My friend Lawrence Solomon has been writing some excellent pieces recently, including fascinating send ups of the "common wisdom" around science and radiation. For instance, he wrote an interesting piece some time ago about a study in the UK on the use of cell phones. The study followed incidences of brain cancer and tumors etc. among frequent cell phone users. The study authors were surprised to discover that people who routinely hold a cell phone next to their ear are less likely to have these kinds of cancers than non-cell phone users.

The study authors then jumped to the conclusion that their study must be flawed and decided to conduct another one. Lawrence Solomon pointed out that this is a great example of scientists not accepting possibilities that differ from their expected outcomes. He noted that the scientists simply couldn't accept the possibility that their study shows that a small daily exposure to low-level energy from a cell phone might be beneficial. It just wasn't in their realm of possibility.

Anyway, Solomon recently published an interesting article in the National Post about Port Hope, Ontario that I reproduce below for the benefit of readers.

Port Hope — a hot spot that may be cool

Nuclear workers in Port Hope contract fewer cancers

by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, November 13, 2010

Thirty-five years ago, Canada’s first radioactive cleanup of a contaminated town was ordered for Port Hope, Ont., after my organization, Energy Probe, proved and publicized gross violations of radiation safety standards. Today, 35 years and many protests with many high-profile environmentalists later, the issue of contamination has not gone away. The earth-moving equipment is back for yet another cleanup and local environmental groups are bringing in yet another high-profile anti-nuclear activist — Dr. Helen Caldicott, head of Physicians for Nuclear Responsibility, who is calling for the town’s 16,500 residents to be relocated before its “carcinogenic time bomb” explodes.

One thing has changed, though. My organization is no longer confident that low levels of radiation, such as those that now remain in Port Hope, pose a danger. To the contrary, a growing body of evidence indicates that low levels of radiation could actually confer a health benefit. Rather than continuing the 10-year $260-million-plus cleanup that has just begun, or contemplating the more extreme measure of closing down the town, the safest course to take may well be to move out the bulldozers instead of the townsfolk.

Port Hope, a pretty town on the shores of Lake Ontario 100 kilometres east of Toronto and home to the country’s largest rehabilitation involving low-level radioactive waste, may be the most researched, rehabilitated, remediated and monitored community in the world. Port Hope became a major uranium refining town during the Second World War as part of the Manhattan Project, under the auspices of a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. Since the first cleanup began in the mid-1970s, various government agencies have moved some 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soils to other locations, have managed another two million tonnes and, after the next move of contaminated soils is completed in 2020, have plans to supervise the new repository for the next 500 years. Meanwhile, other government agencies have overseen 30-odd environmental studies and 13 epidemiological studies of the health of residents who may have been contaminated over the decades.

The many studies generally show that the town’s level of radioactivity, and the health of its residents, is no different from that found in other communities. That doesn’t allay the fears of many, who fear radioactive hot spots, who rightly point out that no full-scale independent public environmental assessment has ever been carried out and who note that official bodies — those in Canada included — state there is no safe level of radiation.

Yet the view that radiation is dangerous in small doses is no less contestable than the conclusions of the many studies done to date. All of the official bodies that state that low levels of radiation are dangerous freely admit that they have no proof for their belief. In the absence of information, they say, the only prudent course is to assume that radiation poses danger in small doses as well as large.

Yet the information is now coming in, say many scientists who study the effects of low levels of radiation on human health. And it shows that low levels of radiation tend to be healthful, or hormetic, to use the medical term.

The planet has many regions that are naturally high in radiation because of the minerals in the ground or because of elevation — the higher up you live, the higher the dose of radiation you receive. Some parts of North America are 10 times more radioactive than others. Those who live in high-radiation regions tend to contract fewer cancers. One study found a 25% higher cancer mortality rate in the lowland states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, than in the Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico, where residents receive five times as much radiation. Colorado does especially well, with a cancer mortality rate 30% below the national average for males and 25% for females.

