Storing Nuclear Waste Near Lake Huron - Part 2

Building A Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Near Lake Huron

With all of the generalities having been discussed in part one of this blog post, I will delve right into the issue a hand.

Kincardine nuclear plant

Currently, the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) is in the process of asking the federal government for approval on their proposal to build a nuclear waste dump under the Bruce nuclear plant at Kincardine, Ontario.  The Ontario Power Generation, an Ontario based electric company wholly owned by the Canadian government, owns the Kincardine nuclear plant, which is leased to Bruce Power L.P.  Given that every nuclear plant in Ontario is owned by the OPG, they are solely responsible for the management of nuclear waste coming from Ontario nuclear plants.

The nuclear waste dump would be made to house low and intermediate level nuclear waste from Ontario's nuclear plants.   Low level nuclear waste essentially consists of anything from radioactively contaminated mops, to rags, to buckets.  Intermediate level nuclear waste on the other hand consists primarily of reactor components and other associated things, such as resins, filters, etc.  Out of the two however, it's the intermediate level waste that poses the real concern; when compared to low level waste, intermediate level waste can remain radioactive for over 100 000 years.

Thus is the reason for such high emphasis on the proper care and management of these nuclear wastes, in view of not only the next hundred years, but the next thousands of years.  As such, to keep these wastes contained in a way so as not to be able to have any effect on people, the environment, etc... is not an easy task, nor one with many solutions.  So far, the best solution is to house nuclear waste where it is most probable to never pose a threat to anything or anything for as long as possible.  Such a place could be an exhausted mine or quarry.  But in he case of Ontario's low and intermediate level waste, the answer lies, according to the OPG, in the proposed nuclear waste dump.

An aerial view of the designated location of the proposed
DGR.

The dump, which would be a DGR, or Deep Geological Repository dump, would be situated at 680 meters  below surface, and be around 1.2 kilometers away from Lake Huron.  Eventually the dump would be sealed with a sand/clay mixture and would undergo monitoring for a few years before it's abandonment.   The issue however, is simple.  Is placing a nuclear waste dump so near to one of the Great Lakes a good idea, or a recipe for disaster?  Hard to say.

An outline provided by the OPG of the proposed nuclear dump site.

                                                                           
  The DGR will  be built directly in a limestone rock bed millions of years old, and the OPG insists that it will have no effect on the surrounding environment and should be able to safely house the waste for 100 000 years.  According to the OPG, numerous experts including engineers, geologists, geoscientists, hydrologists, etc... have studied the proposed DGR and have deemed it safe.  The OPG also assures that it's experts hav determined that the rock in which the dump will be built, will remain stable for hundreds of millions of years.  Although the location for the dump seems to be, and it in fact may well be, completely capable of safely housing the waste according the the OPG and its experts, there are many unknown factors to take into consideration.

The Nuclear Waste Dump will be very large
– approximately 37 acres on the surface and
twice that size underground, and will accommodate

  The Great Lakes, Lake Huron included, provide so much for so many people as well as all the other living things in their regions.  How can we be so sure that the dump will safely house it's waste and that the waste will not effect it's surrounding environment in 1000 years, or even 500 years, let alone 100 000 years.  It's impossible to even comprehend the state in which the world will be in in 100 000 years.  I say this not to diminish the analysis and conclusions drawn by the OPG's experts, I say it only to reinforce the fact that the decision to build the dump at this location is not something that is based on concrete knowledge, only understanding and predictions, however accurate they may be.  Although an extremely anti-DGR dump website, a page on www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com puts things into perspective in comparing the promise of the dumps durability to the Great Lakes themselves: "Is it reasonable to conclude that an unmonitored Nuclear Waste Dump will contain its radioactive contents for 100,000 years? The Great Lakes were created only 12,000 years ago."
I can't help but agree that truly, how could we be so sure that the repository will remain intact with all of it's contents untouched for such a long period of time?  In truth, I am not sure we can.

