230 

 CHARLES S. YENTSCH 

 report was over-all information concerning the environ- 

 mental areas under question, and this is particularly 

 true in the particular area that was surveyed for plankton 

 productivity. Some of this information, when present, is 

 so out of context with the tests made to determine the 

 effects of the pollution that it would be very dangerous, 

 in my opinion, even to attempt to answer the four ques- 

 tions that I have originally proposed should be answered 

 for the people implicated in the study. 



On the other hand, the biologists associated 

 with the Federal agencies were indeed very wise to include 

 studies of phytoplankton productivity in their study. As 

 they rightly point out, these are the primary producers 

 in the area and any serious damage to them can have dire 

 consequences to the entire biota of the area. These 

 organisms also recycle substances in solution very 

 rapidly, and hence their growth activities are an ex- 

 tremely sensitive indicator to water quality. 



To those of you who are unfamiliar with the 

 activity of these organisms, let me just try to educate 

 you a little. The growth activities of organisms such as 

 the phytoplankton largely depend upon the amount of light 

 and the availability of nutrients. To a stationary 

 observer, the numbers of these organisms in the water will 



