TOXIC TANKER: Environmentalists worry that transporting chlorine by truck and rail poses health and security hazards.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/ABISHOME
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A sprawling Capitol Hill debate over protecting U.S. chemical facilities from terrorists has come down to a central question: What should be done about chlorine?
At issue is whether water treatment plants can function without chlorine.
Chlorine has been used for more than a century to disinfect drinking water and is responsible for a 50 percent increase in life expectancy, according to the American Water Works Association. About 98 percent of North American water treatment systems use chlorine, the trade group says.
But environmentalists -- the most vocal proponents of strong water-treatment rules -- do not like chlorine. They say rail shipping and storage of massive amounts of chlorine gas to water-treatment plants are dangerous. U.S. PIRG and other advocacy groups say gas released in a derailment or terrorist attack can threaten the lives of thousands of people in a single incident. They want water-treatment plants to find safer substitutes.
"The most effective method to secure chemical facilities is to replace dangerous chemicals and processes with safer alternatives when such alternatives are feasible and cost-effective," Liz Hitchcock of U.S. PIRG told a House panel earlier this year. More than 200 treatment plants, she said, have already converted to safer alternatives.
Heeding such advice, the House included a provision in its recently passed chemical security legislation that requires high-risk chemical facilities like treatment plants to switch -- if it is deemed technically and financially feasible -- to safer alternatives. That provision figures to be a sticking point in the Senate, where Republicans argue that regulations requiring alternatives would drive companies out of business and cost jobs.
"We think the industry probably knows better than ... the government does when it comes to our type of inherently safer technology," said Jim Palmer, president of Allied New Technologies, which has been in the bleach business for more than 50 years.
But there are industry officials who do not mind the discussion. "The debate is healthy. This needs to be talked about," said Robert Cheng, engineer and deputy general manager of operations at the Long Beach Water Department in California, which is experimenting with making chlorine gas on-site.
"I'm just surprised there's not been more attention paid to it," Cheng added. "When tons and tons of toxic chemicals are moving through by tanker trucks, I think it gives reason for pause."
Advocates of alternative technologies say the legislation is too weak to eliminate rail transport of chlorine gas.
"The legislation out there is obviously trying to do the right thing, and the bill itself is a far climb from where we once were," said David Cynamon, chairman of K2 Pure Solutions, a company that plans to use salt, water and electricity to produce chlorine on-site. "But I think we all believe it doesn't go far enough."
For example, Cynamon said, a provision requiring states to review chemical facilities' safety determinations and allowing them to order safer alternatives does not address the safety of the entire supply chain. While plants could be forced to buy bleach instead of chlorine, the bleach manufacturer would still have to buy chlorine.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentIt sounds like the only thing the republicans will vote for is death, destruction, poverty, and war. When President Obama said that he was going to throwing another thirty-thousand American lives away to the Bush wars, all the republicans stood up, cheered and said that they are behind him 100%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to getting rid of a terrorist target - like chlorine, the republicans stand up, boo, and say that will cost too many jobs. What planet did these warped minded republicans come from? It couldn't be Venus or Mars...humans come from there.
we are a country of morons run by imbeciles. What else can be said. I now understand how demagogues come into power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Republicans didn't think of the idea.... is it a BAD idea? Seems to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than 200 treatment plants, she said, have already converted to safer alternatives.
Looks like these companies are still in business!
And they changed without a law forcing them.
How many jobs were lost, if any?
Liability insurance should go down with a safer system...
Or a product that's made on site creates new jobs..
What about the cost of a spill on the way? Or all the life's that are harmed or lost.
Seems like MOST Republicans are cheap, selfish, foolish, and reckless. They line their pockets first, boldly above everyone else.
Bops: Seems like MOST Republicans are cheap, selfish, foolish, and reckless. They line their pockets first, boldly above everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow Bops, how do you expect people to argue with you when you go around tell the truth all the time?
First it's chlorine then next thing you know we've got Ralph Nader running this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Environmentalists ...do not like chlorine." So, we're just supposed to ban it and go without it? There's a lot more to it than that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith 32 yrs in the fire service, many as fire chief and extensive national fire academy training in haz-mats and transportation and working with a chlorine derailment (with release) I well know the danger and risks involved. I've also worked with city water people enough to know the problems they face and how they do their jobs. BTW- chlorine AND bleach are used in most systems to correct the pH.
