Date:         Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:36:57 -0700
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Buhlmann, Glen" <Glen_Buhlmann@cisnc.canon.com>
Subject:      RE: response as promised


Martha:

>Firstly, I should have made clear what kind of
>plastics I was talking about specifically.  It seems that burning
>styrofoam is about a 10 on the richter scale, but that these bags
>are about a 1.  

That was not the point that was made in (at least) the public postings.
They may have implied that Styrofoam is the worst but that does not mean
that plastic bags are a 1.  I think everyone who publicly compared the
types of plastics said that they are all bad and carcinogenic when
burned at temperatures found in a campfire.  Of course nobody used a 10
point scale so it's debatable whether they meant plastic bags were a 6
or a 9.99.
Such as Bill Abbott who said:

> My old pal Harold retired from the fire department after
> entering a burning warehouse full of plastic... Plastic bag recycling
> is available and infinately better than burning 'em at the camp site.
> Coyote Lussier's got the right plan.

And Tom & Kathie David who said:

> There are
> quite literally millions of specific formulations for each number. So using
> those numbers to determine what you have is hopelessly inaccurate.

Now you admit that you are not a chemist so we can probably agree that
you cannot tell us the specific chemical structure of every bag you
place in the fire.  And I believe Joe Ernest hit it on the head (even
though he seemed to be arguing your point of view) when he said:

> So, burning plastic is not wise, both in terms of what you breathe at 
> the campsite and general atmospheric pollution. 

Burning any plastic at low temperatures releases carcinogenic
substances.  We had several people with chemical backgrounds (or
scientifically inclined non-chemists who did some research) who all
agreed on this.  Now I realize that you're missing the point of this
argument but that shouldn't prevent you from agreeing with what we're
saying.  Burning any kind of plastic in a campfire produces substances
which are "known" to cause cancer.  I put "known" in quotes because
cancer is obviously still largely a mystery to the scientific community
but they "know" that taking certain substances into your body
(especially fat-soluble substances such as those that are released when
burning plastics at low temperatures) will infinitely increase your
chance of getting cancer.

You seem to be concentrating on the fact that many European countries
burn garbage which includes plastic.  Now I know you understand why this
fact is not relevant to our discussion because you have stated the
reasons yourself repeatedly.  When these countries do this they are
burning everything in a sealed environment where the entire
oven/incinerator is at a temperature in excess of 5000F and they have a
very controlled supply of oxygen to ensure that everything is completely
burned.  So even if you can get a small portion of you fire to produce
temperatures in the neighbourhood of 5000F there is no way that you can
put plastic into this fire in such a way that it will all burn at this
temperature and will all have an adequate supply of oxygen to burn
completely.

Now some of us may be genetically more susceptible to carcinogens than
other and I find it hard to believe that you are obnoxious enough to
make the decision for them whether they want to be exposed to large
amounts of dangerous carcinogens.  Just because you are not in the line
of the smoke, does not mean you are not inhaling large amounts of
carcinogens.  Many of the toxins produced are colourless and/or
odourless.


>Secondly, I'd like to remind 2 of you that I did not post
>that I felt because one sort of pollution was taking place, that
>it was OK for another one to.  My comment had to do with
>questioning the paradox - of honestly wanting to know
>how significant burning plastic bags is in comparison to
>burning fossil fuels, using vehicles recreationally, and/or
>burning campfires.

OK it has been proved to you that it is better to landfill than burn in
a campfire.  And of course many grocery stores accept plastic bags for
recycling so there is even no need to put them in a landfill.
>
>That a few didn't like the smell is a point I hadn't considered
>and I apologize if our burning of plastic invaded your
>ohlfactory sensitivities.  On those grounds, I'm happy not
>to burn plastic bags around you.

So giving your daughter and the rest of the campers cancer is all right
as long as it doesn't smell bad.  Once again we are brought back to the
lack of control that you have over a campfire.  Dan stated:

> Simply the
> awful smell of burning plastic, which was noxious at our bus about 100 feet
> away, is cause enough to reconsider burning plastic.  It's not fun for me.

