#289: The Recent History Of Solid Waste: Good Alternatives Are Now Available

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #289
---June 10, 1992---
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 ==================

Do you remember the organization Keep American Beautiful from the 1960s? Few people knew it was an industry association formed by America's largest corporations. Their symbol was a proud Indian with a tear in his eye. Their main focus seemed to be an anti-litter campaign. But there was more to it than that. 

According to the conventional wisdom of the day, to keep the postwar economy expanding, waste disposal capacity would need to keep growing. To develop and maintain a throw-away society, you needed to have plenty of "away" places. By 1960 anyone familiar with water pollution literature could see that burying waste in the ground was guaranteed to cause trouble. (See RHWN #97, #98.) In the late '60s Keep American Beautiful formed a non-profit research group called the National Center for Solid Waste Disposal. This soon became the National Center for Resource Recovery. Resource recovery meant incineration.[1] Industry had found its answer to the solid waste problem.

By the early 1970s, this industry association had EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] convinced that incineration made sense for solid waste disposal. After the first energy crisis occurred, in 1973, the federal Department of Energy (DOE) came on board; DOE became enthusiastic about "energy recovery" from the incineration of municipal solid waste.

As the '70s progressed, landfill rules were getting stricter, so landfilling was getting more expensive. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) greatly increased the costs of landfilling. In 1980 there were 20,000 landfills but by 1986 there were only 6000 remaining; during this period the "landfill crisis" emerged.

Simultaneously, by the mid-'70s the nuclear power industry had come upon hard times. The industry received no new orders for nuclear power plants after 1975; by 1979 when the Three Mile Island disaster occurred, the handwriting was visible to investors everywhere. Companies that built nuclear power plants had teams of people skilled at making large machines, and the four big nuclear manufacturers--Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox, General Electric, and Westinghouse--began to manufacture solid waste incinerators.[2]

DOE's goal was to build 200 to 250 new solid waste incinerators by 1992, or 4 to 5 in each state. According to a 1980 plan, these would burn 75% of the nation's trash and would require a capital investment somewhere between $11.5 billion and $21.5 billion, or roughly $50 million to $100 million per incinerator.

In 1980 DOE projected that by 1987 there would be 160,000 tons-per-day of incineration capacity in the U.S. and double this by 1992. But in reality in 1988 incineration capacity was only 50,000 tons per day,[3] and it was expanding at a snail's pace. In 1985 there were 42 new incinerators ordered, but by 1987 it was down to 25 and by 1989 new orders has dropped to 10. In 1987, for the first time in recent memory, more capacity was canceled (35,656 tons per day) than was ordered (20,585 tons per day).[4] The incineration industry had hit a wall.

That wall was made up of local grass-roots citizens concerned about many aspects of solid waste incineration: dollar cost, hazardous air pollution, toxic ash, destruction of material resources, waste of energy, the political corruption that accompanies multi-billion-dollar public works projects, and the gobbling up of small, local waste haulers by the incineration giants.

Citizens took on the incineration industry in many ways. They organized a frontal assault to kill incineration proposals one by one, but, equally importantly, they developed waste reduction, recycling and composting programs that starved incinerators by diverting trash. Eighty percent of solid waste can be recycled and composted, or it can be incinerated--but it it's an either/or proposition. If you build an incinerator, you foreclose your recycling and composting options for the lifetime of the furnace (20 years or more).

Incineration has been defeated at the local level. But the battle is not over. The incineration industry and its friends in government are doing their best to make an end run around local decision-makers. In California the industry has lobbied hard to have incineration included in that state's definition of recycling. In Ohio, the industry has lobbied to allow toxic incinerator ash to be "recycled" for roadway construction. In Michigan and New York, compliant state governments have allowed toxic ash to be exempted from hazardous waste rules. In Connecticut, state government obliged the industry by overriding local zoning laws to make it nearly impossible for citizens to oppose the siting of incinerators.

But the demise of the nuclear power industry showed that even America's leading corporations, heavily subsidized by government handouts, cannot keep a bad technology alive. Municipal solid waste incineration is not thriving for the same reasons: despite enthusiastic support and subsidies by federal and state governments, and enormous backing from private corporations, incineration is a bad idea, doomed to fail.

Meanwhile alternative technologies--which, together, go by the name of "materials recovery"--are expanding rapidly. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) in 1991 published BEYOND 40 PERCENT highlighting 17 communities that are recycling and composting up to 57% of their total household, commercial and institutional solid wastes.[1] The leader is Berlin Township, N.J., a town of 5629 people. But even a large city like Seattle (population: 497,000) has already achieved 36% and is steadily climbing toward its goal of 65%. Rural communities, suburban communities, and large urban areas can all recycle upwards of 50% of their solid wastes. ILSR expects communities will ultimately learn to recover more than 75% of their trash.

