#353: EPA: Dioxin Does Cause Cancer In Humans

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #353
---September 2, 1993---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

An explosion at a Hoffman-LaRoche chemical plant in Seveso, Italy, in 1976 sent a cloud of the herbicide 2,4,5-T over the surrounding countryside, contaminating several thousand people. Dioxin is created as an unwanted by-product during the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, so the Seveso population was exposed to dioxin. For years, optimists have been pointing to Seveso saying, "Dioxin doesn't cause cancer in humans--look at Seveso." Now a new study in the journal EPIDEMIOLOGY reveals that people exposed to dioxin during the Seveso explosion have begun to exhibit excessive numbers of cancers.[1]

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of environmental toxicology for U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], told the Associated Press that the new study "is one more nail in the coffin" for dioxin.[2] Birnbaum, who is coordinating EPA's multi-year "scientific reassessment" of dioxin said, "This, together with other studies, clearly supports that dioxin has the potential to cause cancer in people, just as it does in every animal it's been tested in. The weight of the evidence is becoming overwhelming," she told AP reporter Paul Raeburn.

The area around Seveso has been divided into three zones, called A, B and R. The small A zone was most heavily contaminated, but its 724 residents were evacuated. ("Heavy" contamination means that each square yard of land contained 13 to 494 micrograms of dioxin; a microgram is a millionth of a gram and there are 28 grams in an ounce.) The B zone was less heavily contaminated but its 4824 residents were not evacuated; zone B contained 43 micrograms of dioxin per square yard of soil, or less. The R zone was even less contaminated (average contamination being 4.3 micrograms per square yard), so its 31,647 residents were probably exposed to low levels. Another 181,579 people living beyond zone R serve as a control group living in "noncontaminated" areas.

The greatest cancer increase has occurred in zone B. In zone A the numbers are small and no significant cancer increases have occurred. In zone R one kind of cancer has increased: soft tissue sarcoma. Previous studies have linked dioxin exposure to soft tissue sarcoma in humans.

In zone B, among women there has been an observable increase in cancers of the gall bladder and biliary tract (the system that delivers bile from the liver to the small intestine), and in cancers related to the blood-forming system (multiple myeloma and myeloid leukemia).

Among men in zone B, there were observable increases in cancers of the blood-forming system, and in one kind of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a cancer of the lymph system called lymphoreticulosarcoma).

This new study only covers the period 1976 through 1986--10 years after the Seveso accident. Since most cancers take longer than 10 years to develop, the cancers reported in this study may represent only the earliest signs of more trouble to come.

This Seveso study is not the first to indicate that dioxin causes cancer in humans. [3-10,14,15] Swedish researchers in the late 1970s began reporting that exposure to phenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) caused a 3-fold to 6-fold increase in the risk of soft tissue sarcomas and lymphomas. Phenoxy herbicides are contaminated with dioxin during manufacture.

Monsanto Corporation, a major manufacturer of phenoxy herbicides, in the late 1970s and early 1980s sponsored studies of workers that the company had exposed to dioxin, and these studies showed no increased cancer deaths among exposed workers. However, the Monsanto studies have been criticized by a report from the National Research Council, [11] which says Monsanto's studies were "plagued with errors in classification of exposed and unexposed groups, according to some reports, and hence have been biased toward a finding of no effect." A 1990 analysis of Monsanto workers, conducted by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, reported a statistically-significant increase in soft tissue sarcomas. [12]

As part of its multi-year scientific reassessment of dioxin, EPA recently published a draft review of all scientific data linking dioxin to cancer and other health effects in humans. [13] The EPA's draft document concludes that four separate studies[8,9,14,15] of workers exposed to dioxin have revealed an "overall increased mortality from all malignancies combined." EPA speculates that dioxin's ability to mimic hormones gives dioxin the capacity to cause cancer in many different organs and bodily systems in humans. [13, pg. 7-7]

There seems to be little room left for doubt: As the EPA's "scientific reassessment team" told then-chief of EPA, William Reilly, January 27, 1992: "Dioxin does cause cancer in humans." (See RHWN #283.)

It therefore seems that EPA now has little choice but to declare dioxin a class A carcinogen, i.e., one known to cause cancer in humans. This would have far-reaching implications for public health policy. (A public hearing to discuss the new EPA document, and its implications, is scheduled for 9-to-5 September 7 and 8, 1993, at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City, Arlington, Va. If you want to reserve time to speak, contact Helen Murray of Eastern Research Group: (617) 674-7374. The meeting will be full and space is limited, so we suggest you arrive by 8 a.m. if you want a seat.)

An editorial in the September issue of EPIDEMIOLOGY points out some of the public policy implications of the conclusion that dioxin causes cancer in humans. [16] The author of the editorial, Swedish dioxin researcher Olav Axelson, says that the "biological effects of TCDD [dioxin]" are "a first order public health concern." Axelson says "there seems to be an urgent and costly need to change or improve industrial and other processes so as not to produce dioxins (and the toxicologically similar chlorinated dibenzo-furans). For example, there is a need to restrict the use of chlorine in paper bleaching. Incineration of waste material at too low temperature should be avoided as well as the 'combustion' of organochlorine compounds in general," Axelson says.

Dioxin is produced by every municipal solid waste incinerator ever tested; it is produced by all hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns and BIFs [boilers and industrial furnaces] that burn chlorinated wastes. It is produced by the manufacture of many pesticides (85% of which involve chlorine). It is produced by metal smelters, and paper mills, and probably by other common industrial processes. Although there is now little doubt that dioxin causes cancer in humans, translating that into public policies that genuinely protect public health will create a political firestorm. Once again, EPA chief Carol Browner faces a series of decisions that will define clearly and unmistakably which side she and Bill Clinton are on.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Pier Alberto Bertazzi and others, "Cancer Incidence in a Population Accidentally Exposed to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-PARA-dioxin," EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 4 (September, 1993), pgs. 398-406.

[2] Paul Raeburn, "Dioxin Dangers," a story on the Associated Press news wire datelined New York, August 29, 1993.

[3] Lennart Hardell and others, "Case-control study: soft-tissue sarcomas and exposure to phenoxyacetic acids or chlorophenols," BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 39 (1979), pgs. 711-717.

