[Dioxin-l] "normal background level"
Jon Campbell
jon@cqs.com
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:17:21 -0500
Connie,
Thanks so much for your note.
I'm glad you experienced an "awakening" about organochlorines and
incineration. You might note that Ralph and I have been fighting
incinerators for some years now (he longer than me), and we have come to
realize that there is no such thing as a clean incinerator, no matter how
hot it is, no matter how careful we they are about what goes in. If it
weren't for dioxin, it would be mercury, lead, and cadmium. And really all
you need for dioxin formation is free chlorine and carbon chemicals at
medium-to-high temperatures.
There is no such thing as an efficient or economical or ecological
incinerator, for its very nature is to destroy materials that could be
recycled and reused, and instead produce toxic ash. Which is why I promote
the concept of 100% recycling. If that becomes the basis of our society,
then we begin to question the need to produce products that cannot be
recycled or reused, and question the immense unnecessary volume of
materials.
Look again at the water sanitization process (which can be done with
ozone or hydrogen peroxide) and at pharmaceuticals (most can be replaced
with safe and effective and cheap herbal and natural remedies which the drug
companies don't promote because they cannot make windfall profits).
Regards and thanks
Jon Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "superjicb" <superjicb@email.msn.com>
To: "Jon Campbell" <Jon.Campbell@MetraTech.com>; "'Ralph Ryder'"
<ralph@tcpublications.freeserve.co.uk>; "kathy or david van dame"
<dvd.kvd@juno.com>
Cc: <dioxin-l@venice.essential.org>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Dioxin-l] "normal background level"
> Jon
>
> Up until now I’ve just monitored this site, but David and Michael have
> motivated me to comment. I’m not surprised to find incinerator
manufacturers
> on the same side of the issue as the chlorine industry.
>
> I was in the chlorine industry for ten years. I co-authored the ”Chlorine
> and Sodium Hydroxide” section of the 1991 edition of “The Kirk-Othmer
> Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.” You may find some chlorine advocacy
> position papers authored by me floating around. I also studied chlorine
> issues as a personal hobby outside my job. I thought I was objective when
I
> worked in this industry, but in hindsight I recognize that I was just a
> chlorine activist with a pro-industry mindset. I thought US firms were
> already the world’s best on environmental issues and that pushing too hard
> could hurt US companies, the US economy and US citizens. I’ve since
learned
> that for the large part I was wrong. I’m convinced that what is good for
> today’s multinationals is good only for a few individuals, and certainly
not
> for US citizens or the US economy. Also, it is hard to deny that
> environmental efforts in CFCs and pulp mills have helped the environment
and
> I’m quite sure these efforts added jobs and grew GDP beyond what otherwise
> would have occurred.
>
> Michael or David said quote: “…dioxin is highly toxic - a fact. It
follows
> to reduce the level till there is no toxicity. This has such strength and
> clarity that no politician can ignore the logic, and activism wins.”
>
> I disagree because this implies cleaner incinerators will solve our
> chlorine/dioxin problems. I also disagree because politicians survive
> election after election while clearly ignoring logic. This once amazed me,
> but having been educated by someone who knows what goes on, I now support
> campaign finance reform. I’m not specifically knowledgeable about the
> incinerator industry, but using common sense I can see reasons why they
> might be inclined to support the chlorine industry. I think I remember
> reading that chlorine first came under the gun somewhere in the UK (I
think
> it was in the 1920s) when dioxin was discovered at an incinerator there,
and
> that ever since chlorine and incinerators have enjoyed varying degrees of
> mutual trouble. Michael/David’s statement suggests that we should improve
> incineration so toxins are not produced. This would be great for
> incinerator sales, but I doubt it can be done without the help of
> environmental advocates – like happened in the pulp and CFC changeovers,
> where environmental advocates and equipment suppliers worked together.
> Changes of this magnitude require that federal and state governments,
> industry, hospitals, etc., spend billions of dollars, and I’d don’t
believe
> that industry groups with obvious self interests can successfully
accomplish
> such lofty goals alone, but then maybe they don’t really want to
accomplish
> them as we would imagine they do.
>
> Incineration equipment suppliers are in a difficult position because
> incinerator replacement costs are high and for the most part the costs
will
> need to be paid for by taxpayers and industry, and that’s a hard sell. If
> incinerator manufactures admit too much to the dioxin problem and to its
> relationship to chlorine, you can be sure that would make it fairly
obvious
> that little hospital/apartment incinerators, etc., should be closed down,
> and I’d guess this would be a chunk of lost business. I have no numbers
but
> I doubt that an apartment building can afford a new efficient incinerator
> that burned hot enough not make or emit dioxin. Also its hard to imagine
> getting consumers to demand dioxin-free incineration (when they have no
> direct choice regarding incineration) like they could easily demand
> chlorine-free paper. Maybe you should let people know the issue exists by
> selling dioxin-free baby foods, that is if you can find dioxin free
> ingredients.