Having examined the materials recovery programs in many towns and cities, ILSR makes these observations about key elements of successful programs:

1) Comprehensive composting programs--year-round collection of many types of yard waste at curbside, and incentives for landscapers to compost their yard waste.

2) Mandatory participation. Successful materials recovery programs are not voluntary; a law must be passed requiring people to participate.

3) Materials must be recovered not only from single-and multi-family homes, but also from commercial and institutional establishments.

4) A wide variety of materials must be targeted for recovery, not just metal cans, glass, and paper. The most successful programs aim to collect aluminum, batteries, brush, corrugated cardboard, christmas trees, ferrous (iron-containing) cans, glass, high-grade paper, leaves, mixed paper, newspapers, oil, plastics, scrap metal, tires, white goods [appliances and furniture], and wood waste.

Food waste and construction debris are other categories that are being recovered in some locales.

The Center for the Biology of Natural Systems (CBNS at Queens College in Flushing, N.Y.) is currently running a successful pilot program composting food waste from the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, demonstrating that urban composting programs are viable.

In Baltimore, the Loading Dock is a non-profit organization set up to receive sinks, bathtubs, cabinets and other construction materials removed from homes during remodeling as well as excess materials from contractors, manufacturers and distributors. They sell these materials at 25% to 35% below retail price to other non-profits, and for low-income housing. Presently, good are donated to them from as far away as West Virginia and New York. Begun in 1984 with a $35,000 seed grant, they became self-sustaining after seven years. Their budget last year was $346,000. They figure they've kept 20,000 tons of building materials out of local landfills.

Their latest experiment is to park a truck at the local landfill to collect throw-aways from do-it-yourselfers who are remodeling. At the Howard County (Md.) landfill on a recent Saturday they collected 2.5 tons of materials in four hours. They're now negotiating to park trucks at other area landfills.

They're also computerizing their inventory, in preparation for cooperation with similar organizations in other cities, perhaps as far away as Mexico and Canada. "They've got a sizable donation of light fixtures; we've got a lot of doors, so they'll send us down a truck full of lights and pick up a truckload of doors," says Ted Rouse, the Loading Dock's vice-president. For further information contact Hope Cucina, director, The Loading Dock, 2523 Gwynn Falls Parkway, Baltimore, Md. 21216; hone (410) 728-3625.

One of the most interesting experiments is called Wastewise, a community resource center for the town of Halton Hills (population: 40,000) just east of Toronto, Canada. Wastewise was begun as a protest against proposals to fill a local quarry with 20 to 30 million tons of garbage, and to build a large solid waste incinerator. Rita and Len Landry and some friends started Wastewise to demonstrate that people could do something sensible with trash.

Begun with a $250,000 government grant, Wastewise now has 3 full-time employees, six summer students, and 60 volunteers. Wastewise inhabits a warehouse with four sections:

 (1) Information and exhibits on waste reduction and waste avoidance--"This is our main function," says project manager Diana van de Valk.

(2) a giant flea market where they sell reusable goods for 50 cents a pound (25 cents for furniture); 

(3) a repair shop where volunteers fix appliances, bikes and anything else repairable; and

 (4) recycling of cans, newspapers, and bottles. Waste reduction is their real passion, and they're off to a promising start.

Wastewise is the subject of a new 30-minute video, WASTEWISE: A COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER, from: Video Active Productions, Rt. 2, Box 322, Canton, NY 13617; phone (315) 386-8797. $25.00.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] Brenda Platt and Others, BEYOND 40 PERCENT, RECORD-SETTING RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING PROGRAMS (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991), pgs. 2-5. Paperback: $25.00. To order any book from Island Press phone 1-800-828-1302, 8 to 5 Pacific time.

[2] Louis Blumberg and Robert Gottlieb, WAR ON WASTE; CAN AMERICA WIN ITS BATTLE WITH GARBAGE? (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1989), pgs. 50-52.

[3] Richard A. Denison and John Ruston, RECYCLING AND INCINERATION; EVALUATING THE CHOICES (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1990), pg. 67.

[4] Brenda Platt, cited above, pgs. 3-4.

Descriptor terms: keep america beautiful; national center for solid waste disposal; doe; incinerators; nuclear power; recycling; ilsr; cbns; the loading dock; wastewise; incineration;

#378: Today's Toxics Policies Are "Ethically Unacceptable," Says Great Lakes Commission

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #378 
---February 24, 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========================

The long-awaited 7th biennial report of the International Joint Commission (IJC) was issued last week. The IJC is a government body with responsibility for maintaining and restoring environmental quality in the Great Lakes. Past IJC reports have recommended policies that, taken together, define an entirely new approach to the problem of persistent toxic substances.