[4] Lennart Hardell and others, "Malignant lymphomas and exposure to chemicals, especially organic solvents, chlorophenols, and phenoxy acids: a case-control study," BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 43 (1981), pgs. 169-176.

[5] Mikael Eriksson and others, "Soft tissue sarcomas and exposure to chemical substances: a case-referent study," BRITISH JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE Vol. 38 (1981), pgs. 27-33.

[6] Sheila Hoar and others, "Agricultural herbicide use and risk of lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcoma," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 256 (1986), pgs. 1141-1147.

[7] Sheila Hoar Zahm and others, "A case-control study of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and the herbicide 2,4-dichloro phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in Eastern Nebraska," EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 1 (1990), pgs. 349-356.

[8] Marilyn Fingerhut and others, "Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-P-dioxin," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 324 (1991), pgs. 212-218.

[9] R. Saracci and others, "Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to Chlorophenoxy Herbicides and Chlorophenols," LANCET Vol. 338 (1991), pgs. 1027-1032.

[10] Pier Alberto Bertazzi and others, "Ten-year Mortality Study of the Population Involved in the Seveso Incident in 1976," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 129 (1989), pgs. 1187-1200.

[11] Anthony B. Miller and others, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY VOLUME 1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991), pg. 207.

[12] Marilyn A. Fingerhut and others, MORTALITY AMONG U.S. WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHEMICALS CONTAMINATED WITH 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN (TCDD) FINAL REPORT [PB91-125971] (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1991).

[13] David Bayliss, Marie Sweeney and others, CHAPTER 7. EPIDEMIOLOGY/HUMAN DATA [EPA/600/AP-92/001g; Revised June 1993; Workshop Review Draft] (Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, 1993). For a free copy while supplies last, phone EPA in Cincinnati: (513) 569-7562.

[14] A. Manz and others, "Cancer mortality among workers in chemical plant contaminated with dioxin," LANCET Vol. 338 (1991), pgs. 959-964.

[15] A. Zober and others, "Thirty-four-year mortality follow-up of BASF employees exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD after the 1953 accident," INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 62 (1990), pgs. 139-157.

[16] Olav Axelson, "Seveso: Disentangling the Dioxin Enigma?" EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 4 (September, 1993), pgs. 389-391.

Descriptor terms: explosions; accidents; spills; hoffman-laroche; seveso; italy; 2,4,5-t; herbicides; pesticides; studies; linda birnbaum; epa; dioxin; carcinogens; cancer; soil contamination; soft tissue sarcoma; sts; gall bladder cancer; biliary tract cancer; liver cancer; multiple myeloma; myeloid leukemia; hematopoeitic system cancers; blood; lymphomas; non-hodgkin's lymphomas; phenoxy herbicides; 2,4-d; monsanto; william gaffey; w r gaffey; judith zack; j a zack; occupational safety and health; nrc; national research council; niosh; marilyn fingerhut; chlorine; chlorinated solvents; incineration; cement kilns; bifs; boilers; industrial furnaces; carol browner; bill clinton;

#041b: New Drinking Water Regulations Could Kill 39,000 People Yearly.

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #41
---September 7, 1987---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Drinking water regulations for eight toxic chemicals were announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the FEDERAL REGISTER July 8 (pgs. 25690-25717). EPA established the standards as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The eight chemicals, and the new standards appear in Table 1, below. In the same Table, we present data from the EPA's FEDERAL REGISTER notice, showing how many Americans the EPA would expect to die each year from water pollution from five of these eight chemicals if we all drank water all our lives contaminated at the allowed level.* The five chemicals are carcinogens. Thus the EPA says it expects that, if all our water supplies were to become as contaminated as is allowed under the new EPA regulations, these five chemicals would kill nearly as many people each year as automobiles now kill. One key difference would be that the pollution deaths would be lingering cancer deaths, not abrupt accidents. Another difference is that these deaths will have been sanctioned by the state without "due process" for the victims.

Standards for Eight Toxic Chemicals

Chemical               Standard                 Expected
(parts                  annual
per                     deaths
billion)                (U.S.)

benzene                    5                      970 
carbon tetrachloride       5                     4314 
1,2-dichloroethane         5                     3065 
trichloroethylene          5                      448 
para-dichlorobenzene      75 
1,1-dichloroethylene       7 
1,1,1-trichloroethane    200 
vinyl chloride             2                   30,989

TOTAL EXPECTED ANNUAL 
DEATHS FROM ALLOWABLE 
DRINKING WATER POLLUTION...........            39,786

*Method of calculation: In the FEDERAL REGISTER notice (Table 2, pg. 25700), EPA presents the chemical concentration in drinking water that they estimate would cause one cancer in 100,000 people drinking water contaminated at that level for a lifetime. For each chemical, we simply divided that number into the announced standard, then multiplied the result by the current size of the U.S. population (233 million people) divided by 100,000. For example, EPA's Table 2 says vinyl chloride at 0.00015 mg/l (0.15 ppb) will cause one death in 100,000 lifetime water drinkers. The established standard for vinyl chloride is 0.002 mg/l (2 ppb). Dividing 0.002 by 0.00015 yields 13.3; this is the number of people expected to be killed among each group of 100,000 water consumers if the water contains 0.002 mg/l (2 ppb) vinyl chloride. How many groups of 100,000 water consumers are there in the U.S. (which has a population of 233 million)? 

Answer: 233,000,000/100,000 = 2330. Multiplying 2330 x 13.3 yields 30,989 expected deaths each year.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: drinking water regulations; sdwa; epa; safe drinking water act; cancer; benzene; carbon tetrachloride; 1,2-dichloroethane; trichloroethylene; para-dichlorobenzene; 1,1-dichloroethylene; 1,1,1- trichloroethane; vinyl chloride;

#468: Cut Waste, Not Trees

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #468
---November 16, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

The attack on the environment by so-called "conservatives" in Congress has caused a radical re-thinking throughout the environmental community. People are recognizing that they must stop working alone and must start building alliances.

