lorrilee@yunccn.UUCP (Lorrilee McGregor) (08/29/89)
The Attikamek-Montagnais have joined in the growing campaign " to prevent Quebec from storing PCB's at a power-generating station near Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's home town of Baie Comeau." '"Our position is categoric - we will not accept them," Ghislain Picard, vice-president of the 11,000 member Attikamek-Montagnais band said yesterday. "The North Shore has been exploited over the past 50 years with its minerals and forests stripped away. Now they want to throw us back all the garbage and that's something we don't appreciate." ' "Nearly 2,000 Attikamek-Montagnais live on the Betsiamites reserve, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the proposed storage site for the St. Basile wastes. Picard said many Indians rely on land in the area for trapping, fishing and hunting." "The site is also "right in the middle" of land claimed by the band, said Picard, who has not ruled out enlisting the support of other native groups in Quebec."
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (09/03/89)
In article <2324@yunccn.UUCP> lorrilee@yunccn.UUCP (Lorrilee McGregor) writes: >The Attikamek-Montagnais have joined in the growing campaign " to >prevent Quebec from storing PCB's at a power-generating station near >Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's home town of Baie Comeau." >'"Our position is categoric - we will not accept them," Ghislain Picard, >vice-president of the 11,000 member Attikamek-Montagnais band said >yesterday. OK - who SHOULD accept them? The Welsh, who had nothing to do with their creation? Have a court order which would have a ship dump them in the ocean rather than unloading them back at their source? Maybe this is overly simplistic, but why isn't the company which used the PCBs soley responsible for their disposal? Perhaps if the companies which use hazardous materials had to factor in the cost of using (and disposing) such materials without leaning on the public purse, perhaps hazardous materials would just become too expensive to use. There should be not just moral, but financial reward to the companies which produce safer materials. In my eyes, private industry won't do much to help the environment until safer can be directly equated to cheaper in the eyes of producers and users. The obvious government knee-jerk reaction is to slap a tax on hazardous goods. I don't think this is needed - just make users of such materials *totally* responsible for their after-effects. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn If you'll be my Dixie chicken, I'll be your Tennesee lamb - Little Feat
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (09/05/89)
In article <620791816.24086@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >Maybe this is overly simplistic, but why isn't the company which used the >PCBs soley responsible for their disposal? Perhaps if the companies >which use hazardous materials had to factor in the cost of using (and >disposing) such materials without leaning on the public purse, perhaps >hazardous materials would just become too expensive to use. Because PCBs have been used as electrical transformer coolant for 30 years, and only relatively reci8ently have they been discovered to be dangerous. Used to be that they would spray the surplus stuff on dirt roads to keep the dust down. No one produces any of the stuff at all any more (to my knowledge); precisely because it's so dangerous and expensive to get rid of, and we have other stuff now that does the same job. But in the mean time, an awful lot of large electrical transformers were built in the last 30 years (just think about the expansion in the electrical grid since, say, 1960). In most other respects, I agree with you; I don't see anything particularly wrong with storing PCBs in tis particular region. It has to be stored somewhere. On the other hand, I don't think the Welsh get off so quite so easily. They have a disposal plant, and they accept large sums of money to dispose of other people's waste, that's why it was being shipped there. For some bizzaro reason, this particular shipment seemed to get a whole lot of public attention, and the locals and dock workers started preventing the disposal plant from carrying on international business. >-- > Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario >evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn > If you'll be my Dixie chicken, I'll be your Tennesee lamb - Little Feat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/06/89)
In article <620791816.24086@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >OK - who SHOULD accept them? The Welsh, who had nothing to do with their >creation? ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that they were going to Wales to be *destroyed* in a special incinerator, not stored. That is clearly the best solution. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/06/89)
Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. Seems to me there are a tremendous number of substances far more dangerous than that, or have I heard wrong? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bpd@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) (09/06/89)
