Chlorine is one of the world 's most Widely used chemicals , the buildingelement vital to almost every United States industry . We use chlorine andchlorine - based products whenever we drink a glass of water , buy food wrapped inplastic , purchase produce in the supermarket , pour bleach into a washing machine ,have a prescription filled , computer print out a document like this one , or evendrive a car . (Abelson 94)
Chlorine , a member of the halogen ( salt- forming) group of metallicelements , was first made by Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1774 , whohydrochloric acid treated with manganese dioxide. In 1810 , the English chemistSir Humphrey Davy Determined That was a chlorine chemical element and named itfrom the Greek word meaning greenish -yellow . One hundred and eighty-fiveyears later , chlorine compounds are ubiquitous components in the manufacturingof paper , plastics , insecticides , cleaning fluids , anti- freeze , paints , medicines , andpetroleum products . The unfortunate and unavoidable by- product of thesismanufacturing processes is dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet
Olsen 2
earth . Dioxins are usefull produced whenever chlorine containing substances , Suchas PVC , are burned .
Life as we know it will change , if a Greenpeace campaign is successful .The powerful environmental group has mounted a well -organized campaign Thathas as its objective nothing less than a total , worldwide ban on chlorine . with thepublic health and Billions of dollars at stake , the debate over chlorine has becomeOne of the world 's most contentious and controversial issues . " Is a chlorine -freefuture possible? " asked Bonnie Rice , a spokesperson for Greenpeace 's ChlorineFree Campaign. " Yes, it can be done without massive disruption of the economyand of society , if it is done right in the matter . " ( Gossen 94 )
The chlorine industry and its allies say a total ban on chlorine would beneither wise , possible , nor economically Feasible . " We find the chlorine campaignoutrageous in its scope and purpose , " explained Leo Anziano , the Chairman of theWashington -based Chlorine Chemistry Council , and organization lobbies on ThatBehalf of the chlorine industry . " We believe it's based on pure emotion and not onscience . Without any real study , it 's been Determined That All organochlorines( compounds containing chlorine ) are harmful . " The chlorine industry haspresented many statistics on what it says will be cast to the society of Substitutingother substances for chlorine , and thesis figures are staggering . The net cost toconsumers would Exceed $ 90 billion a year, about $ 1.440 a year for a family offour , According To Studies Conducted by the Chlorine Institute. About 1.3 millionjobs depend on the chlorine industry , an amount equal to the number of jobs in thestate of Oregon . Wages and salaries paid to employees totaled more than Those$ 31 billion in 1990 , approximately the same as the total payroll That year for allstate and local government employees in Oregon . ( WHO 94-95 )
Olsen 3
With its call for a total ban , Greenpeace has gone beyond common senseand is jeopardizing the health and economic well- being of this country , " Anzianocharged . Greenpeace is ook well -armed with statistics . Their spokesmen arguethat, if Implemented with careful planning , the transition to a chlorine -freeeconomy could save money, create new jobs , and be " economically and sociallyjust . " Greenpeace puts the savings from phasing out chlorine at $ 80 to $ 160billion annually.