Among other developments, a new coalition has formed between forest activists, energy-conservation advocates, and toxic pollution fighters. Perhaps most importantly, this coalition includes people aiming to create (and retain) good jobs in their communities. Their goal is to cut use of wood in the U.S. by 75% in 10 years. An excellent new report provides the rationale, and describes the plan. [1]

Here's the thinking behind the new coalition. Lois Gibbs, of Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW)*fn01 [Falls Church, Virginia; phone: (703) 237-2249] is spearheading an anti-dioxin campaign. Dioxin is among the 2 or 3 most toxic chemicals ever discovered, and it is produced by incinerators, by paper mills, by metals smelters, and by the production of many pesticides. (See RHWN #290, #390, #391, #414, and #438.) Now CCHW has joined with the Rainforest Action Network*fn02 of San Francisco [phone: (415) 398-4404] in a Wood Use Reduction Campaign. The goal is to reduce wood consumption in the U.S. by 75% within 10 years --an ambitious goal, but one that can serve as the "glue" to bring many environmental groups and economic development groups together. Rainforest Action is in it to save the world's forests. CCHW is in it to save forests, too, but their main aim is to reduce toxic dioxin and stupid waste disposal.

For example, as Gibbs points out, paper (which, in the U.S., is made almost entirely from wood) is a major fuel for municipal solid waste incinerators, which are also a major source of toxic dioxin emissions. If solid waste incinerators were shut down this act alone would:

** Significantly reduce the nation's serious dioxin problem;

** Stop virgin wood products such as shipping pallets and paper products from being used mindlessly as fuel in incinerators (half of all hardwood harvested in the U.S. is for pallets, much of it discarded after one use);

** Force municipalities to manage wood and paper waste differently (in other words, reprocess rather than landfill or incinerate them).

Gibbs said recently, "At Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, we envision a wood reduction campaign that uses a collaborative model similar to our McToxics Campaign of 1987 [which successfully forced McDonalds to stop using foam clamshells for packaging fast food]. ...Thanks to that campaign, people now look at foam packaging differently. We need to do the same with the image of paper and wood waste, by informing Americans about the connections between the destruction of forests and dioxin." The campaign to reduce wood consumption by 75% also offers significant opportunities to create new jobs both in cities and in rural areas.

The destruction of virgin forests is occurring on a massive scale around the world, in Indonesia, in Siberia, in British Columbia, and in Latin America. Worldwide, some 14 million acres of rainforests disappear each year. In the U.S., 95% of virgin forests are gone, with only 5% remaining. Forests are home to most of the world's species and most of the world's indigenous peoples. Forests provide important free ecological services --holding water on a grand scale, producing huge quantities of oxygen, and providing major cooling. (When the forests of southern Honduras were cut, the average (median) outdoor temperature rose 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit (7.5 degrees Celsius). [2] In addition, forests serve human needs directly, producing game, medicines, fruits, gums, nuts, resins, fiber, and firewood.

Industrial logging in forests is a major cause of ecological destruction and the loss of biodiversity. For example, in the U.S., some 350,000 miles of logging roads have been cut through forests --more than 7 times the total length of the U.S. interstate highway system. Only 10 percent of the inhabited Earth remains in roadless condition. The other 90 percent is chopped up by roads into segments of less than 8000 acres. This is startling considering we haven't approached the 100-year anniversary of the automobile. Logging is a major cause of this disturbance.

Now environmentalists have determined to save the world's forests by confronting the major source of forest destruction: the rising demand for wood, particularly in the industrial world where wood is wasted on a grand scale. Among industrialized nations, the most wasteful is the U.S. (France, for example, has per-capita paper consumption that is 50% of ours.) The U.S. logging industry expects a 46% increase in logging operations by the year 2040. If this comes true, U.S. logging in 2040 will equal today's combined logging by the U.S.,Canada and Sweden.

There are two major paths that wood products follow when they leave the forest. One passes through sawmills, plywood mills, veneer, or other wood panel mills, and then into the network of building construction, shipping, manufacturing, and furniture industries. The other path passes through pulp mills into the larger system of paper, paperboard, and fiberboard production. Together, the two paths --generally building materials and paper --account for more than 80 percent of industrial wood use in the U.S. (the other 20 percent includes fuel wood, wood chips, and raw logs for export).

Thus a campaign to reduce wood consumption will focus on getting wood out of buildings, and getting wood out of paper. Getting wood out of buildings requires 2 basic steps:

(1) Reduce wood in building construction, substituting modern materials (NOT steel or concrete, which create problems of their own) and efficient construction techniques. Nearly 90 percent of all housing in the U.S. is constructed of wood and the average new home in the U.S. uses 1600 cubic feet of wood products. Modern materials and construction techniques can reduce the needed wood substantially. [3]

(2) Building codes must be changed to allow construction using recycled wood (from old barns, for example) and earth materials (rocks, sand, silt, clay, and even straw bales [discussed below]). The Uniform Building Code was adopted at a time when wood supply was considered limitless. The code must be changed.

Two very promising --and time-tested --building materials are adobe (in dry climates), and rammed earth (in any climate); 15% of the population of France today lives in adobe or rammed earth buildings. A relatively new construction material is baled straw, which can be used in any climate. Initially developed at the University of Arizona (Tucson), straw-bale buildings have now been built in many states and in Canada. Again, a major obstacle is the building code. Straw-bale homes are structurally strong, very energy-efficient, and fire-resistant. Manuel A. Fernandez, the State Architect of New Mexico recently wrote, "ASTM [American Society of Testing Materials, in Philadelphia] tests for fire resistance have proven that a straw bale infill wall assembly is a far greater fire resistive assembly than a wood frame wall assembly using the same finishes." It turns out that straw bales contain enough air to provide excellent thermal insulation, but not enough air to support a fast fire. (I have been in a straw-bale house at Genesis Farm in Blairstown, N.J.; inside, it has the snug feel of a well-made adobe house. From the outside, it has sharp, modern lines and an eye-pleasing tan stucco finish. If you didn't know the walls were baled straw, you wouldn't guess it.--P.M.) [4]

Getting the wood out of paper is, if anything, easier than getting the wood out of building construction. Today, quality paper is made from rice and barley straw in China, from sugar cane waste ("bagasse") in Mexico and India, and from the kenaf plant in Australia. There are 300 mills around the world making paper without wood.

The most promising wood substitutes for making paper are the kenaf plant, and straw --the leftover stalks from cereal grain production. Paper recycling can only carry us so far because the paper fibers break and become shorter when paper is recycled. To give recycled paper good qualities, new fibers need to be mixed in. Those new fibers need not come from wood --leftover stalks from farmer's fields will work nicely, and so will kenaf. Thus the city, as supplier of recycled fiber, can coordinate with rural producers of non-wood fibers, creating jobs and income for both. (The hemp plant will produce high-quality paper as well. Kimberly-Clark, a U.S. Fortune 500 company, operates a paper mill in France producing hemp paper for Bibles and cigarettes. But in the U.S. growing hemp is a serious federal crime--even hemp with its narcotic characteristics bred out. This stymies development of a hemp industry. Walt Disney sells clothing made from hemp, but not from fiber grown in the U.S.)

Marvelously efficient is the use of agricultural residues to make paper; it requires no new land brought into production. A small-scale mill in British Columbia is making paper profitably from agricultural waste today, and 3 more mills are planned. The small scale is an advantage because it keeps capital needs low, making such mills suitable for community-scale economic development.

In sum, reducing wood use by 75% in 10 years seems doable, and it puts the environmental community into a new posture: cooperating across issues, and combining economic development with environmental protection.

And there is one other big benefit: Reducing the use of wood to maximize social and environmental benefits will require us to measure our efforts in new ways. In many different areas (forest advocacy, pollution prevention, recycling/waste management, energy conservation, and community development), we will need to measure our efforts against a long-term vision of where the paper and wood industries should generally be headed. We will need to set targets for them, not leaving economic and social decisions exclusively in the hands of corporations any longer. Finally we must judge ourselves by our willingness to demand a future that more than a minor variation of the status quo. Parts of the old environmental movement may regard their work in a new light, when judged by this criterion.

--Peter Montague

===============

[1] Atossa Soltani and Penelope Whitney, editors, CUT WASTE, NOT TREES; HOW TO SAVE FORESTS, CUT POLLUTION AND CREATE JOBS (San Francisco: Rainforest Action Network*fn02 [450 Sansome Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94111; telephone: (415) 398-4404; E-mail:rainforest@igc.apc.org], 1995).

[2] J. Almadenares and others, "Critical regions, a profile of Honduras," THE LANCET Vol. 342 (1993), pgs. 1400-1402.

[3] For further information, contact the Center for Resourceful Building Technologies in Missoula, Montana, a clearinghouse for resource-efficient building materials and techniques. Phone (406) 549-7678. Additional U.S. groups promoting alternatives are listed on pgs. 53-61 of the report cited in footnote 1, above.

[4] Books on adobe, rammed-earth and straw-bale construction are available from Real Goods, 555 Leslie Street, Ukiah, Calif., 95482-5507. Phone 1-800-762-7325. Fax: (707) 468-9486; foreign orders: (707) 468-9214. Additional U.S. groups promoting alternatives are listed on pgs. 53-61 of the report cited in footnote 1, above.

Descriptor terms: forests; paper industry; pulp; lois gibbs; citizens clearinghouse for hazardous waste; cchw; rainforest action network; wood use reduction campaign; economic development; dioxin; msw; incineration; shipping pallets; recycling; mctoxics campaign; mcdonalds; indonesia; siberia; british columbia; indigenous people; native people; honduras; roads; logging industry; automobiles; biodiversity; uniform building code; adobe; rammed earth; straw bales; fires; fire hazards; thermal insulation; paper; kenaf; hemp; agricultural waste; china; india; mexico; australia; energy conservation; corporations; democracy; center for resourceful building technologies; building materials;

Footnote:
fn01: http://chej.org/ formally Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW) now . Center for Health, Environment & Justice. PO Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040. 703-237-2249 | chej@chej.org

fn02: http://www.igc.apc.org/ran/

#437: Rush Limbaugh with Book Learning

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #437
---April 13, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Until recently, there were only three camps in the environmental movement. Now some journalists are trying to start a fourth camp.

The original three camps are distinguished by where they place blame for environmental problems: The first says the general public is at fault. The second blames powerful economic and social institutions, chiefly in the "private sector." The third camp blames government.

People in the first camp want to solve environmental problems by recycling newspapers, planting trees, and putting a brick in their toilet tank to reduce water use.

The second camp wants the public to recognize that there really is no "private sector" because all "private" industrial decisions have profound impacts on public health and well being. They want the public involved in decisions about technology.

A third camp blames government. They favor eliminating weak laws, poor regulations, inept officials, and ineffective agency structures. [1]

Now a fourth camp is trying to emerge. This camp says the sources of environmental distress lie somewhere in the murky past, but solutions are staring us right in the face; however, we can't reach these solutions because environmentalists in the first three camps are so negative, so focused on doom-saying, so cynically intent on making money by frightening the public through direct mail appeals.

This new, fourth camp has just published its manifesto, calling itself "ecorealism." Ecorealism is upbeat, positive, buoyantly optimistic. Its basic premise is that most environmental problems either don't exist or would soon disappear if environmentalists would just stop exaggerating.

The ecorealists' manifesto is Gregg Easterbook's 745-page encyclopedia of feel-good optimism, called A MOMENT ON THE EARTH. [2] 

Here is a sampling:

** Human population is not a problem, if you just take the long view of it (pg. 491);

** Genetic engineering is more natural than soccer fields and rock concerts (because nature engages in genetic engineering itself [cross-pollination, for example] but nature never made a soccer field without human help) (pg. 419);

** No research has ever shown that industrial chlorine releases cause any public health or general ecological harm (pg. 414);

** New landfills, incinerators, and factories usually do not have emission problems (pg. 467);

** In the western world, the age of pollution is nearly over, because by the year 2004 society will have "almost painlessly" adopted a zero discharge philosophy (pgs. xvi, 206, 256, 648);

** Whatever industry's stance may have been in the past, today industry's attitude is "respectful environmental behavior" (pg. 623);

** Nature makes far worse environmental problems than people do (pgs. xvii, 21, 145);

** No one in the general public has ever been harmed by radiation associated with nuclear power reactors (pg. 493) and humans are not exceptionally sensitive to radiation exposure (pg. 506);

** Radioactive waste disposal is not really a problem because even at the WIPP site in southern New Mexico, built to hold long-lived transuranic military wastes, most of the radioactivity will have disappeared within 300 years (pg. 514);

** There is no ozone hole over the north pole (pg. 539);

** Toxic waste isn't an important problem because the National Academy of Sciences in a 1991 report said there is "no clear relationship between proximity to toxic wastes and cancer;" (pg. 604);

** Environmental problems developed in the old days, back when "government was tucked snugly in bed 

with industry" but times have changed (pg. 372);

** Chemicals are, today, assumed to be dangerous, and the burden of proof is on the manufacturers of chemicals to prove safety before new chemicals can be introduced into commerce (pg. 231);

** Most forms of cancer are in decline (pg. 246);

** Dioxin is in the same chemical family as table salt (pg. 414); the largest study of dioxin and human health found only a "slight" increase in cancer (pg. 235); dioxin is natural, caused mainly by forest fires (pg. 238); and, anyway, new emissions of dioxin have already been "nearly eliminated" (pg. 238).

