Letter: PVC: no place in the future
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I write to address some of the points made by Francis Evans regarding the toxicity of PVC, a material proposed for the Millennium Dome (Letters, 30 July).
The Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) are not the only organisation to compare PVC with other materials. A far more authoritative comparative study published by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found a number of alternatives to be preferable after considering the full PVC life-cycle. Their conclusions were based upon considerations of not only the parent material but of the additives commonly used in the final products.
There are well-founded concerns about the use of PVC in blood transfusion products because of the release of phthalate plasticisers; the phthalate DINP that Mr Evans describes as "safe" has a wide range of potential adverse effects. It consequently carries warning labelling requirements under the EU Hazardous Substance Directive. Indeed, concerns about the possible toxic effects of phthalates in general have led the Danish government to initiate moves to phase out the use of such PVC.
The CSIRO report and Professor Christopher Rappe consider only emissions of dioxins to the atmosphere. PVC manufacture generates dioxins predominantly in solid process wastes. Much evidence suggests that the presence of PVC in feedstocks may also be responsible for the substantial dioxin emissions known to result from waste disposal/incineration processes and from scrap metal smelting.
Every assertion that PVC is harmless can be counterbalanced by legitimate concerns, supported by scientific evidence. Generation of dioxin-contaminated wastes, the use of toxic additives, toxic fumes produced in fires, lack of recyclability: all these considerations contributed to the decision by the Austrian Supreme Court to uphold Greenpeace's right to describe PVC as an "environmental poison", in the face of strenuous objections by PVC manufacturing concerns.
Francis Evans' defence of his product is quite understandable, but the environment in the next millennium would be better served by recognition that PVC can play no part in the sustainable society envisioned for the future.
RUTH STRINGER
Greenpeace Research Laboratories
Exeter, Devon
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments