Re: >I am a high school student in Vermont and I'm doing a research paper about >the effects of acid rain and air pollution on New England forests, >especially red spruce. I have interviewed a researcher who believes acid >rain and air pollution are serious problems. Now I'm looking for a person >with scientific background who doesn't believe that air pollution is >having much effect on forests. Dear Heather Hawkes, I'm glad you are interested in how pollutants may affect forests. We have done research on acid rain and red spruce here at the Boyce Thompson Institute. If you have access to the World Wide Web you can see some of our results at: http://birch.cit.cornell.edu/ I am writing to you because I am concerned about how the news media often mangles scientific news, especially topics about which there is uncertainty. It is difficult to determine the effects of acid deposition (rain, snow, fog, dry particles) on red spruce because: (1) We don't have very good records of what is "normal" for this species, we don't know much about it because until recently it hasn't been studied much. (2) It is hard to measure how much acid is being deposited on mountain peaks and other remote areas -- equipment and people have trouble working year-round on Mount Washington or Camel's Hump. It is hard to measure small particles over huge areas -- you often can't get enough samples to make an accurate estimate. (3) Ecosystems are complex! Acid is deposited, transformed by chemicals and by microbes and plants. Soil is complex, with all kinds of interesting chemical and biological activity. There are many different stresses on plants, winter damage due to freezing and drying, wind damage, nutrient deficiencies or excesses, ozone and other air pollutants. It is hard to sort out damage due to different causes, especially if they interact --for example acid precipitation may make trees more susceptible to winter damage. (4) Controlled experiments can only feasibly be done with tree seedlings, not forests. (5) As a nation, we don't spend a lot of money on research and monitoring of wilderness and natural ecosystems, compared to what we spend on other topics like national defense. The news media likes to interview two "experts" about a topic, one for and one against. While superficially, this may appear "balanced", I think it is often a poor subsistute for more careful reporting. Such reports often leave the public with the notion that scientists can't agree on anything, so let's go ahead and do what we want! By it's nature, science rarely gives definite ironclad answers. For complex issues, like most environmental ones, there is uncertainty. Please try to figure out in your reporting what scientists do agree on, and discuss why there is uncertainty and/or disagreement. Please feel free to email me at the address below. Good luck! Peter Woodbury %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Peter Woodbury Senior Research Specialist Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853-1801 voice (607) 254-1216 fax (607) 254-1242 email pbw1@cornell.edu %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0