I'll stop here because the catalog of optimism goes on and on, but the drift is clear to everyone.

Unfortunately, most of the ecorealists' platform is simply wrong. Let's examine some of its assertions.

** According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been "reassessing" dioxin for the past 4 years, at least half of the dioxin sources in the U.S. have not been identified (REHW #390, #391), so Gregg Easterbrook cannot know that new sources of exposure have been eliminated. EPA says forest fires are a minor source of dioxin and even that minor source may be caused not by nature but by industrial releases of chlorine settling onto the leaves of trees. The largest study of dioxin and human health found a 46% increased hazard of cancer among workers whose exposure lasted at least a year and began at least 20 years ago (thus allowing the cancer latency period to run its course); 46% is not a "slight" increase by any reasonable person's reckoning (RHWN #219, #270, #290, #353). True, dioxin is a chlorinated chemical, and so is table salt, but dioxin is only in the "same family" as table salt in the sense that an AK-47 and a pea shooter are in the "same family" --both can be used as weapons to hurt people.

** The incidence rates of 14 out of 16 types of cancer are increasing, not decreasing. The death rates for 8 of 16 types of cancer are increasing. (See RHWN #385.) Easterbrook is wrong when he says most forms of cancer are in decline.

** Today in the U.S., new chemicals are introduced at the will of the manufacturer, and it is up to the public to prove that they cause harm before a chemical can even be regulated, much less banned. Mr. Easterbrook has it backwards.

** What the National Academy of Sciences actually said about toxic wastes and human health was this: "A limited number of epidemiologic studies indicate that increased rates of birth defects, spontaneous abortion, neurologic impairment, and cancer have occurred in some residential populations exposed to hazardous wastes. We are concerned that other populations at risk might not have been adequately identified." And the Council said, "Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though current risks could be negligible." (RHWN #272, #371)

** No ozone hole over the north pole? In 1993, Canadian scientists reported measuring 35% more ultraviolat light on the ground in Toronto, due to a large hole in the ozone layer over the north pole. [3]

** Most WIPP radioactive wastes gone in 300 years? The WIPP radioactive waste dump in New Mexico is slated to hold, at a minimum, one ton of plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,400 years. Plutonium is one of the two or three most potent carcinogens around. According to the government's environmental impact statement, WIPP may eventually hold up to 44 tons of plutonium. It will take 10 half-lives, or 240,400 years (far longer than HOMO SAPIENS has walked the earth), for this plutonium to decay away, not 300 years.

** No one ever harmed by nuclear power reactors? The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the industry-dominated standards-setting body for the nuclear industry worldwide, estimates that nuclear reactors in the U.S. (annually producing 80 gigawatt-years of power) cause 4000 deaths and 2500 serious genetic defects each year in future populations. (REWH #200, #201, #202) The 

U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that the true number is 50% greater than the ICRP's estimate. Long after the reactors have been shut down, this damage will continue year after year for aeons into the future as radioactive gases waft into the air from uranium mill tailings piles, and other radioactive wastes. Just because the deaths will not occur today does not mean nuclear energy is "clean." Dead is dead, and immoral is immoral, today and tomorrow.

** Humans are insignificant compared to nature's damage? True for hurricanes and earthquakes. But for long-term distribution of toxic chemicals and certain key nutrients into the environment, humans surpassed nature some decades ago. For example, each year humans inject twice as much arsenic into the atmosphere as nature does, seven times as much cadmium, and 17 times as much lead. Measured by the elements that nature moves into the oceans via river discharges, we humans mobilize (through mining) 13 times as much iron as nature does each year, 36 times as much phosphorous, and 110 times as much tin. Nature mobilizes 63 million tons of nitrogen each year, but humans (through fertilizer and fossil fuel combustion) mobilize 215 million tons. Yes, nature is large and sturdy, but in several important respects, human activities have already dwarfed natural processes. (REWH #155).

Gregg Easterbrook reserves special treatment for the main problem that drives the grass-roots environmental movement: health damage from toxic chemicals. He begins by sneering at the first scientist who reported harm to the children living near Love Canal, Dr. Beverly Paigen. Easterbrook says "Paigen essentially assumed that if a Love Canal resident stated that a health condition was caused by toxic wastes, it must be so." (pg. 605) With that, Easterbrook dismisses health problems among children living near Love Canal and lays the foundation for his claim that toxic chemicals aren't a serious problem. But anyone who reads Paigen's work can see that she did not rely merely on peoples' claims that toxic waste had harmed them. Using objective measures, Paigen and others clearly revealed a pattern of harm to children and wildlife near Love Canal. At least six peer-reviewed studies have indicated harm to living things near Love Canal (RHWN #104, #276, #371). Easterbrook's account is disgracefully distorted and false.

Gregg Easterbrook has been an environmental writer for NEWSWEEK for several years. He has traveled the world, gleaning first-hand information reported in this book. He has read hundreds of scientific studies, and he spent 5 years preparing his manuscript. Yet he feels compelled to support his case by omissions, distortions, and fabrications. As a consequence, none of the book seems trustworthy, or even worth reading. Easterbrook comes across as a sophisticated Rush Limbaugh. What a sad waste of a talented writer.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Sylvia N. Tesh, "Causal Debates in Environmentalism," JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY (Autumn 1994), pgs. 298-309.

[2] Gregg Easterbrook, A MOMENT ON THE EARTH (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995); $27.95 but not worth it.

[3] J.B. Kerr and C.T. McElroy, "Evidence for Large Upward Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion," SCIENCE, Vol. 262 (Nov. 12, 1993), pgs. 1032-1034.

