Parts of this page:
Comments on the chapters in the book:
"God created 91 chemical elements, man more than a thousand and
the devil created one: chlorine." [28].
That is the credo of Greenpeace for its anti-chlorine campaign and is the
fundament of the book of Thornton, who still works for Greenpeace. There
is no difference in methods used by Thornton as author of his MIT-based
book and Thornton as (co)author of several brochures about chlorine/PVC
as Greenpeace campaigner. There is only a difference in style, which makes
it even more difficult for the average reader to know where the author
is a little (?) economical with the truth. Or to say it with the words
of the Hamburg (Germany) court in the case of Greenpeace e.V. vs. Engelbeen:
"The reader understands from the actual context of the text that Greenpeace
presents facts that are overstated or, even though they give true information
about a fact, they do not give all the details, so that at the very least
a false impression can be created in the mind of the person receiving the
message.". That is what Thornton does again and again in his work.
The basic assumption that the introduction of chlorine in an organic
molecule in general makes that molecule more toxic is true. But that this
is also true for the introduction of oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen(oxides),
phosphor(oxides), etc. is omitted. Every organochlorine that can be inhaled,
ingested or can pass the skin is toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, hormone-disrupting,
etc. at some dose. But that is also the case for all organics, whether
these contain only carbon and hydrogen (as is especially the case for aromatics)
or other elements like oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen,... Again that is omitted
from the book. The introduction of chlorine makes a molecule more fat soluble,
but that is similar to the addition of a CH3 group (an extra carbon with
three hydrogen atoms) to such a molecule. Indeed some organochlorines are
POPs (persistent organic pollutants), that means persistent and
bio-accumulating and toxic. A few hundred of the more than 10,000
industrial and over 2,000 natural organochlorines can be found in human
blood. With the today's analytical techniques, we can assume that most
of the others are either not persistent enough, or don't bio-accumulate
at all, or are released in such minute quantities that they can't be detected,
which makes their environmental relevance rather questionable. But that
also can be said of a few hundred of non-chlorinated materials like PAHs
and nitro-PAHs. While their bio-accumulation is mainly at the lower end
of the food chain, their impact is far higher than for organochlorines
like dioxins, as they are released in quantities which are orders of magnitude
higher and (nitro)PAHs are cancer inducers, while dioxins are cancer promoters
at high levels, but cancer inhibitors at low levels...
One can write a similar book about the dangers of oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen,
phosphor,... for all life on earth. That will be more difficult than for
chlorine, for the simple reason that much less is known of the results
of the introduction of these elements into organics. But what is known
don't make them less suspect than organochlorines. And nature is not less
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic,... than industry, to the contrary...
Thus if you believe that chlorine is invented by the devil, this is
the book for you. If you are more critical, don't buy it, you can have
the same "information" from Greenpeace for free...
Much of Thornton's work on the toxicity of organochlorines is based
on the study of Dietrich Henschler [65]. Henschler
only studied the introduction of chlorine in relative harmless aliphates
(organics with a straight-forward chain and/or side chains of carbon atoms)
and more harmful aromatics (organics with ring-shaped forms of carbon atoms).
There are no similar studies of the introduction of other elements in hydrocarbons,
but the author implicitly says that the introduction of other electrophilic
elements into alkanes also makes them more active (= more toxic):
"The electrophilic effect of chlorine augments - just like the other
electrophilic elements (e.g. F, O, N, P) - the electrophily of the carbon
atom where it is bound to...". The author also shows different pathways
where different groups of organochlorines ultimately lead to mutagenic
(cancer inducing) properties, but that is mainly for aliphates, not for
chlorinated benzenes (which are - contrary to benzene itself -no carcinogens),
nor for the lower chlorinated phenols (like 2,4 dichlorophenol, part and
breakdown product of the herbicide 2,4-D) and not for a lot of chlorinated
aromatics, ranging from DDT via PCBs to dioxins and furans [65].
Many chlorinated aromatics only show carcinogenic properties at very
high doses, where severe damage to certain or several organs occurs. That
is
not because they are real carcinogens, but as result of the damage and
the repair mechanism that makes a lot of new tissue (with the higher risk
of growing a damaged cell). In these cases there exist a level where no
extra cancer will occur - or even that the chemical blocks cancer, as is
the case for vitamin A and TCDD-dioxin... [13].
About half of all chemicals (natural or not, chlorinated or not) ever
tested at high doses in rodents are carcinogens [13].
