Points on a couple of topics

[DrBillC@aol.com]

First, with respect to Thomas and Spiro’s work on emission factors.  Dr.
Thomas and I have discussed "Figure 1", and we disagree.  There appeared to
the eyes of the author a correlation between the data aggregates they showed
and straight lines drawn on the graph.  No statistics was done.  If, on the
other hand, the raw data points are analyzed the graph changes. The very
lowest three chlorine points of eighty--for unleaded gas--also have the
lowest emission factors and appear to be outliers.  The rest are randomly
scattered across nearly four orders of magnitude (0.01% Cl to 60% Cl).
 Incidentally, even within a type of incineration the same thing happens: for
example: plotting only their medical waste results shows dioxin appears to
decrease with chlorine.

Second, with respect to Green’s publication.  The work cited is on a pilot
scale incinerator and doesn’t measure dioxins.  The ASME study does compare
dioxin measurement to chlorine and represents the “weight of evidence,” not
an isolated study.  The most important issues are incinerator design and
operation, not feedstock composition.

Third, with respect to measuring dioxin from PVC operations.  When there was
apocryphal data on an old sample of PVC resin from Sweden of unknown age and
heritage, Greenpeace made much of small amounts of dioxin.  Now that there is
a lot of  real data from the US and Europe, Charlie Cray says it was
obviously low and is of no interest.  Quite a change in story.  The sampling
of resin and water is important, and we had to start somewhere.  More
information is coming.

Finally, I’d like to suggest that comparisons to Nazis, and referring to
those with different points of view as “phools” as has been done here
recently is functionally equivalent to “trash talk” in professional sports.
 I don’t think it adds much.

Bill Carroll
Chlorine Chemistry Council