The second issue is that a Deep Geological Repository in limestone is not something that has been undertaken before by anyone in the world.  Due to this, many people are rightfully concerned with the fact that it would be a small Ontario community backed by the OPG undertaking this project, whereas the project should be of international focus.  

As the unknown factors of this project begin to pile up, I find it hard to see any good reason for the OPG to go through with the plan as intended.  So far, I can't see any reason which would justify the construction of the dump at this location, so near to Lake Huron.  As far as I can tell, the risks and unknowns of completing the project at this location greatly outweigh any current benefits (if there are any?) offered by this specific location.  The fact is, why would anyone want to build a nuclear waste dump, using an unproven and untested method, so close to a water ecosystem on which millions of people, animals, plants, etc, rely on?  The OPG could very easily choose another location far from the Great Lakes, and free of the uncertainties surrounding the dump,  but they have not even taken another location into consideration.  All in all, I can say that I personally against the proposed dump specifically because of it's location.

Due a high amount of publicity, the proposed dump is now a highly debated subject in both Canadian and American politics.  A large contributor of that publicity has been the sheer amount of articles, both in print and online which have been written with the proposal in focus.
To learn more about the proposed DGR, visit the Ontario Power Generation's DGR website :
http://opgdgr.com/

www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com billboard

A major player in raising the awareness of the proposal has been a website titled stop the great lakes nuclear dump.  The website provides much insight into why (it is believed) that the proposed DGR is a bad idea.  There, you'll find a bounty of resources concerning the dump, as a constantly updating  news feed on all things related to the dump.  The website has also been backed by such notable people as David Suzuki. Thanks to this publicity, the people who depend on the Great Lakes water and who would be impacted of the project went awry can be well informed on the subject of the proposed DGR and can have a say in the proposal's outcome.  It's hard to say what the proposed nuclear dump's future will be, but thankfully it is now getting the attention and consideration it requires. 

To learn more about the proposed DGR, visit the Ontario Power Generation's DGR website :
http://opgdgr.com/

Personally, it is my hope that the proposal doesn't go through for the numerous reasons stated in the paragraphs above.  I'm glad that the website has been able to reach to the public in order to increase the public's awareness and broaden their understanding of the project.  It's thanks to efforts like this that many questionable/debatable projects such as this one can have a chance at being properly considered before a decision is made.  You can check out the site for yourself by clicking the link below:
http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/index.php

As always, thanks for reading!







Sources:
1. http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/4182488-debating-nuclear-waste-storage-near-the-great-lakes/
2. http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/nuclearwastedump.php
3. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/regulated/radioactivewaste/how.cfm#C1
4. http://www.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/What-are-nuclear-wastes-/
5. http://opgdgr.com/
Images:
1. Kincardine nulcear plant http://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2013/05/23/michigan_senate_says_ontario_nuclear_waste_site_raises_serious_concerns.html
2. Proposed nuclear dump location http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/nuclearwastedump.php#
3. DGR outline http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/dgr/
4. DGR size http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/nuclearwastedump.php#
5. stopthegreatlakesnnucleardump.com billboard http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/21/opp_quiz_opponents_to_lake_huron_nuclear_dump_prior_to_hearings_walkom.html

Storing Nuclear Waste Near Lake Huron - Part 1

The Kincardine Nuclear Plant

Although not as dominant as coal, or natural gas energy plants, nuclear energy plays an important role in today's energy production.  The World Nuclear Association states that as of December 2013, nuclear energy provides approximately 15% of Canada's electricity.  15% is no small amount, and it's certain that nuclear energy is going to keep evolving as a leading provider of energy in Canada.

Of all 19 nuclear power plants found in Canada, the focus of this blog post will be on the Bruce nuclear plant in Kincardine, Ontario.  Kincardine is a relatively small town located near the shores of Lake Huron.  Consequently, the Bruce nuclear plant is also located right along the shores of Lake Huron.     

Bruce nuclear plant in Kincardine, Ontario, situated along the shores of Lake Huron.

Before getting to the exact issue concerning the Kincardine nuclear plant, I will explain a few things in regards to nuclear energy for anyone who may not quite know a lot about nuclear energy.  :]

"Uranium metal highly enriched in uranium-235"

Nuclear plants use the same basic principles as other thermal power plants in order to create electricity. Essentially,  the base method for producing electricity is as follows: Heat/Thermal energy is created and then used to heat water, the water then vaporizes.  Following this, the water vapour is used to turn a turbine which then powers a generator which produces electricity.  All thermal power plants follow this basic principle.  The primary way in which they differ, is through the fuel source used to produce the heat.  In the case of nuclear energy, that fuel typically consists of uranium-235, an isotope of uranium, which is a radioactive element.    

While nuclear energy plants don't produce any of the environmentally harmful byproducts that other thermal energy plants do, such as carbon monoxide, they do produce their own harmful byproduct, radioactive waste.  Radioactive waste generally refers to the used uranium or fuel after it has gone through the fission process (process which creates thermal energy from the fuel).  The used fuel is highly radioactive after undergoing the nuclear fission process and is extremely dangerous.  Without going into any specifics, it should be known that there is no way of rendering radioactive waste non-radioactive.  The only thing that can be done is to simply wait for the radioactivity to gradually decrease over long periods of time.

Because of this, and because of the danger which radioactive waste poses to organic life, it must be contained and put away until it's radioactivity is either non existent.  Depending on the amount of radioactivity of the waste, this can take thousands of years.  And so, adequate locations are needed and sought after in order to safely contain these wastes.  A good example of a location in which nuclear waste can be stored would be an exhausted mine.  However, the location and manor in which the nuclear waste is kept also depends on the radioactivity of the waste.  Nuclear waste that is deemed to be dangerous for the next thousand years is not stored in the same way as waste that is deemed to be dangerous for the next two hundred years.

Low level nuclear waste storage.

The final thing that needs to be discussed before going into detail on the current issue at the Kincardine nuclear plant, is that radioactive waste can be transmitted to other things.  This leads to the fact that any object that has come into contact with, or has been in the vicinity of radioactive waste or other radioactive object absorbs some of the radiation and becomes itself radioactive, to a lesser extent.  Radioactive waste then, not only refers to the used fuel, but also to mops, gloves, apparel, brushes, pencils, etc... anything that has been unprotected within a certain vicinity of anything radioactive in the nuclear plant.  Of course, these other radioactive wastes, although not as dangerous as the used fuel, must be disposed of in a safe manner.

When constructing a nuclear plant, wherever it may be, there are always many health and environmental risks involved.  And when that nuclear plant is constructed near a major water source; be it a river, lake, or ocean; as many nuclear plants are, the risks are even greater.  Logically, I assume that in view of economical and practical standpoints, the benefits of having a nuclear plant next to water outweigh the greater risks they pose.  I say benefits, but the benefits all really stem from one thing: the fact that nuclear plants require large amounts of water in order to function.  The Bruce nuclear plant in Kincardine, being so near to Lake Huron has all of the lake's water readily available for the plant's needs.  While I completely understand the benefits offered by building a plant near a water source, one must not forget the risks.  If an accident were to occur at the Kincardine plant which would result in any radioactive waste or water to enter Lake Huron, the effects would be devastating.  After entering the lake, some of the radioactive substances could easily traverse and spread across the Great Lakes basin ecosystem before any quarantine could be attempted.  Although I'm sure they have designated protocols to follow at the plant in case of just such an event, I can't imagine such protocols could stop a nuclear waste spill in it's tracks.

Sources:

1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Canada--Nuclear-Power/

2. http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/nuclearwastedump.php

3. http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/4182488-debating-nuclear-waste-storage-near-the-great-lakes/

4. http://www.brucepower.com/nuclear-energy/additional-resources/

Images:

1. Aerial view of Bruce nuclear plant http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/nuclear-power-plant-puts-radioactive-shipping-plans-on-hold-1.1382176

2. Uranium metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

3. Low level nuclear waste http://consciouslifestylesradioblog.com/2011/03/05/go-beyond-organic-a-few-things-you-need-to-know/radioactive-waste-disposal/
4. 