In article <1989Sep5.173937.24977@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <620791816.24086@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>OK - who SHOULD accept them? The Welsh, who had nothing to do with their >>creation? ... > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that they were going to >Wales to be *destroyed* in a special incinerator, not stored. That is >clearly the best solution. For some useful information, see a letter to the editor from last week's Toronto Star (Friday, I think?). It is from the president of some industry organisation. Essentially, there are several issues, some of which are ignored by the media. (The following information, paraphrased from the letter, is correct in nature, if not in exact wording/numbers. My father deals with this stuff daily, and references and material can be provided if anyone is interested.) 1) Dangers of PCB's - directly, very low level of toxicity (external), mild toxicity (internal) - indirectly (environment) - they bio-accumulate (ie bad news for fish & fowl) [This protest is moot; the people in question are in far greater danger from the fish they eat. They *are* contaminated; the PCB contaminated waste is in storage drums.] PCB's are no longer being manufactured. The storage facilities for them are being filled with containers of contaminated waste, which is generated whenever such things as PCB electrical transformers are replaced. Concern for the environment was the reason they were banned from production, and the reason for their storage. These facilities are not "toxic waste dumps", but staging areas for eventual destruction. Myths: - they cause cancer - no evidence whatsoever of "reasonable" doses causing cancer - they are dangerous to handle - mildly iritating; in most cases the waste is more harmful than the PCB's - people have died from them - not true at all; media hype on a *related* chemical by-product in mid-70's has labelled PCB's "deadly". 2) Storage - where? how? who? The real answer is: "Who cares." They can be destroyed quickly and effectively. Current storage facilities work fine, but are filling up because no destruction is occurring. The government has strict regulations for the transportation and storage of such waste; unless these are broken, there is no significant danger of contamination of areas near them, and no health hazard associated with these facilities, even for workers exposed to them for years. 3) Destruction - what is necessary to destroy them? How effective need it be? High temperatures are necessare to destroy them - they do biodegrade, but very, very slowly. The temperatures necessary can be produced by cement kilns, or by plasma generators. Anything over 99.99999% destruction should be good enough. (this is achievable in both cases.) The amount of waste shown on TV news programs is "PCB contaminated waste material", *not* pure PCB's! Thus, the actual quantities of PCB's are quite small, and amounts not destroyed will be negligible - even for the amount of materal to be destroyed. Existing cement kilns can be used without conversion; there is no need for new facilities; in fact no capital expenditure at all is needed. PCB waste added will be almost totally destroyed when processed with cement. This is a very emotional issue; however, facts are available. Contact the appropriate ministry (Environment), and find out for yourself. Express your opinion to your member of parliament, so potential of a major environmental contamination from the storage sites can be eliminated. (After all, leaving a large quantity of anything around for a long time is just tempting fate :-) -- Brian Dickson, NTT Systems Inc., Toronto.
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (09/06/89)
In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's >why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are >only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. > >Seems to me there are a tremendous number of substances far more dangerous >than that, or have I heard wrong? >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, not just pure PCBs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
cdshaw@alberta.uucp (Chris Shaw) (09/06/89)
In article x evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >In article x lorrilee@yunccn.UUCP (Lorrilee McGregor) writes: >>The Attikamek-Montagnais have joined in the growing campaign " to >>prevent Quebec from storing PCB's at a power-generating station near >>Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's home town of Baie Comeau." > >>'"Our position is categoric - we will not accept them," Ghislain Picard, >>vice-president of the 11,000 member Attikamek-Montagnais band said yesterday. > >OK - who SHOULD accept them? The Welsh, who had nothing to do with their >creation? You make it sound like the receivers at the British dock were going to distribute soupcans of PCB's door to door in Swansea. What bullshit. The Quebec government had a contract with a disposal plant in Wales to properly incinerate the PCB's. This is currently the best way to handle PCB-laden oil. Some dock workers with more fear than sense refused to unload the cargo, so it wended its way back to Baie Comeau. What's the best thing to do with them now that the PCB's are here? Incinerate them in a PCB disposal plant. Storing them is no good, neither is burying them, nor dumping at sea. I guess the question is, what difference does it make where the incineration takes place? If a facility exists to completely dispose of a certain class of waste, then it should be used for that purpose. The owners of the facility should be paid for this service, of course. It is a mistake to think that