Re: Terrorism has altered the nuclear equation forever

[Stewart Farber <farbersa@optonline.net>]

Hi all:

Bill Lipton mentions that Gellman Co. was disposing of the solvent dioxane 

20 years ago by "permitted" well injection and "spray irrigation" and now 

is bearing the cost of cleanup. As well they should! A cursory check by any 

chemist or engineer at that time would have raised warning flags that 

dioxane solvent was much too toxic for such casual disposal and dispersal 

in the environment.



As to what was known at the time, for two years in the late 1960s, before I 

decided to begin graduate studies in Public Health, I worked as an R&D 

Chemist involved with solvent based coatings. I found one of the common 

solvents used to be dioxane, a good solvent for many organic compounds and 

resins used in coating formulation. As of 1968, Sax's Lab Safety Guide 

rated dioxane as causing "Permanant and irreversible kidney and liver 

damage after short exposures to small concentrations".



Nevertheless, I found workers mixing drums of coating formulations without 

respiratory protection, washing out 55 gallon stainless steel mixing 

barrels and plant machinery coating drums with dioxane soaked cloths, with 

their heads repeatedly inside the barrels.



When I raised the toxicity of dioxane in a plant Safety Committee meeting, 

after being asked to serve on it, and read the information from Sax's Lab 

Safety Guide into the record in regard to improving respiratory protection, 

 I was warned afterwards by a company VP never to do anything like that 

again at risk of my job. So much for safety, especially my job [employment] 

safety. The turning point in my young chemist's career came shortly after 

when I asked the Technical Director of this company a question that 

concerned me: "What's going to happen when these workers come down with 

kidney and liver damage after decades of exposure to these solvents?". The 

Technical Director doubled over with laughter, tears in his eyes. When he 

regained his exposure his answer was: "Well then we fire them." Seemed like 

something right out of Charles Dickens' 19th Century London.



At that time I decided to pursue graduate studies in Public Health and Air 

Pollution Control. When I subsequently got involved in radiation protection 

and environmental radiation monitoring around nuclear  plants in 1972, I 

always felt that worker protection to radiation exposure was infinitely 

better controlled, and the risks well bounded at low levels, vs. the 

unquantified and often very large risks workers faced to chemical exposure 

[and other hazards] in countless other industries.



Stewart Farber, MS Public Health UMass School of Public Health '72



 On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:53:39 -0500, William V Lipton 

<liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> wrote:



> I'm note sure why people think that the government discriminates against 

> radioactive material, compared to other hazardous materials.  I find that 

> the EPA's RCRA, CERCLA, and TSCA regulation is much more prescriptive and 

> punitive.  EPA levies substantial penalties, even for nonwillful 

> violations.  NRC fines for other than power reactor licensees are a joke. 

> CERCLA cleanups are at least as difficult as NRC decommissioning.

>

> I'd like to point out one example.  Pall (formerly Gellman) filters is 

> located near me, in Ann Arbor, MI.  Approximately 20 years, ago, they 

> disposed of a chemical, dioxane, (not dioxin) by permitted well injection 

> and spray irrigation; nothing illegal.  Later, the plume was found to be 

> migrating toward downtown Ann Arbor.  They've been spending ~ $1E6/year 

> on cleanup, with no end in sight.

>

> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

> It's not about dose, it's about trust.

> Curies forever.

>

> Bill Lipton

> liptonw@dteenergy.com

>

> BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:

>

>> Thank you, Dr. Weiner.  Good points all.  If the public wants to 

>> eliminate the risks posed by radiation and radioactive materials, then 

>> the regulators and standard-setting agencies need to "harmonize" those 

>> risks across all hazardous materials present in our environment and 

>> traded in everyday commerce, rather than "discriminate" against 

>> radioactive materials (and only those man-made, to boot), simply because 

>> Hollywood has demonized them...................--

 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/