>
> Dioxin byproduct production in incineration would not occur without
> chlorine, and it is my understanding that most of the chlorine in
> incinerators comes from man-made products like PVC. You’d think the
> incineration business would at least want to ban chlorine-containing
> products to take the heat off, but with less chlorine in incinerators
would
> there be less dioxin and maybe less urgency to replace incinerators? I
can
> see why incinerator manufacturers might be inclined to walk the fine line
of
> pushing slightly to force slow replacement of large incinerators with more
> expensive hotter burning models, while not stirring things up so much that
> smaller incinerators are closed or that politicians call for elimination
of
> man-made chlorine wastes.
>
> It is difficult for environmental advocates too because they know that not
> all incineration takes place in incinerators. Lots of dioxin is formed
from
> chlorine derivatives (PVC, etc) burned in accidental fires, or
intentionally
> in backyard fires, as well as in incinerators that are out of compliance.
> Also, all over the US industries get away with ignoring environmental laws
> and guidelines, and authorities turn a blind eye to the non-compliance.
The
> smaller government becomes the more laws will be ignored.
>
> I read the Beaver Lake Washington study by the EPA. It scares me to see
six
> times the amount of dioxin was present in 1964 that was present in 1932,
> especially because between the 1800s and 1932 the dioxin level stayed
almost
> the same indicating that incineration has had its toll in this area since
> 1932. Does anyone know anything about Beaver Lake? Does it have lots of
> industry or population? Why did the EPA pick it? I noticed that there
was
> a drop in dioxin in the area between 1964 and 1974. Is there a reason for
> this drop? Did any industries in the area close?
>
> I don’t want you to think I’m against chlorine, which is simply an element
> although not like any other element because it has its own special highly
> reactive/destructive properties – if carbon is highly inert and the
element
> of life and a building block, wouldn’t everything stay the same if there
> were no elements that broke things apart? Don’t you need a
> reactive/destructive element widely available in nature? Aren’t the laws
of
> thermodynamics wonderful in that they rule chemical reactions? If you
start
> with a world full of reactive elements, as they react with each other they
> release energy and in time things calm down. This is what has happened
over
> the years to result in the relatively stable world we live in. If it hadn
’t
> happened I dare say we wouldn’t be here.
>
> While some elements have largely inert properties (carbon), others
elements
> have largely reactive or destructive properties (chlorine). If carbon is
> the element of life, I hold that chlorine is the element of change. While
I
> am no longer a chlorine activist, I still consider it a serious mistake to
> ban or advocate the ban of chlorine in all uses. Uses like pharmaceuticals
> and residual water treatment should not come into question. Environmental
> groups undermine their credibility when they bring these end uses into
> question. Luckily they make up a very small percent of total chlorine
> demand, although likely still more than the small amount of
organo-chlorines
> produced by nature.
>
> Michael pointed out that third-world countries are caught in situations
> where they must choose between slow death from DDT or fast death from
> malaria. It is lucky that the US does not have to make this ugly choice
> where dioxin is concerned. Instead of poisoning our citizens with dioxin,
> we can go a long way in protecting their health simply by replacing those
> chlorine derivatives that add the most to chlorinated wastes. I am not
> advocating a ban on PVC in special products where it is necessary, but I
do
> believe many PVC end uses can be eliminated, as can many other chlorine
> derivatives. Of course, this won’t totally solve the dioxin/incineration
> problem because of chlorine’s ubiquitous presence in nature, but from what
I
> ’ve read natural sources account for a small percent of dioxin in
> incineration. Also, we still have many years worth of PVC waste in the
> environment that will likely someday be burned.
