110 
Mr. Dineeri. Dr. Glasgow, the committee is grateful to you for 
your very helpful statement. 
Dr. Singer, Dr. Smith, Dr. Johnson, do you have any comments 
you would like to add to the statement made by the Secretary? 
Dr. Srncer. No, sir. I do not. 
Dr. Jounson. No. 
Mr. Dincett. Mr. Keith ? 
Mr. Kerrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
This committee is familiar with suggestions to defer action until 
further study. However, your study is so close to being completed that 
a deferment makes some sense. But you may recall that several years 
ago I filed legislation calling for marine sanctuaries. We deferred ac- 
tion on that. Then the Catalina Channel oil spill came along while 
we were postponing action. 
We had the Ocean Eagle spill and we had on the average 500 or 600 
other spills per year. 
Now the Government Operations Committee has special subcom- 
mittees dealing with oil pollution in estuarine areas, I urge you to fol- 
low closely these developments. 
Representing an area whose economy is in large measure dependent 
upon these estuary areas, I am particularly worried about the spawn- 
ing grounds for fish we market through our ports. 
Just last night a fisherman told me that he felt things were looking 
up because the State had taken action on chemical effluents, which had 
improved the spawning grounds. 
In yesterday’s Boston Globe there was an article which took a posi- 
tive point of view, pointing out that some countries, by controlling 
these effluents, were able to stimulate the spawning and feeding of fish 
by the use of baffles in the case of thermal pollution, and by the use 
of sewage. Some countries were actually getting tremendous improve- 
ments in fish yields. Your testimony does not speak to this. 
I would be interested to know if there is any positive benefit to be 
gained from this study ? 
Dr. Guascow. Certainly, the ocean, generally speaking, is a rather 
sterile area, except for the immediate coast line. The addition of fer- 
tility in these sterile areas would increase production if it was the right 
type of fertility. There could be some benefits. 
In recommendations which we would make, we would recommend 
that you not only study the sites and choose them according to the 
disposition that could be made there, but also the type of material 
that was to be dumped. 
So in each case I think you would have to study them individually 
to determine what the environmental impact would be, both as to the 
site and to the material you are dumping. In some cases you could gain 
some benefits. Generally speaking, though, it would be detrimental. 
Mr. Kerru. Do you feel that the end results of thermal pollution 
are essentially detrimental ? 
Dr. Guascow. I think again you have to look at each individual 
case of thermal pollution. It may very well be that in some areas where 
the waters are extremely cool, heating might be of benefit. 
In other areas, however, where the high temperature is the control- 
ling factor, and you add more heat, then it is certainly detrimental. 
