ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Regarding the proposals for mandatory use of "inherently safer technology" ("Democrats Back Safer Technology," C&EN, April 10, page 17):
Inherently safer technology is an inherently judgmental term. IST is a design philosophy. I cannot see any practical way for this sort of engineering judgment to be explicitly written into legislation. What is inherently safe? Is reducing on-site inventory safer if it increases transit of shipping containers through the neighboring community? Is a new process technology safer if the added energy penalty produces more emissions from dirty midwestern power plants and drops them on asthmatics like me? Is using a "less toxic" chemical safer if more waste is produced? I cannot see how mandating inherently safer technology is going to do anything but produce a morass.
Daniel R. Kuespert
Columbia, Md.
May 22, page 34. The instrument pictured should have been identified as a Dionex high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system, not a gas chromatograph and mass spectrometer.
May 29, page 11. Dow Chemical's R&D spending for 2005 was $1.1 billion.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter