LETTERS: EITHER AGREE OR BE WRONG

To the editor:

Recent letters concerning the Environmental Protection Agency have been quite interesting. The tale about the DuPont patent running out is not new. It has been around for years, and it is true. It's hard to believe someone hasn't really done something about it. I hope readers can put two and two together in this case. Ray Umbdenstock is upset and angry over the manner in which the EPA has assumed the role of a god. The EPA's unreasonable regulations have been bad enough, but now we have a new set of stricter rules racing us. Mr. Umbdenstock has presented reasonable and well-thought-out opinions, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The new rules are ridiculous. The present standards are bad enough, have cost industry millions of dollars, have almost reached the desired level and -- Bam! -- the EPA wants to change them. I sincerely hope that if they lose this battle, they will take their football and go home.

Mr. Umbdenstock's letter has stirred up quite a hornet's next. Unfortunately, he has become the scapegoat of the gang on University Hill. But, if one reads the rebuttals carefully, one will discover that these rebuttals are loaded with maybes and limited certaintly. It's about time those guys admitted they weren't, and aren't, absolutely correct or infallible. They have had the attitude that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I love their statement that past evidence "may have been wrong." Thank God for this. It is also a relief to hear that "a preponderance of evidence ... now is ... as close as science can get us ... with a limited certainty."

I may have twisted the words around a bit, but isn't that what was said?

The most recent letters from Mr. Addington, a biologists and a scientist, admitted the EPA has made some mistakes in the past. This kind of thinking is prevalent in Washington: Hey, I made a mistake, and I won't do it again. I agree with Mr. Addington. We need to redefine our goals and especially those of the EPA. However, let us not lose our heads and rush into solutions that aren't carefully considered. Let us be reasonable. Let us not have to admit in the future that another mistake has been made.

As for the student who chastised a writer for using Speak Out and not giving his name: Did he also not sign his name? I hope he let Alan Journet know who called Speak Out. Did he get an A-plus? His Speak Out item was ridiculous.

To many, the word "scientist" conjures up awe, respect and, perhaps, even fear. I hope someday the editor will permit me to explain my feelings about science and scientists. In neither have I found a god. In the past, I have worked with and assisted a number of scientists. Some I have encountered are great men. Some are complete dunderheads. From both types I have learned that 1. there are two sides to every situation, 2. do not become discouraged if someone disagrees with your side and 3. express your side, your feelings, if you have the facts.

In conclusion, I read in the April 3 St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the EPA admitted to an error. The EPA has revised its estimate of the number of lives saved by its new standards down to 15,000 from 20,000. Of course, the EPA attempts to explain the error. However, others say the proposal lacks scientific support and is based on shaky justification. I now wonder if 64,000 premature deaths is accurate.

KENNETH ALDRICH

Cape Girardeau