[Dioxin-l] "normal background level"

[superjicb]

Jon,

Look again and you will see that I did not suggest primary or secondary
water treatment with chlorine, only residual water treatment -- that is the
water that is already treated and clear that moves from the water treatment
facility to your tap on the date that you personally decide to use it,  and
it only takes a tiny bit of chlorine to accomplish what is needed.  Ozone
and hydogen peroxide dissipate too fast to make it to your tap. Trust me on
this one.  You only need chlorine for residual water treatment.   Also we
can not always fall back on safe and effective remedies herbal remedies.
Believe me this will not fly.  Do not advocate this.  Environmental
advocates should not promote it if they want to be effective.  Chlorine and
chlorine derivatives are sometimes needed.  So what! This is only a small
total amount of the chlorine used today.  I'm only advocating that you
accept a small amount of chlorine use.

Connie Hansson


----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Campbell <jon@cqs.com>
To: superjicb <superjicb@email.msn.com>; 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 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Dioxin-l] "normal background level"


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