Of course there are large differences in dose, where that occurs. But as
good as some mainly human-made chemicals like dioxins and PAHs bind to
specific receptors in the cells which can introduce cancer at some dose,
that is the case for natural ones too. One helping of broccoli is about
1,500 times more toxic than the daily reference dose of TCDD by the EPA,
taking into account the lower binding potential of IC (indole carbinol
- the main toxin) and the residence time of one day of IC, compared to
many years for TCDD [13]. But some natural
toxins like aflatoxins made by the common house mold are ten times more
toxic than TCDD at the same level of intake…
page 3:
"Industry's electrical energy transforms salt's stable chloride
ions into molecules of chlorine gas, a heavy, violently reactive, greenish
gas that does not occur in nature."
This is clearly wrong. The amounts of sea salt in ambient air above
the oceans, introduced by simple physical actions is estimated 6,000 million
tons per year. Of that amount, some <100-800 million tons is estimated
to be transformed into elementary chlorine as result of oxidation by sea-level
ozone, nitrogen oxides, iodine and bromine compounds [66].
That has to be compared to the 40 million tons the chlorine industry produces
(not emits!). This reactive chlorine is thought to help in the oxidation
of organic compounds in the lower atmosphere, but in part forms organochlorines.
It is also one of the origins of the nice green copper roofs in the neighborhood
of the sea.
page 9:
"Moreover, pollution control devices merely shift pollutants from
one place or environmental medium to another; they may reduce local pollution,
but they do nothing to prevent global contamination."
There can be tremendous differences in local and global environmental
impact of persistent pollutants like dioxins by using pollution control
devices, together with pollution prevention measures. Prevention of dioxin
formation in incinerators is directly related to design, and operation
practices (not to chlorine content! See: chlorine
input and dioxin output). These can reduce dioxin formation up to a
1,000-fold. Pollution control is done by injection of chemicals, precipitators,
filters and end-of-pipe catalysts or absorbents. Catalysts destroy dioxins
and absorbents like active carbon remove dioxins from the exhaust gases.
The latter is incinerated (with a 99.99% dioxin reduction).
While much more dioxin is captured in waste solids from the precipitators
and/or filters, this is completely irrelevant for global contamination,
as that is secured in local dumps (or, like in The Netherlands, in part
mixed with asphalt - an irrelevant yearly release of 0.6 g I-TEQ/year off
the roads). Dioxin emissions into air are the most important sources of
dioxin contamination in the food chain by incinerators. Thus any device
that removes dioxins from the exhaust gases has a tremendous impact on
the local and global dioxin burden.
Page 7--13: Risk paradigm vs. Ecological paradigm.
The Ecological paradigm by Thornton is mainly based on the "precautionary
principle". While it is better to err at the side of safety, one still
needs to address the risks of different processes to judge different products
and/or processes to know which one is safer, including the status-quo.
Assuming that non-chlorinated products and/or processes are safer by definition
is contrary to the precautionary principle, as far more is known about
the risks of chlorine products and processes than of the alternatives.
And what is known of the alternatives is far from reassuring...
Further, 99% of the full class of (organo)chlorine products in The
Netherlands were compared for human health and environmental impact with
the total impacts of all products produced, as far as the latter impacts
were known. Besides chlorine products which were already phased out or
being phased out, the remainder had a lower impact on the environment (PVC
far lower) than the average... (See: the Chlorine
Chain). Thus there is not the slightest reason to phase out the remaining
chlorinated products to pollute more...
Zero Discharge and Clean Production are nice intentions but impossible
to fully obtain. There is no process on this earth where there is no pollution
and/or where no toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic... products are used or
released at some part of the life cycle. Glass and concrete need sand (silicosis),
steel uses coal (PAHs, sulfur, dioxins), wood dust causes cancer itself
(and releases PAHs and dioxins when incinerated), plastics need crude oil
(PAHs, benzene, dioxins...), and all fossil and bio-mass energy sources
release PAHs, dioxins...
Page 15:
"Organochlorines account for the majority of known endocrine disrupters".
This is a clear untruth. Near all natural hormone disrupters and many
man-made chemicals, known to interfere with hormones at some level, don't
contain chlorine. Chlorine is not necessary at all. Instrumental seems
to be a phenolic group (or a benzene ring that can be metabolized into
a phenol) and a side chain: either a second phenyl/phenol or a medium-length
alkyl chain. Except for DES, which was specifically been used as hormone
influencing drug, the natural hormone disrupting chemicals in our food
are far higher in amount and combined strength than man-made. Especially
soy is notorious for its influence (both positive and negative) [67].
