ACI versus EPA: What happens when you put non-scientists in charge of science issues

ACI = American Concrete Institute
EPA = Environmental Protection AgencyPretty much all of the conservative base are against the EPA for bogus reasons. I don't want to talk about those bogus reasons. So, if you're a conservative christian who thinks you know everything, it's best that you go somewhere else for your rant against the EPA.What I want to talk about here is what happens when you put non-scientists in charge of a scientific issue. Sort of like the whole issue with evolution vs creationism.As an engineer, I've been hearing about this for a long time now regarding the use of fly ash in concrete. You can read about the issue at the following link and subsequent links there.http://www.concrete.org/flyash/flyash.htmBasically speaking, fly ash is a waste product from coal power plants. Millions of tons are being produced. It is hazardous and can cause cancer in people.The conventional way to deal with fly ash is to dump it in land fills. And that's what the EPA wants to do.On the other hand, almost every environmental scientist and engineer is telling the EPA that it is a much better solution to use fly ash in concrete mixes. What happens is when you put fly ash in concrete, it gets frozen and will never bother anyone again.This is oppose to putting them in land fills where they can leak into the water table.The EPA's thought process is simple. It's a hazardous material. Therefore, it's gotta stay away from people. They are unwilling to listen to scientists who are telling them otherwise.This is a frustrating issue, really. One of the people I work with is a leader in environmental engineering. And he's been pulling his hair out over this issue. To him, it's frustrating to deal with EPA people who think in 1-dimensional terms.Should there be a societal push to put real honest to god scientists in charge of real honest to god science? Or should we continue to let politicians who think in terms of political correctness and 1-dimensional thought process?And for the record, I'm all for having an EPA. What I'm oppose to is having politicians in charge of it rather than people who actually work in the field.

Thread copied here from the ACI versus EPA: What happens when you put non-scientists in charge of science issues thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

This doesn't really seem to be what the EPA is saying at all. From the FAQ ... also ... They still seem to have no problem with people using fly ash in concrete. Instead the concrete industry seems to be saying that they want everyone to pretend that fly ash isn't hazardous waste so that they won't be in danger of possible legal exposure and liability. Certainly that seems to be the argument that both of the letters from your link put forward. It is they that argue that anything labeled hazardous waste mustn't be used for any other purpose, and therefore if fly ash is so labeled they will stop using it.The EPA clearly states that they support the reuse of fly ash in concrete. You seem to agree that fly ash itself constitutes hazardous waste. So where is your beef?Do you agree that fly ash shouldn't be called 'hazardous waste' because it may deter people from using it for fear of legal liability? What do you think this hazardous waste product should be called instead?.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Yes, when you get down to the specifics, the EPA technically allows the use of fly ash in concrete. But they are indirectly discouraging it by labeling it as hazardous waste.Look, people are dumbasses. You of all people should know that. Putting fly ash in concrete is the safest way to dispose of it (other than somehow fly it to the moon). But people don't care about that. It doesn't matter to joe schmoe that once fly ash gets frozen into concrete it can't harm him anymore. All he cares about is he'll be a couple feet from it. Remember the whole dihydrogen monoxide gimmick and how many dumbass environmentalists agreed to ban it?Read the letter from the ACI to the EPA. It explains quite well the core of this issue.It took the ACI decades to be able to convince mainstream society to use fly ash in concrete as a way to dispose safely of this millions of tons of toxic waste material. The EPA's effort to make it sound scary to ordinary joe schmoes is undermining all of that.By the way, talk to any American environmental/structural engineer who's familiar with this issue. Even though the EPA is only labeling it that way, to us it might as well be banning it out right because we live in a society where everybody is suing everybody over the dumbest thing. One of the guys here did fly ash for his doctoral thesis. He's been attending conferences on this issue. The ACI really is convinced this move by the EPA is absolutely the worst move they could make. Pretty soon, we'll be seeing contractors stepping away from fly ash for fear of legal reprisals.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Taz, I looked over some of the ACI links and I didn't see (though I might just have missed it) what the effects would be if the concrete made using fly ash was pulverised. Would it then be actually hazardous waste again (not just labeled as such by the EPA, but actually hazardous) ? It's quite common for concrete to be recycled these days and if it's made with fly ash that might be a bad thing to do if it's will release the toxins. Maybe concrete with fly ash will need to be colored or have some embeded tags to make it known it's not to be recycled?Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

Lead locked up in paint was not harmful as long as it remained lead locked up in paint.Asbestos as insulation or siding was not harmful as long as it remained asbestos locked up in siding or insulation.Even the asbestos in brake pads was not harmful as long as it remained locked up in brake pads.