Descriptor terms: environmentalists; environmental movement; environmentalism; public policy; journalism; ecorealism; population; genetic engineering; chlorine; landfilling; incineration; natural disasters; radioactivity; radiation; radioactive waste; military wastes; ozone depletion; toxic waste dumps; superfund; onus; reverse onus; dioxin; epa; dioxin reassessment; cancer; plutonium; wipp; waste isolation polit plant; icrp; uranium; metals; nutrients; beverly paigen; love canal; wildlife; gregg easterbrook;

#411: Birth Defects -- Part 2: Why Birth Defects Will Continue To Rise

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #411
---October 13, 1994; revised October 16, 1994---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Last week#410  we saw that 30 types of birth defects are increasing steadily in the United States, some increasingly rapidly, others more slowly. Some of these increases are due to better diagnosis; however, many of the increases are real. This week we examine 10 reasons why birth defects are rising and will almost certainly continue to rise.

There is abundant scientific evidence that birth defects in laboratory animals and in humans have occurred as a result of exposure to five classes of pollutants: radiation; [1-2] pesticides; [3-9] metals (including mercury, cadmium, lead, and others); [10-14] solvents; [15-23] and dioxin-like chemicals including PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]. [24-27] From studies of pharmaceutical drugs found to cause birth defects, it is certain that other chemicals are teratogens (causing birth defects) as well. [28]

Because municipal landfills and toxic waste dumps are laced with pesticides, toxic metals, solvents, dioxin-like compounds, and sometimes even radioactive materials, at least seven studies have now reported finding unusually high numbers of birth defects in children born to parents residing near dumps. [29-35]

** The main reason why birth defects will continue to increase is that more than 500 new chemicals are introduced into commercial use each year. There will never be enough money available for independent scientists to conduct definitive (or even adequate) studies of all these chemicals to see if they cause birth defects in laboratory animals. For ethical reasons, chemicals cannot be tested in any organized way on humans (though, contrarily, most Americans don't object to the experimental exposures that occur routinely in the workplace, and in the home via consumer products). In addition to 500 new chemicals appearing each year, more than 50,000 chemicals already in commercial use have never been tested for their ability to cause birth defects.

** The prevailing American philosophy is that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, when new chemicals are released into the environment, the burden of proof rests on the general public to show that damage has occurred before scientific studies are undertaken to describe the damage in detail. This philosophy guarantees that people MUST BE HARMED before study can begin.

** Scientific studies can take years to complete. Even when an effect is grossly obvious, pinning down the cause can take a decade or longer. For example, mercury poisoned dozens of babies in the womb at Minamata, Japan, in 1955 but scientists did not clearly establish the cause for 15 to 18 years. [11]

** After research scientists are convinced, there is a long delay before the general public learns the facts, if it ever does. (As an anti-environmental viewpoint comes to dominate major media, such as the NEW YORK TIMES, LOS ANGELES TIMES, and 20/20 on ABC-TV, in many cases new information simply never gets widely disseminated).

** Furthermore, the results of studies may not be clear-cut, for many reasons: it is difficult to measure exposure so usually a "surrogate" for exposure is used, such as place of residence, or occupation; many birth defect studies rely upon mothers recalling what chemical exposures occurred during their early months of pregnancy and all such recollections are dubious; therefore it is difficult to absolutely rule out many possible causes of an observed effect.

** A society that demands scientific certainty before it will restrict the use of suspected teratogens, guarantees that the rate of birth defects will continue rising. Scientific certainty about anything involving humans is, and will remain, elusive and rare.

** Given the philosophical climate, public health officials are reluctant to raise an alarm on less-than-100%-certain data. As a practical matter, an official will get in much more trouble for raising a false alarm about a suspected chemical than for making the opposite error (which allows birth defects to continue). In the present philosophical climate (requiring scientific certainty), even well-justified alarm based on less-than-certain data draws an angry response from powerful monied interests. On the other hand, allowing birth defects to continue will only affect one family at a time. Individual, unorganized victims do not threaten a public health official's job security. [36]

** When studies reveal that a particular chemical probably causes birth defects, the producers and users of the chemical typically conduct a lengthy campaign to deny and obscure what is known. For example, the lead industry has known for at least 100 years that lead causes reproductive and developmental disorders in humans. But starting in 1925 medical doctors hired by the lead industry argued that lead occurs naturally in the human body and, therefore, the dangers of lead in gasoline were not worth worrying about, much less studying. This strategy was persuasive to the public health community for 40 years. [37]

** The public health community relies almost exclusively on a decision-making technique that cannot take into account multiple exposures and cumulative effects, a technique called "risk assessment." (See RHWN #393, #394, #395.) At its best, risk assessment can provide a ballpark guesstimate of a few of the many hazards created by a single toxic chemical. However in real life we are all exposed to multiple chemicals all the time, and risk assessment cannot account for cumulative effects and multiple interactions. Heavy reliance upon such an unrealistic tool for decision-making leads to decisions that harm public health.

** Finally, even the knowledgeable environmental community fails to fully adopt the clear requirements of a public health policy based on prevention of disease: persistent toxic pollutants must be banned. Recently when Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), followed separately by Greenpeace, published their recommendations for public policy on dioxin, they all argued that 

U.S. dioxin policy should be modeled on U.S Environmental Protection Agency's lead policy. [38] (Greenpeace set a goal of zero dioxins, but recommended the lead policy as a way to get there.) Over the last 20 years EPA's lead policy has forced a mere 8% reduction in total U.S. "consumption" of lead. At this rate it will take 3500 years for lead "consumption" to fall below 1000 pounds per year and thus disappear as a public health problem.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Niel Wald, "Evaluation of Human Exposure Data," in K.Z. Morgan and J.E. Turner, editors, PRINCIPLES OF RADIATION PROTECTION; A TEXTBOOK OF HEALTH PHYSICS (Huntington, N.Y.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing, 1973), pgs. 448-496.

[2] John W. Gofman, RADIATION AND HUMAN HEALTH (San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1981); see chapter 21.

[3] Anne Kricker and others, "Women and the environment: a study of congenital limb anomalies," COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES Vol. 10, No. 1 (1986), pgs. 1-11.

[4] M. Restrepo and others, "Prevalence of adverse reproductive outcomes in a population occupationally exposed to pesticides in Colombia," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 16 (1990), pgs. 232-238.