The 7th IJC report once again calls for:

** phase-out ("sunsetting") of all persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes ecosystem;

** a ban on the manufacture and use of chlorine;

** an end to reliance on risk assessment;

** a ban on solid waste incineration;

** a reversal of the policy that assumes chemicals are innocent until proven guilty;

** adoption of the principle of precautionary action (which says: wherever it is acknowledged that a practice could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it does cause harm, the practice should be prevented and eliminated);

** An end to chemical-by-chemical regulation, substituting an approach that eliminates whole classes of chemicals by "strategically preventing the formation of the persistent toxic substance in the first place."

The IJC defines toxic substances as anything that can "cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or physical deformities in any organism, or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentrating in the food chain or in combination with other substances." The IJC defines a PERSISTENT toxic substance as one with a half-life in any medium (air, water, soil, sediment, or living things) greater than 8 weeks, or one that bioaccumulates in the tissue of living organisms. The half-life of a substance is the time it takes for half of the substance to degrade, go away or disappear.

The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, signed by the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada, insists that, "The discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated." In its SIXTH BIENNIAL REPORT in 1992 the IJC said, "This statement is the cornerstone of the Agreement."

The 7th IJC report says that "conventional scientific concepts of dose-response and acceptable 'risk' can no longer be defined as 'good' scientific and management bases for defining acceptable levels of pollution. They are outmoded and inappropriate ways of thinking about persistent toxics," the report says.

The production and release of [persistent toxic] substances into the environment must, therefore, be considered contrary to the [1978 Water Quality] Agreement legally, unsupportable ecologically, and dangerous to health generally. Above all, they are ethically and morally unacceptable," the report says. It goes on to stress the need for a zero discharge policy for persistent toxic substances: "The limits of allowable quantities of these substances entering the environment must be effectively zero, and the primary means to achieve zero should be the prevention of their production, use and release, rather than their subsequent removal."

The IJC was created in 1909 by the governments of Canada and the U.S. to oversee the Boundary Waters Treaty, which guides Great Lakes-related behavior of the two nations. Starting in 1912, and again in 1945 and 1964 the IJC was asked by the two governments to report on water quality of the lakes. The studies revealed progressive deterioration. In 1972 and again in 1978 the two nations signed Water Quality 

Agreements aimed specifically at improving water quality in the lakes. The goal of the 1978 Agreement was broad: "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." It is up to the IJC to manage and monitor efforts to achieve the goals of the 1978 Agreement. In 1981, the IJC began issuing a report every two years, describing the condition of the lakes in relation to the goals of the 1978 Agreement.

The new (7th) report says, "The theme of this report is that the time has arrived for a major shift in the way decision-making takes place for the Great Lakes ecosystem. In particular, society must adopt a clear and comprehensive action plan to virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances that are threatening human health and the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem."

Early in the report, the IJC asks what might happen if people refuse to control persistent toxic substances? Here is a long, verbatim quotation from the report:

"We do not know what ALL of the effects of human exposure will be over many years. Future research will clarify whether low-level and long-term exposures, repeated exposures, or isolated short-term exposures at sensitive stages of fetal development are most critical. For the Commission, however, there is sufficient evidence NOW to infer a real risk of serious impacts in humans. Increasingly, human data support this conclusion.

"The questions then become: what--if any--risks of injury are we as individuals and as a society willing to accept? How long can we afford to wait before we act? Why take any risks of having such potentially devastating results? In this vein, the Commission poses a number of other specific but very fundamental questions:

"** What if, as current research suggests, the startling decrease in sperm count and the alarming increase in the incidence of male genital tract disorders are in fact caused in part as a result of IN UTERO [in the womb] exposure to elevated levels of environmental estrogens?

"** What if, as current research suggests, the epidemic in breast cancer is a result in part of the great numbers and quantities of estrogen-like compounds that have been and are being released into the environment?

"** What if the documented declining learning performance and increasing incidence of problem behaviour in school children are not functions of the educational system? What if they are the result of exposure to developmental toxicants that have been and are being released into the children's and parents' environment, or to which they have been exposed IN UTERO [in the womb]?

"The implications of ANY of the above questions being answered in the affirmative are overwhelming. The implications of ALL of the above questions being answered in the affirmative are catastrophic, in terms of human suffering and the potential liability for that suffering and attendant health costs. Mounting evidence points to the latter possibility. Surely, there can be no more compelling self interest to force us to come to grips with this problem than the spectre of damaging the integrity of our own species and its entire environment," the IJC said.

The new report puts risk assessment into perspective: "Risk assessment is useful in decision-making, especially in setting action priorities, but is not directly relevant to the basic virtual elimination commitment. The Commission does not accept the argument that the elimination of persistent toxic substances should be subject to a risk-benefit calculation, as that is not the approach of the [1978 Great Lakes Water Quality] Agreement," the report says.