I doubt you would be able to pulverise it back to Fly ash Photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000x magnificationi think it would be safe to recycle concrete made with fly ash

But these things never remain 'locked up'.If there is some powder in the concrete on the sidewalk, I can't imagine how it wouldn't slowly come off on people's shoes as they walked on it.

In the oilfield business, we use flyash (= "poz" or pozzolan) all the time in with cement for cementing the pipe in wells into place. One important thing to note is that the flyash actually reacts with the cement over time, so that it pretty much becomes one entity with the rest of the sidewalk or cement sheath after a year or two. And its use can make better, more water-resistant concrete that just Portland cement can.Second, yes, I agree that poz probably contains some dangerous stuff. After all, you burned some stuff you dug out of the ground to make it. Cement, on the other hand, is made of stuff that you dug out of the ground and burned. Different stuff, yes, but limestone and clay can have toxic chemicals like barium in them, just like coal can. And given a choice between handling cement or flyash bare-handed or bare-nosed, I will take flyash. I've done both, and never been "scalded" by flyash like by cement. Cement is much more alkaline.The difference, I think, is that cement is made with the express intent of it being the product for sale. Flyash is leftovers from making electricity, so it is "waste."There is a product, generically called cenospheres, that has been in the oilwell market for 25 years or so that is also getting more common in construction. It is made by dumping flyash into water, and skimming off the portion that floats. (A decent percentage of those little sphere in Frako's post above are hollow, and rather astoundingly strong.) I'm not even real sure where I would look to determine whether cenospheres are classified as equally hazardous as the poz that sank - but my bet is that it's "safer" in one set of regulations somewhere, only because it is purpose-made like cement is.(Why use cenospheres, you ask? So you can make strong cement that weighs 10 pounds per gallon instead of 14 or 15. That can be important in lots of applications.)

See? I consider you a learned individual and you already have a knee jerk reaction to this.Fly ash is only toxic in its powdery form. Once locked into concrete, it chemically reacts with the concrete components and stay locked in there.I also have news for you. Concrete engineers and environmental scientists have known about fly ash and using it in concrete mixes as a way to safely dispose of it since the 20's. They also know that as soon as joe schmoes hear about it they would have a knee jerk reaction to it and eventually fly ash would end up in land fills again where it would inevitably leak into the water table and right into the environment.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I realise that we all read out other people's posts in our own heads using our own voices, but your reply seems far harsher than KJS's reply deserves.
He asked 2 questions and made one tentatively worded statement.What sub-text am I missing?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Jon, don't talk about things you know not about. Concrete engineers and scientists have been using fly ash since the 20s. At some point in time, someone asked the question about disposing of all these millions and millions of tons of fly ash that came from the coal burning industry. Keeping them locked up for good in our concrete really is the best solution. And yes, there is a chemical reaction between the concrete components and flyash so that flyash actually does get locked up for good in there.Here's a limit test to see if you're qualified to share your concern about this issue. Without googling, can you verbalize how concrete hardens?The most typical answer I get is the concrete "dries".

There are 2 underlying points in his post.(1) Even after flyash has been locked up in concrete we need to color them differently so people can avoid them.(2) Flyash remains flyash and dangerous after it is locked up in concrete.This is the reason why the ACI is against the EPA labeling flyash as a hazardous toxic waste. It makes people who know nothing about the issue get all scared and before we know it flyash is banned from concrete mixes.

That was his first question. It was not a statement of fact.
He said he could not see (in your link) if pulverised flyash concrete was dangerous or not.
Asking for clarification is not a knee-jerk reaction. This was a proposed solution only if the answer to the above question was: "Pulverised flyash concrete is dangerous".You seem to have taken his request for more information as some kind of statement of fact.
*shrug*
It appears I am reading a drastically different post to the one that you are.
C'est la vie.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It cures, that is, there's a chemical reaction where, um, calcium carbonate forms a hydrated crystal? Sorry, that's the best I can do from memory (and guessing.) All my chemistry knowledge is organic at this point.I have a question, I guess; my understanding is that the toxicity of fly ash is a function of the heavy metals present in coal that don't combust. I completely accept your claim that the fly ash particles become embedded and fused with the cement matrix. But concrete is permeable to water in many cases. What's the possibility of heavy metals in the fly ash component of concrete moving into a mobile water phase?Like some of the others in this thread I'm concerned that you're mostly making an argument about marketing. Fly ash is clearly a hazardous waste. There simply can be no argument that it is a waste and that it is hazardous. It's awesome that as much as 43% of it is reused; I'd like to burn less coal and produce less of it in the first place. But I don't see any reason not to classify it as a waste and not to classify it as hazardous. When stored as ash or as slurry, it's incredibly dangerous to aquifers.