Yes To Question 1

THE BAN ON TESTING, storage, transportation and disposal of several dangerous chemicals proposed in Question 1 is already law in Cambridge. In fact, the law has been upheld in Massachussetts' Supreme Judicial Court, and Arthur D. Little Company (ADL), the only user of the chemicals in question in Cambridge, has already removed them from the city. Nevertheless, while it only offers voters the opportunity to approve an existing law and will thus cause no action if passed, supporting the existing ban is still important. Strong approval of Question 1 in tommorrow's referendum will give the city council a mandate to develop more comprehensive guidelines for the use of hazardous substances in Cambridge.

The current law was enacted in 1984 after the City Health and Hospitals Commissioner determined that ADL's contract work for the Defense Department posed a threat to public health. Especially since the law has been upheld in the courts, there can be no question about its legality. The ban is more than just technically acceptable, however. It was a justified and reasonable response to a grave hazard to the community. Cambridge, like any other community, has an obligation to control such activities in the public interest. That hazards result from defense-related research is simply no excuse for putting people at risk without their consent.

A great deal of research goes on at a variety of private and academic institutions in Cambridge, and some of it inevitably involves chemicals that pose a threat to public health. Because Cambridge is the fifth most densely populated city in the United States, hazardous research here should be a particularly acute concern for the city government. The city's Scientific Advisory Council is currently working on more general guidlines for the handling of dangerous substances; a popular endorsement of the current ban is a first step toward a reasonable and comprehensive policy on the issue.

The free pursuit of academic research and even the safe pursuit of profit are important rights which the city government ought to respect; however, public safety comes first. Ultimately, the citizens of Cambridge have to decide what sorts of research and industrial activities are safe enough for their community. Question 1 presents an important opportunity for them to be heard.