26 June 1997 Edition
Spinning in pollution
Robert Allen argues why Aughinish Alumina should not get a pollution control licence
As the oral hearing into the EPA's integrated pollution licence for Aughinish Alumina on the Shannon estuary got under way last week the company's spin doctor Frank Dunlop was in full flow. The allegations of pollution from Aughinish were, he said, ``totally, completely unfounded with no basis in fact or science''.
Is that right? According to the licence, Alcan - as they are known locally after their majority shareholder - are permitted to spew various noxious and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and into the Shannon. Among these are sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter - tiny particles which are coated with chemicals. There is strong evidence that aluminum is present in the particulate pollution.
Now Frank may not be aware of the consensus statement about toxic chemicals and the immune system written by 18 scientists, which was published last year.
The scientists had met at a workshop in Racine, Wisconsin, between February 10 and12, 1995, to discuss the issue ``because of the pervasive contamination of the environment by compounds.which have the potential to disturb the immune system of wildlife and humans, introduced into the environment by human activity''.
They were very concerned about aromatic hydrocarbons, carbamates, heavy metals, organohalogens, organophosphates, organotins, oxidant air pollutants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - in other words, virtually every source of pollution that results from industrial activity.
Now I'm sure you'd agree that a perfectly functioning immune system is essential for the well being of humans, not to mention the odd cow, of the sort that used to reside on the west Limerick farms of Liam Somers and Justin Ryan until some mysterious illness struck down about 200 of them - and a horse or 11, just like those on the Sheehy farm. And that anything that affects the immune system would lead, you'd agree, to a decrease in the quality of life, whether of humans or animals?
What these synthetic chemicals do is alter the immune system so much that it is unable to function the way it is supposed to. In humans these changes can cause allergic reactions, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and a dozen other diseases.
These alterations can also affect reproduction, significantly in the developing foetus in humans and in egg-laying species. The 18 scientists noted that ``alterations in the developing and mature immune systems may not be recognized as an adverse health effect until long after the exposure''.
And the scientists added ``with confidence'' that ``certain synthetic chemicals, such as those listed above, released or reintroduced into the environment act upon the developing and mature immune systems in humans and other vertebrates.
The scientists concluded that, ``the potential exists for widespread immunotoxicity in humans and wildlife species because of the worldwide lack of appropriate protective standards. This is based on documented immune effects from high-level exposure, plus a large amount of anecdotal data on humans and wildlife, and strong experimental animal data''.
Yet, Frank, you appear to believe that there isn't a problem, that your clients should continue to pump these chemicals into the environment. The reason? Because it will hurt their profits if they aren't allowed to do so. Because the conditions imposed by the EPA will cost £9.5m and possibly force Alcan to close down and put people out of work.
It was interesting that your managing director Cynthia Carroll was quick to refer to the 450 full time people and 200 contractors Alcan employ, the annual wages of £14.4 million and the contributions of £40m to the local economy and the £55m to the national economy. It was interesting because she felt a need to leave the issue of profits to her financial controller Michael Collins. Perhaps that was because he went on to make a grand job of telling us that Aughinish's projected profits for 1997 would only be £11m. As he said himself, in capitalist terms that's a poor return on investment. So all this talk of profit and loss means, does it Frank, that your employers might have to close down? Strange. I thought this hearing was about environmental control, protection and enforcement, not the economics of the global alumina market.
Well Frank people are getting wise to the effects of toxic pollution so if Alcan have to close down I hope you're not going to suggest it was because of the environmental conditions imposed on the company the first time it had to apply for a licence of some substance? Or would your bosses simply lay off a few people, reduce wages, skimp a bit on the old health and safety?
Of course not, a reputable company such as Aughinish wouldn't do that, would they? It's time to stop playing this employment card and get a grip on your responsibilities to the health of your workers, that of the immediate community and the ambient environment, and your perspective.
As the oral hearing into the EPA's integrated pollution licence for Aughinish Alumina on the Shannon estuary got under way last week the company's spin doctor Frank Dunlop was in full flow. The allegations of pollution from Aughinish were, he said, ``totally, completely unfounded with no basis in fact or science''.
Is that right? According to the licence, Alcan - as they are known locally after their majority shareholder - are permitted to spew various noxious and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and into the Shannon. Among these are sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter - tiny particles which are coated with chemicals. There is strong evidence that aluminum is present in the particulate pollution.
Now Frank may not be aware of the consensus statement about toxic chemicals and the immune system written by 18 scientists, which was published last year.
The scientists had met at a workshop in Racine, Wisconsin, between February 10 and12, 1995, to discuss the issue ``because of the pervasive contamination of the environment by compounds.which have the potential to disturb the immune system of wildlife and humans, introduced into the environment by human activity''.
They were very concerned about aromatic hydrocarbons, carbamates, heavy metals, organohalogens, organophosphates, organotins, oxidant air pollutants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - in other words, virtually every source of pollution that results from industrial activity.
Now I'm sure you'd agree that a perfectly functioning immune system is essential for the well being of humans, not to mention the odd cow, of the sort that used to reside on the west Limerick farms of Liam Somers and Justin Ryan until some mysterious illness struck down about 200 of them - and a horse or 11, just like those on the Sheehy farm. And that anything that affects the immune system would lead, you'd agree, to a decrease in the quality of life, whether of humans or animals?
What these synthetic chemicals do is alter the immune system so much that it is unable to function the way it is supposed to. In humans these changes can cause allergic reactions, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and a dozen other diseases.
These alterations can also affect reproduction, significantly in the developing foetus in humans and in egg-laying species. The 18 scientists noted that ``alterations in the developing and mature immune systems may not be recognized as an adverse health effect until long after the exposure''.
And the scientists added ``with confidence'' that ``certain synthetic chemicals, such as those listed above, released or reintroduced into the environment act upon the developing and mature immune systems in humans and other vertebrates.
The scientists concluded that, ``the potential exists for widespread immunotoxicity in humans and wildlife species because of the worldwide lack of appropriate protective standards. This is based on documented immune effects from high-level exposure, plus a large amount of anecdotal data on humans and wildlife, and strong experimental animal data''.
Yet, Frank, you appear to believe that there isn't a problem, that your clients should continue to pump these chemicals into the environment. The reason? Because it will hurt their profits if they aren't allowed to do so. Because the conditions imposed by the EPA will cost £9.5m and possibly force Alcan to close down and put people out of work.
It was interesting that your managing director Cynthia Carroll was quick to refer to the 450 full time people and 200 contractors Alcan employ, the annual wages of £14.4 million and the contributions of £40m to the local economy and the £55m to the national economy. It was interesting because she felt a need to leave the issue of profits to her financial controller Michael Collins. Perhaps that was because he went on to make a grand job of telling us that Aughinish's projected profits for 1997 would only be £11m. As he said himself, in capitalist terms that's a poor return on investment. So all this talk of profit and loss means, does it Frank, that your employers might have to close down? Strange. I thought this hearing was about environmental control, protection and enforcement, not the economics of the global alumina market.
Well Frank people are getting wise to the effects of toxic pollution so if Alcan have to close down I hope you're not going to suggest it was because of the environmental conditions imposed on the company the first time it had to apply for a licence of some substance? Or would your bosses simply lay off a few people, reduce wages, skimp a bit on the old health and safety?
Of course not, a reputable company such as Aughinish wouldn't do that, would they? It's time to stop playing this employment card and get a grip on your responsibilities to the health of your workers, that of the immediate community and the ambient environment, and your perspective.