somehow hazardous waste disposal is impossibly dangerous, and should not be performed at all. There is a class of wastes that require special effort to clean up, and the people who produce such wastes should be required to use that service and pay its bills. The alternative is permanent storage, which is not acceptable. The punch line is that plants should be built that will handle all of the hazardous waste disposal needs of the world. Building large plants will mean that waste disposal is efficient, effective and inexpensive, which means that more people will use them instead of hiding wastes in some warehouse. A few large plants are better than many small plants because economies of scale will reduce overall disposal costs. This also means that transportation of wastes to these plants should not be hindered. Ignorant blockades of this nature simply costs money, just like throwing rocks through shop windows. On the other hand, waste transport should be regulated to maximize public safety. >Maybe this is overly simplistic, but why isn't the company which used the >PCBs soley responsible for their disposal? Perhaps if the companies >which use hazardous materials had to factor in the cost of using (and >disposing) such materials without leaning on the public purse, perhaps >hazardous materials would just become too expensive to use. This is the best course of action, although it need not necessarily be the case that hazardous wastes render the costs to be too high. I would reject utterly the notion that the company making the wastes should build its own little waste disposal plant. This is stupid, since the costs of building a small plant will be so high that no corporation would do it right, which would mean that we're no further ahead. >The obvious government knee-jerk reaction is to slap a tax on hazardous >goods. I don't think this is needed - just make users of such materials >*totally* responsible for their after-effects. I contend that paying for incineration at some plant, either here or in another country makes no difference as long as all costs are paid. Moreover, such a plan IS totally responsible disposal if the corporation who made the wastes pays the bill. > Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta.UUCP University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (09/06/89)
In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's
why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are
only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic.
I believe they are dangerous because they ARE carcinogenic AND they
are inert. Thus they tend to stay in the environment for a very long
time and do lots of damage.
--
T. Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
kim@watsup.uwaterloo.ca
{uunet|utzoo|utai|decvax}watmath!watsup!kim
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadasl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (09/06/89)
In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: }>Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's }>why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are }>only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. }> }>Seems to me there are a tremendous number of substances far more dangerous }>than that, or have I heard wrong? } }They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect }level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to }detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On }the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, }not just pure PCBs. I would certainly appreciate a reference for the above statement. Just the other day I heard some (obviously ill-advised) commentator say that there was no evidence for carcingenic effects other than studies on mice. And that there where no recorded deaths from PCB's. He did reference a Japanese study where some workers exposed to PCB's had a skin dis-colouration. Here on the other hand we have a definite authoritative statement of fact. So I for one would like to know the reference so I can start quoting it too. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
tpc@bnr-fos.UUCP (Tom Chmara) (09/06/89)
In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's >>why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are >>only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. > >They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect >level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to >detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On I hope you have a reference for this, because as far as I am aware, Brad is completely correct and you are way off. There was a GE transformer plant in Toronto (now closed) at which the workers WASHED UP with PCBs: they are excellent degreasers. There is no evidence of anything statistically abnormal about their cancer levels. You have been caught up in the media hype. PCBs of themselves are particularly inert. The only problem is that incomplete combustion leads to generation of carcinogenic compounds. This argues for disposal of the wastes in a timely, effective manner. Even the newspapers are beginning to get a handle on the matter. The Ottawa Citizen ran an article a few days ago covering much the same material as above. Hype may sell newspapers; fortunately, SOME information leaks out, too... ---tpc--- -- I am sole owner of the above opinions. Licensing inquiries welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Chmara UUCP: ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!tpc BNR Ltd. BITNET: TPC@BNR.CA
