12-11-2007, 07:56 AM
Last things first.
About the source/validity of the NELHA proposal. The first I had heard of this was when Aaron forwarded Mayor Kim's letter to me. From the kind of words Harry had to say, it seems that he knows about this specific proposal; so, I reckon it is for real.
Now, first principles.
Re-duction and recycling knowledge -- if you will, the 'art and science' there of -- has dramatically increased in the past 10 years; and continues to do so. It is simply not true that a long-term need for landfills or incinerators is inevitable.
In January I will be visiting a community in New Zealand where only 10% of materials go to the landfill; the other 90% is re-used or recycled. Most importantly, successful measures have been taken to reduce trash. (There are no incinerators in New Zealand.
Now, as for mining the landfill to burn.
Nowhere in my research, is there any mention of incinerators being used to burn materials mined from landfills. This is just not what is done nor what is proposed in Hilo -- nothing close to it.
A "clean" incinerator? Only the people who sell them, or someone who has never carefully researched them (e.g., Harry Kim), would tell you that there is such a thing. (I'll post "clean incinerator" to the 'oxymoron' thread!).
Some people do not see black smoke from the stack, so they reckon all is well. Not so. Dioxin, mercury, cadmium, lead -- all know pollutants from incinerators -- are not in 'black smoke.' In fact, a real hazard is bio-accumulation -- little by little, over the years, more and more gets into the soil, water, fish, papayas, meat, and then anything or anyone that eats or drinks the local food and water.
Will EPA regulations protect us? Aside from whether or not you want to trust the Federal Government, history shows these regulations do not protect. On several occasions incinerators have violated emissions and other regulations. On some occasions these facilities were shut down (permanently or temporarily). More typically, the operator is fined and the burning goes on. Still, neither shutdowns nor fines succeeded in keeping the toxins out of the environmentof the communities; and neither shutdowns nor fines made the toxins disappear from the environment.
The new 'state-of-the-art' technology? It works well in a lab, and hypothetically, it works on the ground. To be safe this equiment must work properly 24/7, for 2 or 3 decades. Does any machine do that? Not that I have seen. The most common problem is that the (non-resident) incinerator operators cut corners to save $ and then the equipment malfunctions; and the local government ends up spending $ to repair it.
Critical: malfunctions and operator negligence in these facilities have very well known consequences -- exposure of the population to known carcinogens and lethal substances.
Again, the info I have is too voluminous to post here (any ideas Rob? or anyone else?).
The most important question: Is WTE the best we can do? My position -- based on extensive research -- is an unqualified NO!
Some weeks ago, I offered to debate the Mayor, anyone from his administration, or any resident of this island using formal debate format and in a public forum, with me taking the opposing side of this proposition (straqight from the Mayor's own mouth": "The proposed WTE facility is the best option for Council to fund."
That offer still stands. Any takers?
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
About the source/validity of the NELHA proposal. The first I had heard of this was when Aaron forwarded Mayor Kim's letter to me. From the kind of words Harry had to say, it seems that he knows about this specific proposal; so, I reckon it is for real.
Now, first principles.
Re-duction and recycling knowledge -- if you will, the 'art and science' there of -- has dramatically increased in the past 10 years; and continues to do so. It is simply not true that a long-term need for landfills or incinerators is inevitable.
In January I will be visiting a community in New Zealand where only 10% of materials go to the landfill; the other 90% is re-used or recycled. Most importantly, successful measures have been taken to reduce trash. (There are no incinerators in New Zealand.
Now, as for mining the landfill to burn.
Nowhere in my research, is there any mention of incinerators being used to burn materials mined from landfills. This is just not what is done nor what is proposed in Hilo -- nothing close to it.
A "clean" incinerator? Only the people who sell them, or someone who has never carefully researched them (e.g., Harry Kim), would tell you that there is such a thing. (I'll post "clean incinerator" to the 'oxymoron' thread!).
Some people do not see black smoke from the stack, so they reckon all is well. Not so. Dioxin, mercury, cadmium, lead -- all know pollutants from incinerators -- are not in 'black smoke.' In fact, a real hazard is bio-accumulation -- little by little, over the years, more and more gets into the soil, water, fish, papayas, meat, and then anything or anyone that eats or drinks the local food and water.
Will EPA regulations protect us? Aside from whether or not you want to trust the Federal Government, history shows these regulations do not protect. On several occasions incinerators have violated emissions and other regulations. On some occasions these facilities were shut down (permanently or temporarily). More typically, the operator is fined and the burning goes on. Still, neither shutdowns nor fines succeeded in keeping the toxins out of the environmentof the communities; and neither shutdowns nor fines made the toxins disappear from the environment.
The new 'state-of-the-art' technology? It works well in a lab, and hypothetically, it works on the ground. To be safe this equiment must work properly 24/7, for 2 or 3 decades. Does any machine do that? Not that I have seen. The most common problem is that the (non-resident) incinerator operators cut corners to save $ and then the equipment malfunctions; and the local government ends up spending $ to repair it.
Critical: malfunctions and operator negligence in these facilities have very well known consequences -- exposure of the population to known carcinogens and lethal substances.
Again, the info I have is too voluminous to post here (any ideas Rob? or anyone else?).
The most important question: Is WTE the best we can do? My position -- based on extensive research -- is an unqualified NO!
Some weeks ago, I offered to debate the Mayor, anyone from his administration, or any resident of this island using formal debate format and in a public forum, with me taking the opposing side of this proposition (straqight from the Mayor's own mouth": "The proposed WTE facility is the best option for Council to fund."
That offer still stands. Any takers?
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park