Health effects from hazardous waste incineration facilities: five case studies.

Environmental pollution, primarily from industrialization, has caused significant adverse effects to humans, animals, and the ecosystem. Attempts have been made to reduce and prevent these pollutants through better waste management practices. Incineration is one such practice, which seeks to prevent adverse health impacts to future generations by destroying waste today, without increasing risk to those living near incineration facilities in the process. As with any industrial process, however, proper design and operation are important requirements to ensure the facility can be operated safely. Any technology that cannot be managed safely should not be considered acceptable. This paper reviews the scientific basis of past allegations associated with the process of hazardous waste incineration. These five case studies, which have attracted considerable public attention, have not been shown to be scientifically accurate of factually based. This paper attempts to separate fact from fiction and to show some of the consistent inaccuracies that were repeated throughout all five studies. In reviewing the above cases and others in the literature, several common elements become apparent. 1. Most of the reports are based on single newspaper articles, activist newsletters, interviews with admittedly biased respondents, and other secondary or inappropriate sources of information that do not withstand scientific scrutiny. 2. Research studies are quoted incompletely or out of context. Often the original point made by the researcher is the exact opposite of the impression left by Costner and Thornton. 3. In four of five cases, no data were supplied to substantiate the claims. As an observation, where substantive research data do not exist to support allegations of adverse health effects, a tendency seems to be increasing over time to make allegations and then not provide supporting data. Because public damage is often done simply by making the allegation, this tactic appears to be effective. Thus, unsubstantiated allegations should not go unchallenged. 4. A relatively small group of people appears to be consistently generating most of the allegations. 5. The format of the allegations tends to be similar; often just the name of the facility changes. 6. Furthermore, these same few individuals tend to repeat the same allegations about the same facilities, even after the allegations have been long since proven incorrect. Despite the widespread prevalence of incineration facilities around the world and the millions of tons of waste destroyed in them each year, surprisingly few reports of adverse health effects exist in the scientific literature relative to other types of waste management practices. 7. The existing reports do not indicate that hazardous waste incineration has widespread potential for adverse health effects. However, as with all industrial processes, care must be taken to ensure that facilities are well designed and well operated to minimize or prevent adverse health effects. As with all environmental exposures, potential impacts on public health need to be addressed scientifically. Making a scientifically valid connection between operation of an incinerator and resulting disease within a population is a difficult undertaking, requiring the combined efforts of toxicologists, epidemiologists, chemists, physicians, and persons in other disciplines. Nevertheless, concerns regarding potential impacts of incineration must be addressed and communicated, both accurately and effectively, if the actual risks of incineration are to become widely understood.