In the last few decades entire new categories of waste have come to plague and menace the American scene. These are the technological wastes–the by-products of growth, industry, agriculture, and science. We cannot wait for slow evolution over generations to deal with them.Continue reading
Pollution is growing at a rapid rate. Some pollutants are known to be harmful to health, while the effect of others is uncertain and unknown. In some cases we can control pollution with a larger effort. For other forms of pollution we still do not have effective means of control.
Pollution destroys beauty and menaces health. It cuts down on efficiency, reduces property values and raises taxes.
The longer we wait to act, the greater the dangers and the larger the problem.
Dear Lowndes County Commissioners.Continue reading
My sincere thanks for letting me present my concerns at yesterday’s meeting. It is very much appreciated.
Please understand that what I presented is based on facts. I have worked for ten years at VSU as an educator, and my students and colleagues know me as a straightforward person. I may ruffle some feathers at times, but I clearly was brought up in a no-nonsense household.
If Mr. Lofton would not continue to ignore our concerns (as he again did at the BOE meeting), to misrepresent organizations such as the Sierra Club (an organization I happen to support), or to keep bringing up names of those who endorse the biomass plant (yet conveniently overlooks a conflict of interest), I probably would have never brought this up. However, during these past couple weeks, and particularly with his behavior at the BOE meeting, Mr. Lofton has added insult to injury, and enough is enough.
To substantiate the comments I made yesterday,
This is an open letter with a few questions for the Industrial Authority on the proposed biomass incinerator. Simple answers will do, as we have heard enough confusing verbiage by now:Continue reading
1. Isn’t it correct that annually the proposed biomass incinerator will emit 247 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 247 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), 247 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), 135 tons of particulate matter (PM), 113 tons of PM10, 87 tons of PM2.5, 60 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 14 tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)?
2. Isn’t it true that the American Lung Association states that pollutants such as NOx, SO2, and PM can have “severe impacts on the health of children, older adults, and people with lung disease”?
3. Isn’t it correct that the “baghouse filtration technology” in connection with the proposed incinerator cannot capture PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) much less PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns)?
Eric Cornwell of APD explains location, process flow, and specific items covered by the permit (soot, SO2, NOX, CO, VOC, HCL, etc., but not CO2). He remarks that Wiregrass Power LLC is building a small plant with a “lower emission limit in order to avoid some of the red tape” by getting a minor permit instead of a major permit. The first half hour concludes with Bob Turner, the plant manager, presenting similar material, ending with:
“No new carbon is added to the atmosphere when burning woody byproducts.”I beg to differ on that: in the time it takes trees to grow back, there is indeed new carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. More from Dr. William Sammons on that.