Last message Chlorophiles

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

Dear dioxin-l listers,

This will be our last mail to the list (some of you will think: at last!).
We have been forced out of the list in the real spirit of the 'Blue Ribbon'
campaign, although we fully agreed with the aim: reducing the amount of
dioxins in the world. We only disagreed with the means.
Because we expected to be removed, we flooded the list with some last
information. Sorry for that.

We strongly disagree with the aim AND the methods of Greenpeace. Greenpeace
is not interested in dioxins, they are only interested in dioxins as a mean
to ban a whole industry and especially PVC, whether that has something to
do with each other or not. Because much of you trust Greenpeace, we will
give you here our last response on the Greenpeace mailings to show you how
Greenpeace manipulates data.
We will still be available for a direct response on any question on
chlorine, PVC or dioxins, as far as our knowledge goes, on our mail and/or
home adress, or you can find more information on our Chlorophiles web
pages.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Chairman Chlorophiles

Oude Ertbrandstraat  12
B-2940 Stabroek
Belgium

Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be
http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/

Here follows a response to the main points of Greenpeace, send by Charley
Cray. If you want an answer on other Greenpeace allegations, we will send
it directly to you.

The main Greenpeace allegations against PVC are on the amount of dioxins
emitted during production and incineration and the use of hormone
disrupting phtalates.

PVC PRODUCTION:

The response of Greenpeace on our reference to the CBNS report, calculating
the input of dioxins at the Great Lakes, is a good example of how
Greenpeace manipulates data:
>From the CBNS report, 'Quantitative estimation of the entry of dioxins,
furans and hexachlorobenzene into the Great Lakes from airborne and
waterborne sources', May 1995, you can calculate that the incineration of
PVC-production waste, the main dioxin emission from PVC-production, is
average 0.02 % of the average total dioxin emissions in the US and Canada
AT THE SOURCES (Table I, page 6), based on USEPA estimates.
Greenpeace misleads the reader by telling that it is less than some 2% AT
THE PLACES OF DEPOSIT, a thousand miles away, suggesting in that way that
the source must emit enormous amounts of dioxins. This is clearly
falsifying facts to continuous blame PVC production as a hughe source of
dioxins.
For those who have no access to the CBNS report, we will send/fax the
relevant pages, so you can see the facts yourself. It can also be confirmed
by prof. James Quigley, one of the authors of the report at:
QUIGLEY@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu

PVC INCINERATION:

Greenpeace claims half a dozen (= six) experiments wich prove their point
that more chlorine/PVC in municipal incinerator feed augments the amount of
dioxins emitted. The ASME in their peer-reviewed report, 'The relationship
between chlorine in waste streams and dioxin emissions from combustors',
december 1995, found even more: eleven!
But the ASME found also ninetytwo others wich disprove the PVC to dioxin
theory. The scientific evidence of no or a negative influence of PVC on
dioxin emissions is 8.45:1 against a positive influence. There is near as
much evidence that removal of PVC from waste will AUGMENT the dioxin output
as there is for the contrary.
The same is thrue for other types of incinerators: hospital waste,
hazardous waste, cement killns,...
All parameters were statistically simultanious evaluated, so any influence
of other parameters like hearth temperature, air flow,... would be
separated from the influence of chlorine/PVC input.
If Greenpeace is so sure of their claim, let us do a test controlled by
Greenpeace and the CCC (or its Canadian counterpart), conducted by the City
of Toronto: three testruns, if possible at different incinerators. At least
two out of three will turn out to be negative.
For those interested, we have a lot of references of tests where there was
no correlation found between chlorine/PVC input and dioxin output.

HORMONAL INFLUENCES:

We don't know the thrustworthy of Stephen Safe. But if the authors of the
reports on wich Greenpeace bases its allegations are not, then their
hypothesis that some manmade chemicals may interfere with the male
fertility is not too. And those authors did warn that it was only a theory
and NO product should be banned, before more research has been done! They
had even NO evidence that the influence of the sum of amounts and capacity
of all chemical pollutants in the environment was enough to have such a
result.
BTW, the male fertility in the US is AUGMENTED in the last 15-20 years,
according to several US scientists (dpa, reuters, in the newspapers here
and Chemical week, May 8 1996).
Using 'Greenpeace science', we now have 'scientific' evidence that the
Barbie dolls and the 300% more PVC production and use in the previous years
had a positive influence on the male fertility in the US.

OTHER TOPICS: dioxins and seaships:

The amount of dioxins, released by a seaship that transports VCM, in the
worst case will augment the dioxin releases per ton of product with some
0.3 microgram I-TEQ/ton (10,000 ton net, 1 t/h fuel, 6 mcg I-TEQ/ton, 1O
days to Australia, 10 days empty back). But you may do the calculations in
PVC pipelength with an extra emission of 1 mcg/ton. That in any case will
include the dioxin emissions of energy use from transport to the factory,
polymerisation, mixing and extruding, transport to the place of appliance
and later to the incinerator. That is not the point.

The point is: why does Greenpeace fights against PVC pipes, while producing
MORE dioxins, PCB's and other nasty stuff than the production, transport
AND incineration of thousands of km/miles of PVC in their whole 100 years+
of lifetime give? And why does Greenpeace only fights against PVC and not
against the other much bigger sources, including ALL forms of transport
(excluding bicycling)?

Again: what is the REAL reason that Greenpeace wants a ban on PVC?

Ferdinand Engelbeen