[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Charlie Cray wrote:
> Maybe instead of making vague insinuations you can provide some
> details of your critique of our "Dioxin Factories Expose," since you
> suggest it's "close to out and out libel"...where is the evidence of
> "hard work" among the state and federal agencies which oversee those
First, let's get the area set up: I am an environmental consultant, I
work for industry, which has in the past and in the present included
some facilities that either manufacture or extrude plastics (along with
oil companies, ore refining, incinerators, lithium production, paper
mills, and a host of other places). I also do gratis work for various
environmental groups, which has included SELC, WELC, Joann Almond's
SCOTCH group, and a few others, which include current listserver
attendees and posters. I have and continue to do air emission testing
for dioxins, in the past under contract to the USEPA and now for
industry. I state now that I am arguing because I believe that the
report Greenpeace made is in error and that it is distracting from
other more vital efforts needed to protect our environment. I am not
getting paid by industry or anybody else to argue with you.
First question/request: The Greenpeace report "Dioxin Factories
Exposed" (DFE) has several sections listing various contaminants found
in various waste streams, which included dioxins. I am not
questioning that dioxins or pollutants were found. However, in order
for me to provide a critique as accurately as possible, it would be of
great service to have the original field collection notes and full
analytical report from the various labs used. Just listing the
contaminants and making claims of dioxin concentrations (which in many
cases were VERY generic and used varying units, etc.) won't do me a lot
of good when the debate becomes really heated - and we are a far cry
from that yet.
At your convenience, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the field
collection notes and full analytical reports (sans any names to protect
folks from trespassing charges). You could copy them and post them via
the internet (so all can see) in a zipped PDF or graphics file, or send
them to me by mail - makes no difference to me.
Food for thought: PVC production has almost tripled in the last
fifteen years. Yet, dioxin exposure has dropped by over 75% in the
last decade; I am talking the total biologically available as a
function of TEQ. Seems to me that if the PVC industry was the smoking
gun of dioxins you are claiming, and the regulators so useless, then
dioxin exposure would have increased over the last decade. Now the
numbers of production come from the PVC industry based on their reports
to industry, not regulators (no reason to lie there, and they would
have fudged on something besides tripling the numbers). The reports on
dioxin exposure are independent university research efforts or
government studies (US and Europe), *not* from the PVC industry.
We'll come back to this on occasion. Thought I'd throw it out there.
More to follow, your turn.
Samuel C. McClintock
Director, En-Vision Inc.
7533 Milestone Court
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919) 847-6339 (fax)
Current email: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Aug 15, will be: email@example.com (would have used en-vision.com,
but envision is used everywhere, thought I'd try something else) :<)