Re: PVC: major source of gender-benders!! New Report

[Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be (Ferdinand Engelbeen)]

Dear dioxin-l listeners.

We were several times requested by the dioxin-l-owners to keep the focus of
the dioxin-l discussion to dioxins. We now have received a final warning to
keep the focus on dioxins while we have the impression, that the dioxin-l
should be renamed as a ban-PVC-l. After some background discussion with the
dioxin-l owners, we take the risk to be thrown off the list, because we
have to answer to the allegations against PVC, Greenpeace has send. We want
all activists against dioxins to have information of BOTH sides, so you can
compare it and make up your own mind.

Charlie Cray wrote that Greenpeace has a new report

>GREENPEACE REPORT POINTS TO VINYL PLASTICS AS MAJOR SOURCE OF
>HORMONE-DISRUPTING POLLUTANTS
>

That can be found at http://www.greenpeace.org/~uk/science/stolen.txt, but
be aware of the LOWER case ~uk!

The old allegations of Greenpeace suppose large quantities of dioxins
emitted during PVC production and the chlorine content of PVC in
incinerators as 'the' source of dioxins from incinerators.
The new one is the link between PVC additives and supposed fertility problems.

We will give here a (more or less) short reply to that 'new' report.

>*** Dioxins are the accidental by-products of the manufacture and
>combustion of PVC.  Last year Greenpeace released data confirming
>that industrial wastes from vinyl feedstock production contain
>dioxins at concentrations as high as levels in the infamous
>herbicide Agent Orange.  Studies have also linked PVC in waste to
>dioxin from incinerator emissions.
>

We will not repeat all arguments on PVC and dioxins we have already send to
the list. But counting the amount of dioxins found in PVC production waste
(wich is treated in a controlled way) as emissions is grossly misleading.

We recently have received a report 'Quantitative estimation of the entry of
dioxins, furans, and HCB into the Great Lakes from airborne and waterborne
sources', CBNS, from a dioxin-l reader. In that report the total emission
from burning PVC production waste (the main dioxin emission source of PVC
production) from the US and Canada is estimated to be between 0.5 and 5
g/year, or average 0.02% of total average dioxin emissions in both
countries (see page 6 of the report), based on USEPA figures!
Cement killns, copper smelters, wood combustion, iron sintering plants,
coal combustion, heavy duty diesel vehicles, ALL are hundred(s) of times
higher in dioxin emissions than the incineration of PVC-waste!!!

If Greenpeace is considerate of the health effect of dioxins on humans and
their children, WHY DON'T THEY ACT AGAINST ALL THESE SOURCES, WHY ONLY
AGAINST PVC, one of the smallest sources?

Greenpeace often argues for use of the weight of evidence except in cases
where it weighs against them.  We propose the final ASME study of over
1,000 testruns at over 100 large scale combustors that shows no statistical
correlation in 83 of the combustors between chlorine/PVC in the feed and
dioxins.  In eleven dioxins went up with chlorine.  In nine it went down.
Greenpeace's response is to cite three studies, all of which were included
(!) in the ASME report, and to call the ASME study 'a joke.'. The only
criterium to include any study in the report was the simultanious
monitoring of chlorine input and dioxin output and other relevant points
like incineration temperature.
One of the three studies, linking PVC and dioxins, Greenpeace extensively
uses, is the study of the Danish EPA. It is the most critisised by
specialists in this field, because half the experiment, the incinerator was
blocked with soot and had to be cleaned. Normally you should restart such
experiment, because the values found before and after cleaning can differ
several orders of magnitude...

And dioxins are hardly found above background levels, when PVC or other
products, chlorinated or not, are on fire.

Again, if PVC is NOT the dioxin source of incinerators, neither at fire,
why is Greenpeace insisting on this topic?

>*** Phthalates are softening agents added to PVC to make it
>flexible. Phthalates can leach out...
>They also
>represent an added threat at over 500 Superfund toxic waste
>sites. Phthalates can make up 60 percent of flexible vinyl
>products.
>

Phtalates are leaking/evaporating at a 0.1% rate per year from flexible PVC.
The half time to biodegrade is 18 days. They are hardly bio-accumulating.
So you will find near zero levels of phtalate in water leaking from any
waste disposal.
The amounts found, are 100 times (near phtalate works) to 10,000 times
LOWER than the NO-effect-level.

>Both dioxins and phthalates can interfere with the hormone system
>...

Greenpeace is mixing phthalates with dioxin-like chemicals, with an
enormous difference in potency in animal assays, while exaggerating the
remarks in the EPA Dioxin Reassesment. Furthermore, phtalates have at least
a 10,000 times lower impact in primates (apes, humans) than in rodents.

And phtalates can be found in naturally grown vegetables like celery and
lovage (Levisticum officinalis), both considered to RAISE the masculine
libido... This info comes from the organic growers association (VELT), of
wich I am a member. But if one molecule is already too much, then we should
ban those vegetables too?


A week ago we have heard on a scientific symposium that natural hormone
mimics from soya (genistein) feeded in high dose to pregnant rats, gives
homophilic male offspring!  And eating only two grams of hops for beer
(xantohumol) has the same effect as the hormone level found in pregnant
women... Feeding your children with soya milk instead of cow or mothers'
milk gives your baby the equivalent of several contraceptive pills a day
(again VELT info!).
Should we phase out/ban beer drinking and Chinese restaurants, at least for
women?

And if we may believe prof. Stephen Safe, Texas A&M University, then the
total oestrogenic activity of man-made compounds in the environment is a 40
MILLION fold lower than that of natural compounds in the average diet...
(Environmental Health Perspectives, 103, 346-351, 1995).

