On the 18th anniversary of the world's worst chemical disaster, Greenpeace New Zealand joined groups in India and worldwide demanding that Dow takes responsibility for its toxic legacy in Bhopal, India. Greenpeace NZ protested outside the DOW plant in New Plymouth.
It is not good enough to simply try to manage toxic chemicals once they are produced - that approach has failed time and again. We must aim to prevent them from being produced in the first place.
Because of the high levels of dioxins already in the global environment, which will persist for many years, aggressive measures are needed to decrease human exposure to dioxins. In some sectors substantial investment will be required, however most alternative products and waste management will provide economic benefits in terms of:
- Increased employment
- Improved efficiency
- Decreased expenses for chemical procurement, waste disposal, liability and remediation
- Elimination of social costs associated with damage to health and the environment
Principles for dioxin elimination
Greenpeace believes the phase-out of dioxins from our environment should be based on the following principles:
Precautionary principle
We should take preventative action when there is reason to believe that harm is likely to be caused by human activity. Action should be taken even where there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between the actions and their effects.
Elimination of all POPs sources
POPs elimination is an iterative two-step process - source identification, followed by source elimination. First, the source of POPs must be properly identified. Second, they must therefore be phased out, replaced or otherwise removed. This is true for POPs that are produced intentionally as well as unintentionally, such as dioxins.
Elimination timetables, prioritising the largest dioxin producing sectors and those sources for which alternatives already exist, should be set. No new permits for the production of new dioxins should be issued, and existing ones modified to include reduction and elimination timetables.
End to incineration
Incineration must not become a disposal route for existing POPS stockpiles since incineration itself has been identified as a major source of dioxins and furans. While so-called state of the art incinerators can greatly reduce stack emissions, they still cannot stop the formation of dioxins and other POPs which may be present in the fly ash and bottom ash that would still require further treatment and disposal. Alternative destruction and de-toxification methods and technologies, which do not generate POPs, should be used instead.
Technological and other resource assistance
It is critical that wealthy nations do not promote and export POP-generating technologies and materials to newly industrialised nations. At the same time wealthy countries and aid programs must assist newly industrialised countries in developing and implementing non-POP technologies and materials.
Why reduction won't do
The aim to reduce dioxins, without the ultimate goal to aim for elimination, is unlikely to protect human health because :
- These chemicals are persistent and bio-accumulative and toxic - they are long lived in the environment and build up in the fatty tissue of humans and animals. Adding even small amounts of these chemicals continues to add to the existing toxic burden.
- Rather than implement alternative technologies, which would prevent dioxins being formed in the first place, technologies are modified so that dioxins are reduced. Priority is given to the sources that are most easily identified, and measures, such as pollution control systems are introduced so that dioxin release to some but not necessarily all environmental media are reduced.
- Reductions in dioxin releases from point of source may well occur, however these reductions will be nullified and possibly overwhelmed at the national, regional and/or global level if the number of such dioxin sources continue to increase.
- The enormous cost of regulatory and laboratory infrastructures required to monitor and enforce national reduction programmes may put an intolerable burden on some governments. Less than 50 laboratories exist that have been certified by the World Health Organisation to test human tissue for dioxins. The cost of a single test ranges from US$1,000 to US$3,000. The costs of laboratories and testing are barriers even in wealthy western nations.
Ultimately, no-one really knows the true impact of dioxins on our environment and health. In 1998 the World Health Organisation reduced the acceptable daily intake of dioxin from 10 picograms to between one & four picograms.
Dioxin is deadly. Elimination, not reduction.