There is no way you can control where the toxins from your campfire
goes.  Even if the whiny complainers (don't you hate people who politely
ask you not to do something that is going to kill them and you?) park
far away, you have no way of stopping the carcinogens from drifting in
the windows of their bus.


>
>If burning these bags destroys the ozone, this is not good - but
>make sure if you don't burn bags for this reason that you also don't use
>anything else which contributes to the problem like enjoying
>all but ultra-modern air-conditioning, or charcoal lighter fluid.

Once again the main point people we're trying to make was that you are
introducing substances into our bodies which will infinitely increase
our chances of getting cancer.  Stop focusing on high temp burning and
the effect that automobiles have on the environment.  Those are two
separate issues which should be debated separately if you really want
to.
>
>A strong point was made by 2 other people that burning plastic bags,
>indeed several other types of "garbage" becomes more
>non-hazardous at high temperatures.  Perhaps we should
>burn our trash on the magnesium, which burns at 5KF?  Dunno.  I'm
>interested in finding out more about this, since the entire
>city of Munich, Germany, apparnently produces much electrical
>power by burning trash at high temps in town, much like they heat
>their homes burning wood at high temps in masonry heaters.  And I
>learned that Denmark makes enough hot water for the entire
>country solely by burning trash, including plastics.  Again,
>both are done at high temps.  It seems that if burning these
>materials causes cancer "without a doubt" as one person posted,
>that large cities in Europe will be quite vacant very soon.  Again,
>I would like to know more.  The fact that people do something
>in large groups doesn't make it right, it's just not to be ignored
>that their cancer rates are not higher than places
>where this is not done.  Again, maybe this is time-related.  But
>if so, won't our cars and woodsmoke get us, then, too?

Once again, our scientific (public) contributors stated that carcinogens
are released when burning at low temperatures.  At extremely high
temperatures and controlled environments such as European cities use
they do not produce these carcinogens.  Once again you are using as
ammunition something which has no bearing on what you are discussing.
>
>Some of you echoed that putting the plastic in the
>landfill could be worse for the environment than burning it
>at high temps.  As I said, and as some of you did, too, recycling
>it would be fine, especially if we can prove that this is
>preferable to burning it at high temps.

I can't comment on this because the only posts I read were the ones that
said that plastics are inert and will not harm landfills.
>
>Let's be honest, volks - are some of you standing under one
>arm of a branch of political correctness, when the REAL issue
>here is one of restricting personal choice?  If the argument is
>that you don't want to be doing this to avoid harming the
>environment, you shouldn't be driving and having campfires, either.
>I can't stop any of you from doing with things whatever you
>wish, nor would I if I could.  If you don't like what I'm
>doing to the environment, make damned sure a finger can't
>be pointed at you, and next time please pick an issue
>a lot bigger than plastic bags.  This threatens to
>turn into a case of political correctness out of control.
>Can it be that it's considered acceptable to jump on
>the bandwagon of political correctness, without stopping to
>think about it?  Is it truly OK to damage the air with
>one thing for fun, but not another which isn't?  
>
>The bottom line is:
>if the end is to not impact the environement, a LOTJof the group
>is guilty of things much worse than burning plastic bags, and
>much of it not at our campouts.   Reminds
>me of the story I told a few of you - of the person insisting
>on becoming a vegetarian because of being opposed to animal
>cruelty.  Then looked down and saw their leather shoes.