>The threat posed by PVC is also motivating national and local
>communities in Europe to phase out or restrict PVC production and
>use respectively.
>

Again, we are patiently waiting for the list of 200 German communities
wich, according to Greenpeace, have (really?) banned or restricted the use
of PVC.
And we suggest that if these bans are not total then they do not represent
a real assessment of the alleged harm of PVC but rather a political
congeniality with a special interest group.

Here is our request:  The list of places, the type of 'ban' and a contact
in the municipality with whom it can be verified.

>Hormone disrupting chemicals have been linked to falling sperm
>counts, genital abnormalities and rising testicular cancer rates.
>...

There have been seen links between chlorinated DDT/DDE, PCB's and
reproduction problems in animals at the doses found in the environment or
accidently released. And with PCB's and human reproduction at high levels
when heavily accumulated or accidentally in food. The production of these
products has been stopped with full industry support and without any
protest from the workers.
There have been seen links between non-chlorinated nonylphenol, soya
oestrogens, hops and natural remainders of wood and sexual behaviour at the
doses found in the environment or food. There has NOT been seen any effect
of phtalates on wildlife or humans at the amounts found in the environment,
in food or from packaging.

In the new Greenpeace report, all evidence is presented in such a
suggestive way that the reader thinks that ALL the effects are linked to
chlorine/PVC or chlorine related compounds, while most of the hormone
mimics, both in potency and amounts don't contain chlorine at all and are
not linked to chlorine or PVC.

>... the extent
>of damage caused to developing embryos is related to the timing
>of exposure and can be caused by minuscule amounts of some
>chemicals such as dioxin.  It is therefore not possible to
>calculate a "safe" dose...
>

Besides there is always a treshold, especially in hormone regulation, any
regulatory policy should apply to natural oestrogens as well.  If one extra
molecule is too much - 'unsafe' - as Greenpeace suggests, then metabolizing
these oestrogens even over hours or days isn't good enough. We should
probably ban the normal variability of circulating natural oestrogens too.
There is scientific evidence that variations in amounts of natural
oestrogens in time gives variations in breast cancer potency...

>"We now have enough evidence to conclude that the lifecycle of
>PVC represents an unnecessary and unacceptable threat to the
>integrity of our species,"...

PVC production has increased by nearly 300 percent while dioxin in the
environment has decreased significantly since the mid sixties, also in the
US (see sediment figures).

The authors of the reports, wich Greenpeace quote in their report, have
expressely warned that it is premature to call for a ban on any chemical
until more research is done to establish whether or not there is a factual
basis for the oestrogen mimic hypothesis, it is not even sure that sperm
counts are falling (Prof. Neils Skakkebaek, Dr. John C. Larsen and Dr
Richard Sharpe)! But Greenpeace goes on to blame ONE product: PVC...

>1)  Copies of the report can be obtained from Greenpeace at (202)
>462-1177 or accessed directly via the Internet at
>http://www.greenpeace.org/~UK/science/stolen.txt

watch: ~uk in LOWER case!

>
>2)  Dr. Theo Colborn's book "Our Stolen Future" was published by
>Dutton in March.  Two related publications include "The Making of
>a Conservative Environmentalist," by Gordon Durnil, former
>commissioner of the International Joint Commission on the Great
>Lakes under President Bush (Indiana University Press) and "Dying
>from Dioxin" by Lois Gibbs (South End Press).
>

See the comment of Theo Colburn on her own work wich can be read at:

http://www.ecology.com/GREENWRE/ARTICLES/gw0314.htm

>3)   Other countries have already taken steps against PVC:
>*   200 German communities and states operate restrictions on the
>use of PVC.

- Where is the list?

>*   The Sydney 2,000 Olympics is committed to environmental
>criteria including, "a commitment to minimise the use of PVC".

- The criteria were framed in close cooperation with... Greenpeace.

>*   6 Austrian states and regional capitals, including Vienna
>have resolutions to avoid PVC.

- Resolutions: words, words, words,...
  Take the Berlin case: around the date that the ban would enter into force,
  the politicians changed their mind...

>*   Similar measures exist in Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden,
>Netherlands and Denmark.

- Japan: unknown
- Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden: NO measures.
- Netherlands: NO legal measures have been taken in The Netherlands, again a
  tendentious statement from Greenpeace.
- Belgian ecotax on PVC bottles IS lifted.

>*   The Danish Government is currently considering proposals to
>phase out PVC by the year 2000.

- Again political proposals, not based on science. When will the politicians
  change their mind here?

>*   The Swedish Parliament voted to phase out PVC in November
>1995.

- Again politics...

>
>4) PVC is the second most common plastic. The largest quantity is
>used in building materials such as cables, flooring, window
>frames, water pipes and wall papers. It is also used in food
>packaging, medical supplies and childrens toys.  Viable
>alternatives exist for every major use of PVC.
>

Key point: ARE THOSE ALTERNATIVES BETTER FOR HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT? Or
is that not a point for Greenpeace? And if they are not tested for
toxicity, cancerogenity or any hormonal action, don't use them: isn't that
the aim of the precautionary principle?

Where are the Life Cycle Analyses of PVC and alternatives, based on real
measurements, wich PROVE or at least show a tendency, that the alternatives
are better for the environment? We haven't seen ONE!

And a last question:
After five years of investigation, after lots of discussions with
activists, industrialists and scientists, we still don't know the REAL
reason why Greenpeace wants to ban chlorine in general and PVC in
particular.
Is it fundamentalism?
Is it fund-raising by means of scaring people?
Is it sponsoring from non-chlorine companies, who want a bigger market share?
Is it all these three together?
It is certainly not for a better environment.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Chairman Chlorophiles

Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be