On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:57:41 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:07:05 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:06:50 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
So you suggest that we should not use this technology to clean
up toxic waste sites? I do not believe many people will disagree
that we should focus
on minimizing pollution at it source, but your suggestions do not
help resolve the issues of how to clean up pre-existing sites. What
should we do with the soil that you want the companies to remove?
What will we do with the residue that this creates?

Well, dumping the soil pollution as mercury vapour to the
atmosphere´is hardly an option. Only yesterday the US president
announced that mercury emissions to the atmosphere under his
administration's 'clean skies' initiative will need to be decreased by
69 %. So, how do you envision getting EPA to approve a technology
that increases it?

And what option do YOU recommend?

Oh, no particular option, it would depend on the circumstances,
and I am not an expert anyway. I am just not dumb enough to think
it might be a good idea to transform the mercury in the soil to
elemental mercury and vent it as mercury vapour into the atmosphere.

Did you bother to read any of their work to see just how much mercury is
released into the atmosphere via their system verses mercury vapor from
other sources?

Yeah. Just to take it further from that, did you bother to realise
that mercury vapour release from 'other sources' is considered to be a
serious environmental problem, one which we certainly do not need a
new technology adding anything to?

snip