larry@hcr.UUCP (Larry Philps) (09/06/89)
In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's >>why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are >>only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. >> >>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. > >They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect >level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to >detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On >the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, >not just pure PCBs. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Hmmm. According to the information in the interview with, John Polyani, Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, in last Saturday's star, they are quite harmless unless burned at temperatures too low for complete breakdown. Even then it is not the PCB's themselves that are harmful, but the byproducts of the incomplete destruction. He says that there is no evidence whatsoever that they produce cancer of any sort. I have read this statement about the dangers of PCB about 3 times since all the fuss about them started. The other 9,999,999 (or so) news articles all raved about how dangerous they are. Given that I am not an expert in organic chemistry, I think I will choose to believe John Polyani. Larry Philps HCR Corporation 130 Bloor St. West, 10th floor Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1N5 (416) 922-1937 {utzoo,utcsri,lsuc}!hcr!larry
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (09/06/89)
In article <261@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >}>Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's [stuff] >}They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect >}level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to >}detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On >}the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, >}not just pure PCBs. >I would certainly appreciate a reference for the above statement. [news quote about how PCBs only harmful in lab mice] >Here on the other hand we have a definite authoritative statement of fact. >So I for one would like to know the reference so I can start quoting it too. >-- >Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax) Reference? Well, ... <ahem> I was told this by a biology student room mate that was taking a toxicology course at the time. Me, I'm a computer nerd and don't know from bio-references. Today, another poster quoted from a letter in the Star from an industry soucre that contradicts my statement, so I'm going to sit back and wait for further commentary from some more knowledgeable soucre than myself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (09/06/89)
In article <2482@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>, bpd@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) writes: > [Enlightning factual article deleted] Finally some facts, definitely helpful. I have a question about the burning of PCB's, though. I have always heard that the risk of this is that dioxins can be formed as a by-product. In small quantities, true, but toxicologically speaking, for some dioxins, there is no such thing as a small quantity. The dioxins get into the exhaust from the burning plant, and then end up in the country side. News reports from the plant in Wales seem to indicate that this happened there. Any comments? On a related matter, I remember hearing a year or so ago that someone, I think at McMasters, had come up with a non-burning way of PCB destruction. It involved Sodium, and you basically ended up with harmless, non-chlorinated oil and table salt. This obviously avoided any dioxin hazard. Does anyone know what hppened to this? -------------------------------------------- Gerard Stafleu (519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043 Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca BITNET: gerard@uwovax
bpd@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) (09/06/89)
In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Are PCBs that dangerous? I have read that they are quite inert -- that's >>why they were used in transformers. According to what I heard, they are >>only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic. >> >>Seems to me there are a tremendous number of substances far more dangerous >>than that, or have I heard wrong? >>-- > >They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect >level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to >detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On >the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, >not just pure PCBs. I am afraid you are quite wrong. There is another chemical which has rightly gained a bad reputation: dioxin. Dioxin will cause cancer on contact, and is considered hazardous in any detectible concentration. There is no acceptable level for dioxin - it is dangerous even at one part per quadrillion (!). On the other hand, PCB's are an environmental hazard, but not considered dangerous to individuals. They do not cause cancer, even when ingested. They *do* bio-accumulate, and sufficient quantities will cause problems for certain internal organs (liver, kidneys); this is considered a "mild toxicity". I.e. consuming several kilograms will kill you eventually; a few grams will in all likelyhood have no effect at all. -- Brian Dickson NTT Systems Inc., Toronto.