Users and producers of persistent toxic substances had told the Commission that phase-out of toxic substances would cause job loss outweighing any long-term health benefits. They said risk-benefit analysis showed that virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances would not pay. The Commission rejected that argument explicitly, saying, "to continue resisting a strategy that changes our production and consumption habits and moves away from reliance on persistent toxic substances, will be disastrous in the long term from all perspectives."

The Commission called upon industry representatives to stop denying toxics problems and to focus on solutions: "Representatives of industry, when presented with evidence of ecosystem health concerns about substances used in commerce, should react by embracing open dialogue, data sharing and fact finding, to resolve rather than deny, concerns and effect an orderly and timely transition to those solutions," the IJC says.

The Commission called for an end to incineration anywhere in North America that could affect the Great Lakes: "A growing number of incinerators operate within the Great Lakes region, contributing significantly to the load of contaminants, especially from the low-temperature incineration of industrial, commercial and household refuse containing plastics and solvents, coated papers and many other products," the report says. "Any strategy towards virtual elimination and zero discharge of persistent toxic substances must address the significant inputs from incineration," the report says. "The Commission urges the stringent regulation of existing facilities throughout North America, taking into account the need to ensure the zero discharge of persistent toxic substances from those stacks to the Great Lakes."

The report calls upon "Governments, industry and labour [to] begin devising plans to cope with economic and social dislocation that may occur as a result of sunsetting persistent toxic substances." It calls upon "Labour unions [to] include in their negotiations the issue of transition to a sustainable economy without persistent toxic substances." And it calls upon citizens to get involved: "Citizens should constantly ask political, social and industrial leaders about the effects of the use and discharge of pollutants on this and future generations," the report says, noting that "The patience of many citizens seems to be near a breaking point."

"Maintaining a healthy society means more than failing to discover disease," the report says.

GET: International Joint Commission, SEVENTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY (Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario: International Joint Commission, 1994), 58 pages, available free from the International Joint Commission, 1250 23rd Street, N.W., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20440; telephone: (202) 736-9000.

  --Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: international joint commission; ijc; waler quality; water pollution; treaties; cn; canada; u.s.; regulation; toxic substances; toxics; sunsetting; chlorine; incineration; bans; zero discharge; reverse onus; precautionary principle; principle of precautionary action; persistence defined;

#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;

#315: Al Gore Takes On The WTI Incinerator

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #315
---December 9, 1992---
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========================

Earlier this week, Vice-President-elect Al Gore weighed in heavily on the side of citizens fighting the WTI incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. On Monday Mr. Gore announced that he and 5 other senators have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)--an investigative arm of the Congress--to make a thorough examination of WTI, to answer nagging questions about the safety of its huge incinerator, and about the illegality of permits it received from the Bush-Quayle EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] for construction and operation. (See RHWN #287.) Mr. Gore said the new Clinton-Gore administration will not give WTI a test burn permit until all questions have been satisfactorily answered.[1]

It appears to be a major victory for citizen activists who mounted a steadily-escalating campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience to stop WTI. A total of 182 people have been arrested so far in the campaign, which is not over.[2] At a rally November 22, hundreds of people were lined up in the cold rain waiting their turn to climb over the fence onto WTI's property, when the police intervened. No doubt those people remain ready to act whenever necessary. Two young women, local leader Terri Swearingen, 36, and Greenpeace staff member Beth Newman, 32, still face serious contempt-of-court charges for urging others to break the law at the plant gate. They could both be fined several thousand dollars and be jailed for months or longer.

A multi-racial coalition of citizens from Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania has fought for 12 years to stop the WTI hazardous waste incinerator, the largest ever built. With extralegal and even illegal help from Vice-President Quayle's Council on Competitiveness,[3] and George Bush's EPA and Department of Justice, both of which went to bat for WTI AGAINST the local citizenry on several occasions, construction was completed in June, 1992, and the machine now stands poised to burn 176,000 tons of liquid hazardous wastes each year, plus 83,000 tons per year of inorganic wastes,[2] on a flood plain immediately adjacent to the Ohio River, 100 yards from a residential neighborhood, 400 yards from an elementary school, in a valley known for its stagnant air.

A spokesman for the WTI incinerator said Mr. Gore's actions would not affect their plans for burning waste, or for conducting a test burn, now scheduled for January. Thus the Clinton administration appears to be on a collision course with the operator of the plant, a subsidiary of the Swiss company, Von Roll, Inc., best known in the U.S. for its part in manufacturing a Supergun for Iraq.

The NEW YORK TIMES, which ran the story in its business section, observed that this is the first environmental policy decision of the Clinton-Gore administration. The TIMES said it signals two things: first, that Mr. Gore will have a leading role in setting environmental priorities; and second that the new administration intends to enforce environmental laws aggressively.[4] Indeed, Gore's press statement on Monday was couched in law-and-order terms: "Gore's request follows efforts by the Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania lawmakers over several years to persuade government regulators to comply with state and federal environmental laws."

