[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A bit of history, for those new to the anti-dioxin move
> From: Jon Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Those are precisely my thoughts on the subject. I have
> been thinking about the fact that, in the early part of the
> Industrial Revolution, when London, New York, Liverpool,
> and other early industrial cities were thick with smoke,
> the amount of bronchial asthma in the population
> was still very, very small. Lots of emphysema, lots of
> lung cancer, but few reports of asthma, whose symptoms are
> very specific (not chronic lung insufficiency, but acute
I am not sure about how asthma has tracked historically, except for the
first air pollution law, circa 1300 by King Edward -> "Be it known to
all within the sound of my voice, whosoever shall be found guilty of
burning coal shall suffer the loss of his head." Can't really comment
I think somewhere between the particulates (which I left out - sheepish
bow of head to Alex) and other contaminants both from AND outside the
facility, such as ground-level ozone, a lot of material was
contributing to the problem that had little to do with dioxins.
> There were also lots of incinerators - one in virtually every
> apartment building - burning everything imaginable (but NOT
> organochlorine plastics, because there weren't any!) SOMETHING
> in "modern" smoke is interfering in some way with the bronchial
> immune response.
But dioxins are formed in incinerators all the time with no help
whatsover from chlorinated plastics - especially coal-fired systems.
Though the scope of emissions are different, the sheer number of these
systems paint them as significant contributors overall. As a side
note, Ankara, Turkey does the same thing every winter (home-fired coal
for heat) and asthma cases are extreme. Visiting is also a joy . . .
> Those [metals] were also absent in
> turn-of-the-century smoke. ...
Not absent, but nowhere near as predominant.