Our government assumes that radiation plays no role in protecting the townsfolk of Port Hope, but that assumption, too, has no basis. The studies of nuclear workers in Port Hope show them to contract fewer cancers, and to live longer, than the general population of Port Hope, and also those who live in Port Hope contract fewer leukemias than those who live in the nearby area.

Could the benefit of working in proximity to radiation be an indication of radiation’s beneficial effect? Port Hope residents don’t know. “The studies weren’t designed to look for hormetic effects,” explained Patsy Thompson, director deneral of the federal government’s Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment.

But Port Hope residents should know. “If I were from Port Hope, what I would be asking for is a full environmental assessment, and a public hearing that gives the people who live in that area the right to question and cross-examine the scientists and so-called experts who draft the conclusions,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another environmentalist whom local organizers brought to Port Hope in an earlier protest that attempted to get at the truth of what radiation means for Port Hope. “I can’t understand that there’s any reason why that kind of hearing shouldn’t exist.”

There is no reason. A full assessment that allowed all parties to bring forward independent environmental and health experts, and then have them withstand expert challenges, would at a minimum remove uncertainty and spur swift remediation — this picture postcard town, which boasts more heritage buildings per capita than anywhere else in Canada, loses tourist dollars as well as pride of place whenever its environment is disparaged.

At a maximum, the evidence would show that radiation in small doses enhances life, that there’s no reason to fear invisible threats in their air or water, and that $260-million doesn’t need to be spent fixing a non-problem. The endeavour would be worthy. Port Hope should live up to its name.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 03:16 PM | Permalink

Okay, for about a week I've left the reply up in this space from Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) to my blog entry criticizing Ontario's program for waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE). (See "Ontario's WEEE program world's costliest and worst?" October 21, 2010.) Now it's time to respond.

It's important to note that my initial blog entry regarding the performance of Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) WEEE program was made at a time when OES had failed to publish any reports of its program performance for over 6 months -- contrary to S. 33 of the Waste Diversion Act. When OES did respond to my blog post they never mentioned anywhere in their response that a summary of the program’s performance was quietly posted on Waste Diversion Ontario’s (WDO) website sometime late in October. That report-- not to be found on OES’s own website -- OES Report on Performance of Phase 1 Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Program April 1, 2009 to March 31 2010 confirms the following

• Verification that OES collected a total of 17,303 tonnes in its first year of operation (Page 7) and that OES collected $44,508,436 in eco-fees from consumers in its first year (Page 8) – therefore the Year 1 WEEE program cost Ontario electronics consumers $2,572.30/tonne – the most expensive in Canada. This number does not jive with the unreferenced $1,604/tonne claimed by OES. Why?

• The Ontario WEEE program recovered 1.31 kg/person in its first year of operation -- the lowest in Canada - versus 1.9 kg WEEE/person for Alberta in its first year of operation -- an abysmal disaster given that the GTA alone has 51% more people in it than does all of Alberta.

I would make a couple of additional points about OES’ response in context of the Report on Performance:

• I'm not sure what a global recession has to do with pulling WEEE from people’s basements and into the Ontario WEEE diversion program; in fact were OES to reward people financially for returning WEEE for recycling that probably would do more for increasing recovery in a downturned economy than otherwise. That OES also cites the Toronto garbage strike as part of the cause for poor performance just makes the case that OES is relying on municipalities to recover what the OES program should be proactively recovering through financial incentives and a comprehensive collection network.

• The revised “baseline” for all WEEE generated in Ontario available for collection is 63,968 tonnes (Page 15) of which OES recovered again only 17,303 -- that means 46,665 tonnes or 73% tonnes of e-waste flowed outside of the OES program to places unknown.

• OES planned to have 9,994 tonnes of electronics sent for refurbishment and reuse in year 1 but only managed 215.7 tonnes or 2% of their target.