But Gore's action Monday may signal more than a get-tough-on-crooks attitude. It may indicate that Messrs. Gore and Clinton intend to try to rehabilitate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its partner in misfeasance, the U.S. Department of Justice, and thus to continue the endless duel between corporate crime and government eco-police.

Rebuilding the government's eco-police force will prove to be an uphill struggle, particularly at EPA where many Reagan-Bush ideologues are now entrenched in jobs protected by civil service laws.

Even though it has 18,000 employees and an annual operating budget of $4.5 billion,[5] EPA is only a shell of a regulatory agency. Its main function for the past decade has been to shovel taxpayers' money into the pockets of private contractors, known affectionately in Washington as "beltway bandits."

For the past decade, the effect of White House policy has been to drive out good people and replace them with functionaries. Today EPA has few talented, committed employees left, and fewer still who are competent managers. Today many employees simply look upon the agency as a place to do time while awaiting an opportunity for a lucrative trip through the revolving door. Nearly all of EPA's substantive work is now conducted by private contractors, many of whom do shoddy work for which they charge high fees. Of course EPA is not alone in this. "Privatization" has been the hallmark of the Reagan and Bush administrations, and it has proven to be an expensive failure. 

As the NEW YORK TIMES said last week, "In several agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, contractors are performing virtually all the work."[6]In fact, a report released last week by the White House Office of Management and Budget [OMB] said the problem is "endemic across all the civilian agencies." OMB said their investigation revealed a "culture" of federal agencies eager to award contracts but reluctant to supervise them. Result: "Contractors are squandering vast sums," the TIMES said in summarizing the OMB report which concluded that untold billions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been wasted and spent illegally by private contractors on parties, vacations, and sporting events. In almost every instance where auditors looked, they found problems with contracts. 

For example, CH2M Hill, an Oregon company that supervises the cleanup of hundreds of Superfund dumps for the EPA, and more recently for the Department of Energy, billed the government for parties, country club fees for employees and the use of a corporate airplane, all of which are illegal. In defense of his company, Lyle Hassebrook, president of CH2M Hill, said he is "very proud of our accomplishments" and denied all wrongdoing.

The problem isn't merely wasted money. The work of contractors is often shoddy. For example, the TIMES reported last week, "The Government spends between $500 million and $1 billion annually to determine the levels of toxic materials in soil and water and is becoming concerned that the results are meaningless. In the last four years, in the E.P.A.'s Superfund program to clean abandoned waste sites, the Government has successfully prosecuted six laboratories and 17 individuals for fraud, and three dozen other laboratories are under investigation."[6]

The TIMES says EPA has so little in-house talent left that it cannot function without contractors. Indeed earlier this year a contractor was paid $20,000 to prepare the official response to a Congressional report that criticized the EPA's improper use of contractors.[7]

The Clinton-Gore administration will have a lot of rebuilding to do, if they want to create even the APPEARANCE of a competent environmental protection agency. But they should ask whether it would be worth the trouble. Let's face it: Even in their heyday, the ecopolice could not even slow, much less stop, the poisoning of America. Something much more fundamental than a refurbished EPA will be needed.

In truth, we need something as fundamental as an amendment to the Constitution, declaring that a corporation is not a natural person, and is not protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. This would begin to level the playing field in the struggle between predatory corporate marauders and ordinary Americans. Corporations only became "natural persons" under the law when the Supreme Court declared them such in 1886, so we are merely suggesting a return to America's past. Earlier generations of Americans feared corporate power, and now it clear their fears were justified.

To succeed in protecting the environment, the Clinton-Gore administration (and the traditional environmental movement) will have to admit that our problems go much deeper than mere regulatory failure. Few dare speak of it, but let's be candid: the problem is a corporate culture that expects to get rich off government handouts in return for shoddy work or no work at all. The real welfare queens are the likes of Westinghouse, GE, Boeing, Silverado Savings & Loan, General Dynamics, and Rockwell International. The defense industry is justifiably famous for its $600 toilet seats, but now that mentality permeates many, if not most, large corporations. The standard rule seems to be: If the law is in the way, bend it and, when necessary, break it. A corollary is: If human lives are endangered, hire a consultant to complete a risk assessment, then push ahead with the project.

These are not problems that will be solved by buffing up the EPA's image, or even rebuilding its scientific and managerial talent. There is a fundamental imbalance of power in America, which threatens not only our democracy but now even our lives. Many corporations are larger and more powerful than all federal agencies combined. As global competition puts a squeeze on America's traditional way of doing business (see Robert Reich's WORK OF NATIONS, for example), the urge becomes stronger to cut corners and to save a dollar by trashing the environment. Without fundamental reform, things will continue to go downhill at an accelerating pace.

