NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/can/politics/11586

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 16.6 KB | 322 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!utzoo!dciem!trigraph!briand
From: [e-mail] (Brian Dickson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: S.N.A.G.G.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:40:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Trigraph Inc.
Lines: 310
Followups-To: can.politics

In can.general you write:
   ^^^^^^^^^^^

>                      S.N.A.G.G.-ST. JOHN'S
>             SAY NO TO AMERICAN GARBAGE-ST. JOHN'S

This belongs in can.politics, at best, or more probably, in
nf.general (or whatever newfoundland's general group is.)
(It is tempting to start up ST:TNG -- say "Thbbbbthbbb" to net.garbage. ;-)

--------------

Here ends my primary complaint -- below is a partial debunking
of the posting. It is not a self-consistent rebuttal, but an attempt at
pointing out major flaws in content and style. As a sentient human, I
take offense at being told *how* to respond to what may or may not be
questionable activities.

>                         FACT SHEET

This should probably read FACTOID (and irrelevancies) SHEET, to be accurate.

>NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCE RECOVERY (NARR) is in the process of registering
>a incinerator with our Provincial Government. Registration is expected
>in the near future.

>This incinerator will burn 3500 tonnes of garbage daily. The garbage for
>this incinerator will be shipped by container from New York and possibly
>the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.

WHERE the garbage comes from is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The tonnage is certainly
impressive. But, since this is a COMMERCIAL development, how could it expect
to be profitable on a small scale? Volume is irrelevant; design is what is
critical -- is it going to function properly, is it designed to be safe,
what emissions will there be -- that is what you should be asking.
I would be more worried about a small incinerator, where it might be necessary
to cut corners to remain profitable.

>The site for this incinerator is Long Harbour, Placentia Bay on the
>Avalon Peninsula. This is 1 1/2 hrs drive from St. John's.

WHO CARES?! What are the prevailing wind patterns, and how many days out of
the year do winds blow over land from the plant?

>The site was formerly the Albright and Wilson (ERCO) phosphorus plant which
>operated for 20 years. It has yet to be cleaned up although the plant has
>been closed for several years! Years ago red herring were found near the
>phosphorus plant area in Placentia and the pollution was attributed to
>phosphorus. Recently, additional herring are being caught and these are
>being analyzed.

This line of argument is a Red Herring. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
But seriously, what does this have to do with an incinerator? Phosphorous
emmissions are in the water, right? Incinerators produce gas and solids only.

>NOTE---MR. BOB KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF NARR, IS ON LEAVE FROM ALBRIGHT AND
>WILSON FOR A 2 YEAR PERIOD.

So you are saying he is a successful businessman. BIG HAIRY DEAL.

>The Avalon peninsula is the most densely populated part of the province
>with approximately 300,000 people, roughly half of the population of the
>province.

That doesn't mean that any industry in the area is more likely to have
emmissions, only that the consequences of such emmissions are more likely
to be noticed.

>The Avalon is very rich in natural resources and attracts many tourists.
>Here are some examples-- St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, the 2nd largest
>gannet(bird) colony in North America; Avalon Wilderness Area; Avalon
>Caribou Herd; Salmonier Nature Park; Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve;
>Witless Bay Ecological Reserve; Manuels River Historical Society; Castle
>Hill Historical Park. There are many more as well.

Sounds delightful. But tourists bring garbage with them, garbage that needs
to be disposed of. Have you ever seen a landfill site?

>Both provincial opposition parties (PC/NDP) have publicly and formally come
>out against this project. Our government (Liberal) has yet to provide its'
>position.

You are talking about professional politicians. These people will slit their
grandmothers throats if it will get them elected. Well, maybe I exaggerate.
But give them the opportunity, and they might bug the opposition's national
re-election headquarters. And they are certainly not above lying.

Think about it -- they have an issue. If nothing bad happens, no one
will remember them saying that it was a bad idea, but if something goes
wrong, they get to say, "I told you so!", and make a gain in the polls.
And if the Liberals back down, that is a political coup. Clearly, being
against anything the party in power does, is a no-lose situation.


>ACOA ( Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ) has funded NARR $937,000
>for a feasibility study which is being done by Dames and Moore Canada.

Would you rather have an incinerator come online with no studies about
its potential impact on the environment?!?

>NOTE-- [JOHN CROSBIE IS THE FEDERAL MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR ACOA. LONG
>HARBOUR IS IN HIS DISTRICT, ST. JOHN'S WEST.

Is John Crosbie a shareholder in NARR? I though not.

>The company claims that 150 jobs will be created but haven't confirmed this
>. We are told 40 at the most.