Further, the authors of the endocrine disruptor - sperm decline hypothesis
specifically warned against pinpointing to any specific chemicals.
Page 18:
"As the German government's Council of Environmental Advisors concluded
in 1991, 'The dynamic growth of chlorine chemistry during the 50s and 60s
represents a decisive mistake in twentieth century industrial development,
which would not have occurred had our present knowledge as to environmental
damage and health risk due to chlorine chemistry then be available'".
While this was true for certain chlorinated products, the same Council
has changed their opinion in 1998, after several of their advises were
implemented [68]:
"The German Environmental Council does not wish to discuss here the issue of chlorine chemistry already discussed in its Special Report on Waste Management. It would, however, like to point out that it is aware of the fact that, as a result of interim developments in production and disposal technology (developments that are in part attributable to the German Environmental Council's recommendations), the environmental problems associated with PVC can no longer be used as a singular argument to justify rolling back the use of chlorine chemistry. The German Environmental Council is of the opinion that the health and environmental hazards engendered by PVC are not serious enough, in comparison with such substitutes as PET, PP, etc., as to warrant placing a ban or severe restrictions on its use. However, the German Environmental Council still intends to reassess the use of PVC from the point of view of whether materials that are environmentally persistent should be taken off the market because of this very property. It will deal with this issue when Sweden, as expected, formally proposes that EU environmental policy be revised along these lines."The latter recommendation is rather curious, as that means that non-toxic persistent products, which have a long life-time and thus are very sustainable, like PVC, glass, brick, concrete,... should be banned?
Page 27: Table 1.1
With the exception of carbon tetrachloride, the other pure chlorinated
organics mentioned in the list have moderate lifetimes in air. Those with
the longest lifetimes all contain fluorine, which makes the molecule extremely
stable towards photo-degradation. It is unfair to call these "organochlorines".
Further, even if TCDD-dioxin is formed from trichlorophenol by light, that
is irrelevant as TCDD itself is completely destroyed by UV-light in a few
weeks. And a lot of bulk produced organochlorines (for PVC) are readily
destroyed by sunlight: VCM (a few hours), EDC (a few weeks). These are
not included in the table. And some of the organochlorines in the table
are produced (and emitted!) by nature in quantities, one to two orders
of magnitude higher than industry. Methyl chloride (chloromethane): 99%
natural, dichloromethane: 98% natural, chloroform: 98% natural, carbon
tetrachloride: 95% natural [40]. Even Tri
and Perc (dry cleaning compounds) have natural sources, be it that these
account for app. 10% resp. 5% of the ambient atmosphere.
And as already mentioned before, elementary chlorine helps to clean
the atmosphere from organics...
Page 29: Atrazine
Atrazine is one of the most widespread herbicides in the US. It is
no wonder that it is found in groundwater and surface waters. But atrazine's
action, while "chlorinated", is based on nitrogen. Atrazine is a member
of the family of herbicides, called triazines. Moreover, the relative slow
bio-degradation (app. 100 days in soil, several months to one year in water)
is due to the triazine part, not to chlorine, as atrazine looses its sole
chlorine atom very rapidly with soil bacteria [69],
forming hydroxyatrazine.
Trichloro acetic acid (and other organochlorines) is consistently present in rainwater, according to Thornton. But he forget to mention that known industrial organochlorines are 2-3 orders of magnitude lower present than most natural. And these that have higher levels (up to a few %), like the chloroacetic acids are as good from natural as from industrial sources [70]: Analyses of Antarctic snow that accumulated in the beginning of the 18th century has demonstrated that natural sources play a significant role in the global distribution of this group of compounds. The remaining bulk of organochlorines in rainwater is mainly, if not solely of natural origin.
Page 33: Table 1.2
The table shown has not the slightest reflection to real life. The
half-lives are given for pure water, which is an inert medium for almost
all organic materials, chlorinated or not. The pure chemical dechlorination
(hydroxylation) process is a very slow process and depends of the chemical
reactivity (bounding energy) of chlorine at a certain place in a molecule.
Real life has to do with bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. And it are
the bacteria which break down organochlorines, as good as in soil as in
water and sediments... Bacteria break down over 98% of the organochlorines
in waste water of PVC and herbicide production [71]
in only three days, including 1,2-dichloroethane, which has a half-live
of 72 years in pure water, according to table 1.2… Further, the break-down
rate of organochlorines is comparable to figures for pure organics in the
waste water treatment of petrol refining facilities.