>
> I think the incineration industry should at least avoid stirring the pot
and
> accusing environmental advocates of not dealing with reality when it is
> clear that today these advocates are intelligent, informed and well
grounded
> in reality. It is especially time for industry at large to stop with all
> the “sound-science” rhetoric. Industry has the big bucks and the
political
> clout to make their voices heard louder than environmentalist. In my
> opinion, as long as campaign finance reform is not passed it is
unnecessary
> for industry to talk so much about sound-science. Anyone who can read
knows
> that the “perception is reality” concept is abused by both sides. Looking
> back to the first half of the 1990s, industry wrangled with the perception
> held out by environmentalists that chlorine was an “evil chemical”. This
> type of name-calling was near impossible to address scientifically, it
> undermined the credibility of environmentalists, and did much to polarize
> industry and environmentalists. During that period I read a simplistic
> little book that I had owned for years called “The Building Blocks of the
> Universe” by Isaac Asimov. It discussed each element on the periodic
table,
> including chlorine, which it ironically called the “green element.” After
> reading this book I realized that instead of defending chlorine as a
> chemical that it should instead be viewed as an “element” like any other,
> oxygen, hydrogen, etc. It doesn’t sound so outlandish to ban one
chemical
> out of millions, but it is a totally different thing to think that you can
> ban an element from the earth, especially when there are so few elements
and
> when chlorine is one of the few that occurs in abundance. While it was a
> good retort for the times, when you take a closer look at that simplistic
> little concept, you see that the argument is thin at best, and no more
> scientific than calling chlorine evil. Its certainly time for industry to
> stop using it before someone decides to blow it apart.
>
> It appears that another issue from the first half of the 1990s that is
still
> being bantered about is the importance of organo-chlorines to the debate
> (only now the importance is extended to all halogens). This is totally
> ridiculous. If industry wants to discuss things in terms of chemical
groups
> (halogens) that is okay, but I hope that environmental advocates have
> learned enough not to let themselves be pulled into an argument with
> industry that can be used to show that they are prejudiced towards entire
> groups of elements. I’m sure we all recognize that each halogen has its
own
> special properties.
>
> If I were an environmental advocate that wanted to take steps to eliminate
> as much dioxin byproduct manufacture from the environment as possible, and
> as quickly as possible, I’d do my best to point out that chlorine is a
> highly reactive (destructive) and deadly poison that is needed to make
> pharmaceuticals which often have destructive functions (like dioxins are
> used to kill cancers) and to kill bacteria in residual water treatment,
but
> that the individuals that use it for these reasons are highly trained and
do
> so with great care. I’d excuse these uses by pointing out that just like
> living organisms use only very tiny amounts of chorine and only to carry
out
> necessary destructive purposes (like HCl in digestion and frog skin
poison),
> that man uses only a very small amount of chlorine to sanitize water and
> produce pharmaceuticals.
>
> CONNIE HANSSON
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon Campbell <Jon.Campbell@MetraTech.com>
> To: 'Ralph Ryder' <ralph@tcpublications.freeserve.co.uk>; kathy or david
van
> dame <dvd.kvd@juno.com>
> Cc: <dioxin-l@venice.essential.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 1:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [Dioxin-l] "normal background level"
>
>
> > Ralph, Kathy/David van Dame,
> >
> > Clarification of previous message: Kathy/David van Dame and Ralph
> Ryder
> > (and, I might add, many others on this list) are in agreement: that the
> > incinerator and chemical industries do in fact promote the idea that the
> > current level of dioxin contamination is not only "background" but also
> > harmless to us. I have personal experience with this with one of my
> > unfavorite companies - Wheelabrator (subsidiary of a little company
called
> > Waste Management).
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Ryder [mailto:Ralph@tcpublications.freeserve.co.uk]
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 4:03 PM
> > To: kathy or david van dame
> > Cc: dioxin-l@venice.essential.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dioxin-l] "normal background level"
> >
> >
> > In message <20000106.190850.-366647.9.dvd.kvd@juno.com>, kathy or david
> > van dame <dvd.kvd@juno.com> writes
> > ><snip>
> > >>Unfortunately much of the public, especially those threatened with
waste
> > >>to energy incinerators are being hoodwinked into accepting today's
> > >>dioxin contamination level of the globe as 'the normal background
> > >>level.'
> > >
> > >I don't believe I have heard anyone advocate that- is this your belief
?
> > Yes - based on my experience of attending numerous public meetings of
> > industry trying to kid the public while assisting 2 dozen communities
> > fight planning applications for burners over the last 6 years.
> >
> > without insulting you (I only insult people I know very well and good
> > friends) Do you ever look out into the real world or are you so wrapped
> > up with data in text books...?
> >
> > Ralph
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Dioxin-l mailing list
> > >Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
> > >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l
> > >
> >
> > ****************************************************************
> > Ralph Ryder
> > Communities Against Toxics
> > PO Box 29
> > Ellesmere Port
> > Cheshire UK
> > CH66 3TX
> > Email ralph@tcpublications.freeserve.co.uk
> > Tel/Fax 0151 339 5473
> > ****************************************************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dioxin-l mailing list
> > Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dioxin-l mailing list
> > Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dioxin-l mailing list
> Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l
>