkins Press, 1971),
adapted from Table 18, p. 584 (Values are based on the “medium” level of pre—'
dicted population and economic growth, as opposed to “low” or “high” esti—
__
mms->
.
-
'
,
[4]
The Cost of
Volume II: Cost Eectioeness and Clean Water, Envi—
ronmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing
Ofce, March 1971), pp. 1—128. The pollution summary by the EPA has
a3sessed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as having advan—
tages Ïn determining the situation throughout the United States, but as being
1" ‘
aW€d
in the use of raw data and by vagueness about the
”
specic types of pollutants involved. The deciencies have been corrected to a
'
certainextent in the 1972 EPA report (see [38]), but changes in methodology ;
mthe 1972 report make it
to use for comparative purposes
”
thiSchapter The CEQ criticism, and another less comprehensive pollution in-* aj—
by CEQ, can be found in Environmental Quality, The Tliird'É°
ofthe Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.:sî
USGmmnt Printing —Oîea August 1972), pp. 11—16- 1udging by the…
qæhtyofcurrent information,;rdequate overall data on extent and
the United States will not be available for
?
[5] The C03t0fClea”WaæîGüd=Iïs_Economic Impact, Volume 1, US. Department
Of the
Printing Ofce,
…
…
-
f
‘
.
‘
.
…… 16660ttAuWhgtnc zozsa
_.
larger amounts of money
to expand the capacity of this one method in the
hopes that it will prove a cure—all.
All of this effort neglects a more critical look at the input end of our sym—
bolic sewer pipe where the fundamental processes and living habits of man
create the waste problem in the rst place—a problem that clearly has out—
grovæm anything but the most gigantic
treatment schemes. Analysis of that
root problem is not our purpose here,
but the importance of such an analysrs
is emphasized by this material. As the nal irony, when we reach the other
end of the pipe where the secondary treatment municipal plant is located,
discover that even this control has a major leak. This one promotes the Wide—
spread aquatic illness called eutrophication, which will be the subject of the
next chapter.
[1]
Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971).
[2]
B. Norris Shreve, The Chemical Process Industries, Second Edition (New
McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 6.
[3]
Nathaniel VVollman and Colbert W. Bonem, The Outlook for Water: Quality,
Quantity, and National Growth (Baltimore: ]ohns Hopkins Press, 1971),
adapted from Table 18, p. 584 (Values are based on the “medium” level of pre—'
dicted population and economic growth, as opposed to “low” or “high” esti—
__
mms->
.
-
'
,
[4]
The Cost of
Volume II: Cost Eectioeness and Clean Water, Envi—
ronmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing
Ofce, March 1971), pp. 1—128. The pollution summary by the EPA has
a3sessed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as having advan—
tages Ïn determining the situation throughout the United States, but as being
1" ‘
aW€d
in the use of raw data and by vagueness about the
”
specic types of pollutants involved. The deciencies have been corrected to a
'
certainextent in the 1972 EPA report (see [38]), but changes in methodology ;
mthe 1972 report make it
to use for comparative purposes
”
thiSchapter The CEQ criticism, and another less comprehensive pollution in-* aj—
by CEQ, can be found in Environmental Quality, The Tliird'É°
ofthe Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.:sî
USGmmnt Printing —Oîea August 1972), pp. 11—16- 1udging by the…
qæhtyofcurrent information,;rdequate overall data on extent and
the United States will not be available for
?
[5] The C03t0fClea”WaæîGüd=Iïs_Economic Impact, Volume 1, US. Department
Of the
Printing Ofce,
…
…
-
f
‘
.
‘
.
…… 16660ttAuWhgtnc zozsa
_.