Mr. NEWELL. Senator Proxmire, I have not made these estimates myself and I like to do things myself before I make a statement on it. So, what I can do is to quote what other people have done and what is in the literature.

For example, Mr. Harrison of the Boeing Co. made an estimate that for 400 to 500 SST's ozone would be depleted by 4 percent in the stratosphere. This was the total amount of ozone in the column and he was using results based on theoretical development by one of our graduate students, Professor Conway, now at the University of Washington, which is something which I would certainly agree Leovy has used the right approach. I have read his paper in German, Geophysical Research which was used by Harrison and Boeing.

The problem is it is not just the action of the sun on molecular oxygen which turns the ozone in a column. It is the combined action of the sun plus the atmospheric motions. It is the ozone at middle latitudes which is a little like a magician putting his hand in his pocket and pulling out lots of silk handkerchiefs.

To put it in feet, from 75,000 feet to 200,000 is roughly where the ozone is made. Much less ozone is made at high altitudes. The atmospheric motions were to take this from low altitudes to middle latitudes or subtropical latitudes about 20° north and 20° south. So, the ozone is moved north and south. There is a series of wave motions between 20° north and 70° in the middle stratosphere and these carry ozone down in mixing ozone radiant.

INCREASE OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION

Senator PROXMIRE. The hour is late and you are a good witness, but I would ask you to limit your replies as much as you can. You are doing a fine job in explaining this to us, but we are all laymen and it is difficult for us.

If the ozone is diminished by 4 percent and I take it that is a reasonable estimate because it is made by a man

Mr. NEWELL. The 4-percent figure came from a man who works for Boeing.

Senator PROXMIRE. Would this increase ultraviolet radiation on earth?

Mr. NEWEL. Yes, it would increase ultraviolet radiation.

Senator PROXMIRE. Do you have any idea how much it would increase radiation?

Mr. NEWELL. The amount is a very strong function of wave length. If you look across the spectrum between 2,900 and 3,100 angstroms, you find a very large variability in the amount of increase at 3,000 compared to 2,900. If one simply asumes everything else is constant in the atmosphere and this should be done on a more rigorous basis, but one can put these numbers into a simple asphotic equation and it gives 11 percent ultraviolet increase at 2,900 angstrom.

As one goes shorter, one gets an increase in the increase of ultraviolet. Senator PROXMIRE. Would you say this would be a 4-percent increase in radiation in some areas, higher than that, lower than that? You say it varies. Are there areas where the radiation would increase by a percent that you could estimate for us?

Mr. NEWELL. I could not do that without not only a sliderule, but without integrating the transmission path.

POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN RADIATION-INDUCED ILLNESSES

Senator PROXMIRE. Would it be likely or unlikely in your view? Could you make an estimate that this increase in radiation could have an effect on radiation induced illness? I am not asking you that as a doctor. I'm just asking about what you understand about radiation and recognizing that you are not a doctor and I have communication with a number of doctors, I am pursuing this, but on the basis of what you know about it, do you think it is reasonable to assume if you increase the ultraviolet radiation it would increase the incidence of radiation-induced illnesses?

Mr. NEWELL. This is a very difficult question for me to answer simply from reading reports on this, the general consensus among physicians seems to be that ultraviolet is partly responsible for the introduction of skin cancer and one would follow that along if they are right that more ultraviolet gives more skin cancer, but this is something I would like to study myself, the mechanics of what happens in this process. I would like to refrain from making a statement on that.

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION ON POLLUTION PREVENTION

Senator PROXMIRE. I imagine some other countries are as concerned about what happens to the planet as we are. You have a wide acquaintance. I take it you were born in England and you have a wide acquaintance in the scientific community particularly in your speciality, and I am not asking about the political problem because that is ours and not yours but do you think there would be international cooperation among scientists who would make their findings known in this area?

Mr. NEWELL. I think we could get scientists to cooperate on such prevention.

Senator PROXMIRE. Do you think such a concern is growing?

Mr. NEWELL. I think it is growing quite rapidly, yes. The United Nations conference, which is to be held in 1972, is itself an impetus in the sense that more scientists are being asked to look into these questions and in addition a number are looking into it under their own impetus.

ANSWERS TO UPPER ATMOSPHERE PHYSICS PROBLEMS

Senator PROXMIRE. You testified it would take 10 years to get answers and you said we could speed this up in answer to Senator Case. But as I understand it, the deadline for determining whether to go into large scale production of the supersonic transport is 1973.

Is it conceivable that adequate answers could be achieved by 1973 or 1974 if we spent enough money?

Mr. NEWELL. I don't think so, sir.

Senator PROXMIRE. So, we would have to make that decision without the kind of answers that you think are necessary to determine what damage this would do to the upper atmosphere?

Mr. NEWELL. Yes.

WATER VAPOR POLLUTION

Senator PROXMIRE. The Department of Transportation put into the record when they appeared before my Joint Economic Committee last year, they testified that the SST puts into the atmosphere on a passenger-mile basis more of every kind of pollutant by 33 percent than the 747 and two and a half times as much as the 747. That is of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and water vapor.

Do you have any reason to differ with these figures?

Mr. NEWELL. Yes, the figures I have shown show that we get something like 13 for SST and 22 for the 747. I can't understand how eliminating the water vapor from the fuel from the SST in those calculations

Senator PROXMIRE. I am glad to hear you have your own estimates on it because I will pursue it. That is the estimate the Department of Transportation gave to our committee last year.

Mr. NEWELL. This is going to be a function of the constituent. I regard water vapor as a pollutant and mostly other people do not. Senator PROXMIRE. Your response goes to water vapor purely? Mr. NEWELL. Yes.