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/07/89)
In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Are PCBs that dangerous? >They are massively carcinogenic on contact. They have on 'no effect >level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to >detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer. On >the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils, >not just pure PCBs. Misinformation. Others have said the same thing, but I'll try to make it very clear: - there is absolutely no evidence *whatsoever* that PCBs, in, and of themselves, are carcinogenic or even particularly harmful. The only evidence relating PCB's to cancer are from a chemical spill in Japan that did cause a number of cancers, however, the PCBs were just one part of a chemical soup, other chemicals in the glop were known extreme carcinogens (I seem to remember that one of them was a chemical that lab researchers use to induce cancer in lab animals! "Duh yeah, that prooves PCBs cause cancer"). - Yes, PCB's bioaccumulate, and that is *not* a good thing. Which is the primary reason why they're being banned - I've heard that there's already something like 12,000 *tons* of the stuff lost in the environment in Canada (this is not including storage facilities). Not to mention the *tons* sprayed on highways over the last 30+ years. If it was as dangerous as you say, we'd all be dead *now*. However, if they can be destroyed, what's the problem? - Dioxins and Furans *are* extremely dangerous (which is what I think you were really refering to), and can be a byproduct if PCB's are incompletely burned. Eg: fires in storage dumps.... (sound familiar?) Thus, storing the stuff is *far* more dangerous than controlled incineration. I think that all of the above (except, perhaps the last sentence) is in a fairly recent issue of Harrowsmith. There is technology *now* that can eliminate the stuff at a far safer level than storing it indefinately. Cement kilns can destroy it. Special PCB incinerators can as well. Media hysteria and stupid environmentalists are blocking the solution to the problem. [Ps: Lest one think I'm a anti-environmentalist, I'd like to point out that I'm a director of Save the Rouge Valley System. Though, I am *not* speaking for them on this issue.] -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-request@eci386) Phone: (416)-294-9253
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (09/08/89)
In article <1450@bnr-fos.UUCP> tpc@bnr-fos.UUCP (Tom Chmara) writes: >There was a GE transformer plant in Toronto (now closed) at which the >workers WASHED UP with PCBs: they are excellent degreasers. While from everything I can find, this was NOT a particularly UNSAFE practice, please remember that just because someone in authority says something is harmless does not make it so. There was a story in Atlantic Insight magazine (a great magazine, by the way, if you have any Atlantic Canada blood in your veins) a couple of years ago which interviewed some people who had worked for New Brunswick Power [in the 50's I sort-of remember] spraying defoliants on electric power right-of-ways. One worker (of the few still alive) remembers that initially they had some concerns about the safety of the chemical, but when one of the supervisors/engineers assured them that it was "as safe as water" and demonstrated by downing a cupful of the stuff their fears were assuaged to the point that to cool off after a hot day's spraying they would often have "water" fights using the high-power nozzles mounted on the trucks to blast each other with defoliant (related to Agent Orange, needless to say, and containing dioxins). As I remember the article, the survivors of this job were suing NB Power for endangering their health. Sometimes I wonder/worry about the stuff in some of these wonder chemicals I get all over my hands like WD40, Liquid Wrench, brake fluid, etc. (I have an old car I'm working on off-and-on, and sometimes there's just no alternative to getting the chemicals on your hands. I'm usually fairly careful.) Alive and healthy so far... ../Dave
dgharriss@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dermot G. Harriss) (09/11/89)
Somebody writes: > [PCBs] are massively carcinogenic on contact ... Others point out that PCBs such as are found diluted in typical transformer oil are only mildly toxic, have not been shown to be carcinogenic, & are likely dangerous only with prolonged internal exposure at relatively high concentrations. For that matter, the same can be said of oxygen - but we don't hear the pseudo-environmentalists and media clamouring for a ban, at least not yet. People just love to be scandalized, outraged, and even terrified by something all the time. The PCB business is just the latest environmental `fad concern' as it were. For their part, the media love nothing better than a good scare -- they feed on public hysteria, which feeds in turn on media hype, until both get their fill and tire of it. On the positive side, this positive feedback leads to a concentration of public attention on an issue, and consequently to intense and often effective pressure on government. On the negative side, between the naturally nervous, the well intentioned uninformed, and the band-wagoneers, some environmental, health & safety, & such like issues, receive public attention far out of proportion to their relative importance (as an ecologist or professional health & safety engineer, etc., might assign to them), while many critical problems are virtually ignored. The concerned public tends to burn up a lot of that useful anger in the most futile ways on the silliest of issues. This sort of thing -- the ill-informed rhetoric, the