232 



CHARLES S. YENTSCH 

 this sort can be quite meaningless . Probably the best 

 authority on the productivities of these waters, G. C. 

 Anderson, reports--and this report is WP 0063, October 

 1966--that large scale features of the annual production 

 are missed in the Puget Sound area unless one has daily 

 sampling. 



The strongest argument for the damage to 

 the phytoplankton productivity by SWL as stated in the 

 Federal report is reflected in values given for carbon 

 fixation. Here I must confess I am confused with regard 

 to the methods. It is not at all clear to me what type 

 of experiments were performed here, and perhaps we can 

 discuss this in more detail. It does state in the methods 

 that the experiments were carried out in the light inten- 

 sities in which the phytoplankton were grown. However, 

 there is no indication of what these light intensities 

 might be. I have a feeling that in the process of editing 

 this report that part of these methods somehow got edited 

 out, because I am sure that the biologists involved would 

 want these to be indicated. What I have assumed is that 

 these experiments represent the maximum rate at which the 

 carbon production is being carried out by the phytoplankton 

 at these stations, and to help some of you that aren't 

 familiar with this sort of thing, I would like to point 