Page 33/34: Chlorinated lignins and metabolites:
Chlorinated lignins, phenols, guaiacols, catechols and veratrols were
formed by the – now nearly abandoned – use of elementary chlorine in paper
manufacturing. But the industrial amounts of these components are by far
exceeded by the natural decomposition of wood by fungi, making that the
concentrations in remote, forested areas are higher than in rivers flowing
through industrial areas [70]. And one has
found a lot of organochlorines in 6,000 years old unspoiled aquifers…
Page 38: Whales.
"In the Gulf of St. Lawrence in eastern Canada, beluga whales, which
feed primarily on eels from the Great Lakes, are contaminated with parts
per million levels of chlorobenzenes, PCB's, and a host of organochlorine
pesticides."
But the main contaminant of these whales are non-chlorinated PAHs:
"Transitional cell carcinoma among the belugas was first discovered during an autopsy of a carcass that had washed ashore in 1985. It was a particularly provocative finding because workers in nearby aluminum smelters, which release their wastes into the St. Lawrence, had also been found to have an elevated incidence of this type of bladder cancer… …Aluminum smelters and other industries lining the river basin have contaminated their waters with benzo[a]pyrene, a potent and well-known carcinogen… …The number of adducts attached to an organism's DNA is considered a useful measure of benzo[a]pyrene exposure. DNA from the brain tissue of stranded St. Lawrence belugas bore impressively high numbers of adducts… " [72]
Page 40-43: In our bodies and children.
While what is written is mainly true, that has little relevance for
health, as humans only are living longer. Every child born today has a
life time expectancy, about twice longer than was the case a hundred years
ago…
And levels of persistent organochlorines are falling in breast milk,
all over the Western world [51]…
Thornton makes some speculation about the number of organochlorines
vs. other/unknown contaminants: 190 vs. 700. How many of the "others" are
organochlorines, how many non-chlorinated contaminants were found? How
many of both are entirely natural? And most important, how toxic are they…
And the human white blood cells produce chlorine (bleach) to kill invaders
like bacteria and viruses. How much organochlorines are formed by this
chlorine production is totally unknown.
And, say 200 bio-accumulating organochlorines on a total of 10,000
industrial and over 2,000 natural organochlorines is a small portion which
seems to be bio-accumulating. All the rest is either too volatile or too
fast bio-degrading or too water soluble or produced in such minute quantities,
that even after bio-accumulating they can not be detected by the todays
extreme fine detection methods...
And there are at least the same number of non-chlorinated organics
that have a bio-accumulating potential…
Page 45: PVC and dioxins.
'The Chlorine Chemistry Council and the Vinyl Institute argue that
"dioxin in the environment has been falling," so restrictions on PVC plastic
are unnecessary.'
This is not what the CCC and VI said. They say that PVC production
is an insignificant source of dioxins in the environment. Many European
and American government investigations prove that, see the UNEP world
wide dioxin inventory [60]. And PVC is
not the source of dioxins at incineration. And they point to the
declining levels of dioxins in sediments since the seventies (now app.
at the same level as in the fourties), while PVC production and use tripled
in the same period.
Page 50-53: Local to global contamination.
Thornton is right that accumulation of POPs must be addressed as good
as local (e.g. dioxins in the vicinity of an incinerator) as regional and
global (intake via the food chain). But even in a Risk Paradigm, one can
take that into account. That is e.g. the case in Flanders, where the total
emission of all dioxin sources is related to the measured deposits and
related to the human intake via the food chain. Total dioxin emissions
are restricted to the maximum that gives not more than the WHO limits for
daily intake. Thus Thornton is wrong if he asks for zero discharge of dioxins,
as that not only means a tremendous amount of money to be invested, as
all fossil fuel (except natural gas) burning must be ceased, all metal
production stopped,… but also has no benefits for anybody's health.
Page 55: Table 1.3 POPs.
That the UNEP POPs list only contains organochlorines is a political
question, not a matter of toxicity. One of the most important classes of
POPs are PAHs, both in quantity as in toxicity. These are not included
in the first POPs list…
The amounts of PAHs released in Flanders is 284
tons per year [59]. Or, with an
underestimate of 1%, benzo-[a]-pyrene (BaP), the strongest carcinogen of
all PAHs is emitted at 2.84 tons per year. Compare that to TEQ-dioxins:
a total emission of 274 gram per year. The carcinogenic potential
of dioxin to BaP is 20:1 in some strains of rats. The Ah-receptor binding
(probably causing a lot of other non-cancer diseases) is app. 3-5:1…
Page 57: Effects of Organochlorines.
