Prof. James G. Anderson (Letters, March 23 ), in commenting on your Feb. 28 editorial "Press-Release Ozone Hole," dances around the main point: There was no ozone "hole" in the arctic during 1992 despite record levels of active chlorine. But his (or NASA's) artfully worded press release of Feb. 3 misled many journalists to report an ozone disaster, with headlines that scared the public-or so the politicians thought.

Two days later, the Senate, reputedly "the greatest deliberative body in the world," passed a resolution, 96-0, accelerating the phase-out of CFCs to 1995, and the White House promptly followedsuit. Quite a result from a press briefing, which simply reported a chlorine peak that later diminished for reasons unknown.

In a revealing interview, reported in Science News, Mr. Anderson hemmed and hawed that there might be an arctic ozone hole "some year in the future," perhaps in the next decade. He forgot to mention similar readings in a similar experiment two years ago-and no hole then either.

Is the theoretical understanding of this phenomenon good enough to make predictions? Obviously not. And was this press announcement really necessary? NASA official Michael Kurylo opined that it was important to warn the American public. Some might think of a less charitable explanation—-such as NASA budgets and the necessity of cozying up to Sen. Al Gore.

Mr. Anderson's contention that Du Pont's promotion of the CFC phase-out lends credibility to the science is absurd. Du Pont's stake in this issue is clearly evident in a comment by company spokesman Tony Vogelsberg (WSJ, Feb. 13 ): "The customers haven't been buying the alternatives [produced by Du Pent] because they haven't felt pressured," he said. They will, after 1995.

Mr. Anderson also fails to reveal that the chemical industry making FC substitutes partly supports his research through its Alternate Fluorocarbon Environmental Acceptability Study. And wasn't that Sen. Gore on CNN just the other day attacking skeptical scientists as "hired guns" of industry?

CANDACE C. CRANDALL
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Washington

Mr. Anderson's claim that the Airborne Arctic and Antarctic Stratospheric Expedition flights "have (1) demonstrated that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are responsible for the antarctic 'ozone hole,' " is only slightly more scientific than the claim that the sun rises because the cock crows.

His final claim that they "have . . . (3 ) revealed that the agent chlorine monoxide, proved to be directly responsible for ozone loss over the antarctic, was present at equivalent levels within the arctic stratosphere" contains its own self-contradiction. That is, the levels "proved to be directly responsible'' for the antarctic ozone hole have been proved not to produce an ozone hole over the arctic.

Science by press release is obviously much easier than the old-fashioned way.

HUGH W. ELLSAESSER
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired)
Livermore, Calif.