Lake Erie: The Dead Lake Of North America - 1950's-70's Part 5

A New Beginning For Lake Erie 

As I discussed when I talked about the effect  phosphorus had in the 1960's & 70's, it wasn't until April 15th 1972, when President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, that the condition of the lake and waterways would begin to improve.  

President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
signing the original 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

The 1972 agreement was at its core intended to reduce and limit the amount of phosphorus entering the lake and waterways.  Six years later, in 1978, the original Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was revised, and updated to include a broadened goal to "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." (Environment Canada)  From that point on, the agreement would not only help limit the amount of phosphorus entering the lake, but would also set strict limits on the point sources of pollution entering the lake and waterways, primarily industrial waste and sewage.

Despite how bad Lake Erie's situation had to become before any governmental action took place, it's good to see that when they did take action they didn't forget to concern themselves with the underlying problem of toxic pollutants entering the lake, and not only the apparent issue of the abundance of phosphorus. 

Since 1978, the agreement has been re-amended twice, once in 1987 and again in 2012.  Both times it was updated in order to better serve its single purpose of bettering the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The agreement still today, and hopefully long into the future lays a path for preservation, and proper treatment of all of the Great Lakes.  Even though the agreement certainly doesn't solve every problem the lakes face, nor can it, it does so much to protect our lakes, some of the most precious resources in the world.

     









Sources:
1. http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_documents/publications/FS/FS-046%20Lake%20Erie%20water%20quality%20past%20present%20future.pdf 
2. http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/58#.UsmlxPRDuXs
3. http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/pollution/water/water5.html
4. http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=647DC488-1
5.
Images:
1. President Nixon and PM Trudeau http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=E615A766-1

Lake Erie: The Dead Lake Of North America - 1950's-70's Part 4

Time For A Change - Continued

As you've read, fires on the Cuyahoga River were no strange occurrence, and none had sparked any  real change in the region.  Arriving in the late 1960's, the Cuyahoga would act as the final catalyst for the governments to take action against the pollution of the Great Lakes and waterways.  Unlike previous fires, the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire captured international attention.  The fire, under ordinary circumstances of that time would have occurred with very little attention paid to it; thankfully, it did not occur under normal circumstances.  Coupled with the dire situation of the lake, the rise in awareness of said situation as well as the environmental issues plaguing the rivers of the area, and the finally the public demand for action to be taken, the 1969 fire represented the final tug on the chain.

It amazes me to know that despite the lake's eminent ecological demise, and its immense importance for both nations bordering it, neither government stepped in to take action until things became so bad they could no longer be ignored.  Many argue that the cost to undertake the necessary measures would have been to great, and in all truth, the cost would have been staggering.  Even so, if action had been taken earlier to prevent such a situation from taking place, then the costs would have been nearly as high. This seems to be the case for many things, in the sense that action is not taken until it is absolutely needed.  Much more emphasis is placed on the resolution of problems as they occur, rather then the prevention of the problems.  Although, there are also any cases today in our governments which demonstrate the opposite: A strive to prevent problems from occurring so that more effort needn't be required in the future to resolve the problems.  While prevention is undoubtedly a better solution for many issues, it isn't always practical, and therefore isn't always a viable solution.

Never the less, the 1969 fire was the catalyst everyone had been waiting for.

A video explaining the pollution of the Cuyahoga River in 1967

Sources:
1. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga/index.html

Lake Erie: The Dead Lake Of North America - 1950's-70's Part 3

Lake Erie Is No More 


By the 1960's, and late 1960's in particular, Lake Erie became officially regarded as a "dead" lake.  The pollutants, in combination with the severe excess growth of algae left the lake in such a condition that it appeared to be unable to sustain any life.  The fishing industry of the region had long been declining due to the equally declining health of the lake, people no longer sought to use the lake for recreational purposes as they once did, and the once thriving environment of native aquatic life was brought to a state of complete, and utter decay.  