I hope we don't see chlorine banned anytime soon; it is used in so many things that it, like our production of sulfuric acid, is a measure of our economy. Alternatives should be sought and studied but leave the treehuggers & politics out of the process and trust in the experts in water treatment, transportation, manufacturing and emergency response to improve present practices.
I am more concerned with this nation's preoccupation with political correctness such that any action based upon well meaning observations regarding terrorism are or would be rewarded with huge civil suits & awards (think flight trainers in Florida or Amer. Airlines & passengers' suspicious behavior) or almost certain career-ending reprisals (think Walter Reed officers & a certain psychiatrist). Perhaps the next time you see a placarded truck on the interstate you can wonder if the driver's supervisor would have had him drug tested or evaluated for suspicious behavior last week if he had the means.
The FDA has already approved a safer and more potent alternative to chlorine that is in use in many water treatment plants today. Sodium Chlorite (Na Cl O2) mixed with ascetic acid becomes Chlorine Dioxide which is the most potent anti-pathogen known to science and is much safer and more effective than chlorine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen chlorine dioxide contacts a pathogen it oxidizes it and breaks down into a minute amount of salt (NaCl) and water. When chlorine oxidizes a pathogen it breaks down into known carcinogens. But that is not the only bad thing that chlorine does. Chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine are the four halogens. Iodine is a major component of the immune system of the body and is needed for other functions as well. Chlorine, fluorine and bromine block the receptors for iodine in the body compromising the immune system and causing countless other health issues.
Fluorine was introduced into the water system to quell the Watts Riots in Los Angeles in the early 1960's. Fluorine makes people passive, apathetic and willing to obey authority. This was reported in weekly news magazines of the time and I used these sources in a speech I gave in 1971.
Prior to 1952 iodine was used as a dough conditioner in the making of bread. After 1952 iodine was replaced by bromine. Prior to 1952 the incidence of breast cancer was minimal in the population and has since become epidemic.
Looking deeper at health issues, the body needs many different trace minerals to maintain healthy cellular and circulatory functions. Farmers used to grind stones into a powder which they spread on their fields to maintain healthy nutrient rich soils. They rotated crops and used compost. With the introduction of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides the soils have become depleted of essential nutrients. The toxic load of the body has increased overwhelming the liver and other organs leaving the body no choice but to encapsulate the toxins in fatty tissue.
Add to this the burden of Big Pharma drugs that mainly treat symptoms while destroying the friendly flora of the gut and further burdening the liver and kidneys. This allows opportunistic yeasts to overwhelm the body and further pollute it with toxic excretions which cause reactions in the body that mimic many other diseases and conditions which never get properly diagnosed.
All of this has contributed to the "health crisis" in America. Chlorine is but one factor in the equation, but a major one.
Here in the Netherlands we don't use chlorine to disinfect our drinking water. Good treatment and distribution management gives us superb water quality without the annoying taste and smell of chlorine in the water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Alternatives should be sought and studied but leave the treehuggers & politics out of the process and trust in the experts in water treatment, transportation, manufacturing and emergency response to improve present practices."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe underlying question is a little less straightforward than this. If we leave it to industry then industry does what is best for industry, not what is best for society as a whole. I'm not saying industry is BAD, but business exists for one purpose and government exists for a different purpose. They are both legitimate and serve good and necessary ends.
The problem in this country is that the debate has become poisoned. Big business has become so powerful that its propaganda has framed a debate where the interests of society can't be served. The mantra has become that business profit is synonymous with social welfare and government is just some kind of evil fungus we have to scrape off the body politic.
The result is things like Macondo, or a coal industry that wrecks half the planet with impunity. You challenge the wisdom of their policies and you get screamed at that you're against jobs and want a 'nanny state'. That's a total straw man. Good environmental practices have ALWAYS proven to be both cost effective and wise when used intelligently. The concept that regulations in general are just always bad is bunk and that's what needs to be addressed.
HazMat Experts and Firefighters petition Dow Chemical and Union Pacific for safe rail tank cars transporting gas chlorine. Secondary containment is a necessary improvement that must be implemented. See--PETITION C KIT for First Responders Comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWARNING: FIRST RESPONDERS' use of THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE "C" KIT may cause the catastrophic failure of a chlorine tank car, instantly creating a toxic gas plume with a distance of not less than seven miles. The first mile will have chlorine concentrations of 1,000 ppm, causing death after one or two breaths with no opportunity for escape. TO learn more, see PETITION C KIT, click on "First Responder Warnings."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this