Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 16, 1992 TAG: 9202140052
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
INCINERATORS KILL BOTH: RECYCLING AND PEOPLE
Sunday's New River Current (Feb. 9) carried a letter to the editor entitled "Arsenal Chief Answers Incinerator Questions."Just to be fair to the readers who may have absorbed some of these falsehoods disguised as answers, the following is much more in tune with that real world. Here is what you should have read:
\ Can airborne incinerator emissions be controlled cost effectively?:
Airborne incinerator emissions are not even controllable, much less cost effectively. The term "state-of-the-art pollution control device" actually means that 10 years down the road we'll realize how primitive and ineffective they really were.
All incinerators pollute the air. Ask yourself, "Has anything man designed and built ever worked without fault?" Then ask the "experts" why terms such as "baghouse failures," "blow-outs," "fugitive emissions," "flue fires" and "operator error" exist within the incinerator industry.
\ Will the incinerator ash be toxic? If so, how will it be handled?:
Yes. Incinerator ash is toxic.
Metals are chemical elements and can be neither created nor destroyed by incineration; the amount of them in the waste stream before incineration equals the sum of their amounts in air emissions and ash.
Dioxins, the most potent cancer-causing substances known to man, is created during incineration by the burning of plastics. Many other dangerous substances are equated with incineration.
Although it's important to consider the contamination of ground water, it is vital to assess ash toxicity by concentrations on all our routes of exposure. We can inhale ash particles in our lungs where toxins are directly absorbed in the tissues or bloodstream. We can ingest ash particles through contaminated gardens, fish, cow's milk and other sources.
It's important to note that the government has set standards of tolerance levels for the public based on the average adult male. That leaves many women, children and the elderly at higher risks. The most affected are infants who are exposed to the same environment as adults but who also drink breast milk in which high concentrations of toxins are found.
How convenient - and inappropriate - it will be when the Radford arsenal or the New River Resource Authority are allowed to test their own ash. You and I know that tests can be manipulated. Why not test 12 ash samples and pick out the least potent ones to turn in?
Or better yet, these environmental engineers have suggested combining toxic ash with non-toxic ash to render it harmless. The experts call this method dilution. We common folk call it delusion.
\ Can the New River Valley alone consistently generate a large enough stream of waste to fuel a power generating plant?:
You'd better hope so, because each locality that joins in the contract for shipping its waste to this facility will likely also have to sign a contract in which you "guarantee" that you'll be supplying enough trash to feed it.
Should that waste stream decrease, not only will you be forced to pay the arsenal for the steam power you promised them, but it makes accepting out-of-state waste (including hazardous) look real appealing, which would make us the next proud owner of a Kim Stan in the sky.
\ Is incineration consistent with source reduction and resource recovery goals?:
The real question is "Will the New River Valley settle for the bare minimum recycling goal of 25 percent mandated by the state? Or will we strive to reduce, reuse and recycle to reach our maximum level prior to considering incineration?"
We do not know what our potential is because we've only begun to implement these environmentally sound alternatives.
Once an incinerator is built for a certain amount of waste, it is damaging to the facility and equipment and the environment to operate at less than full capacity. Incineration kills recycling.
It's also guaranteed to kill people. There's a new term that has arrived on the industrial scene called "acceptable risks." What it means, in laymen's terms, is that an incinerator may produce one additional cancer death per year per 100,000 people. This, according to government and industry, is acceptable. This, according to the American people, is not.
\ Is regional cooperation a realistic expectation?:
Most valley voters would like to see regional cooperation if the solution is a good one. If the solution is a bad idea, why combine and multiply the mistake?
If you want to call your Air Pollution Control Board and inquire about the "threshold level" for your area, it probably won't know. Yet this "threshold level" is one of its terms. It would allow certain maximums of air pollutants in an area only to the extent that it would leave it safe to live in.
Well, if the state doesn't know what the level should be, then why are we even considering a 400-ton-per-day garbage burner in an area already pegged as one of the worst in the state for air pollution?\ Karita Knisley\ Hiwassee
Knisley is president of PURE Virginia (People United in Respect for the Environment), a grass-roots organization concerned about waste issues throughout the state.