WE APPLAUD AL GORE'S MOVE AGAINST WTI. HE HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING. LET US HOPE THAT IT PRESAGES A FUNDAMENTAL RE-THINKING OF POWER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CORPORATE AMERICA AND ORDINARY PEOPLE.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] Press statement from U.S. Senator Al Gore dated December 7, 1992. 2 pages. Available by fax from the senator's office at (202) 224-4944.

[2] Ellen Connett, "WTI's Hazardous Waste Incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio: Von Roll's Supergun 2," WASTE NOT #217 (November, 1992), pgs. 1-2. WASTE NOT is published weekly by Ellen and Paul Connett, 82 Judson St., Canton, NY 13617; $40/year. Phone: (315) 379-9200.

[3] T.C. Brown, "WTI Sought Quayle's Aid," CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER August 5, 1992, pg. 4-C.

[4] Keith Schneider, "Gore Says Clinton Will Try to Halt Waste Incinerator," NEW YORK TIMES Dec. 7, 1992, pgs. A1, D9.

[5] Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, "'You Can't Get There From Here,'" FORBES July 6, 1992, pgs. 59-64.

[6] Keith Schneider, "U.S. Admits Waste In Its Contracts; Study Says Unsupervised Jobs Cost Government Billions," NEW YORK TIMES December 2, 1992, pgs. A1, D24.

[7] Keith Schneider, "For the Government, Contractors Have Special rates," NEW YORK TIMES December 6, 1992, pg. E2. OUR NEW P.O. BOX HAS ALREADY CHANGED

Last week we announced we're moving to Annapolis, Maryland December 9. This is true. In fact, the deed is done. However the address we gave is already obsolete. At the last minute (yesterday), the Annapolis Post Office offered us a larger P.O. Box, which we need to manage the quantity of mail you all send us.

Therefore, our correct mailing address henceforth is: Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 5036 Annapolis, Maryland 21430

Our phone is still (410) 263-1584, our fax is still (410) [263-8944,] and the Rachel database's phone is still (410) 263-8903; please dial in with 8N1, not 7E1.

Don't worry, if you mailed something to the P.O. Box we listed last week, it will be automatically forwarded to the new box, which is only 2 feet away.

Descriptor terms: vice-president gore; president clinton; wti; waste technologies inc; east liverpool; oh; citizen groups; gao; congress; air pollution; epa; superfund; hazardous waste incineration; waste disposal technologies; waste treatment technologies;

#417: Big-Picture Organizing--Part 1: Some Good News amid the Bad

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #417
---November 24, 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========================

First the Good News

Since 1975, grass-roots action at the local level has brought important successes. It was grass-roots action that killed the civilian nuclear power industry in the U.S., principally by making radioactive waste disposal difficult and therefore expensive, and by turning every nuclear power plant into a fight and therefore into a public relations nightmare for its electric-utility owner.

Grass-roots action at the local level crippled the municipal solid waste incinerator industry. Since 1985, 70 incinerators were built, but during the same period at least 280 incinerators were killed. [1]The municipal incinerator industry is on the ropes.

Grass-roots action killed expansion of the industry that buries hazardous wastes in shallow pits in the ground. Since BFI opened the appropriately-named "Last Chance" dump in Colorado in 1991, no new hazardous waste dumps have even been proposed. (After getting a license for its "Last Chance" dump, BFI abandoned the hazardous waste dump business entirely.)

Most importantly, grass-roots action forced the International Joint Commission (IJC) to recommend an entirely new philosophy of chemical regulation --one that assumes chemicals are harmful until proven safe, and one based on the principle of precautionary action. The precautionary principle says that, to avoid irreparable harm to the environment and to human health, wherever it is acknowledged that a practice (or substance) could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it has caused harm or does cause harm, the practice (or emissions of the substance) should be prevented and eliminated. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1994 rejected the IJC's recommendations, but the handwriting is on the wall now, officially.) [2]

And Now the Bad

Despite these important successes, chemicals released into the environment are still decimating wildlife, making people sick, and killing people. In this sense, despite thousands of successes in local battles, grass-roots activists are losing the war.

Consider these facts:

** The incidence rates for 5 kinds of cancers are decreasing, but the incidence rates for 19 kinds of cancer are steadily increasing. The death rates for 12 kinds of cancer are dropping, but the deaths rates for 12 other cancers continue to rise. [3] Among the fastest-growing is breast cancer. In 1960, a woman's chance of getting breast cancer was 1 in 20; today it is 1 in 9, moving toward 1 in 8.

