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

You'd be surprised to know how many people don't know it's a chemical reaction. They think it "dries" much the same way that bread dries and becomes hard bread. No need for complicated answers. Fly ash has been quietly used in concrete mixes since the 20s, and probably long before that. Nothing has happened.Again, there's a reason why the ACI and other engineers and scientists in the field have been working in a semi-quiet mode about flyash. We're fully aware that it's very harmful to people. That's why we want to lock it into concrete so that there's no chance of it seeping out to the environment. And we're also fully aware that to the general public it sounds scary.There's no escaping the fact that most of our energy comes from the burning of coal. We can either find something useful for flyash or we can dump all of it into land fills.In this particular case, labeling is extremely essential to whether we'll continue to recycle and use flyash or dump everything into landfills.

Well, in that case I apologize for my previous response.Once flyash is mixed into concrete, it is chemically locked into the concrete matrix. It's part of the concrete.Again, I must point out that fly ash has been used in concrete mixes since the 20's. No ill effect yet.

FWIW, one of the main things fly ash does to concrete/cement is to make it less permeable to water. And you're only talking about a millidarcy or so permeability to start with in normal construction cement anyway. Yes, heavy metals could leach out, but not near as quickly as they would from loose flyash in a landfill.

I wouldn't be surprised that this is the common view, I guess, because hardly anybody knows anything about anything. But, people with expertise in fields are sensitive to the common misapprehensions about what they do. My wife is an entomologist (now for the Army!) and it drives her up the wall when people refer to spiders as insects. My guess would be that knowledge about what fly ash is, and why it is produced, is about as common as the knowledge that concrete cures instead of dries - that is, not very. I had only ever heard of fly ash because of that disaster in Tennessee I linked to. (A billion fucking gallons of fly ash slurry, right into the goddamn river! Unbelievable. If fly ash in concrete prevents shit like that, I'm all for it.) You're not giving us much to go on but your word (and the word of a few other engineers) that the (accurate) labeling of fly ash as "hazardous waste" is an impediment to its widespread use in concrete. As you point out, it's been going into concrete for several decades. Is there a specific example of a case where engineers planned to use fly ash concrete, but were stopped because of mistaken concerns about its safety? That's the part I guess I'm skeptical about.

Natural pozzolan from volcanos is very similar to flyash (except that it probably has a different set of toxics in it) and was used by the Romans to make all those aqueducts two millenia ago.

There's a reason why the ACI and other concrete engineer organizations are stressed out over this issue. We're all aware of how gullible people are when it comes to soundbites to the regular folks.Again, there's a reason why concrete engineers have been somewhat quietly using flyash in concrete mixes. We know how scary it sounds to the general public.But I guess you're right. Now that the cat is out of the bag, we'll just have to wait and see if the fallout is as bad as the ACI is thinks it will be.Personally, I'm with the ACI here. People are stupid morons. I honestly believe this. That's why the majority still don't believe in evolution. And that's why most of them still don't believe in climate change even though the issue has been settled years ago in the scientific community.In fact, people get elected by saying they don't believe in evolution or they don't believe in climate change.Think a couple years from now.THIS JUST IN, CONSPIRACY AMONG CONCRETE ENGINEERS TO HIDE TOXIC HAZARDOUS WASTE RIGHT UNDERNEATH YOUR FEET!THIS JUST IN, MOST PEOPLE ARE SWIMMING IN TOXIC HAZARDOUS WASTE WITHOUT KNOWING IT!CONSERVATIVE MORAL CHRISTIAN OBLIGATION TO RID SOCIETY OF TOXIC HAZARDOUS WASTE.You know how much tea partiers and conservatives love sensationalist language. Just wait and see.

Well, that depends on how you spin it. If you tell them that sequestering fly-ash in concrete will protect the environment and is a form of ecologically responsible recycling, they'll be against it. If you tell them that it will increase profits for big corporations while exposing ordinary Americans to carcinogens, they'll ask if there's any way they can help.

Ok, but think a couple of years from now in the alternate universe where the EPA stops classifying fly ash as hazardous waste:

quote:

---

TOXIC SPILL IN MISSISSIPPI RIVER

​

Thousands exposed to lethal concentrations of heavy metals due to fly ash contamination of nation's largest waterway

​

St. Joeseph, MO - Scientists announced "grave concerns" about heavy metal contamination of the Mississippi river after the largest fly ash spill in the nation's history last Thursday. Nat "King" Cole, of Cole Coal, responded in a press conference where he defended his company's procedures for storing wet fly ash slurry, produced by Missouri's coal energy plants. "If the EPA didn't want us to store several hundred billion gallons of wet fly ash slurry so close to the Mississippi river, then they should have classified it as hazardous waste! We followed existing law in every respect."

​

Fly ash residue did have a hazardous waste classification from the EPA until 2011, when lobbying efforts by concrete manufacturers, builders, and civil engineers succeeded in having that classification overturned. Concrete companies were worried about the potential for lawsuits due to the common and widely regarded as safe practice of using coal fly ash as a binder in concrete to replace the more expensive Portland cement. Despite decades of use, no suits had ever been brought forward.

---

I feel like there's a middle ground where fly ash can be used in concrete but free fly ash has to be stored in such a way as to recognize is as a threat to aquifers due to toxic levels of heavy metals which can leach into water. And I feel like that middle ground is where the EPA gives an exception to concrete manufacturers and builders to use fly ash in concrete, but classifies bulk fly ash as a "hazardous waste", since it's a waste product that is hazardous.

Previously Fly Ash hasn't been classified as hazardous waste.The compromise you suggest is pretty much exactly what the EPA describes as its proposed position with fly ash intended for reuse if it become more tightly federally regulated. Fly Ash intended for a 'beneficial use' would be exempted from classification as hazardous waste.TTFN,WK

I think I understand why you guys can't see how critical this issue is. You guys aren't working in this field and so you have trouble understanding what the big problem is.Let's take a step closer to home for you guys. Remember the cobb county board of education sticker on every biology text book in their schools?

quote:

---

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

---

After reading that statement several times, I still think every part of that disclaimer is true. But it's deceiving. It's telling the truth while painting a false picture.Labeling ash fly as hazardous toxic waste, while accurate, paints a wrong picture for the public. It incites irrational knee jerk reaction from joe and jane schmoes.

The EPA was previously allowing fly ash to be used as fill for road embankments.The GOP just voted to let fly ash be treated as routine municipal trash.You think others are too far away from the issue.I think you are too close. I don't think we should lie, whether by omission or commission, in the name of a greater or more pragmatic truth. Ever.Edited by Omnivorous, : +,

Then you approve of the disclaimer sticker in Kansas?

So you think the EPA categorization of fly ash as hazardous waste is an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of science?

I asked the question first.Do you approve of the disclaimer sticker?

Fine.No, I don't approve of the sticker, because it singles out a specific set of scientific findings as requiring a caution label urging critical regard because of the sticker proponents' ideological interests. The content is accurate, but in the context of singling out evolution for the disclaimer, it is false.You, similarly, though inversely, are singling out a hazardous waste for not-labeling because of your own professional interests. It is you, not I, who is endorsing the disclaimer sticker by emulating it.Your example--the label--while true, is applied with the intent to subvert the truth through its prejudicial application, as though evolution required special scrutiny.The truthful labeling of fly ash, on the other hand, does not represent an inversion of the normal and accurate labeling of other hazardous waste.Now you answer my question.