[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 <ccray@dialb.greenpeace.org>
  > 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 
  > facilities.  
  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.  ????
  Sam McClintock