Socialist fallacy #493: companies exist to employ people. WRONG. Companies
exist to market products and supply services, where there is a demand. They
make money in the process. In order to make products and perform services,
they often have employees. It doesn't matter how many or how few employees
are necessary to run a company. If the market demand is strong enough, a
company may expand, or competitors may start up. If there isn't enough
demand, the company will scale down or fold.


>                          S.N.A.G.G.

>The SAY NO TO AMERICAN GARBAGE GROUP stands unconditionally against the
>importation and incineration of garbage as proposed by North American
>Resource Recovery or any other agency.

You start out saying that SNAGG is in opposition to the project, but not
WHY. IS there a reason? Fear is a very poor motivator -- ignorance and
prejudice (== pre-judgement) have been the foundations of many atrocities
throughout history.

How does the group feel about domestic garbage? Do they support exporting
garbage from Canada? From Newfoundland? From their own town? Do they support
or oppose municipal garbage collection? All garbage has to come from somewhere,
and once it exists, has to exist somewhere or be destroyed somewhere. Is
SNAGG a garbage rights group? Or perhaps SNAGG wants the garbage taken out
of the NAFTA? ;-)

>S.N.A.G.G. is pleased to be an active member of the Coalition Against
>Incineration and offers its full support to other organizations as follows-
>---ACTION ENVIRONMENT NFLD & LAB; ASSOCIATION FOR ADULT EDUCATION; NLFD-LAB
>PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION; NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR WILDLIFE ASSOC;
>EXTENSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO-OP; NFLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION;
>ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED NURSES OF NEWFOUNDLAND; IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
>COUNCIL OF THE CATHOLIC WOMEN'S LEAGUE; TRINITY CONCEPTION COMMUNITY
>FUTURES; HOSPITALITY NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR.
>All of these associations have lodged formal opposition to the project.

However, none of these groups officially supports SNAGG. There's no such thing
as support by association. And since SNAGG doesn't speak for CAI, why
mention these other groups?

>We are against this project because of our concern for the preservation of
>this island and its air, soil, and water and therefore the health and
>dignity of its inhabitants.

Would it not make more sense to pressure the government to bring in strong,
but not prohibitive, regulations regarding emmissions, and pressure the
government to require licenses, closely monitor NARR, and revoke its
license whenever it breaks regulations, with a stiff fine and imprisonment
the penalty for operating without a license?

The basic premise is, if NARR can do its business in a safe manner, where
safe is defined in the most conservative manner realistically possible,
then they will. If they cannot, the will go elsewhere. Don't make enemies
out of NARR, make them allies -- and pressure them to Do The Right Thing.

>We stand together in the firm belief that the negative impact of this
>proposal will far outweigh any possible benefits that could be derived from
>such a ludicrous initiative and we call on the government of this province
>to reject this project immediately. We feel there is no excuse for ANY
>POLITICIAN OR BUREAUCRAT to be undecided about this proposal for lack of
>information and we demand that the members of our government inform the
>public of their individual and collective position in relation to  this
>issue.

Beliefs are the basis of religion. Science allows us to analyze and predict.
Any design must be scrutinized by independent groups, to determine its
safety, both in terms of normal operating conditions and in failure modes.
Final design, if approved, must be tested to confirm predictions. Safe
handling of hazardous products is possible, but doesn't happen by accident.
Any rejection of a proposal without examining the proposal in detail is
simply nay-saying, the simple, closed-minded rejection of the technologically
naive, a mob-mentality which is the first step down the road to fascism.

>We think there is no justification for wasting taxpayer's dollars on an
>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY and strongly oppose this tacit admission of the
>project's continuation against the will of the majority of Newfoundlanders.

Obviously. If you reject the proposal out of hand, any study results will
fall on deaf ears. Good golly, they might actually PROVE that the thing is
safe. Why would you want reality to contradict your beliefs? "We might be
wrong, but if we are, we don't want anyone to tell us."

>We are furthermore outraged by the $937.500.00 of federal tax dollars that
>ACOA  has granted to NARR to promote this project. This funding would be
>much better directed  to projects such as intensifying the Long Harbour
>cleanup, initiating or assisting recycling and/or composting developments,
>or providing support to a comprehensive waste management program. It is
>our position that we should be looking towards long term developments for
>this province. The tourism industry is a growing component in our economy,
>and we feel that developments such as this will be detrimental to further
>growth in this area.

>At time when all peoples of this planet must be considered global citizens
>and awareness concerning environmental issues is dramatically rising, the
>provincial and federal governments should realize that the Long Harbour
>incinerator project is not a step in the right direction.

This really takes the cake. You argue that Americans should keep their
own garbage, yet talk about "global citizens". Does the left brain know
what the right is saying???

