253 
About this zero percent of thermal pollution—would you buy that? 
Dr. Hunr. I am more a person who is concerned with the most 
serious problems first, and the less serious problems second. To this 
extent, | agree with the comments this morning of Congressman Mil- 
ler, that we have some very serious problems facing us in connection 
with toxic metals and radioactive wastes and things like this, that we 
cannot wait for. 
Mr. Keriri. I am talking about thermal pollution. 
Dr. Hunt. I realize that. Thermal pollution is an area that can be 
damaging if the temperature is excessive above the environment, but 
I do not think I would go along with the idea of a zero temperature 
change as a reasonable law at the present time. For one thing, the 
temperature change will cause more damage in certain types of cli- 
mates than in others. 
Mr. Kerru. We run into a very serious problem when we make a 
fixed determination and do not vary it. For example, there is an 
amendment to the Food and Drug Act which says any food contain- 
ing filth must be considered as unfit for human consumption, and this 
has inhibited our progress in the manufacture and sale of fish protein 
concentrate, which was to be made from whole fish. We have people 
coming in from the Food and Drug saying that there is too much 
fluoride in the bones that are left after you have otherwise prepared 
the fish for the fish protein concentrate. You get a concentration of 
fluoride. They say even if one person in a thousand got mottled teeth 
from that fluoride, they would have to rule against the sale of that 
material. They want to protect the housewife. 
I would hope as the President’s Council on the Environment de- 
velops policies, procedures and techniques, they can have some kind 
of board that can exercise a balanced judgment, and not get into a 
fixed position in which you cannot vary from a particular standard. 
You have noted that thermal changes in water sometimes have a 
benefit. So, too, can some forms of sewage which, it is my understand- 
ing, are used extensively in some countries abroad to improve the 
ecological pattern of our environment. 
I do not for a minute want to lead you or the press or the public to 
feel that some thermal pollution is good and some sewage is good and, 
therefore, none of it is bad, but there is a positive use that can be 
made in the disposition of some of this waste material. 
Dr. Hunt. Your statements are right. In fact, there has been dis- 
cussion among biologists of increasing the 10 percent productivity of 
the ocean by proper use of sewage and other types of effluent. The 
problem is that we do not have the research knowledge today to put 
this into effect. 
Mr. Kerra. You mentioned the most dangerous chemical which you 
would immediately bar, did you not ? 
Dr. Hunt. Yes; mercury. 
Mr. Kerru. Would you delineate which ones you would arbitrarily 
be more strict with ? 
Dr. Hunr. I mentioned a few, but specifically mercury, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium. These are some of the more serious 
ones. The problem is, though, the most serious ones are those that 
form complex organic materials and, therefore, are taken up in the 
