[Dioxin-l] Thank you Connie Hansson

[superjicb]

David,

I am no expert on incineration, but I'm familiar with issue and have an idea
for what works.  I've done a lot of reading about incineration over the
years, and it is my understanding that man-made chlorinated wastes are the
worst, but of course chlorine enters incinerators in naturally occuring
forms too.   Recycling has helped minimize chlorine wastes, but I believe
they are still significant -- when you have a population of 250 million
people it makes sense that you are going to burn a lot of trash and a lot of
dioxin will be made.

I do not want to presume what is okay to talk about on this board, but from
my experience alternatives are the single most important thing.  I don't
have a clue as to the technology that you are implying you have developed.
At first I thought maybe it was the Molten Metal Technology approach, but
not if it is a cooler burn.  The part that I do know is that nothing gets
done if you don't have a new technology to do it with.

That said, I disagree with your assessment that we don't have to get rid of
as much man made chlorinated waste as possible.  We can't forget that our
population is huge and growing and that not all incineration takes place in
incinerators.  That doesn't mean that clean incinerators are not also needed
because they are and I'd think everyone here would be interested to hear
what you care to share.

Connie

----- Original Message -----
From: David Ross <dsross3@yahoo.com>
To: <dioxin-l@lists.essential.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 5:43 PM
Subject: [Dioxin-l] Thank you Connie Hansson


> I find the contribution by Connie Hansson to be the most cogent and
> thoughtful contribution to the list I have seen in the short time I
> have been a member.  Thank you for it.
>
> Her posting prompts the following response:  For the record (and as I
> had thought I had made clear earlier), while now retired my
> professional experience and present motivation are directed to
> alternatives to combustion for the destruction of halogenated waste.
> We all agree that dioxin and related materials are toxic, and that
> classical incineration (i.e. combustion) of chlorinated waste is a
> significant (sole?) source.  And for very good technical reasons we
> cannot make incinerators cleaner and cost effective at the same time.
> There are moreover political elements to this issue as well, as
> Connie suggested.
>
> It is the case, however, that there do exist combustion alternatives
> that can be developed to commercial scale to be at least as cost
> effective as incinerators.  In such systems, which are not at all
> exotic and use common materials, dioxins cannot form (temperatures
> too low), and indeed purposefully introduced dioxins are destroyed as
> rapidly as other chloroorganics.  The products are NaCl, CO2, and
> water.
>
> There are therefore two paths to follow in my view:  i) Accepting
> that the PVC industry and its cousins are huge and will not be
> replaced, and that they are processes with very large quantities of
> chlorinated waste-side products that are largely incinerated or
> deep-welled, work to force a cleanup of the processes; and ii) since
> there will inevitably be waste at any rate, work to affect
> development and implementation of a combustion alternative for
> disposal.  (The list of course is no place for product promotion, and
> that is one reason why I have minimized discussing my background.  I
> won't go into specific alternatives accordingly, but will be pleased
> to discuss the technical issues individually with interested
> parties.)
>
> My guess is that this view will not be very popular with some list
> members since I am not advocating elimination of all organochlorines
> forever.  Rather I recognize that PVC and other chlorinated products
> are with us like it or not, and they are in many ways useful to us.
> And while I cannot support the following statement with a citation,
> my view is that replacement of those chlorinated materials we find so
> useful today, including polymers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc,
> with halogen-free substitutes would be difficult if not impossible.
> But since a big part of the problem is their ultimate disposal, it
> would seem that a replacement for combustion is a satisfactory route.
>
> Finally, I don't know the answer but I ask Connie:  Is not municipal
> incineration where the feed is largely common C,H,O,N's and is
> relatively chlorine-free ok?  Or are there problems in that arena
> too?
>
> Michael
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dioxin-l mailing list
> Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l