Everything that Thornton says about the health effects of organochlorines
can be said about organics in general and oxygenated, nitrogenated, sulfurated
or phosphorilated organics. In each "class" of chemicals, there are members
that cause cancer, damage to the DNA, immune suppression, hormone disrupting,
dysfunction of the brain and nerves,…
The latter is even especially true for organophosphates. Thus only
pointing to organochlorines is far from honest. Moreover, for all these
health implications, the dose makes the poison…
Page 60-61: Table 2.1.
The table gives all the organochlorines classified by the IARC, as
known, probable and possible carcinogens [*]. Further
from the HSDB, organochlorines with a limited evidence of carcinogenity
in animals.
What Thornton omits, is how many non-chlorinated organics are classified
as known, probable and possible carcinogens. That can be illustrated by
the figures of the German DfG (the German occupational health authority)
[73]:
Of the 126 proven or probable human carcinogens at the workplace, 57
contain nitrogen (and many of these have a very high potency), 26 chlorine,
17 are metals or minerals, 15 contain oxygen, 6 are pure hydrocarbons,
5 contain sulfur and another 5 contain other halogens than chlorine. Thus
organochlorines make some 21% of occupational carcinogens, while chlorine
is used in some 60% of all chemical processes. That is remarkably low…
Page 63-65: The work of Henschler [65].
Henschler made a study of the introduction of chlorine into organics,
in the first place simple alkanes and in the second place several aromatics.
There is no comparable work of anybody about the introduction of other
polar elements (N, P, O, S,…) into organics.
The work of Henschler is the base of the assumption of Thornton that
the full "class" of organochlorines is more toxic than any other "class"
of organics. But he forgets to mention that the introduction of nitrogen,
sulfur, oxygen, and/or phosphor also enhances the reactivity (= toxicity)
of simple alkanes and many aromatics. That is even mentioned by Henschler
himself in his work:
"The electrophilic effect of chlorine augments - just like the other electrophilic elements (e.g. F, O, N, P) - the electrophily of the carbon atom where it is bound to..."If we look at the introduction of other elements than chlorine in simple aliphatics and aromatics, we can observe the following:
Oxygen:
The introduction of oxygen into methane makes it far more toxic: methanol
is a very toxic substance, causing nerve damage, even at low levels, blindness
and death.
More oxygen makes formaldehyde, a very strong lung irritant and possible
carcinogen. More oxygen makes CO, not an organic itself, but formed by
incomplete combustion of organics. Causes app. 30 deaths per million per
year.
More oxygen makes formic acid, a strong skin irritant and the cause
of blindness when methanol is ingested and breaks down to formic acid.
The full class of aldehydes are strong lung irritants and possible
carcinogens.
The introduction of oxygen into ethane makes in the first place ethanol,
or common alcohol. This single organic has caused more problems than any
other organic in the world. It is a strong nerve toxicant, reducing reaction
times already at very low levels. That causes a high percentage of traffic
deaths every day. And it causes more birth defects than all other toxicants
together. And it is a known human carcinogen (although not officially).
The full class of alcohols are nerve toxicants and several are possible
carcinogens.
Acetic acid and higher acids (with longer carbon chains) are basic
foodstuffs (part of oils and fats), except for – especially if saturated
– excess intake, they cause no problems.
But peroxy acetic acid is a probable carcinogen.
And another oxidized ethane: ethylene oxide is a probable carcinogen.
The full class of alkane oxides are probable carcinogens.
Introduction of oxygen in benzene makes phenol, which is more toxic,
but elimiates its carcinogenic properties. That is true for the intake
of phenols and cresols, which are very abundant in our food. These are
conjugated (neutralized) in the liver and excreted via the urine, before
they can do any damage. But the carcinogenic property of benzene is due
to its oxidation to phenol at the wrong place, as that happens only partially
in the liver. The rest is transformed mainly in the bone marrow, where
it can interact with the DNA of growing cells, ultimately leading to leukemia…
The same problem of oxidation of many aromatics into more water soluble
oxidants can be seen, with as ultimate problem the transformation of persistent,
(partly) bio-accumulating PAHs into (epo)xidized products which directly
damage DNA. Thus probable cancer initiators. Mixtures of PAHs as can be
found in all pyrolyse products of organic material (tars of wood, coal,
oil,…) are proven human carcinogens.