The picture above shows graffiti written on a fence near the shore of Lake Erie, calling for environmental  action to be taken.  The image was taken in 1976. 

The video below is an archived Cleveland news report dating from 1964 regarding the state of Lake Erie and the surrounding waterways at that time. 

Time For A Change

As mentioned earlier, the Canadian and American governments had little governance over Lake Erie and the surrounding waterways up until the late 1960's and early 1970's.  It was in the late 1960's that the governments began to take serious notice of the lake's horrific state, as well as the serious possibility that the lake was reaching a point of no return. 

With all the attention the "dead lake" was receiving throughout North-America, and the realization that something would have to be done, the American and Canadian governments needn't anything else to warrant action to be taken on their behalf to save the lake.  But still, they took no such needed action.  It was actually a fire on the Cuyahoga River which acted as the final catalyst for both governments to take the necessary action.  

The Cuyahoga River forms a horseshoe in Ohio, with both ends facing the lake.  However, only the left extremity of the river, which passes through Cleveland, connects to the lake.  

Map of the Cuyahoga River, in Ohio, USA.

Much like many of the rivers in the vicinity, the Cuyahoga was being utilized by industries in downtown Cleveland in order to rid themselves of their waste.  Consequently, the river had developed and maintained a reputation for being highly polluted.  What furthered the river's reputation was the fact that many of the pollutants found in the river were flammable, and the portion of the river which passed through Cleveland had in fact caught fire on numerous occasions.  Most notable was the 1952 river fire which caused one million dollars in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.  

The 1952 Cuyahoga River fire.

Surprisingly, the river's fires throughout the 1900's took little notice. Again, this shows that the gravity of the lake and associated river systems' situation had not been perceived by the general public, or governments for that matter.  It seems that until people had seen the lake itself degrading with they're own eyes, they were blind to how the pollutants were affecting it.  One would think that a river catching on fire would be enough to encourage something to be done about the (flammable) substances being put into the river, because those substances were no longer only environmental threats, but they then posed a direct danger to Cleveland, it's property, and it's people.  But alas, despite the damages caused by the fire,                                                                                           no significant action was taken.   


Sources:
1. http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/58#.UsmlxPRDuXs 
2. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga/index.html

Images:
1. Lake Erie graffiti http://csudigitalhumanities.org/exhibits/items/show/1209
2. Cuyahoga River map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River 
3. The 1952 fire http://realneo.us/content/cuyahoga-river-fire-1952-jefferson-st-and-w-3rd

Lake Erie: The Dead Lake Of North America - 1960's-70's Part 2

Lake Erie's Most Serious Threats In The 1950's-1970's - Continuation 


To add to the issue of the many harmful substances being put in the lake by industries, as discussed in my last blog post, the lake and nearby waterways were also subjected to pollution in the form of sewage.  The sewage systems of communities in the region of Lake Erie utilized the lake as a dumping ground.  And, without today's sewage treatment plants, which extensively treat waste-water before discharging it back into the environment, it did not take long for the lake to become overloaded with bacteria. Throughout the 1960's, it was typical to see local beaches closed due to high levels of bacteria.    


The following video contains documented footage from the early 1970's, before the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed.  At that time, the pollution in the lake and surrounding waterways caused by sewage discharge was a very grave problem. 

When learning about the amount of toxins and raw sewage that were put into the lake by these industries and communities, it would seem that the nearby rivers, streams and lakes were viewed solely as resources waiting to be exploited.  It's hard to imagine that the people responsible for these industries and sewage systems hadn't thought about the long term or even immediate repercussions that their actions would have on the regions environment.

On the other hand, however, the government was not very involved in the situation concerning Lake Erie, nor was the general public, at least, not until things came to the point where the horrid condition of the lake had become explicitly apparent to those whose saw it.  And so, it might not be true that the industries alone are to blame.  What would be to blame rather, would be the general belief of the time which was that water could dissolve and dilute any toxic substance rendering harmless, which we know today is false. Admittedly, we now have a much deeper understanding of the great lakes, and the human factors which influence them and their adjacent environments then we did in the 1900's. 

