It seems to me that your article on smog ("New Strategies Against an Old Enemy" by David DeVoss, July 20) would have had much greater value if you had been a little more critical in your approach.
Obviously, the employees of the Air Quality Management District have a vested interest in preserving their employment, even if it requires constant repetition of the myths that air pollution constitutes a serious threat to health and that it is economically practical to prevent the emission of "pollutants" into the atmosphere. Similarly, the "scientific" community has an interest in the perpetuation of smog mythology as an argument for obtaining government grants for "research." The interest of the auto industry is obvious: The higher the price, the greater the profit.
Even though billions of dollars have been expended in attempting to control automotive emissions, there is no hard evidence that this expenditure has had much, if any, effect on the quality of the air that we breathe or that the benefits, if any, justify the horrendous cost and the elaborate bureaucracy that has developed.
Lloyd S. Davis