Almost all natural and a lot of synthetic materials that can mimic
hormones are oxygen based: genistein, daidzein (soy), xanthohumol (hops),
bisphenol A, alkylphenols (synthetic),…
Conclusion: the introduction of oxygen in organic materials in general makes them more toxic and in many cases leads to the formation of carcinogens, nerve toxicants, hormone disruptors and birth defects causing materials.
Nitrogen variants:
The introduction of nitrogen compounds into alkanes makes them far
more toxic:
All alkylamines, di-alkylamines and tri-alkylamines are more toxic
than the originals
Di-alkylamines are easily converted into nitrosamines (even in the
stomach), which are extremely potent probable carcinogens…
The introduction of amines into aromatics nearly invariably makes them
proven, probable or possible carcinogens. While (except for benzene), the
original aromatics are not or less carcinogenic themselves.
The introduction of nitrate groups into all organics near invariably
makes them proven, probable or possible carcinogens. The most extreme mutagens
ever found are nitrated PAHs.
The introduction of nitrosamine groups makes all organics probable
carcinogens.
The introduction of isocyanate groups makes all organics very to extremely
toxic products and extreme lung irritants. And the aromatics are possible
carcinogens.
Conclusion: the introduction of nitrogen in organic materials in general makes them more to extreme toxic and in many cases leads to the formation of carcinogens, nerve toxicants, and lung irritants at extreme low levels.
The introduction of a double bound:
The introduction of a double bound in any organic molecule invariably
makes that molecule more active, thus more toxic. In the body, these double
bounds in general are epoxidized, which leads to DNA damage and thus cancer
initiation.
General comparison of the introduction of chlorine vs. other atoms:
If we look at the number of regulated carcinogens at the work place
[73],
half of them are nitrogen compounds, some of them, like nitrosamines, even
at extreme low levels. That is twice as high in number than organochlorines,
which are used in 60% of all chemical processes. Except for dioxins, most
organochlorines with a carcinogenic potential have moderate levels of carcinogenity,
comparable to the introduction of other elements.
General conclusion: there is more reason to ban nitrogenated organics as a "class" than of chlorinated…
Page 306: PVC Plastic.
"When its entire life is considered, PVC appears to cause the formation
of more extremely hazardous by-products than any other product, a fact
that should come as no surprise, since more chlorine goes into vinyl than
any other application."
This is not substantiated by any figure, as Thornton only points to
PVC and doesn't take into account any life cycle for any alternative. Most
alternatives for PVC are other plastics, mainly based on ethylene, propylene
and/or benzene. In the manufacturing of ethylene/propylene, the main route
is the cracking of naphtha, with a 70% yield, with as main byproducts benzene
and other aromatics and PAH tars. The transformation of chlorine, ethylene
and oxygen into EDC has an over 97% yield… Thus the production of PVC (57%
chlorine, 43% ethylene) makes far less toxic byproducts than the production
of any plastics alternative. The use of PVC in general needs less maintenance
than any alternative. Dumping doesn't cause any problem and incineration
doesn't add to more toxic waste. The toxicity of salt rests is zero
if it is cleaned from heavy metals and if it is reused or dumped into brackish
or seawater. See an example in Reggio Emilia
(Italy).
Page 306-312: PVC production.
Dioxins were found in the chlor-alkali process, where graphite electrodes
were used. No dioxins can be found in modern membrane electrolysis plants.
The releases of EDC/VCM which are mentioned by Thornton might be right,
but miss any relevance to human and ecological health, as VCM has a half-live
time in air of a few hours and is very volatile (vapor at normal temperature).
