[Dioxin-l] Open List?

[Jon Campbell]

Michael,

     All you need to do is read some of the documents regarding the =
building
of the incinerators at http://www.workonwaste.org and you'll find out =
that
what I say about incinerators is true. The incinerator operators
specifically made claims that their emissions were safe and that
incineration would eliminate landfills, that the ash was insignificant, =
and
that the ash was safe to handle. All claims turn out to be false, and =
they
knew this from the very beginning. Incinerators account for 80% of =
airborne
dioxin emissions in the US, and dioxin has contaminated the entirety of =
the
top of the US food chain at 100-200 times the EPA "maximum allowable
dosage". A single McDonalds hamburger has 100 picograms of dioxin in =
it, the
EPA max dosage is 0.7 picograms for an ADULT.

     The ash accounts for 25-30% of the original volume, so it hardly
eliminates the problem. Furthermore, it is a toxic brew of dioxins, =
PCBs,
heavy metals, and other poisons. When the industry was challenged on =
this
(which would have made the entire enterprise futile) the EPA then =
allowed
this hazardous waste to be *measured* by a process that guarantees that =
it
is classified non-hazardous (you can read all about it at the website =
cited
above).

     So, yes, incineration is a hoax. There are many who think it is a =
good
alternative, and they are just misled. This is not just a "strong
statement". It is the bare truth of the matter.

Jon Campbell

-----Original Message-----
From: David Ross [mailto:dsross3@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 7:26 PM
To: dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
Subject: [Dioxin-l] Open List?


After my exchanges with Jon Campbell got so heated I decided I would
avoid getting involved in any further list posting.  But I find I
have to respond to some recent comments related to David Bell=92s
postings.

First, for the record I am not an industrialist.  I have worked in
incineration alternatives, and I am fully desirous of a cleaner and
more healthful environment, just like all others on the list.  And I
know a bit about chemistry, combustion, and waste disposal.

My take on the more strident list members recognizes that they have
some very strongly felt views.  But can they be open minded to
suggestions that those views might not be fully correct?   Thus from
Mr Everston in response to comments by D Bell and me about naturally
occurring organohalogens, =93. . imply that organo-halogens are found
wide spread in nature when they are not. They may exist but to say
they are wide spread and a necessary part of life systems is
extreme.=94 =20

I must tell you that Everston=92s statement is simply not true.  I
repeat:  it is just not true. There is at least one detailed review
article in a respected journal -- having nothing to with industry,
toxics, or waste -- that describes this interesting class of
compounds, that is wide spread. =20

I would guess that most of the list members would agree that the
automatic mistrust of any comments reflecting some possible academic
or technical background that we see in some postings has no place in
the list. =20

And I ask the list members to consider a comment by Ralph Ryder, =93If
either of these two people (i.e. D Bell and me) had done half of what
Jon Campbell has to educate the general public on the issue in
question they would be worth talking to.=94 =20

Unfortunately Jon Campbell=92s educative activities are mirrored in
statements like, =93Incineration is in essence a hoax, a trick by the
incinerator industry to buy their machines and technology, or at best
an ill-conceived attempt at recycling of the energy of waste which
played into the hands of the incinerator industry. Everything that is
wrong with landfills is doubly wrong with incinerators: instead of
dumping garbage into a hole, incinerators produce intensely toxic
waste that you must then dump into a hole, and putting the rest of
the toxic waste into the air. Most of the energy inherent in the
waste, which could be recaptured by simple reuse and recycling, is
lost.=94 =20

I submit that that is not education, but in the very least a highly
biased view of an activity that has its bad points to be sure.  But
the statement is over the top, and in a responsible list it would be
challenged.=20

So how about it  --  might we develop a genuine forum for an honest
exchange of ideas?  In the name of a straightforward and constructive
discourse, might there be some way people like David and myself could
offer comments that, while not in line with the beliefs of other list
members, would be accepted as genuine points of view with no
malevolent or hidden agenda, and possibly with some substance? =20

Is there not room on the list for candid and open discussion with no
hysteria, and would we not all benefit from some mechanism where that
kind of interaction could take place?

Any thoughts about how it might be done?

Michael Oros

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
Dioxin-l mailing list
Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l