Re: DIOXIN-L digest 167

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

It seems that we are (still) back on the list...

Tony Tweedale of Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers Inc. reacted on our comments:

>>>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.
>
>well, this is  misleading indeed.  dioxin from incineration of pvc
>_production waste is in addition to dioxin from incinertion of pvc itself,
>yet ferdinand is using the smaller source of dioxins to claim that pvc
>incineration produces little dioxin.
>

We think you didn't read carefully. The incineration of PVC
production-waste is counted as (the largest) part of the dioxin emissions
from PVC production, wich is accused by Greenpeace to emit enormous
quantities of dioxins, wich is obvious not thrue.
The amount of dioxins emitted from the incineration of the entire amount of
PVC pipes at the end of their usefull life was counted separately, because
that differs very much between Europe and the US/Canada, entirely due to
the quality of the incinerators...
In reality it is still near zero now, because near zero PVC pipe is
incinerated, it is still in use! And after that time, you even can reuse or
recycle it... There are at this moment no indications - even after fifty
years of use - that it is degrading in any way, which is a good property
for this kind of application.

>>
>>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
>
>greenpeace wants much more than to ban pvc, they want to eliminate the
>production of anthropogenic dioxins (~10x > than from natural sources) and
>other persistent, biaccum. hazardous organo-cl's.  they want to help save
>mankind from itself.  and a large majority of the scientific community
>agrees with their conclusion that the most effective way to reduce
>emissions of these compounds is to phase-out pvc.  they made their call
>early on, and have been quite clear about what they want to phase-out, what
>not, and what can not be (eg elemental Cl).
>
>tony tweedale
>
>Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers Inc.
>Box 7941  Missoula, Montana 59807
>Phone & Fax 406-728-0867
>cmcr@ism.net

We haven't heard yet from any Greenpeace action against the domestic use of
wood or against iron sintering, or against metallurgy in general, the
largest dioxin sources after badly controlled waste incineration. Neither
against the use of salt, because at least as much dioxins are formed out of
one millionst of the salt content from waste as from the chlorine in PVC,
in badly operated incinerators. And ALL chlorine, making dioxins from
burning wood, coal or other organics, comes from salt, not from PVC...

Replacing PVC by other materials will not change the total amount of
dioxins emitted by any bad incinerator, only cleaner waste technologies
will do the job. We have already given you the reasons why in several
previous postings.

There have been many, many tests that disprove the connection between
chlorine in the input and dioxins in the output, compared with a few wich
prove it... and a few wich prove the contrary. That means that any burnable
material gives the same amount of dioxins in the same incinerator under the
same circumstances, no matter what the chlorine or carbon content is, as
long as there is some present, wich is unavoidable.
And we haven't seen any peer-reviewed scientific comment yet from the
scientific community that this claim is not thrue, neither that replacing
PVC by other materials will give less persistent, bioaccumulating,
hazardous pollution...

Ferdinand Engelbeen

Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be