EDC has a half-live time of a few days in air. The total air releases of
an average VCM factory are comparable in carcinogenity to what one
heavy diesel truck emits as carcinogenic soot at the same distance to houses
of the neighbors… Within the fences, the risk for deadly accidents or a
deadly cancer is comparable to people that work at home, without any more
other health effects…
And Norsk Hydro and EVC, on which figures the calculation of Thornton
are based are still doing better, year by year [74],
as good as that is the case for all VCM factories world wide…
That one can find contamination within the boundaries of a factory (and sometimes out of the boundaries) is not unique for VCM factories. Thirty years ago, nobody cared when a valve – or even a tank – was leaking. One can find benzene beneath any petrol station… But nowadays, that is addressed by liquid tight floors in petrol stations and below tanks of EDC/VCM factories…
Indeed dioxins (and PCBs) are formed by the oxychlorination of ethylene and HCl to form EDC. Depending of the type of process and the type of catalyst: between 1 and 40 g I-TEQ per 100,000 tons of EDC. That has no relevance for the environment, as these follow the heavy ends (for organics) and water streams (for spent catalyst). Heavy ends are in most cases incinerated on site, waste water is purified from catalyst (with adhered dioxins). Thus the only important point for the environment, is how much is released to air from the incinerator(s) and to water after treatment. For the whole USA, that is 11 g I-TEQ to air, 0.6 g to water, 0.7 g to land and 3.1 g into product. These are maximum figures. Or a total of less than 0.06% for all dioxin emissions to air, water, land and product in the USA, see the Sources of dioxins.
The Dutch study by Evers, cited by Thornton, about the formation of
dioxins [75] in EDC production was performed
to give 1.5 gram (!) of EDC and compared that to 100,000 tons
(!) of EDC production. The yield was 12%, compared to a factory with a
97% yield. Further 80% of the dioxins found were on the catalyst (which
mostly stays on place in a factory). Thus that is far from comparable to
a real life factory. The EDC/VCM-factory of Rovin (now Shin-Etsu) in The
Netherlands, asked the researchers of the University of Amsterdam, where
the experiment was done, to check the amounts of dioxin formed and released
at their factory.
This was done and the results were: on a production of about 500,000
tons per year, about 4 g of dioxin were formed. That is already 500 times
lower than what Thornton suggests. Of that amount, after cleanup in a biological
waste water treatment and the incineration of the production wastes and
the off-gases, only about 40 milligram of dioxins were released to air
and about 10 milligram were released to water per year. That is 10,000
times less than what Thornton suggests and no ecological disaster, not
even a problem. Again and again, as good as at the time he wrote his reports
for Greenpeace, he confuses the reader between formation and emissions…
Some more false suggestions:
"In 1994 government scientists found dioxins at high concentrations
(…) in sludges from a fully modernized EDC/VCM plant in Germany, refuting
the claim that only outdated EDC/VCM technologies produce dioxin."
Nobody in the industry ever claimed that modern EDC/VCM plants don't
produce
dioxins, everybody claims that modern EDC/VCM plants don't
emit
significant amounts of dioxins…
Thornton himself gives the data of the German plant in one of his former
works [1]:
Metal sludge: 409,270 ng/kg TEQ
Metals sludge cake: 413,790 ng/kg
Waste water treatment sludge: 7,199 ng/kg
Sediment near discharge pipe: 1.7-3.9 ng/kg
Mussels near discharge: 0.71-4.44 ng/kg
As all sludges either are properly disposed or incinerated, these are
irrelevant for environmental contamination. And these figures simply prove
that the facility is no treat to the environment, as even the sediments
and mussels near the discharge pipe only have low levels of dioxins… Further,
it seems remarkable that the mussels have not bio-concentrated the dioxins
from the sediments. That proves that any residual contamination of sediments
by the EDC/VCM factory is very local...
"…the ability of incinerators to destroy hazardous wastes completely
has been drastically overestimated; in fact, incinerators are quite inefficient
at destroying chemicals that are present in low concentrations, like the
dioxins in EDC wastes".
With the real figures for a lot of VCM factories already published
years before Thornton wrote his book, this is a complete distortion of
the truth. The incinerators used to destroy liquid EDC/VCM wastes (tars)
have a special design, which allows them to reach at least 1200 (up to
1500) ºC, far higher than any solid waste incinerator can reach. With
a residence time of 2 seconds, all (chloro)organics are destroyed. After
using some of the heat to fire a boiler, the off gases are quenched with
diluted HCl (hydrochloric acid), that means cooled down in a fraction of
a second, to below 200 degrees C, to prevent de novo dioxin formation.
With this type of incinerator, no dioxin-like PCBs can be detected anymore
(even not when PCBs are incinerated) and dioxins are destroyed with a 99.99%
yield. The last remaining milligrams of dioxins per year nowadays can be
captured by activated carbon, which reduces dioxin emissions to below detection
limits…
"Not all of the by-products of EDC/VCM synthesis end up in the hazardous
wastes; some escape directly into the environment. Dioxins have been detected
in wastewater discharges and air emissions from a number of EDC/VCM plants,…".
What Thornton omits is to give the real amounts. These can be found
in official surveys of dioxin emissions in a lot of Western countries.
