Box 444,
San Cristobal N.M. 7564
June 12, 1970
Science
Atten: Mr. Dale Wolfle
1515 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Wolfle:
In re: verbal pollution and actual pollution.
The other day, perhaps inadvertently, a carbon of a letter to Mr. R. Joyner of the International Society of General Semantics was forwarded without explanation. I did not have in mind anything but a suggestion that there be a serious discussion both on objective problems of pollution and the subjectivities which have arisen which seem to me to be more poisonous than the pollutions themselves. There may be a certain prejudice in my position (or otherwise) for I seem to agree with Lord Snow in his outlooks. And bad as the death of Lake Erie may seem to be, the combinations of emotions and ignorance arising from the lack of suitable logic may endanger civilization itself.
I have previous engagements which make it impossible to attend the forthcoming conference of scientists in the San Francisco Bay Area. The very successes of present day endeavors make it unwise. But among the problems being faced here is that of water supply, quantitatively and qualitatively.
The relativistic outlooks following the career of the late remarkable professor Albert Einstein have not yet penetrated as deeply as might be desired into the consciousness of peoples. In chemistry water is a presumable compound of hydrogen and oxygen; in soil science and plant nutrition it means a soup, and this soup contains solutions sediments, etc. which are natural and which might be considered very differently also by the geologists than by the sanitary engineer.
To the literary man there is no clear distinction. He seems generally to be a sort of Gertrude Stein, “Water is water is water.” Popular writers, editors, commentators have thrown themselves into an arena where oratory, pressures, emotions and various types of propaganda subtle and overt are effecting the consciousness of multitudes and words are regarded as realities.
My good friend Mr. Joyner is the General Secretary for the International Society of General Semantics. Although this organization was founded in good faith, from my point of view it has fallen into the hands of Snow’s literati. But unfortunately I do not know of any group or organization which has even dared to consider some of the problems which the late Korzybski tackled; along with men like Lord Russell and his colleagues. The peregrinations of Russell into so many fields have obscured his great contributions to logic and the possible scientific philosophy.
A number of years ago a food conference was held in San Francisco. Among the problems on the agenda was the rise of salinity. The paper presented was “Salinity in the Indus Valley.” Now I have lived in the Indus Valley. I know more about the Indus alley than of the Rio Grande Valley where I am now staying. The promoters of the conference, including some worthies, brought in frightening reports of all kinds of things arising from salinity, so I presented a paper covering some actualities in and of the Indus Valley. This included data from farmers; it included the visits of an American team of experts into the region; it included some of the causal factors; it included some presumable solutions which had failed; others which were being tried, and others which might be tried. I not only had data from Wilton Fireman but from the USDA Station at Riverside, California, but a lot more.
What happened from this report? Absolutely nothing. The best I got were excuses of time and place. The scare propaganda remained.
I later happened to go into northern India and saw evidence of salinity there.
Now I am pretty sure the same thing is going on in many places today. Scientists have their solutions, editors and orators have their comments and they don’t always meet. Therefore, I am hoping something will be done in this world, not necessarily to muzzle the self-encyclopedia’s dialecticians who control the press and channels of communications generally; but that efforts will be made, not to stifle real warnings, but to give more scope to actual or potential solutions to the real or pseudo problems which are so arousing, rightly or wrongly, the attention and emotions of mankind.
While I gave the one example above, conversations at Arnold Arboretum and agricultural experimental stations make me feel that something can be done both to produce a more optimistic outlook and valid, not editorial, medicines for the ills of the say.
Legally one is not supposed to prescribe at all for the ills of the human body. But the for ills of the rocks, the trees, the landscape, the rivers, the lakes, anybody can get into the act with or without suitable backgrounds.
I am writing this because I have enjoyed your articles and those of your colleagues and find sanity and hope in them. This of course is not for publication, but I hope it will lead to serious consideration of serious problems by serious people.
Faithfully,
Samuel L. Lewis
Mr. Philip H. Abelson
Science
1515 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Abelson:
In re pollution and its complexities. A number of weeks ago I wrote Dale Wolfle on this subject. In all the years he had been with Science, I always received courteous replies, and indeed, it may be possible to visit him in Seattle before the end of the year,
Last week I attended a cinema showing at the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park on “The Death of lake Eric.” I was interested in it partly because I have lived in Cleveland at sundry times and thus been a partial witness.
Unfortunately the m.c. was one of those famous radio-TV “experts,” who had the theme “All of us are to blame.” I have already done some investigating into Sewage disposal. A single viewing led me to conclude that there were three main causes of pollution, i.e., factory gaseous material, factory liquid material, and sewage. But as all the chief m.c.’s seem to use the words “chemicals,” “discharges” etc., etc., without any discrimination, I felt as I felt in the previous latter to Dale Wolfle that we are even in more danger from nonsense, from verbal nonsense, than from chemical contamination.
I have therefore read with more than passing interest your article on Methyl Mercury in this issue of Science. I feel it is honest, informative and straight to the point.
I have already been involved in the pseudo-controversies over DDT. The sound fait that I am, among other things, a retired d spray-operator with knowledge of organic chemistry, has shut me off rather than welcomed me to public forum on “The Silent Spring.” I am not defending DDT; I have seen it used in malarial swamps and also in India and Pakistan, to great human benefit, but I also lean toward the philosophies of organic gardening.
So long as efforts to inform the public remain in the hands of the great commentators we shall see the search for “Hitlerian Jews” without discrimination. We are not all to blame, despite the commentators. I am not only pleased with your article on Methyl Mercury, it makes me feel most hopeful. Honest objective articles in this direction may even save the United States.
I am thinking of writing an article on the failure of Semantics to be used in facing scientific problems, and your article to me points in the direction of hope and sanity, which I hope will soon prevail in this land.
Faithfully,
Samuel L. Lewis