• 3,314 retails signed up with OES to collect eco-fees from consumers and pay them directly to OES on electronic product manufacturers’ behalf. So, where the Ontario government has been claiming manufacturers pay for the program in fact manufacturers have signed up retailers to levy consumers directly and thereby take themselves out of the payment process completely.

It is not true that our, “…magazine and editors always opposed the concept much less the reality of the OES program.” What we have opposed is how the OES program is designed not to work. OES employs a bizarre quota and allocation scheme that undermines rather than promotes the recovery and recycling of WEEE. That the OES program would fail was predicted in 2008 when a group of Ontario processors noted that what OES was proposing as its WEEE diversion plan was, “…a monopolistic “flow control” model (with a new convoluted OES processor tendering scheme to provide a price control scheme with a façade of “competition”) that will achieve nothing except disruption to the existing collection and processing market.”

Fast forward almost three years and that is exactly what has happened. The OES economic design of its program is fatally flawed. Consider this description of the OES model by Sims Recycling Solutions -- Ontario’s largest WEEE processor (and one established long before Ontario’s WEEE program arrived):

“Under the WEEE program all WEEE collected by registered collectors is consolidated (in OES controlled consolidation centers) and then allocated to WEEE processors under a quota system. There is no way for a processor to “grow the business” -- any WEEE collected by a given processor on its own initiative is then allocated to its competitors by OES based on the set quotas.

As an example, if Sims Recycling Solutions were to organize and fund a creative collection event (say through a school board or Rotary Club) we would only receive our allocated 30% of the WEEE we collect for processing despite the fact that Sims Recycling Solutions was responsible for recovering 100% of this material. The other approved processors would receive the remaining 70% of what Sims Recycling Solutions collected despite not being involved in the development or execution of the innovative collection event.”

The most fundamental problem is that while OES operates this quota system and its stewards pass on electronic stewardship eco-fees to consumers, the financial incentives paid to OES approved WEEE processors registered with its program are insufficient for them to compete with entirely unregulated WEEE “recycling” businesses operating outside of the Ontario WEEE program. The result is that most WEEE generated in the province bypasses the OES program and is simply brokered out-of-province to destinations unknown.

As remedy I think the government:

-- Should dissolve OES and call for a new Industry Funding Organization that includes participation of stewards, WEEE processors (reuse/refurbishers and recyclers), environmental groups and consumer advocates;

-- The WEEE program should have diversion targets and environmental performance standards written into regulations under the Waste Diversion Act;

-- WEEE stewards need to be held to the Competition Act to ensure that both recyclers that provide service to the program and consumers that pay electronic stewardship eco-fees are protected from anti-competitive behavior.

-- WEEE materials should be banned from landfill (with the ban phased in as diversion options become available, but the phase in should not be overly drawn out).

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 07:44 PM | Permalink

In the interest of fairness, I have reproduced a letter from Carol Hochu, Executive Director of Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) responding to my recent blog post about Ontario's underperforming (in my opinion) WEEE program. I offer the letter unedited and in its entirety without editorial comment. I will leave this posted for a week and next week (Monday, November 15) probably comment or reply to it in this space, depending on other comments that might be posted. My goal has been to get a conversation going about this program. Anyway, here's Ms. Hochu's letter:

I am writing in response to the blog posting from your editor-in-chief Guy Crittenden dated October 21st (Ontario WEEE Program World’s Costliest and Worst?). Given that Mr. Crittenden obviously shares Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) commitment to the safe and responsible diversion of electronic waste in our province, it is a shame that he didn’t take more time to research the topic. The posting contains incorrect facts and misleading comparisons and assertions that can only be fairly described as unfounded. All of these could have been avoided with the benefit of contact with OES to confirm information. One also suspects that, at the heart of the matter, is a fundamental policy difference as to how electronic waste should be managed in Ontario – and by whom. Such differences of opinion are well worth debating, but only in the presence of a transparent and accurate set of facts.