What about that crazy woman who insists on introducing carcinogens into
her daughter's body tissues but then gets upset when someone offers her
daughter a cigarette.  Now don't get me wrong I applaud you for what you
did.  I don't know what your discussion with Sara(h) was but from what
you told the group it seems that you sat her down and had a discussion
with her to convince her that smoking is not a smart thing to do.  Maybe
you used the argument that it causes cancer, maybe not.  I don't know.
Either way, at the time I was thinking what a great mother you were.  I
was thinking how much you must love and care about your daughter and how
well I thought you handled the situation.  I applaud you for that.  But
then I saw your leather shoes when you put plastic on the fire while at
the same time saying that you knew that burning plastic released harmful
toxins (and of course your daughter was sitting next to the fire as you
did it).  It just makes no sense to a simple country boy like me.
>
>I suggest,too, that we not start a military patrol over this.  If
>this starts, you won't have to ask me not camp with you.  I too suggest
>that any burning of "offensives" be done late at night over the high
>heat of magnesium to offer the possibility of more complete
>combustion.  I for one will agree not to burn plastic bags in
>the daytime, and not to burn them around children or food.  If
>you are offended at the proposed late-nite burning, it seems
>to me you could park your van farther away, not sit by
>the fire, not stay up late, or simply do as 2 others have
>promised:  not go camping when I'm there.  
>
>/m
>
OK so lets summarize what we know:

1)  Burning plastics at extremely high temperatures in extremely
controlled circumstances is a relatively harmless process especially
when compared to other forms of energy generation and garbage disposal.

2)  Campfires don't meet either of the requirements above so 1) is a
moot point and has no business being mentioned in this discussion except
for purely interest sake.

3)  Burning any plastics in campfires releases carcinogens which are
"known" to cause cancer (see def'n of "known" above).

4)  Some plastics release more harmful toxins than others when burned in
campfires.

5)  Without an on-site CCC lab we have no way of knowing what the
composition of any plastic is and since they all release harmful toxins
4) is also a moot point.

6)  Even if someone decides that they want to take the risk of inhaling
these carcinogens, this person or persons have no way of preventing the
carcinogens from drifting over to where others who chose not to take the
risk are.  This is not just a CCC issue, our campfire smoke was going up
the hill toward the other campsites where the people weren't even aware
we were releasing carcinogenic substances into the air they were
breathing.

So logically, anyone who wants to burn plastic and store carcinogens in
their body to be added to the carcinogens they will get from future
similar activities SHOULD do it in their own kitchen with their own
family so that they only kill themselves and the ones they love.  Now
I'm sure that Martha doesn't burn plastic bags on her kitchen table when
she's at home so therefore this is obviously not something that she
cares strongly about (I think I may have been one of the people who said
that Martha was just doing this because she likes confrontation).

Now I realize that in our society today when you tell someone that they
"shouldn't" do something it is usually taken by them to mean that they
"can't" do something and there is a stereotypical knee-jerk reaction to
that sort of thing (the BITE ME complex).  So I'm not expecting anything
to be done about this.  When I saw people burning plastic I was shocked
an horrified and I spoke my mind because I thought that "maybe they
didn't know what they were doing".  So now I see that everybody did know
what they were doing and I apologize for causing all the ruckus.  As for
those of you who thought this was caused by "Earth Mama on Food Stamps"
and you were so quick to insult and degrade someone who wasn't around to
defend themselves, this was not the case.  I am the "Earth Mama on Food
Stamps" and I am here to defend myself but at this point I would just
like to thank everyone for all the personal insults that they didn't
realize were directed at me and leave it at that.  So it was not caused
by some "non-regular", it was caused by a "regular" on his first
campout.  A regular whose number two reason for moving to your neck of
the woods was because he wanted to become a California Camping Crazy.

So to everyone who gave scientific information, I want to express my
thanks and I hope that you will not stop caring about your friends and
family members just because you lost this battle.  I was very upset when
I thought that the majority was of the "Bite Me I don't care who I kill"
attitude but I think that this discussion has made it clear that is not
the case.  The majority seems to care, it just doesn't seem that it will
matter.

And to those of you who publicly and privately made it so clear that I
am not welcome at the CCC campouts, I just want to say that I was not
trying to be the Fourth Reich or tell you what you can and can't do.  I
just thought that if you didn't know what you were doing to yourselves
and your friends that you might like to know.  I didn't mean any offense
and I hold no grudges I just happen to be one of the people who are
"genetically susceptible" to carcinogens so I will choose not to expose
myself to them if I can help it.

>Glen