[5] P. Rita and others, "Monitoring of Workers Occupationally Exposed to Pesticides in Grape Gardens of Andhra Pradesh," ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Vol. 44 (1987), pgs. 1-5.

[6] David A. Schwartz and others, "Congenital Limb Reduction Defects in the Agricultural Setting," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 78, No. 6 (June 1988), pgs. 654-658.

[7] D.A. Schwartz and others, "Parental occupation and birth outcomes in an agricultural community," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 12, No. 1 (February 1986), pgs. 51-54.

[8] T.E. Taha and R.H. Gray, "Agricultural pesticide exposure and perinatal mortality in central Sudan," BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Vol. 71 (1993), pgs. 317-321.

[9] Jun Zhang and others, "Occupational Hazards and Pregnancy Outcomes," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE Vol. 21 (1992), pgs. 397-408.

[10] Thomas W. Clarkson and others, "Reproductive and developmental toxicity of metals," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 11 (1985), pgs. 145-154.

[11] Masazumi Harada, "Congenital Minamata Disease: Intrauterine Methylmercury Poisoning," TERATOLOGY Vol. 18 (1978), pgs. 285-288.

[12] H.A. Ragan and T.J. Mast, "Cadmium Inhalation and Male Reproductive Toxicity," REVIEWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 114 (1990), pgs. 1-22.
[13] Petter Kristensen and others, "Perinatal Outcome among Children of Men Exposed to Lead and Organic Solvents in the Printing Industry," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 137, No. 2 (1993), pgs. 134-144.

[14] D.G. Wibberley and others, "Lead levels in human placentae from normal and malformed births," JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, Vol. 14, No. 5 (October 1977), pgs. 339-345.

[15] Jorma Tikkanen and Ollie P. Heinonen, "Cardiovascular Malformations and Organic Solvent Exposure During Pregnancy in Finland," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE Vol. 14 (1988), pgs. 1-8.

[16] Gary M. Shaw, "Maternal Workplace Exposures to Organic Solvents and Congenital Cardiac Anomalies," JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1992), pgs. 371-376.

[17] Andrew F. Olshan and others, "Paternal Occupation and Congenital Anomalies in Offspring," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE Vol. 20 (October 1991), pgs. 447-475.

[18] C. Loffredo and others, "Organic solvents and cardiovascular malformations in the Baltimore-Washington Infant Study [abstract]," TERATOLOGY Vol. 43 (May 1991), pg. 450. 

[19] Evert Hansson and others, "Pregnancy outcome in women working in laboratories in some of the pharmaceutical industries in Sweden," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 6 (1980), pgs. 131-134.

[20] Stanley J. Goldberg and others, "An Association of Human Congenital Cardiac Malformations and Drinking Water Contaminants," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY Vol. 16, No. 1 (July, 1990), pgs. 155-164.

[21] Anders Ericson and others, "Delivery Outcome of Women Working in Laboratories During Pregnancy," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 39, No. 1 (1984), pgs. 5-10.

[22] Sylvaine Cordier and others, "Maternal occupational exposure and congenital malformations," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1992), pgs. 11-17.

[23] Urban Blomqvist and others, "Delivery outcome for women working in the pulp and paper industry," SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 7, No. 2 (1981), pgs. 114-118.

[24] Hugh A. Tilson and others, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls and the Developing Nervous System: Cross-Species Comparisons," NEUROTOXICOLOGY AND TERATOLOGY Vol. 12 (1990), pgs. 239-248.

[25] Joseph L. Jacobson and others, "Effects of in utero exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and related contaminants on cognitive functioning in young children," JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 (January, 1990), pgs. 38-45.

[26] Joseph L. Jacobson and others, "Effects of Exposure to PCBs and Related Compounds on Growth and Activity in Children," NEUROTOXICOLOGY AND TERATOLOGY Vol. 12 (1990), pgs. 319-326.

[27] Richard A. Albanese, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PERSONNEL AND EXPOSURE TO HERBICIDE ORANGE, INTERIM REPORT FOR PERIOD MARCH 1984-FEBRUARY 1988 (United States Air Force: Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, Feb., 1988).

[28] Muin J. Khoury, "Epidemiology of Birth Defects," EPIDEMIOLOGIC REVIEWS Vol. 11 (1989), pgs. 244-248.

[29] L. Goulet and M. Goldberg, "Reproductive Outcomes among Women Living Near a Sanitary Landfill Site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1979-1989 [abstract]," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 138, No. 8 (1993), pg. 587.

[30] G. Shaw and others, "Congenital Malformations and Birthweight in Areas with Potential Environmental Contamination," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 47, No. 2 (March/April 1992), pgs. 147-154.

[31] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CALIFORNIA: BIRTH DEFECTS STUDY (Atlanta, Ga.: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990).

[32] G. Reza Najem and Lisa K. Voyce, "Health Effects of a Thorium Waste Disposal Site," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 80 (April 1990), pgs. 478-480.

[33] Nicholas J. Vianna and Adele K. Polan, "Incidence of Low Birth Weight Among Love Canal Residents," SCIENCE Vol. 226, No. 4679 (December 7, 1984), pgs. 1217-1219.

[34] Lynn R. Goldman and others, "Low Birth Weight, Prematurity and Birth Defects in Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal." HAZARDOUS WASTE & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Vol. 2 No. 2 (1985), pgs. 209-223.

[35] Lawrence Budnick, and others. "Cancer and Birth Defects Near the Drake Superfund Site, Pennsylvania," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, Vol. 39, No. 6 (November/December, 1984), pgs. 409-413.

[36] David Ozonoff and Leslie I. Boden, "Truth and Consequences: Health Agency Responses to Environmental Health Problems," SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES Vol. 12 Nos. 3 & 4 (Summer/Fall 1987), pgs. 70-77. In statistical terms, public health officials will get in less trouble for making a Type I error than a Type II error. Therefore, experiments are often designed to favor avoidance of Type I errors rather than Type II errors.

[37] Alan Loeb, "The First Federal Environmental Review: Its Long-Term Consequences," INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF EXPOSURE ANALYSIS NEWSLETTER (Fall 1993), pg. 3.