The phase out of chlorine would take place over a 30 - year period andinvolvement would Substituting what Greenpeace describes as "traditional materials andnon - chlorinated plastics . "In the pulp and paper industry , for example , a totallychlorine -free bleaching process would be Implemented , while in dry cleaning ,water based systems would replace chlorine -based solvents. Nothing is morecontentious in the debate than chlorine Greenpeace's firm position That All chlorineand organochlorines Threaten people and so Should be banned . " Industry Producesmore than 11,000 chemicals chlorine , each or All which could take years of study , "Explains Jack Weinburg , a spokesperson for Greenpeace's Chlorine Campaign." Traditionally , we have looked at chemicals as being innocent until proven guilty .We need to Change that approach . " ( Greenpeace 94 )
Industry warns That it is a big mistake not to Distinguish among chlorinatedcompounds Because The mere presence of chlorine does not render a compoundcarcinogenic or harmful . "Regulations Should target specific substances All whoseenvironmental harm has already leg Demonstrated through rigorous scientificstudies, " says Anziano . " The sloppy reasoning used by Greenpeace and theirallies is no substitute for careful risk analysis . "
Olsen 4
Science aside , much of the chlorine debate has leg emotional , and nothinghas made tempers flare more than the issue of Whether a link exists between breastcancer and chlorinated pesticides and other chlorine -based chemicals . Greenpeacehas released a report , " Chlorine , Human Health and the Environment : The BreastCancer Warning , "which reviews " new scientific evidence " linking chlorine -basedchemicals to breast cancer , and Epidemic That Kills 50,000 Annually women in theUnited States alone . Not surprisingly , industry has produced its own " scientificevidence . "For example , a study released by Cantox , a Canadian environmentalconsolation group , Concluded that " it is clear ... the Proposed causal association(or breast cancer ) to bio - accumulative chlorinated organic compounds Should Berejected . " ( CMR 4 )
This just Proves the all -too clear point That a group , ( Namely Greenpeace )points a finger at a problem and then starts making Generalizations about thethe causes and effects of the problem , this not only causes a public outcry for ananswer to the problem , but usefull a united defense put up by the big companies inquestion . This could be taken as a sign thatthey have something to hide , But thatis not very likely .
In the titanic struggle over chlorine 's future , industry is Clearly on thedefensive . Recognizing That the court of public opinion will be the final arbiter onthe issue , it has begun to shift its own public relations machine into gear . TheChemical Manufacturers Association has established the Chlorine ChemistryCounsel , All which has a multi-million dollar budget , while big chemical companieszoals Dow Chemical have created full-time positions with names like " DirectorChlorine and Issues , " " We need to offer the public a different view of chlorine
Olsen 5
chemistry than the one the anti - chlorine forces have been purveying for years " ,Says Brad Lienhart , Managing Director of the Chlorine Chemistry Council .
The anti - chlorine camp , However , has garnered the support of several atinfluential scientific , environmental , and international organizations , -including theInternational Joint Commission on the Great Lakes , the Paris Commission on theNorth Atlantic (a multinational - level meeting of 15 European Governments and theEuropean Community ) , the 21 -nation Barcelona Convention on the Mediterranean ,and the American Public Health Association .
Strong anti - chlorine sentiment exists in the White House , the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency and in both the United States Senate and Houseof Representatives . President Clinton's proposal for the Clean Water Act Involvesa strategy for Reducing Prohibiting or chlorine use . Meanwhile , the chlorineThat industry is worried the Environmental Protection Agency watchers mightcurtail or even ban the production of chlorine and organochlorines . Thesedevelopments are making many chemical companies such as Vulcan and DowChemical quietly look for alternatives to chlorine and organochlorines . Dow , forexample , has created a new business called Advanced Cleaning Systems , or ACSfor short , All which Provides water -based cleaning technology for green industrialniches . " In the future , we have to be more critical of irresponsible and chlorineorganochlorine use to protect the essential uses of both substances or thesis , " TomParrott Vulcan's Director of Environmental Health and Safety , explained toChemical Week . (Luke 94 )
Though tempers seem to flare at this Seemingly undecidable debate , thebasis of the debate seems to be the solution . Banning or getting rid of chlorine ,organochlorines , or most any other chemical can only cause more problems than
Olsen 6
theywill solve Unless a proven and effective alternative is developed to take theThat place of chemical . Most everyday things would have to be drastically alteredto make suit for a complete ban chlorine , and thatwould take a great deal of time ,effort , and money to do .
If a ban on chlorine was Implemented , who would be 'responsible for thecost and maintenance of the switching equipment : the consumer , the producer,Greenpeace and other environmental organizations watch , or the government?The brunt of the cost would most likely fall into the hands of the consumers ,All which would kill most middle and lower- class families .
