[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GP sampling
For many of you reading my response on this one, don't for a minute
doubt that I want to keep the planet clean. I am currently working on
getting the Solite haz waste incinerator shut down in North Carolina -
having just written the state over a gross error in the air dispersion
But I do have a problem with not only the methods, but also the
analysis of the Greenpeace study in this case. Take my comments with a
truck load of salt over the should if you must. :<)
> From: Charlie Cray <email@example.com>
> I have to
> respond, though, immediately to the assumption that anyone
> put themselves or plant personnel in jeopardy. We're just
> not that stupid or naive about the nature of petrochemical
A surreptitious entry, at night?, with the emphasis on not getting
caught? If they had a guide, it was plant personnel that was
disgruntled? And who among those entering the plant went through the
plant safety briefing? Did they know where the nearest Scott pack was?
Where they equipped with respirators, safety glasses? What was your
plan for extracting personnel if they had trouble? How many went
through the OSHA training for handling haz waste? I am SURE that
you'll have an answer to all those questions now, after the fact.
> Perhaps you should talk to senior management at many petro-
> chemical companies about personnel cutbacks (esp. of trained,
> union personnel) and automation, which have caused, I gather
> from talking to plant operators and union reps, far more
> deaths due to accidents than direct dioxin sampling of waste
> byproducts ever has and likely ever will.
The aspect of problems of plant safety does not reinforce your
position, it reinforces mine alone. At best a lame argument within the
context of whether those personnel "visiting" the plant knew what they
were doing and were adequately briefed on the facility.
I have *never* seen any recognizable difference in training or attitude
between the union and non-union personnel (except in the case of
non-union bigotry by union personnel). The union has been and is still
necessary in many cases to ensure worker safety and fairness, but the
actual *system of working* is no better than any other. I have been in
plants were union personnel worked fine, cooperatively, and with
efficiency in mind. I've been to some which were it was just as much
pain to rip out a toenail as it was to wait for them to get their act
together, and it was the union system itself acting as the obstruction.
> In fact, I'd think that it's a healthy thing for the planet as
> well as workers in the petrochemical industry to expose those
> products/processes which put them (and the plants' neighbors) in
> danger of high levels of dioxin exposure. Do you agree?
I agree completely. But that is not the same thing as trespassing on
the plant of a technological facility loaded with chemicals and
high-pressure lines, batch reactors, steam lines, and hazardous waste.
One argument does not make the other "all right." And I'll make this
statement right now - I can PROVE beyond any doubt if the residents are
being exposed to high-levels of dioxin coming from a facility. And
without entering the facility grounds. I have done some awesome
ambient air work in my time, and modern analytical facilities make
finding picograms a breeze.
So are they in danger of *high levels* of dioxin exposure? I have no
doubt these facilities will produce some dioxin, but how much and how
much are people exposed to? I still have not seen any of the original
data that went into that report of Greenpeace's. We could make it
simple and you could just authorize me to retrieve the lab data from
each of the lab's you mentioned. Any competent lab keeps all of their
data on file and most lab director's are happy to oblige. ????