[38] Julia Moore and others, PUTTING THE LID ON DIOXINS (Washington, D.C.: Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1994); Joe Thornton, ACHIEVING ZERO DIOXIN (Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace, 1994). PSR and EDF failed to call for real prevention; instead they advocated that the major source of dioxin emissions (incinerators) be operated "at optimal conditions" rather than be shut down or phased out.

Descriptor terms: birth defects; congenital anomalies; radiation; pesticides; mercury; lead; cadmium; pcbs; dioxin; landfilling; minamata; japan; ny times; los angeles times; 20/20; tv; television; journalism; news media;

#092: New Study Shows Incinerator Ash More Dangerous Than We Realized.

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #92
---August 29, 1988---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

A new study by a team of engineers at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey, shows that municipal incinerator ash is more dangerous than previously realized.

When household garbage burns, the resulting ash has two parts: fly ash, most of which is captured from the smoke stack by an air pollution control system, and the heavier "bottom ash" which falls through the grate of the combustion chamber into an ash pit; both types of ash must be carted away. Both types of ash contain toxic heavy metals (chromium, cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc, and other metals) as well as organic compounds (PCBs, dioxins, benzene, and other cancer-causing organics). Here we will discuss only the metals.

When the ash is thrown away, the metals in the ash become available to the environment. Currently, such ash is typically heaped on the ground somewhere, or is dumped in a municipal landfill. Then rainwater seeps into the ash and begins to dissolve the metals and carry them into the general environment.

Chemical engineers at Rutgers have released a new study showing that toxic metals in municipal incinerator ash are more abundant and more soluble, and therefore more dangerous, than previously thought.

The Rutgers team took samples of household solid waste from three locales (Pennsauken, NJ, Magnolia, NJ, and Somerset County, NJ) and burned them in a small (50 ton per day) solid waste incinerator. They captured the fly ash and the bottom ash. The solid waste samples did not include substantial quantities of industrial trash but were restricted to household wastes.

The actual composition of the ash is shown in Table 1. There were, of course, other elements and compounds in the ash, but the Rutgers team did not measure these because they are not regulated under federal law. As is obvious from these numbers (which are all given as parts per million, or ppm) there are large quantities of metals in the ash.

Table 2 shows how many pounds of metal are found in each ton of ash, using the "average" values given at the bottom of Table 1. (We, not the Rutgers group, did the averaging in Table 1.)

The numbers are quite astonishing. Take lead, for example. If a 2000 ton-per day incinerator produces 500 tons of ash per day, and if 10% is fly ash and 90% is bottom ash, the total daily ash will contain 2935 pounds of lead. That's a ton and a half of lead per day. The same arithmetic tells us that one day's ash will contain 48 pounds of chromium, 61 pounds of cadmium, and 97 pounds of arsenic. In a year's time (operating 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year), such an incinerator will put out 12,610 pounds of chromium, 15,990 pounds of cadmium, 25,246 pounds of arsenic, and three quarters of a million pounds of lead (763,256, actually). These are all metals that are toxic in microgram quantities (there are 454 million micrograms in one pound).

ALL of this metal will most likely leach into the environment sooner or later. But the law does not view it that way. The law requires that the ash be tested for toxicity using something called the "extraction procedure" toxicity test (EP Tox Test for short). The EP tox test asks, "If we mix the ash with a dilute solution of acetic acid and then test the dilute solution, how much metal do we find has dissolved into the solution?" If we find more than 100 times as much metal as is allowed in drinking water, then the ash is declared a "hazardous waste." If the metals are not present at levels 100 times the drinking water standard, the ash is declared "nonhazardous" no matter how many tons of dangerous metals it may contain. (This system clearly does not protect the public, but it's what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] has set, so it's what we've got.)

Many scientists have criticized the EP Tox Test for a variety of reasons. So the EPA has proposed a new test, which will soon replace the EP Tox test. The new one is called the TCLP extraction test (short for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). The details of the TCLP are different from the EP Tox test, but the basic idea is the same.

The Rutgers team tested the ash from the three locales with the EP Tox Test, and the Pennsauken sample was given the TCLP test. All the fly ash samples were deemed "hazardous" for both lead and cadmium by the EP Tox test. The TCLP results showed that THE TCLP LEACHED EVEN MORE METALS THAN 

THE EP TOX TEST. Lessons from the work at Rutgers: 

(1) The amount of metal in solid waste ash varies from place to place with socio-economic status, geographic location, season, collection patterns, and recycling practices. Your local waste stream should be sampled every 2 weeks for a year to see what it really contains; some consulting firm's "estimate" of what's in your local waste is most likely off; 

(2) the quantity of toxic metals in your waste may be very high and the toxicity will endure forever; ask how long the landfill liners are guaranteed. 

(3) The EP tox test may show that the ash is legally "hazardous" but the TCLP test is even more likely to show that the ash is legally hazardous. Get T.L. Clapp and others, "Municipal Solid Waste Composition and the Behavior of Metals in Incinerator Ashes," ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS, Vol. 7 (Feb., 1988), pgs. 22-30. Dr. Clapp 's address is: Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Rutgers, P.O. 909, Piscataway, NJ 08854; phone (201) 932-3047 or 932-2213.

TABLE 1-- Metals in ash resulting from combustion of household wastes
============================================

Waste Source	Metal	Fly ash (ppm)	Bottom ash (ppm)
Pennsauken	Chromium	30	40
	Cadmium	490	100
	Lead	4990	6970
	Arsenic	47	118
	Zinc	4700	4400
Magnolia	Chromium	50	73
	Cadmium	130	5
	Lead	2838	650
	Arsenic	80	71
Somerset	Chromium	52	35
	Cadmium	227	8
	Lead	3993	852
	Arsenic	87	112
Average	Chromium	44	49
	Cadmium	282	37
	Lead	3940	2824
	Arsenic	71	100

============================================
============================================
TABLE 2 -- Pounds of metal in each ton of ash

Metal	Fly ash (lbs.)	Bottom ash (lbs.)
Chromium	0.09	0.1
Cadmium	0.56	0.07
Lead	7.9	5.6
Arsenic	0.14	0.2

============================================

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: incineration; ash; studies; findings; rutgers; ep toxicity; msw; landfilling; heavy metals; cancer; disease statistics; risk assessment; leachate; groundwater; nj; lead; chromium; cadmium; arsenic; monitoring; drinking water; hazardous waste industry; epa; tclp extraction test; t.l. clapp;