Allow me to highlight just a few of the most glaring examples:

• The posting says that Ontario’s WEEE program is the most costly in the world at $3500 to $4400 per tonne. This is incorrect. The true cost for the Year 1 WEEE program was $1604 per tonne. Publicly posted data obtained from most recent annual reports for various provincial programs shows the per tonne cost varies from roughly $1180 to $1840 per tonne. OES fits comfortably within that range, notwithstanding the fact that the program has only just completed 18 months of operation.

• The author condemns the efficacy of OES’ performance as compared to Alberta. But his figures are misleading. To compare Ontario’s performance in its first year of operation with Alberta’s performance in its fifth year will obviously lead to exaggerations. With four additional years of operations, consumer education and community involvement, any jurisdiction is going to do better. A fair comparison would be to ask what Alberta did in its second year of operation as compared to where Ontario stands now half-way through its second year. The answer is that Alberta was handling1.9Kg/per capita of electronic waste whereas Ontario is managing 2.39Kg/per capita as of September 30th (i.e. after 6 months of our second year of operations).

• The posting makes much of the fact that OES collected only 17,000 tonnes of e-waste during its first year of operation. While accurate, that figure is employed in a misleading fashion. All early-year WEEE-type programs underperform as compared to later years. In Ontario’s case, not only did the program launch during a global recession, it was challenged by host of issues including a city-wide municipal strike in Toronto (the program’s largest municipal collector), legacy contract obligations in many municipalities that reduced initial local participation in OES, and the natural nascent awareness issues that will confront any first year program, to name but three. Evidence that these factors are not only germane but are being overcome is found in the fact that to-date, OES Year 2 performance has improved by more than 100%.

There are other examples of weak arguments. Comparing Ontario’s program performance with Switzerland, for example, is strange. Europe includes wholly distinct categories of product (e.g. white goods) within its programs, boasts significant cultural and geographic differences when it comes to recycling and waste diversion habits, and has had a far longer experience in this program area.

OES does not lay claim to perfection. Due to the factors cited earlier, we did witness a lower-than-desired rate of participation in Year One. Naturally, we are eager to see stronger results. However, the program is confronting its challenges, building momentum and improving its performance. Tonnes collected are up substantially compared to the first year. New incentives have been implemented that will intensify our service provider participation. And a comprehensive performance audit with WDO is scheduled to begin shortly. Ontarians should have no doubt as to the commitment from OES to ongoing and demonstrable performance improvement.

It bears mentioning however, that underlying the errors and questionable arguments, there remains a fundamental disagreement of policy. It is even acknowledged by the author when he states that his magazine and editors always opposed the concept much less the reality of the OES program.

Given the editor’s fondness for jurisdictional comparisons, it may come as a surprise to learn that the facts are clear: When jurisdictions involve industry and retailer collectives in taking responsibility for e-waste, results get delivered. This approach places performance under a spotlight. It creates accountability. It incentivizes action. Jurisdictions without WEEE programs such as OES simply don’t get the diversion job done.

OES welcomes the opportunity discuss its performance and its operations with those in the industry. We are in constant search of improvements and therefore welcome such advice. However, we naturally ask that any such dialogue be based on actual data, facts and fair comparisons. Perhaps in the future, we can work more closely to ensure an objective and unerring set of facts is offered to the public.

Sincerely,

Carol Hochu, Executive Director
Ontario Electronic Stewardship

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 09:33 PM | Permalink

I will be at the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) "Canadian Waste Sector Symposium" at the Westin Bristol Place Toronto Airport (950 Dixon Road) on Tuesday, November 2. Then, on Wednesday November 3 and Thursday November 4 I'll be at the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo at the International Centre, 6900 Airport Road in Mississauga. People wishing to say hello and chat can catch up with me at these events this week. I'll only be on email sporadically. -- Guy Crittenden

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 07:09 PM | Permalink