paranoia, the hysteria -- tends to contribute to the rather ambivalent regard in which the environemental & other `social consciosness' movements and their `long-haired' activists are held by the silent working majority. It's also a cause of considerable frustration for the sincere & well-informed environmentalists, environmental activists, & environmentally conscious. An uncle of mine, in his younger days in the field as a transmission line engineer with Ontario Hydro was once thoroughly soaked by PCB-laced oil when a transformer being installed sprang a leak. He said the oil tasted pretty bad. Certainly doesn't seem to have done him much any though. His comment on the PCB hysteria was that the public would gladly have a dozen people killed a year in transformer fires and spend millions in taxes & rate hikes to pay for transformer design changes, to exorcise the PCB demon - he considered this irrational and amusing, but then perhaps he is biased. As an example of how people seem to confuse the priorities, I recall that during the summer I worked in the health sciences division at AECL Chalk River Nuclear Labs, there was considerable environmentalist and media rhetoric concerning the transportation by truck between the U.S. and Canada of certain hazardous radioactive wastes (an issue undeniably worthy of the closest attention). At the same time, what was causing concern to division scientists were the increasingly high levels of Plutonium being detected in the Ottawa river at Ottawa, and serious quality-control problems in the medical products division of the AECL Chemical Company, such as (rumour had it) the delivery to hospitals of short-lived isotopes weeks and even months before the manditory pre-delivery bio-assays were completed. This sort of information was available to the public & press in annual & monthly reports (written up, mind you, in a form one might suspect contrived to be somewhat unapproachable by the lay public), but there wasn't a peep from the media. Perhaps the disparity between what frightens the public and what frightens the scientists isn't surprising. Is it a problem? -- Dermot
clewis@eci386.UUCP (09/11/89)
In article <2484@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> bpd@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) writes: >I am afraid you are quite wrong. There is another chemical which has >rightly gained a bad reputation: dioxin. Dioxin will cause cancer on >contact, and is considered hazardous in any detectible concentration. >There is no acceptable level for dioxin - it is dangerous even at >one part per quadrillion (!). Interesting: 1) The detectability level for 2,3,... (whatever) TCDD (which is supposed to be the most toxic form of Dioxin) is around 20 parts/quadrillion. 2) The 1988 Fish Eating Guide (published by the MOE) considers 1 part per trillion as the main threshold: - women of childbearing years, and children under 15 should only eat fish with *less* than this level (as often as they want - this is also the commercial limit). - other people can eat fish (depending on frequency) of up to *three* times this. 3) Lake Ontario itself has this level (info published a couple of years ago) 4) The Guide also mentions that ... TCDD is the most toxic, many (if not most) of the other Dioxins aren't nearly as toxic. [Um, I left the book up at the cottage, I'll bring it back down this week, so I can double check the other numbers I remember and post them.] -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis Phone: (416)-595-5425
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (09/19/89)
In article <1989Sep11.142805.862@eci386.uucp> clewis@eci386.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <2484@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> bpd@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) writes: >>I am afraid you are quite wrong. There is another chemical which has >>rightly gained a bad reputation: dioxin. Dioxin will cause cancer on >>contact, and is considered hazardous in any detectible concentration. >>There is no acceptable level for dioxin - it is dangerous even at >>one part per quadrillion (!). >Interesting: > 2) The 1988 Fish Eating Guide (published by the MOE) considers > 1 part per trillion as the main threshold: Oops, that's *20* parts per trillion. Just checked again... That's only 20,000 times higher than your figure. Where'd you get yours from? [Incidentally, 2,3... TCDD is listed very explicitly as "acutely toxic to some lab animals". Note the "some". Leads one to believe that human toxicity/teratogenic properties in man aren't completely understood, as they are for, say, potassium cyanide. Not that that makes any difference to permissible limits - the wildlife in the environment are of importance too!] Similar thresholds: PCB: 2.0 parts/million MIREX: .5 parts/million DDT: 1 part/million (I think) Mercury: 1 part/millon The book goes on to mention that the previous chemicals of concern (DDT, Mirex and Mercury) have shown a steady and very significant decrease over the last decade or two (particularly DDT), and mercury is now only dangerous in a few very restricted areas. (Mirex is only in the Great Lakes, below Niagara Falls NY I believe...) (all of the above are generally cumulative. The Ministry has tested thousands of lakes including a sampling of all fish species of interest. The concentrations are measured in the dorsal area of fish. The book is quite thick listing the relative safety of fish consumption versus location, species, and fish size. There are a surprising number of areas that have problems with larger fish) -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-request@eci386) Phone: (416)-294-9253