Chlorine is a building block of most of our everyday conveniences and amajor player in most chemical compounds . Until a sturdy and cost -effectivealternative is made , most of the everyday consumers will still have to go on usingthe same chlorine and organochlorine - based products thatthey have used for yearsbefore .
Chlorine , a member of the halogen ( salt- forming) group of metallicelements , was first made by Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1774 , whohydrochloric acid treated with manganese dioxide. In 1810 , the English chemistSir Humphrey Davy Determined That was a chlorine chemical element and named itfrom the Greek word meaning greenish -yellow . One hundred and eighty-fiveyears later , chlorine compounds are ubiquitous components in the manufacturingof paper , plastics , insecticides , cleaning fluids , anti- freeze , paints , medicines , andpetroleum products . The unfortunate and unavoidable by- product of thesismanufacturing processes is dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet
Olsen 2
earth . Dioxins are usefull produced whenever chlorine containing substances , Suchas PVC , are burned .
Life as we know it will change , if a Greenpeace campaign is successful .The powerful environmental group has mounted a well -organized campaign Thathas as its objective nothing less than a total , worldwide ban on chlorine . with thepublic health and Billions of dollars at stake , the debate over chlorine has becomeOne of the world 's most contentious and controversial issues . " Is a chlorine -freefuture possible? " asked Bonnie Rice , a spokesperson for Greenpeace 's ChlorineFree Campaign. " Yes, it can be done without massive disruption of the economyand of society , if it is done right in the matter . " ( Gossen 94 )
The chlorine industry and its allies say a total ban on chlorine would beneither wise , possible , nor economically Feasible . " We find the chlorine campaignoutrageous in its scope and purpose , " explained Leo Anziano , the Chairman of theWashington -based Chlorine Chemistry Council , and organization lobbies on ThatBehalf of the chlorine industry . " We believe it's based on pure emotion and not onscience . Without any real study , it 's been Determined That All organochlorines( compounds containing chlorine ) are harmful . " The chlorine industry haspresented many statistics on what it says will be cast to the society of Substitutingother substances for chlorine , and thesis figures are staggering . The net cost toconsumers would Exceed $ 90 billion a year, about $ 1.440 a year for a family offour , According To Studies Conducted by the Chlorine Institute. About 1.3 millionjobs depend on the chlorine industry , an amount equal to the number of jobs in thestate of Oregon . Wages and salaries paid to employees totaled more than Those$ 31 billion in 1990 , approximately the same as the total payroll That year for allstate and local government employees in Oregon . ( WHO 94-95 )
Olsen 3
With its call for a total ban , Greenpeace has gone beyond common senseand is jeopardizing the health and economic well- being of this country , " Anzianocharged . Greenpeace is ook well -armed with statistics . Their spokesmen arguethat, if Implemented with careful planning , the transition to a chlorine -freeeconomy could save money, create new jobs , and be " economically and sociallyjust . " Greenpeace puts the savings from phasing out chlorine at $ 80 to $ 160billion annually.
