[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 <jon@cqs.com>:
  > 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
  > sensitivity). 
  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
  beyond that.
  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. 
  Sam McClintock