>Those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are not concerned with the
>importance of this issue must be made aware of the magnitude of this
>proposal and the consequences to our collective health and well being that
>will result from a facility such as the one proposed. As an island people
>(for the most part) we must realize that these projects are targeted for
>economically depressed and somewhat isolated areas where acceptance by the
>people is easier to achieve, and where opposition, in terms of numbers, is
>more easily ignored. It is intolerable to consider that we are first on the
>list of target dump sites because of our need for employment and the
>facilities that we have to offer. These `facilities' are nothing more than
>our land, sea and air.

I thought this was about Incinerators, not Dumps. You talk of consequences,
yet out-of-hand reject any federal studies on these consequences. You complain
of the ignorance of Islanders, yet provide nothing but rhetoric, where real,
solid, verifiable information is what is called for. Make up your mind.

>The obvious question that must be posed by every thinking member of Nfld &
>Lab is "If this project is so environmentally safe and economically
>beneficial, why would a company want to go through the extra expense and
>trouble of transporting waste here?"

Could it be, that the construction of facilities is somewhat exhorbitant, and
that by converting a disused facility, they avoid that initial cost, and in
the process, convert a loss (of income, due to phosphorous consumption
worldwide plummetting due to environmental concerns (which, BTW, I happen to
agree with)) into a gain? Could it be, that by building a single site, capable
of incinerating enormous quantities, rather than dozens of smaller sites, they
can reduce their overhead? Have you considered that by reducing the *number*
of such facilities, each can come under much closer scrutiny, and the chances
of individual failures diminishes with the number of sites?

>S.N.A.G.G. notes that part of the answer to that question is quite obvious-
>- THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RESIDUE FROM SUCH A FACILITY SUCH AS THIS --UP
>TO 1200 TONNES PER DAY OF BOTTOM ASH, FLY ASH, AND PARTICULAR MATTER, ALL
>OF IT CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS WASTE-- is virtually impossible to dispose of
>properly. Eventually, problems with the soil, air , water and wildlife will
>develop which in turn will result in problems with us, the people. This is
>the reason that the province of Ontario has banned future incineration
>projects and part of the reason why we should as well.

Whoa, where did this come from? You cite no references -- in fact, the study
which would quantify the output from this site is one of the things you oppose.
Have you asked NARR what they plan to do with this waste? If the province
regulates, rather than bans, disposal of this waste, then there should be no
problem. Allowing industry to exist provides it an incentive to develop safe
disposal techniques. If an industry is banned, how can it improve?

Note also, that what gets classified as "hazardous" is not necessarily
guaranteed to be harmful -- lots of seemingly inoccuous substances are
classified as hazardous. Ask for a list of hazardous substances from the
appropriate ministry sometime. While you're at it, ask for a list of other
categories, e.g. "toxic". How many are there?

Ontario is run by a socialist (some would say communist) regime. Incinerators
(or any other industry) can only ever be banned for political reasons. It is
possible to regulate something out of existence, *if* it is hazardous. If it
isn't, then why ban it, except when caving in to public fears based on
misinformation?

>Incineration is not a technology that resolves the waste crisis we should
>welcome solutions that attack the problem at its root--refusing, reducing,
>refusing, recycling and composting if the benefits of clean air and water
>are to be preserved for the present and future generations of this island.

We are not in a waste crisis. The environment will not collapse. Nothing
we can do will ever kill life on this planet. What we *must* do is address
those problems which affect the quality of life and the length of human life
expectancy.

It would be nice to wave a magic wand and cause garbage to stop being produced.
That won't happen. It would be nice to minimize the cost of processing garbage.
The best way to do that is place the garbage processing as close to the garbage
production as possible. Until then, we have a lot of garbage.

Here's a thought: If we first start processing garbage in landfills, that would
be a lucrative business, since there is so much. Then, as we start moving the
garbage recovery/processing furthur back up the chain, towards the producers,
the landfill garbage-processing *slowly* becomes less profitable -- the market
shrinks. Likewise, each step back up the chain, gradually results in a small,
stable, efficient garbage processing industry. Efficient because it is
competitive, stable because it isn't political, small because it is close to
production.

If we start at the beginning, instead of the end, there is never enough
incentive to process the landfill. If it is regulated in place, it never
adapts, never grows, never has incentive to do any better things.
Incineration is in its infancy as a large scale solution to garbage
problems, but has potential. Incineration, as realised through
gas-turbine combustion, may be a relatively clean source of energy, in
addition to a garbage processor.  If you ban Incineration outright, this
technology can never be developed by industry, and without an industry
to promote, government would only see research in this area as wasteful.

As long as you look at garbage as a problem, you will never find any real
long-term solutions. The key is to look at is a natural resource, to be
exploited as fully as possible. Only then will garbage become manageable.
--
Brian Dickson                [e-mail]
Trigraph, Inc.