** Increasingly, couples in their prime child-bearing years are sterile; this may be due in part to a 53% decline in sperm count that has been documented among men in all industrialized countries over the past 50 years, a decline that is apparently continuing. [4]

** Ectopic pregnancy rates have quadrupled in the last 20 years. [5] An ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the uterus, in one of the fallopian tubes; if not treated, such a pregnancy is fatal to the mother. Even when treated properly, it can result in sterility.

** The prevalence of endometriosis (a painful disease of the tissues lining the uterus, which often results in sterility) is steadily increasing and now afflicts somewhere between 5 and 9 million American women; [6]

** Immune system disorders (such as asthma and diabetes) are increasing. In 1990 the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) observed that death rates from asthma have been increasing in the U.S., Canada, England, France, Denmark and Germany. [7] Other sources report increasing death rates from asthma in Wales and Australia. [8] In the U.S., the increase has been rapid. Asthma death rates increased 31% between 1980 and 1987 (from 1.3 per 100,000 population to 1.7 per 100,000). The biggest increase occurred among children between the ages of 5 and 15.

The prevalence of asthma is also increasing, especially among young children. Among children ages 6 to 11, the prevalence of asthma increased from 4.8% in 1971-74 to 7.6% in 1976-1980, a 58% increase in a short period. More recent studies indicate that the increases are continuing.

Another immune system disease, diabetes, is also increasing rapidly in the U.S. The prevalence of IDDM (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, also called Type I diabetes) doubled between 1964 and 1981. [9] A 1993 study says, "[W]e are undergoing an epidemic of IDDM with the rapid increase in the number of cases seen recently." [10]

** The prevalence of nervous system disorders (Lou Gehrig's disease, and Parkinson's disease) is increasing; [11]

** A new disease has emerged called "multiple chemical sensitivity," characterized by extreme sensitivity to low levels of various chemicals, sometimes including odors from new carpets, perfumes, and the fragrances in commercial products such as waxes and detergents. Paints and solvents can set off an allergic-type reaction. Symptoms of MCS range in severity from an itchy rash to coma. An estimated 10% to 15% of the U.S. population now suffers from this disease in one form or another, and the prevalence appears to be rising. [12]

** Birth defect rates are steadily increasing. The federal Centers for Disease Control in 1990 summarized the trends in 38 types of birth defects; they found 29 increasing, 2 decreasing, and 7 remaining unchanged. [13]

** Eight studies of air pollution in U.S. cities have now shown that fine particles (the invisible soot emitted by incinerators, automobiles, power plants and heating units) are presently killing about 60,000 Americans each year. [14] More than a dozen studies have, in one way or another, confirmed this relationship. Furthermore, there appears to be no threshold, no level below which effects disappear. This means that people are being killed by air pollution levels well within existing federal standards.

** In 1990, the American Public Health Association (APHA) estimated that each year 50,000 to 70,000 Americans die of diseases developed from toxic exposures on the job. Furthermore, APHA estimated that 350,000 new cases of occupational disease develop each year from toxic exposures. [15]

Good News Amid the Bad

It seems clear that the opportunity is ripe, and steadily growing, for a major political organizing campaign with health as the centerpiece. Everyone cares about their health and the health of their children. A health-centered organizing campaign offers a clear entryway into the much larger question, "What has gone wrong with America?" Addressing this question would require what we call "Big-Picture Organizing."

[To be continued.] #419

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Ellen Connett, "Since the 1980's a Minimum of 280 Proposals to Build Municipal Waste Incinerators in the U.S. Have Been Defeated or Abandoned," WASTE NOT #283 [from: Work On Waste, U.S.A., 82 Judson St., Canton, N.Y. 13617: phone 315/379-9200] (July 1994), pg. 1. The 280 figure is an underestimate; several incinerators have been defeated since July 1994, according to Ellen Connett, personal communication to Maria Pellerano November 22, 1994.

[2] See Peter Montague, "Our Greatest Accomplishment: Grass-roots Action has Forced a Major Shift in Thinking," THE WORKBOOK [from: Southwest Research and Information Center, P.O. Box 4524, Albuquerque, N.M. 87106; phone 505/ 262-1862.] Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1994), pgs. 86-90.

[3] Incidence rate means occurrence of cancer per 100,000 population, age-adjusted; death rate means deaths from cancer per 100,000 population, age-adjusted. The 5 cancers with decreasing incidence are mouth and pharynx; uterus; stomach; cervix; and esophagus. The 18 cancers with increasing incidence are: colon/rectum; larynx; testicles; bladder; Hodgkin's; childhood cancers; leukemia; thyroid; liver; pancreas; ovaries; lung; skin; female breast; prostate; kidney; brain; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and multiple myeloma. Death rates are dropping for mouth and pharynx; uterus; stomach; cervix; colon/rectum; larynx; testicles; bladder; Hodgkin's; childhood cancers; leukemia; and thyroid. Death rates are increasing for esophagus; liver; pancreas; ovaries; lung; skin; female breast; prostate; kidney; brain; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and multiple myeloma. Source of information: Barry A. Miller and others, editors, CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1990 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 93-2789] (Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1993), Table I-3, pg. I.[27].