SST POLLUTANT EMISSION

Senator PROXMIRE. I have seen it argued that the SST travels at 1,780 miles per hour and emits fewer pollutants than three automobiles traveling at 60 miles per hour. Is this a meaningful comparison? Mr. NEWELL. I don't think so, sir.

Senator PROXMIRE. The reason being, as you have explained so well to us, that the sea level atmosphere or a few hundred or 1,000 feet above sea level, the pollutant disintegrates much more readily and the upper atmosphere is thinner and more stable.

Mr. NEWELL. It is essentially residence time.

INJECTION OF WATER VAPOR INTO ATMOSPHERE BY TROPICAL STORM

Senator PROXMIRE. I have heard also that one tropical storm puts more water vapor into the upper atmosphere than a large number of supersonic jets would. I wonder about that, No. 1, because the number of tropical storms at 60,000 feet would not be very many. It seems to be up above the weather by and large and No. 2, this tropical storm is a natural phenomenon that would occur anyway and I would think that would not have any permanent, serious polluting effect on the atmosphere.

Can you explain the tropical storm argument?

Mr. NEWELL. I have not been able to find who originated that argument, unfortunately, but I have read comments in the press along these lines that one storm makes as much as the SST. Two million grams per second up to 60,000 feet and there are 1,000 going on at any one time and therefore, we have 1,000 times as much. If that was ever happening the stratosphere would immediately be flooded. There is no question about that. The stratosphere is dry, so we know

that it is not happening, but there are two or three additional red herrings in that argument, I think. There have been no good reported cases in the scientific literature of people flying through thunderstorms at heights above the tropopause. There have been a number of searches in connection with hurricanes to find clouds or strong thunderstorms above the tropopause.

There have been additional measurements in the literature so that no pilot has flown, but at 50,000 or 70,000 feet and said he was above the tropopause. One or two pilots thought they were above the tropopause by triangulation. This is another question.

There have been a number of radar measurements in the literature at tops of thunderstorms and they show it going above the tropopause. If one looks at the radar measurements carefully, one finds there are all sorts of complications with beam width spreading and discussed by Professor Atlas at the University of Chicago to doubt these numbers as they appear in the literature.

The additional doubt would be if the storms are really penetrating to 60,000 feet in middle latitude and contributing significantly to the water vapor then these measurements that are being made should show much higher moisture concentrations in the stratosphere.

In summary, I don't see the details of this argument has not been substantiated, has not appeared in the literature. The test for these things is to look inside the literature. I put my comments on the water vapor after hearing comments from professors from Norway, Russians were there, having their comments. The Norwegians comment they were seeing the mother-of-pearl clouds in the stratosphere and no one has written into the literature and questioned this comment on the vapor literature. They have written how much is contributed by the volcano. That is a healthy item. There is nothing said in the water vapor hypothesis. It has been in the press. I don't like that trial by the press. It should be in the scientific literature.

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you, Doctor.

NCAR RESEARCH ON STRATOSPHERE AIR PROBLEMS

Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Allott.

Senator ALLOTT. Have you ever worked with NCAR?
Mr. NEWELL. No, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. You never utilized any of their findings or research or their models in your work at all?

Mr. NEWELL. Yes; I have not worked at NCAR. I have worked with the people at NCAR. Dr. Kellar, for instance, on the summer study last year of Williamstown. There were 40 scientists looking at environment problems. The results are written up in a paperback book which I referred to in my testimony and at that stage not only Dr. Kellar from NCAR, but one of the top chemists was also there, Dr. Richard Cagle, and I have talked at length with Dr. Martell, who is coming to MIT tomorrow to give us a seminar on methane measurements from the stratosphere. That is NÇAR work.

I am aware of the work going on at NCAR. I have not worked there myself. I would not say there is any substantial difference in the physical items and the background and the comments I have made here and the comments that the people of Endcar made in the summer study.

Senator ALLOTT. The thing that prompted this, and this is all I will say, I was a little astounded to listen to all of your comments and not hear one reference to the work that is being done at NCAR which, of course, is financed by the National Science Foundation and I believe there are some 500 scientists working at NCAR today. I was a little surprised not to hear any reference at all to the findings that they have made there.

Mr. NEWELL. Do you mean on the stratospheric air problem?
Senator ALLOTT. Yes.

Mr. NEWELL. I don't feel there is any fundamental slighting of NCAR because I have referred to the MIT summer study book for the details on the smog argument and the details on the measurement of stratospheric aerosols, and it is well known from the references in that book that the measures are being made presently by Dr. Cagle. I have a high respect for the work that is being done by Dr. Cagle at NCAR.

There is a limit, of course, to the amount that one should put in reference form directly and indirectly and I guess I have not made the references here as comprehensive as it should be. I would be perfectly willing to prepare for the committee a summary of where we stand on this subject if that would be desirable with references, but that is a much more comprehensive thing than making a summary statement and referring to references.

Senator ALLOTT. I have no further questions.

POLLUTANT FFFECT OF TWO SST PROTOTYPES ON ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

Senator PROXMIRE. Would the construction of two SST prototypes contribute significantly to the problems that bother you as far as the upper atmosphere is concerned?

Mr. NEWELL. Not altogether, because we have the U-2 measurements, and I don't think it would change the picture as to the rate of accumulation as to new knowledge about the global pollution problem. Chairman ELLENDER. Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Doctor.

Senator CASE. During our hearings I asked and was granted unanimous consent to provide for the record expert comments on the testimony given by Professor Newell.

Those comments have been supplied me by Dr. S. I. Rasool, a senior research scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The Institute is a branch of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In view of the shortage of time available for obtaining Dr. Rasool's statement, NASA has advised me that it has not had time to review it. NASA takes the position that Dr. Rasool's comments therefore are "personal."

NASA's position, in my view, takes nothing away from Dr. Rasool who has been described to me as a leader in his field of atmospheric physics.