The first covers the release of Theo Coburns book 'Our Stolen
Future'
The second is a call of Greenpeace to the City of Toronto, to
ban PVC pipes in drinking water supplies and waste water drainage at a
hearing on March, 25.
The tird is the last attempt to convince the City of Toronto to ban
PVC and covers the release of the Greenpeace report 'Taking back our stolen
future'.
The last is a Greenpeace-style story to hide that they lost the battle...
To all the same answer applies.
Based on facts and figures, measured by governemental dioxin inventories in The Netherlands and Flanders (the North of Belgium) and estimates in the US/Canada (see sources of dioxins) you can conclude that:
The amount of dioxins, really emitted to the environment by a factory, producing hundredthousands tonnes of chlorine and PVC per year, is as low as what one (Greenpeace-)ship releases during a working year. The release of other (non) persistent, carcinogenic toxics is less than what one single truck emits as soot. Not a reason for Greenpeace to use sailboats instead of their heavely polluting ships, neither to stop all traffic.
The release of dioxins by steel manufacturing, namely from the sintering of iron ore, is fifty to hundreds of times higher than from alle chlorine and chlorine related factories together. The same is true for the use of wood in wood stoves and open fire places. No reason for Greenpeace to ask for a ban on steel uses, neither to use alternative materials for their steel ships, nor to start actions against the use of wood for heating.
The amount of dioxins, released by the production and/or recycling of equal quantities of glass, wood (furniture), steel, aluminium, copper, etc... is in many cases higher than of the production, use, recycling, disposal and (accidental) fire of PVC. Not a reason for Greenpeace to ask for a ban on all these materials...
There is no relation between the amount of chlorine in a material and the amount of dioxins, released when burned or incinerated. Only the quality of incineration matters. An accidental fire of hundreds of tonnes PVC and PVC-containing materials emits less dioxins than the use of equal amounts of fuel in a (Greenpeace-) ship, although PVC contains more than 500,000 times more chlorine.
Greenpeace 'forgets' to mention that the phtalate family is abundant in nature: you ingest much more phthalates with vegetables like sellery and lovage (levisticum officinale) than with PVC...
Greenpeace 'forgets' to mention that some possible hormone disruptors, like octyl- and nonylphenol are used in higher quantities in all plastics as anti-oxydant and in very large quantities in detergents, not a reason for Greenpeace to ask for a ban on all plastics or the detergent or petrochemical industry.
Greenpeace also 'forgets' to mention the scientific evidence, not only that wooddust is a rather potent human carcinogen, but also that natural remainders of wood are responsible for the change of behaviour of fish into the other sexe at the effluent of paper works (if they use chlorine or not or don't bleach at all!). Not a reason for Greenpeace to ask for a ban on wood and paper and for a change toward (environmental) safer alternatives like PVC.
Greenpeace 'forgets' to mention that the synthetic pyrethroids are found to have possible oestrogenic properties. We are waiting for an investigation of the by biological gardeners - myself included - widely used natural pyrethroids.
If any further research should discover that phthalates do have any unwanted effect at the doses ingested by the use of soft PVC, they should be replaced, which can be done - with some investigation - by other products like adipates, which do not contain a phenolic group, the common factor in nearly all (possible) hormonal active substances.
Rigid PVC as it is used in pipes, windowframes and mineral water bottles doesn't contain phthalates or other softeners.
Greenpeace uses the story of Theo Colburn, 'Our Stolen Future' to point to PVC as THE main hormone disrupter. For that occasion the submitted a new report, 'Taking back our Stolen Future'. That report is so overdone to point only to PVC, that it cannot be taken serious.
All this evidence can be found (or will be found when ready) on the Chlorophiles pages and in the scientific reports, where the Chlorophiles pages are based on.
You are at level one of the Chlorophiles answer pages.
Created: March 14, 1996.
Last update: February 22, 2002.
PVC and the Dusseldorf Airport fire
Before you react on this reaction on Greenpeace, please read the page on Greenpeace and chlorine, maybe you will understand why.
For all other comment on the Chlorophiles pages:
chlorophiles@pandora.be
