"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:06:50 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:10:04 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

transpire the much less
toxic forms of the metal into the air where they are quickly diffused

Great! Let's dump the metal into the wider environment, shall we? This
is a misuse of resources and an attempt to provide a "fix it" approach
instead of tackling the problem at source.




The solution is to stop polluters from putting pollution into the
environment. In the case of polluted land, the polluter must pay to
remove the contaminants from the soil, not allow it to be "diffused"
into the atmosphere!

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?