🚀 go-pugleaf

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!

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!
>
>

An American company (Molten Metals, MLTN on the NY exchange)
is reducing waste by submerging it in molten metals (naturally). It
might provide you some further insight.

In article <4oqhgc$qud@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, 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?
[snip]

> > 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).
> 
[snip]

-- 
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA

I take a long view of the stock market.
Unfortunately I'm nearsighted.

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?
> 
> Thanks, please reply by email if possible.
> Jess	The solution is a combination of many steps. Finding alternate 
processes to reduce or elimante production of toxic waste along with 
finding different methods of de-toxifying the stuff we cannot find a 
substitute for. There has been research on using electric arc furnaces to 
incinerate waste and I have heard, not confirmed, that the output is 
non-hazardous for everthing except radioactive materials. Apparently the 
temperature and charge reduces the molecules to their atomic components. 
For radioactive waste, an Integral Fast Reactor can be used to change 
isotopes into ones that either decay faster, have a less harmful 
radiation (beta) or are stable.
	The main problem I can see is that public opinion and politics 
run enviromental protection agencies instead of sound scientific 
investigation. CFCs, acid rain, DDT, asbestos are all examples of public 
opinion being swayed by scientific work that hadn't passed thru the peer 
review and was found to be flawed at a later date. Education, common 
sense and rational thinking instead of blind panic would go a long way 
towards solving our problems. Please read/skim thru "Trashing The Planet" 
by Dixy Lee Ray, it should point you to areas to look at.

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?
> 
> Thanks, please reply by email if possible.
> Jess	The solution is a combination of many steps. Finding alternate 
processes to reduce or elimante production of toxic waste along with 
finding different methods of de-toxifying the stuff we cannot find a 
substitute for. There has been research on using electric arc furnaces to 
incinerate waste and I have heard, not confirmed, that the output is 
non-hazardous for everthing except radioactive materials. Apparently the 
temperature and charge reduces the molecules to their atomic components. 
For radioactive waste, an Integral Fast Reactor can be used to change 
isotopes into ones that either decay faster, have a less harmful 
radiation (beta) or are stable.
	The main problem I can see is that public opinion and politics 
run enviromental protection agencies instead of sound scientific 
investigation. CFCs, acid rain, DDT, asbestos are all examples of public 
opinion being swayed by scientific work that hadn't passed thru the peer 
review and was found to be flawed at a later date. Education, common 
sense and rational thinking instead of blind panic would go a long way 
towards solving our problems.

Carl Porter <3CAP@MSG.TI.COM> wrote:
>Leon Mar wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I'm doing an essay on toxic waste management, though the subject has
>> interested me extremely. What do you think?
snip
>> 
>> Or are there any other solutions to this controversial problem?
>> 
>> Thanks, please reply by email if possible.

snip
>	The main problem I can see is that public opinion and politics 
>run enviromental protection agencies instead of sound scientific 
>investigation. CFCs, acid rain, DDT, asbestos are all examples of public 
>opinion being swayed by scientific work that hadn't passed thru the peer 
>review and was found to be flawed at a later date. Education, common 
>sense and rational thinking instead of blind panic would go a long way 
>towards solving our problems.

Are you saying acid rain and inhaled asbestos fibres are not harmful?  

Please provide peer-reviewed references in support, if this is what you 
mean. 

-----------------------------------------------
All opinions here are mine, not my company's.

Chris Allen     allen.chris.ca@bhp.com.au 
Senior Project Geologist   BHP Steel LPD, Whyalla SA  5600 Australia

If biohazardous waste is included in the definition "toxic waste" you are 
advised that the Matrix System of disposal of such waste is going into 
service in Cairns next month and will be disposing of the Cairns Base 
Hospital output.It does not rely on incineration but produces a inert 
disinfected odourless unrecogniseable mass within minutes which can be 
stored on-site without any problem pending removal to ordinary 
landfill.And it does it cheaply compared with any other process other 
than no treatment at all. And it was invented and developed in 
Australia-Cairns to wit.And it does about 80% volume reduction. As for 
the rest what about that company on the Gold Coast which I think was just 
bought up by an Asian company. Then there's the Brisbane company which 
makes short work of tyres...

Perhaps I missed something, but I interpreted the original post to imply 
that the priorities for addressing environmental issues may not in line 
with their relative seriousness.  I must admit that my interpretation may 
have been slightly influenced by some material that I've been reading 
from a download I carried out recently on priorities of superfund site 
attention and in general public policy for regulating health risks.

There are two good documents that are worth looking at and they may 
important to the original post.  These may be found and downloaded at:

<ftp://cais.com>
If you are requested for a password, use your email address.
Once at the site, change directory to </pub/milloy>

The two files are "choices" and "sbra", which stands for Science Based 
Risk Assessment.

John A. Budny
jabudny@earthlink.net



Chris Allen <allen.chris.ca@bhp.com.au> wrote:
>
>Carl Porter <3CAP@MSG.TI.COM> wrote:
>>Leon Mar wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> I'm doing an essay on toxic waste management, though the subject has
>>> interested me extremely. What do you think?
>snip
>>> 
>>> Or are there any other solutions to this controversial problem?
>>> 
>>> Thanks, please reply by email if possible.
>
>snip
>>	The main problem I can see is that public opinion and politics 
>>run enviromental protection agencies instead of sound scientific 
>>investigation. CFCs, acid rain, DDT, asbestos are all examples of public 
>>opinion being swayed by scientific work that hadn't passed thru the peer 
>>review and was found to be flawed at a later date. Education, common 
>>sense and rational thinking instead of blind panic would go a long way 
>>towards solving our problems.
>
>Are you saying acid rain and inhaled asbestos fibres are not harmful?  
>
>Please provide peer-reviewed references in support, if this is what you 
>mean. 
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>All opinions here are mine, not my company's.
>
>Chris Allen     allen.chris.ca@bhp.com.au 
>Senior Project Geologist   BHP Steel LPD, Whyalla SA  5600 Australia
>
>

Discussions about toxic waste and comments of Chris Allen 
and Carl Porter open a fundamental issue that exceeds bounds 
of chemical risks.
 I think that in front of hazards, whatever the hazard I talk, there is
not an only answer. And, for me an only answer is often more
dangerous than � no answer �.
I have a true exemple out of chemical risks, out of my work but
among my know-how.
October 3th, 1998 town of Nimes (France) was flooded when a 
big rain fell. But it didn�t reveal that, above the town, three dams in
soil did break and make worse the flood.
To day, the same consulting firm who designed two of these three
dams, propose more than twenty dams always dry, above the town.
All other answers have been dismissed, such as small tunnels
(galleries), making easy free flow, agricultural planning above
the town, miscellaneous developments in town,....
Why? This point can be raised and answer could be published 
by Canard Enchaine, a satirical french newspaper.
One answer is dangerous.
So, I agree phrase of Carl porter when he says:

> The solution is a combination of many steps.

And I add that prevention, forecast, prediction (out of astrology!),
multidisciplinary system, are better than condolences after accident.

Lucien COSTE
attache (cum a little research) risks and environment
teacher in natural hazards and risks