[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Recycling vs Incineration - New Scientist 22/11/97
Sam wrote
>The plots were not evil - though in many cases they were not well thought
>out. ........ We didn't have to go back and declare those who discovered
uses for
>freon evil - we just needed to prevent CFCs from getting into the
>atmosphere. In this case, we should be looking at those ways to REDUCE our
>waste (recycling is only a partial answer and also creates waste).
This seems a particularly charitable approach towards a group of people
and corporations who have managed to poison our planet with dioxins to
the extent that all of us are at or close to levels in our bodies that
are of clinical significance.
Maybe I should be more generous spirited but I am really not sure that I
can sympathise with that view. Particularly since 1978 when it was
recognised that:
1) Kociba et al confirmed that dioxin causes cancer
2) It was discovered that trash incinerators were potent sources of dioxin
3) Dow Chemical started to obscure the issues with their 'Trace Chemistry
of Fire'
Since then there are few, if any, in the incineration industry (or
amongst their regulators) who can put their put hands on their heart and
say that 'we did all we could to protect the public - that was the most
important issue for us'. Others have effectively documented the abuses
of power and the spread of disinformation that were used to defend
incineration and allow the poisoning to continue. But what Jon says is
substantially true - the incineration industry realised that if the
public connected dioxin with incineration then the game would be up. The
regulators, in the UK at least, played along and allowed some incredibly
polluting plant to splutter on until the end of their economic lives -
sometimes even against the advice of other Government Agencies. These
issues are way too serious to pass by and simply move onto looking at
waste reduction - vital as that is.
We need to learn from the mistakes of the past for if we accept that this
sort of disaster is an acceptable cost of doing business then surely we
are doomed.
Perhaps the basic dilemma that I face with Sam's philosophy that
'basically everybody was doing their job albeit sometimes not quite as
thoughtfully as they might' is that it is fundamentally pessimistic.
At every new application we hear that the past has been put behind us, we
have learned from our mistakes and this an entirely different technology,
incinerator design, scrubber, liner, process etc All too often these
prove to be hollow promises - how how many chances do they need? What
reason, or evidence, is there for anything ever to get significantly
better? And if it doesn't then where do we all stand?
Experience in industry tells me that too often people act recklessly or
abuse the environment because:
1) they think that they can get away with it
2) they know that if they don't it won't be much trouble
3) they rationalise that what they are doing won't really damage the
environment
4) sometimes they just don't care anyway
The results of this include ghost waste handling in inappropriate
facilities (ie haz waste disposal in MSW incinerators), fiddling
emissions data, rigging tests, switching off ESPs at night to save
electricity and so on.
All these issues apart from perhaps (4) can be addressed by tough
regulation, treating crimes against the environment as seriously as any
other crime and, just to be sure, eliminating particularly hazardous
components at source because even in a brave new world the regulators
and/or the educated are never going to be omnipresent.
Surely this is part of the lesson we should learn from the incineration
fiasco?
........................................................
_\\|//_ Alan Watson C.Eng
(' O^O ') Oakleigh
==|=ooO=(_)=Ooo=|== Wernffrwd
! ! Gower
! PUBLIC ! Swansea SA4 3TY
! INTEREST ! UK
! CONSULTANTS ! Tel: 01792 851599
! ! Fax: 01792 850056
! ! Check out:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/
For UK issues and information
........................................................