EDC/VCM facilities are below 0.4% to air in the USA and below 0.1% to air
in Europe. Discharges to water are negligible, see Sources
of dioxins.
"…severe dioxin contamination of sediments in Italy's Venice lagoon
has been linked to an EDC/VCM manufacturing facility."
But the Greenpeace (!) report about that topic [76]
concludes:
"The evidence thus supports the following conclusions:Thus Greenpeace is a little more cautious than Thornton… For the rest, that there is historical contamination from the EDC/VCM factory can be true, but it is more important how much they emit today… And as not only organochlorines are found in the sediments, but also PAHs, heavy metals, radioactive materials,…
that parts of the Lagoon are heavily polluted;
that at least some of the pollution can be attributed to EDC/VCM manufacturing;
that this contamination can be detected in parts of the Lagoon;
and that individuals who are exposed to higher than normal doses of dioxin are at increased risk of suffering impacts on their health."
"In The Netherlands, levels of dioxins in sediment samples in the
River Rhine jump dramatically just downstream from an EDC/VCM manufacturing
plant; the levels are so high, in fact, that the majority of dioxins in
Rhine sediments downstream from the plant, all the way to the river's mouth,
and in the entire North and Wadden Seas, appear to be attributable to the
facility."
This is very rude. In a report, made by Greenpeace International,
"PVC-factories = dioxin factories" [77], Greenpeace
"proves" that the only EDC/VCM-factory in The Netherlands, in Rotterdam,
where I work, was the cause of a pollution with dioxin of the River Rhine
at km 665. Because this was 10 km south of Cologne in Germany and the named
factory was in Rotterdam at km 1015 in The Netherlands, this was impossible
(dioxins don't swim upstream!). After some more investigation, the contamination
is probably of the past, from a factory making chlorinated phenols, which
has nothing to do with PVC and which was already closed for more than ten
years. The error of the displacement was corrected by Greenpeace (without
any apology) in a later work.
Thornton again uses this false claim while he should know of the
error.
Evers, on whose work the claims of Thornton - except for the error
- are based, is now working for the government in The Netherlands. He has
made several claims about the contamination of the Rhine and the estuaries
by EDC/VCM facilities. These are proven wrong. Not only doesn't match the
"fingerprint" of the sediments, also the amounts discharged by the Rotterdam
plant are not in the Rhine itself, but at a side arm of the Rotterdam harbor,
and all dioxins deposit below the discharge pipe (where on can find historical
contamination).
Moreover, the amounts of dioxins (and other contaminants) which are
discharged, are openly published since 1989, and a copy of these environmental
reports were sent to environmental groups, including Greenpeace. The discharges
to water since 1986, when a biological waste water treatment was installed,
were below 0.01 g I-TEQ per year. Nowadays even below detection limits
as ultrafiltration should remove the last particulates where dioxins are
adhered to.
The river Rhine at the German/Dutch border carries 66 g I-TEQ dioxins
per year. At the outlet to the North Sea, it is 146 g. That can be read
in the work of Evers. All industrial dioxin discharges to water in The
Netherlands together are good for 1.3 g of that amount (of which 0.01 g
was from the VCM factory where I work). That can be read in the dioxin
inventory by TNO for the Dutch government [3],
which is known by Greenpeace International, as I have had a very fierce
discussion with the Greenpeace toxics campaigner Wytze van der Naald about
the dioxin figures of the plant where I work. And it is extensively used
by Greenpeace in their report on the Venice Lagoon [76].
As the TNO inventory was published in 1993 and the publication [1]
of Thornton for Greenpeace was in 1994, he should have known that. Either
the communication within Greenpeace is not that good (seems rather structural!)
or Thornton doesn't like the figures and deliberately omitted its existence.
Further in the UNEP inventory of dioxin releases [60],
many figures of several countries have the same message: the PVC industry
is a negligible source of dioxins to the environment. That too should have
been known by Thornton. This in itself discredits the whole book, as that
is written with the same attitude as when he was a Greenpeace toxics campaigner,
not as a scientist searching for a better understanding of the pro's and
con's of chlorine use…
You are at level two of the Chlorophiles pages
Created: Januari 1, 2002.
Life cycles of PVC and alternatives compared
European Parliament votes to protect children from phantom risks...
The report of Pat Costner about PVC and dioxins in fires.
For any comment on this or other pages, especially on phthalates:
Chlorophiles@pandora.be
