Coatings update: pollution, toxicity, regulation, and the paint industry, Part 1 Available to Purchase

There is no question that the consumer is better protected from chemical hazards of all sorts than he was ten years ago. The question of the importance of this better protection, however, is extensively debated. There is strong evidence that the chemical industry, of which the coatings industry is an important part, contributed very little to actual mortality, at least from a statistical point of view. The problems, where they existed, were regional problems which, to be sure, brought discomfort and oft‐times far more to a small segment of the population. But these had only slight affect on accident and death rates statistically. It goes without saying that workers should not be allowed to go into vinyl chloride tanks to clean them since it is well‐established that this practice may lead to angiosarcoma and ultimately to death. Certainly asbestos should be removed from air and water and workers should not be exposed to it. These are obvious areas where alertness to pollution and toxicity will effect changes for the good. But the nagging question is: How much can we afford in order to regulate hazards out of existence, particularly in cases considerably less clear‐cut than the two just cited? And if we really want to effect a statistical improvement in death rates, why do we not work harder to eliminate the use of tobacco? To say that the situation is complex is only to repeat a truism.