Graham, Mike,
Permit a wrinklie to reminisce. During the war, which I spent in
Edinburgh, nicknamed Auld Reekie, the use of fossil fuels was strictly
rationed. Motor fuel was very rationed and, at times, banned altogether
for private use. Sometimes a gallon per week. Home and industrial
heating and power was done essentially by coal or coke, also very
strictly rationed. Public transport was thinned down to a minimum. All
this resulted in Auld Reekie becoming Auld Cleenie, the traditional pall
of smoke practically disappearing, especially in summer. The views were
often so clear (when it wasn't raining) that we could see the top of Ben
Lomond 60 miles away and I remember watching the air battles over the
Forth Bridge, through binoculars, about 20 miles from our house (on top
of a 400 ft hill). Occasionally, though, in summer on a hot (rare)
summer's afternoon, Edinburgh had a pall of blue haze, which we called a
heat haze. We know, now, of course, it was a light photochemical smog
but probably generated to at least 75% from natural sources. On one
occasion, in Perthshire, where there are much coniferous forest and
fruit growing, and almost no industry and a sparse population, I
remember this "heat haze" dropped the visibility to a few hundred metres
or yards in one valley.
Moving to Switzerland, the Valais is a canton comprising mainly of the
Rhone valley, with 3000-4000 m mountains on all sides (the Rhone flows
out through a very narrow gorge at St. Maurice). There are vast larch,
pine and fir forests on the mountains up to about 2200 m. The valley
floor and a few hundred metres above are almost 100% devoted to fruit
(apricots, peaches, apples, pears, grapes, tomatoes etc.) and is
Switzerland's largest vine-growing and wine-making area. There is little
industry and little through-traffic although a certain amount of tourist
traffic going up the lateral valleys to Zermatt, Saas Fee, Crans-Montana
etc. There are often strong winds flowing down the valley, but the
occasional still day. Even in winter, on a sunny day, the ozone levels
on a still day are fairly high but, in summer, they often peak to 2 or 3
times the recommended maximum, for usually short periods. This is due to
a very large extent to natural terpenoids from the forest and fruit
trees (and alcohols from over-ripe fruit and wine, no doubt) and the
NOxs produced by the very frequent and violent thunderstorms in the
mountains.
So yes, Mike, we must never forget that a large proportion of VOCs can
be from natural causes, depending on the vegetation and natural
conditions (the Blue Mountains of NSW are possibly the largest natural
terpene - eucalyptol/eucalyptene - source in the world and owes its name
to the optical effect that terpenes have in the atmosphere).
And yes, Graham, alcoholic liquor is a major source of VOCs: and most of
the EtOH ends up being emitted in the atmosphere through the skin, the
breath and evaporated out of urine. Personally, I'm not strong on
distilled juices like you mention (what, a Scot who doesn't drink
whisky? It's too expensive for a Scotsman, anyway), although I may have
a wee glass of kirsch now and again and I never drink beer or ale. But,
let anyone try and interfere with the wine I enjoy with a good meal and
you will have an angry man.
However, be assured that the European Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11
March 1999 is entitled "on the limitation of emissions of volatile
organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain
activities and installations" and not "on the limitation of emissions of
volatile organic compounds due to the manufacture and consumption of
alcoholic liquor and beverages". If you care to look in Circuit World
Vol. 26 No. 2, January 2000, I have an article there entitled
Environmental Issues in Electronics Manufacturing: a Review. This
article criticises sharply the Directive (and the US legislation, which
is even worse) and evokes the liquor problem. The article also covers
other controversial issues related to lead, ozone depletion,
fluorocarbons, bromide fire retardants, water, energy and public health,
so there is enough meat, written in an often acerbic tone, for anyone
interested, positively or negatively, in the environment.
I have always said that environmental legislation is essential but it
must be based on real, practical issues and devised by people who know
what these issues really are, based on real scientific evidence, and not
by politicians and their technocrats. Although far from perfect, the
Montreal Protocol was the first international agreement on environmental
issues and it covers the basic needs of such an agreement: it recognises
the problem, it forecasts the extent of the problem, it provides a
detailed scientific assessment of the problem, it names the major causes
of the problem, it examines the use of the causes in each economic
sector, it recognises the costs of the problem and eliminating it, it
introduces a reasonable phase-out plan while establishing committees to
identify alternative technologies for each sector and sub-sector, it
establishes different rulings for developed and developing nations, it
provides help for developing nations to obtain a transfer to new
technologies and it provides financial aid to developing nations to
phase out ozone-depleting compounds. Not bad, for a first try at such an
agreement. Believe me, the Kyoto Protocol is a wishy-washy farce beside
the Montreal one, which shows that we have not learnt our lesson from
the mistakes of Montreal, especially because Kyoto attacks the terabucks
business of the petroleum industry generally, compared with the
megabucks scale of a small sector of the chemical industry with
Montreal.
Sorry for the long spiel but you touched a chord.
Brian
Graham Naisbitt wrote:
> Hi Techies, Picking-up on a Technet string which talks about VOCs, I
> thought it appropriate to post the following for consideration. When
> talking VOCs, it is really important to respect the way in which rules
> are interpreted in our respective countries. In the USA you have a
> list of solvents that enjoy "exempt" status from VOC legislation. As I
> understand it, this means that you can avoid paying tax if you use
> "exempt" solvents. Again, as Brian Ellis stated, unfortunately (or
> fortunately depending upon which side of the tracks you are on) in
> Europe a VOC is any organic (carbon based) material having a vapour
> pressure above 0.01kPa. It is a mandate in Europe (EC Directive) to
> reduce VOC emissions but we have no policemen so it is largely ignored
> by all except the large multi-nationals who are ISO14000 qualified.
> Frankly I seriously wonder how many there are out there who even
> understand the difference including the interpretation of the
> directive. I do not seek comments on the rights and wrongs of each
> approach, only to state the different ways in which legislation is
> being imposed. I can say with absolute certainty that VOC exempt
> solvents such as nButylacetate may be OK in the USA but NOT here in
> Europe - it is a VOC PERIOD!Even whisky and bourbon, vodka and gin are
> VOCs and I say "NO TO PROHIBITION!" Regards,
> Graham Naisbitt [log in to unmask] WEB:
> http://www.concoat.co.uk CONCOAT Ltd
> Alasan House, Albany Park
> CAMBERLEY GU15 2PL UK Tel: +44 (0) 1276 691100 Fax: +44 (0) 1276
> 691227
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5315
##############################################################
|