[4] Increasing infertility among Americans in their prime reproductive years is discussed in Appendix A, "Reproductive Dysfunction in the Population," pgs. 341-346, in Office of Technology Assessment, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE [OTA-BA-266] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December, 1985).

[5] Increases in ectopic pregnancies are documented in MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] CDC SURVEILLANCE SUMMARIES Vol. 39 No. SS-4 (December, 1990), pgs. 9-19.

[6] David E. Larson, editor, MAYO CLINIC FAMILY HEALTH BOOK (N.Y.: William Morrow, 1990), pgs. 1101-1102. Sherry E. Rier and others, "Endometriosis in Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Following Chronic Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," FUNDAMEN-TAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY Vol. 21 (1993), pgs. 433-441.

[7] A. Sonia Buist and William M. Vollmer, "Reflections on the Rise in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION October 3, 1990, pgs. 1719-1720. Kevin B. Weiss and Diana K. Wagener, "Changing Patterns of Asthma Mortality," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 264 (1990), pgs. 1683-1687.

[8] Peter J. Gergen and others, "National Survey of the Prevalence of Asthma Among Children in the United States, 1976 to 1980," PEDIATRICS Vol. 81 (1988), pgs. 1-7.

[9] National Diabetes Data Group, DIABETES IN AMERICA [NIH Publication No. 85-1468] (no place of publication [Bethesda, Md.?]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, August 1985), Table 2, pgs. VI-4, VI-5.

[10] Ingrid Libman and others, "How Many People in the U.S. Have IDDM [insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus]?" DIABETES CARE Vol. 16, No. 5 [May 1993], pgs. 841-842.

[11] Increases in Parkinson's disease and in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) are documented in Office of Technology Assessment, NEUROTOXICITY; IDENTIFYING AND CONTROLLING POISONS OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM [OTA-BA-436] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1990); see Figures 2-2 and 2-3 on pg. 55.

[12] See Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council, MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992). Multiple chemical sensitivity afflicts 10% to 15% of the American public, and appears to be increasing, says Bette Hileman, "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," C&EN [Chemical & Engineering News] Vol. 69 No. 29 (July 22, 1991), pg. 34. This emerging disease has been subject of two excellent book-length studies: In 1990 the New Jersey Department of Health published a report by Nicholas Ashford and Claudia Miller, CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY, which is distributed by National Center for Environmental Health Strategies (NCEHS), 1100 Rural Ave., Voorhees, NJ 08043; phone (609) 429-5358. $17.00. See also Nicholas Ashford and Claudia Miller, CHEMICAL EXPOSURES: LOW LEVELS AND HIGH STAKES (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990).

[13] Larry D. Edmonds and others, "Temporal Trends in the Prevalence of Congenital Malformations at 
Birth Based on the Birth Defects Monitoring Program, United States, 1979-1987," MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] CDC SURVEILLANCE SUMMARIES Vol. 39, No. SS-4 (December 1990), pg. 22.

[14] Seven studies are reviewed by Joel Schwartz, "Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality: A Synthesis," PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS 1991/1992 Vol. 19 (1992), pgs. 39-60. The 8th is Douglas Dockery and others, "An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 329 (1993), pgs. 1753-1759; see also pgs. 1807-1808. The 60,000 figure is taken from "Air Pollution in Typical U.S. Cities Increases Death Risk," press release dated May 13, 1991, from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. describing findings later reported in Joel Schwartz and Douglas W. Dockery, "Increased Mortality in Philadelphia Associated With Daily Air Pollution Concentrations," AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE Vol. 145 (1992), pgs. 600-604. Two million deaths occur in the U.S. each year; according to Schwartz and Dockery, fine particles account for 3%.

[15] Philip J. Landrigan, "Commentary: Environmental Disease--A Preventable Epidemic," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 82 (July 1992), pgs. 941-943.

Descriptor terms: grass-roots citizen action; civilian nuclear power; municipal solid waste incineration; msw; landfilling; dumps; hazardous waste; ijc; regulation; reverse onus; burden of proof; precautionary principle; principle of precationary action; wildlife; human health; morbidity; mortality; studies; statistics; cancer; breast cancer; sterility; reproductive disorders; ectopic pregnancies; tubal pregnancies; endometriosis; immune system disorders; diabetes mellitus; type I diabetes; asthma; nervous system disorders; lou gehrig's disease; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; parkinson's disease; multiple chemical sensitivity; mcs; birth defects; air pollution; fine particles; apha; american public health association; occupational safety and health;