Regardless of all of that however, I can't help but feel that it was also ignorance which led industries and local governments to believe that the rivers and lakes could sustain themselves all the while being subjected to a ceaseless discharge of pollutants, harmful to both the environment, and to all of those who rely on said environment.  Including the thousands upon thousands of people from both Canada and the United States who use the lake's "fresh" water for everything from drinking, to bathing, to cooking, to watering the garden.  For the people of the time to honestly believe without much, if any, doubt that the lake could render any toxic substance harmless seems absurd, even when taking the time period's beliefs and lesser understanding of the lake's environment into consideration.   

Above is a cartoon, drawn by
William (Bill) Roberts.  It depicts
industrial wastes and raw sewage making
their way into Lake Erie from downtown
Cleveland, Ohio, followed by a
tidal wave of pollution from the lake
engulfing the city. 

Sources:
1. http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_documents/publications/FS/FS-046%20Lake%20Erie%20water%20quality%20past%20present%20future.pdf
2. http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/pollution/water/water4.html

Images:
1. Lake Erie beach http://www.justice.gov/enrd/3377.htm
2. Cleveland cartoon http://csudigitalhumanities.org/exhibits/items/show/846

Lake Erie: The Dead Lake Of North America - 1960's-70's Part 1

Earlier I discussed the dire situation in which Lake Erie found itself in the 1960's-70's, and specifically the role that phosphorus had played in said degradation of the lake.  While the excess of phosphorus entering Lake Erie in the 1900's was responsible for a great deal of the troubles the lake faced, it was merely one of many serious issues plaguing the lake.  Aside from the abundance of algae in the lake and the accelerated eutrophication it caused, the lake was subjected to pollution in various other forms.  The most devastating of these other forms of pollution consisted of sewage and industrial discharge which made it's way into the lake in immense quantities on a daily basis.


Lake Erie's Most Serious Threats During The 1950's-1970's

Numerous industries around Lake Erie and in the surrounding areas would use nearby waterways which connected to the lake, or even the lake itself to dispose of their waste.  Due to this, the lake quickly became the region's industrial dumping ground.  By the 1960's, it became commonplace to find high concentrations of pollutants in the lake, such as:

- Mercury.  A toxic heavy metal known to attack the brain and nervous system of organisms that have ingested it in high quantities.
- DDT.  A harmful pesticide known to cause deformities and reproductive failures in animals.  It wasn't until 1972 that the pesticide was banned in Ontario and the majority of the United States.
- PCBs.  PCBs, or Polychlorinated Biphenyls very persistent chemicals; they do not deteriorate easily on their own, and they are very difficult to destroy.  They were used for decades in the 1900's as ingredients in many industrial materials, and were banned in 1977.

Mercury + Its Effects On Human Health 

A Can Of DDT

Warning Sign Indicating The Presence Of PCBs

Many of these chemicals and pollutants may not seem like a threat to humans, but once they reach the aquatic environment, there are many ways in which they can make their way into our bodies and cause harm.  Mercury for instance, poses a threat because after having made it's way into the lake, it made it's way into the fish.  And so, people then have to be careful about ingesting fish due to the mercury which may be found inside them.  It is true however, that an individual contaminated fish would not contain enough mercury to cause any real harm to humans.  But collectively, if an individual were to eat contaminated fish often enough, for a long period of time, then the mercury will take its tole on said individual's health.  

 

Sources:
1. http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_documents/publications/FS/FS-046%20Lake%20Erie%20water%20quality%20past%20present%20future.pdf
2. http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/58#.UsmlxPRDuXs
3. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/pcb-bpc-eng.php
Images:
1. Mercury http://www.periodictable.com/Elements/080/
2. Mercury health effects http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/
3. DDT http://jiminmontana.com/2012/01/15/environmentalism-the-green-religion-of-dehumanization/
4. PCBs http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/store/ca/labels/pcb/lb-pcb1aus.html