Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!eci386!ecicrl!clewis
From: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Attikamek-Montagnais Protest PCB Plan
Message-ID: <672@ecicrl.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 89 23:01:48 GMT
References: <2324@yunccn.UUCP> <620791816.24086@telly.on.ca> <1989Sep5.173937.24977@utzoo.uucp> <8328@looking.on.ca> <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ferret Division, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 61

In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes:
>In article <8328@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>Are PCBs that dangerous?

>They are massively carcinogenic on contact.  They have on 'no effect
>level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to
>detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer.  On
>the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils,
>not just pure PCBs.

Misinformation.  Others have said the same thing, but I'll try to make
it very clear:

	- there is absolutely no evidence *whatsoever* that PCBs,
	  in, and of themselves, are carcinogenic or even particularly
	  harmful.  
	  
	  The only evidence relating PCB's to cancer are
	  from a chemical spill in Japan that did cause a number of
	  cancers, however, the PCBs were just one part of a chemical soup,
	  other chemicals in the glop were known extreme carcinogens (I seem 
	  to remember that one of them was a chemical that lab researchers 
	  use to induce cancer in lab animals!  "Duh yeah, that prooves
	  PCBs cause cancer").

	- Yes, PCB's bioaccumulate, and that is *not* a good thing.
	  Which is the primary reason why they're being banned - I've
	  heard that there's already something like 12,000 *tons* of
	  the stuff lost in the environment in Canada (this is not
	  including storage facilities).  Not to mention the *tons*
	  sprayed on highways over the last 30+ years.  If it was as 
	  dangerous as you say, we'd all be dead *now*.

	  However, if they can be destroyed, what's the problem?

	- Dioxins and Furans *are* extremely dangerous (which is what
	  I think you were really refering to), and can be a byproduct
	  if PCB's are incompletely burned.  Eg: fires in storage
	  dumps.... (sound familiar?)
	  
	  Thus, storing the stuff is *far* more dangerous than 
	  controlled incineration.

I think that all of the above (except, perhaps the last sentence) is
in a fairly recent issue of Harrowsmith.

There is technology *now* that can eliminate the stuff at a far
safer level than storing it indefinately.  Cement kilns can destroy
it.  Special PCB incinerators can as well.

Media hysteria and stupid environmentalists are blocking the solution to 
the problem.

[Ps: Lest one think I'm a anti-environmentalist, I'd like to point out 
that I'm a director of Save the Rouge Valley System.  Though, I am *not* 
speaking for them on this issue.]
-- 
Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc.
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis
Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-request@eci386)
Phone: (416)-294-9253