🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Al,

Welcome to <bionet.toxicology>.  I followed your wisdom, certainly at a 
distance, in <sci.chemistry>.  This newsgroup is a bit more sedate than 
those raving chemists.  Anyway...

Your comments about inceration are well taken.  However, there are 
regulations of BIFS (Boilers and Industrial Furnances) that burn wastes 
which in time will require IRAs (Indirect Risk Assessments) which smaller 
companies will not be able to afford.  In all fairness, unless the the 
combustion is efficient and dioxin emission are kept at a minimum, one 
has converted one problem (solid hazardous waste) into another (air 
emission toxics).  If you offer as a solution, consolidated incinerators, 
i.e., those that are operated efficiently to allow complete combustion or 
incinerators that would operate like a utility then maybe ther might be a 
solution.  But we will still have the regulatory issues and politics to 
deal with.

Jack Budny
jabudny@earthlink.net

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>L.Mar@mailbox.uq.oz.au (Leon Mar) wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>I'm doing an essay on toxic waste management, though the subject has
>>interested me extremely. What do you think?
>>
>>Should toxic waste be disposed of through high temperature 
>>incineration? 
>>
>>If so, should a high temperature incinerator be built in Australia -
>>where?
>>
>>Or are there any other solutions to this controversial problem?
>
>There will always be toxic waste - industrial, radiological, biological, 
>medical, and whatnot.  The question is one of what to do with it as a 
>real world solution (as opposed to political or religious, which have 
>poor track records).
>
>Incineration has the wonderful advantage (except for radiological waste, 
>of course) of reducing volume by 90+% and leaving nothing but inorganics, 
>plus producing co-generation energy to help pay for itself.  Exhaust 
>scrubbing technology is mature.  Build the things on the coast where the 
>prevailing winds are out to sea.  The solution to pollution is dilution 
>(as long as the objectionable species are reactive - not polychlorinated 
>hydrocarbons or aromatics).
>
>Add a designated national landfill out in the desiccated middle of 
>nowhere, dug deep and huge, perhaps lined with geotextile for drainage 
>control.  You cannot avoid waste, but you can redcue it, corral it and 
>put it in one place with a big sign:  If You Enter Here You Will Die.  
>Sacrifce 100 square miles of desert to preserve the other 7,686,748 
>square miles of the Commonwealth of Australia.  It makes sense to me.  
>(And the leachate from the ash and other stuff, if any, might be rich 
>enough in strategic metals to be worht mining.)
>
>An alternative is the US model:  30,000+ waste dumps, 2500 SuperFund 
>sites (and about 150 "remediated" to date), about $10 billion in 
>litigation, illegal dumping, Environmentalist hysteria... and massive 
>contamination.
>
>Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic in direct opposition 
>to progress in its every form
>
>Mediocrity is a vice of the doomed.
>
>-- 
>Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
>UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com  ("zero" before @)
>http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL!  Hazardous to children, Liberals, and most mammals.)
>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
>
>