COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES 
RECORD PAGE   DESCRIPTION
 00001 00001
 00002 00002	\\M0BDR25\M1BDI25\M2NGR30\M3XMAS25\.
 00006 ENDMK
⊗;
\\M0BDR25;\M1BDI25;\M2NGR30;\M3XMAS25;\.
\F2\CARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY
\CCOMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
\CSTANFORD UNIVERSITY
\CSTANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
\F0

\C8 April 1973

To the Editor of \F1New Scientist\F0:

\JSir,-Michael Kenward (8 March)  said  "William  Ruckelhaus,  head  of
America's  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  wants  Californians to
ration gasoline before they suffocate themselves  (\F1New  Scientist\F0,  8
February,  p  290)." Ruckelshaus didn't say that California was about
to suffocate itself; it was a question of  improving  the  air  to  a
standard  set  in  the  Clean  Air Act of 1970.  It is predicted by the
EPA that HC emissions will go from 1250 to
to 691 tons per day with presently adopted controls,
but  it  won't  reach  the 161 ton level required by the  Act for 1977
without additional controls beyond those presently contemplated.
These facts are taken from your 8 February article.

	My  question  is: Does Mr. Kenward maintain and
does \F1New Scientist\F0 agree that his  quoted  statement  is  within  the
standards  of  journalism  \F1New Scientist\F0 sets for itself?  On the
one hand, the statement  tends  to  generate  support  for  what  Mr.
Kenward  and  probably the editors consider a good cause.  On the other
hand, I would regard it as inaccurate to the point of distortion, and
I  think contributors to \F1New Scientist\F0 should  be more
precise, and the editors should  enforce greater precision.

	I realize that the statement is peripheral to  Mr.  Kenward's
article,  and  I  do  not  (now)  quarrel  with  anything else in the
article. Please tell your readers whether the statement is a slip  or
a form of rhetoric we should expect (perhaps as new journalism).  The
answer affects the credibility of articles in \F1New Scientist\F0.\. 

						John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford, California 94305