John Britt on wed 19 jan 00
Tom,
With all due respect, I am really having a hard time with this post.
It is very hard to believe that firing a kiln would "clean" air. In
fact this is unbelievable. Does this mean that if we all start firing
kilns we could actually eliminate the pollution problem?
The point is that the EPA has proven the problem. Regardless of the
invisible pollutants (which I am sure exist in wood kilns too) the
problem is particulates. Wood kilns exceed the limits. Art is no
excuse.
Does the EPA have bigger fish to fry? That is irrelevant. Every person
matters. Take for instance a recent report in TIME magazine, Jan 17,
2000. They report that a study showed burning trash in your backyard
from just one household dumps the same amount of dioxins, furans and
other chlorine-containing pollutants into the air as the burning of
trash by a state-of-the-art municipal waste incinerator serving tens of
thousands of homes. Does one person burning trash in their backyard
matter? How about 100,000 of them? How about 1,000,000. You see one
person adds up when you have a lot of them.
Each person is the problem. Should we excuse one artist from the
regulation? One school? One company? How about DuPont? Maybe if they
donate to some campaign? You see, then where do you draw the line.
Schools and artists are no different from anyone else in their need to
comply with health and safety regulations. It is for the greater good.
(If the EPA ever came in and tested the drains at any university, they
would shut them down. People seem to think that washing toxic glaze
materials down the drain is any different that dumping it out your back
door. The only difference is YOU can't see it anymore. But I assure
you that the fish and wildlife don't differentiate between DuPont and an
artist when they ingest it. )
The ever expanding pollution and waste of 260,000,000 people is a very
difficult problem!
Sorry for the rant. Nothing personal. I just feel stongly about this
topic.
_________________________________________________________________
Tom Wirt wrote:
Martin,
I'll relate a story told to me by Richard Bresnahan who fires wood at
St.
John's University in Collegeville MN. While he was apprenticing in
Japan,
supposedly the Japanese governement was trying to shut down a wood kiln
near
where he was. As part of the testing, a team of engineers from a nearby
Toyota factory were hired to test for pollution emitted by the kiln.
They
measured the air going in for all pollutants including heavy metals,
sulfides, carbon, etc. They measured the effluent for the same.
The net was that the air was cleaner going out of the kiln, even with
the
smoke, than the air going in. Apparently the charcoal scrubbed some of
the
pollutants and the rest were trapped on the surfaces of the pots as
colorants. The visible smoke was the smallest part and least damaging
of
the whole process.
Don't know how true or accurate the detail of my telling, but you could
contact Richard by calling him at 320-363-2930. The point of the story,
I
would think the EPA would/should have to prove its allegations of
pollution
by some thorough testing over the span of a firing. And while the smoke
seems to be the pollutant, the most important part may be invisible.
I remember living in Denver for 6 years where the claim was that the
"brown
cloud" caused heavily by the high carbon emissions from planes and
trucks
was not the dangerous part of the pollution. That the danger was from
the
nitrous oxides from the automobiles. 'course the truckers had a strong
lobby and the individual motorist did not.
And when all is said and done, is the amount of pollution coming from
this
kiln a significant percent of the state's pollution? Don't they have
bigger fish to fry? And involve the local press.....it's a good story
and
government agenicies don't like to operate in public.
Tom Wirt
Embroiled in my own version of government involvement here in McLeod
County
MN.
--
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
Ray Aldridge on sat 22 jan 00
At 01:56 PM 1/19/00 EST, you wrote:
>
>The point is that the EPA has proven the problem.
How, exactly, do you know this?
Regardless of the
>invisible pollutants (which I am sure exist in wood kilns too) the
>problem is particulates. Wood kilns exceed the limits. Art is no
>excuse.
>
>Does the EPA have bigger fish to fry? That is irrelevant. Every person
>matters. Take for instance a recent report in TIME magazine, Jan 17,
>2000. They report that a study showed burning trash in your backyard
>from just one household dumps the same amount of dioxins, furans and
>other chlorine-containing pollutants into the air as the burning of
>trash by a state-of-the-art municipal waste incinerator serving tens of
>thousands of homes. Does one person burning trash in their backyard
>matter? How about 100,000 of them? How about 1,000,000. You see one
>person adds up when you have a lot of them.
Do you foresee the building of a million hill-climbing wood kilns? If not,
this line of argument is silly.
>
>Each person is the problem. Should we excuse one artist from the
>regulation? One school? One company? How about DuPont? Maybe if they
>donate to some campaign? You see, then where do you draw the line.
>Schools and artists are no different from anyone else in their need to
>comply with health and safety regulations. It is for the greater good.
>
If we take your view to its logical conclusion, then none of us will be
making pots. The world doesn't need your pots (or my pots.) Our work is
the indulgence of an affluent society, and if "the greater good" is as
compelling to you as you claim, you should immediately swear off making
pottery, since this is a nonessential and polluting activity, any way you
look at it.
In practical terms, do you also propose that all the New Mexican ceramists
working with electric kilns be shut down? The big wood kiln at least
possesses the economies of scale, but thousands of little electric kilns
are hooked up to the big Four Corners coal burning plants, and the
generation of that power is inefficient and more polluting per pot than
pots fired by the relatively benign process of burning wood. For that
matter, the fireplaces of Las Cruces undoubtedly produce vastly more
pollution than the kiln; do you propose that we send SWAT teams house to
house to root out these frivolous sources of pollution, whose only
contribution to society is the momentary relaxation to be found in the play
of flame? At least a pot can be used to serve mashed potatoes.
For heaven's sake, think for a moment before you post this sort of polemic,
because you are promoting a very dangerous mindset. If enough people
believe as you do, there will someday be no more independent artists,
because the majority of people do not believe that art is a necessity.
They regard their cars as necessities, their TVs, their new wardrobes,
their hot tubs and swimming pools-- before they give up any of these
things, they will find some powerless minority to restrict-- and
independent artists have always fit that description.
Either you believe that art has sufficient advantages to the world that its
small burden of pollution must be borne, or you do not. If you do not, why
are you making pots at all?
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Iveragh Ceramics on mon 24 jan 00
Are you promoting dictatorship? How many people are there using wood
kiln's - definitely not enough to make a difference - so lets all get on
with minding our own business and being creative artistically, for herein
lies the answer to this weary, well 'over' worn topic of pollution, where
the 'little' self is worried about it's own survival. Involved in the arts
usually means a hightened awareness - the earth needs our love, through art
not our invasive and worrying thoughts about what another is doing with his
her life, forget this 'worry' approach, it goes nowhere but down and is the
thought form that contributes to pollution of the the earth, not the fact
that a 'few' are burning wood in order to fire their pots! They are
contributing to cleaning the earth up!!
love from
Emma.
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 01:56 PM 1/19/00 EST, you wrote:
>
>The point is that the EPA has proven the problem.
How, exactly, do you know this?
Regardless of the
>invisible pollutants (which I am sure exist in wood kilns too) the
>problem is particulates. Wood kilns exceed the limits. Art is no
>excuse.
>
>Does the EPA have bigger fish to fry? That is irrelevant. Every person
>matters. Take for instance a recent report in TIME magazine, Jan 17,
>2000. They report that a study showed burning trash in your backyard
>from just one household dumps the same amount of dioxins, furans and
>other chlorine-containing pollutants into the air as the burning of
>trash by a state-of-the-art municipal waste incinerator serving tens of
>thousands of homes. Does one person burning trash in their backyard
>matter? How about 100,000 of them? How about 1,000,000. You see one
>person adds up when you have a lot of them.
Do you foresee the building of a million hill-climbing wood kilns? If not,
this line of argument is silly.
>
>Each person is the problem. Should we excuse one artist from the
>regulation? One school? One company? How about DuPont? Maybe if they
>donate to some campaign? You see, then where do you draw the line.
>Schools and artists are no different from anyone else in their need to
>comply with health and safety regulations. It is for the greater good.
>
If we take your view to its logical conclusion, then none of us will be
making pots. The world doesn't need your pots (or my pots.) Our work is
the indulgence of an affluent society, and if "the greater good" is as
compelling to you as you claim, you should immediately swear off making
pottery, since this is a nonessential and polluting activity, any way you
look at it.
In practical terms, do you also propose that all the New Mexican ceramists
working with electric kilns be shut down? The big wood kiln at least
possesses the economies of scale, but thousands of little electric kilns
are hooked up to the big Four Corners coal burning plants, and the
generation of that power is inefficient and more polluting per pot than
pots fired by the relatively benign process of burning wood. For that
matter, the fireplaces of Las Cruces undoubtedly produce vastly more
pollution than the kiln; do you propose that we send SWAT teams house to
house to root out these frivolous sources of pollution, whose only
contribution to society is the momentary relaxation to be found in the play
of flame? At least a pot can be used to serve mashed potatoes.
For heaven's sake, think for a moment before you post this sort of polemic,
because you are promoting a very dangerous mindset. If enough people
believe as you do, there will someday be no more independent artists,
because the majority of people do not believe that art is a necessity.
They regard their cars as necessities, their TVs, their new wardrobes,
their hot tubs and swimming pools-- before they give up any of these
things, they will find some powerless minority to restrict-- and
independent artists have always fit that description.
Either you believe that art has sufficient advantages to the world that its
small burden of pollution must be borne, or you do not. If you do not, why
are you making pots at all?
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
| |
|