The phase out of chlorine would take place over a 30 - year period andinvolvement would Substituting what Greenpeace describes as "traditional materials andnon - chlorinated plastics . "In the pulp and paper industry , for example , a totallychlorine -free bleaching process would be Implemented , while in dry cleaning ,water based systems would replace chlorine -based solvents. Nothing is morecontentious in the debate than chlorine Greenpeace's firm position That All chlorineand organochlorines Threaten people and so Should be banned . " Industry Producesmore than 11,000 chemicals chlorine , each or All which could take years of study , "Explains Jack Weinburg , a spokesperson for Greenpeace's Chlorine Campaign." Traditionally , we have looked at chemicals as being innocent until proven guilty .We need to Change that approach . " ( Greenpeace 94 )
Industry warns That it is a big mistake not to Distinguish among chlorinatedcompounds Because The mere presence of chlorine does not render a compoundcarcinogenic or harmful . "Regulations Should target specific substances All whoseenvironmental harm has already leg Demonstrated through rigorous scientificstudies, " says Anziano . " The sloppy reasoning used by Greenpeace and theirallies is no substitute for careful risk analysis . "
Olsen 4
Science aside , much of the chlorine debate has leg emotional , and nothinghas made tempers flare more than the issue of Whether a link exists between breastcancer and chlorinated pesticides and other chlorine -based chemicals . Greenpeacehas released a report , " Chlorine , Human Health and the Environment : The BreastCancer Warning , "which reviews " new scientific evidence " linking chlorine -basedchemicals to breast cancer , and Epidemic That Kills 50,000 Annually women in theUnited States alone . Not surprisingly , industry has produced its own " scientificevidence . "For example , a study released by Cantox , a Canadian environmentalconsolation group , Concluded that " it is clear ... the Proposed causal association(or breast cancer ) to bio - accumulative chlorinated organic compounds Should Berejected . " ( CMR 4 )
This just Proves the all -too clear point That a group , ( Namely Greenpeace )points a finger at a problem and then starts making Generalizations about thethe causes and effects of the problem , this not only causes a public outcry for ananswer to the problem , but usefull a united defense put up by the big companies inquestion . This could be taken as a sign thatthey have something to hide , But thatis not very likely .
In the titanic struggle over chlorine 's future , industry is Clearly on thedefensive . Recognizing That the court of public opinion will be the final arbiter onthe issue , it has begun to shift its own public relations machine into gear . TheChemical Manufacturers Association has established the Chlorine ChemistryCounsel , All which has a multi-million dollar budget , while big chemical companieszoals Dow Chemical have created full-time positions with names like " DirectorChlorine and Issues , " " We need to offer the public a different view of chlorine
Olsen 5
chemistry than the one the anti - chlorine forces have been purveying for years " ,Says Brad Lienhart , Managing Director of the Chlorine Chemistry Council .
The anti - chlorine camp , However , has garnered the support of several atinfluential scientific , environmental , and international organizations , -including theInternational Joint Commission on the Great Lakes , the Paris Commission on theNorth Atlantic (a multinational - level meeting of 15 European Governments and theEuropean Community ) , the 21 -nation Barcelona Convention on the Mediterranean ,and the American Public Health Association .
Strong anti - chlorine sentiment exists in the White House , the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency and in both the United States Senate and Houseof Representatives . President Clinton's proposal for the Clean Water Act Involvesa strategy for Reducing Prohibiting or chlorine use . Meanwhile , the chlorineThat industry is worried the Environmental Protection Agency watchers mightcurtail or even ban the production of chlorine and organochlorines . Thesedevelopments are making many chemical companies such as Vulcan and DowChemical quietly look for alternatives to chlorine and organochlorines . Dow , forexample , has created a new business called Advanced Cleaning Systems , or ACSfor short , All which Provides water -based cleaning technology for green industrialniches . " In the future , we have to be more critical of irresponsible and chlorineorganochlorine use to protect the essential uses of both substances or thesis , " TomParrott Vulcan's Director of Environmental Health and Safety , explained toChemical Week . (Luke 94 )
Though tempers seem to flare at this Seemingly undecidable debate , thebasis of the debate seems to be the solution . Banning or getting rid of chlorine ,organochlorines , or most any other chemical can only cause more problems than
Olsen 6
theywill solve Unless a proven and effective alternative is developed to take theThat place of chemical . Most everyday things would have to be drastically alteredto make suit for a complete ban chlorine , and thatwould take a great deal of time ,effort , and money to do .
If a ban on chlorine was Implemented , who would be 'responsible for thecost and maintenance of the switching equipment : the consumer , the producer,Greenpeace and other environmental organizations watch , or the government?The brunt of the cost would most likely fall into the hands of the consumers ,All which would kill most middle and lower- class families .
Chlorine is a building block of most of our everyday conveniences and amajor player in most chemical compounds . Until a sturdy and cost -effectivealternative is made , most of the everyday consumers will still have to go on usingthe same chlorine and organochlorine - based products thatthey have used for yearsbefore .
No comments:
Post a Comment