Well, something of a hornets' nest here - pleased you are all enjoying the
debate.

My 'conclusion' thus far:

1) No one actually knows if the capacitors in question contain PCB's
2) If they do, they may or may not be hazardous even in small amounts

3) Therefo

i) I will test the fluid as described in posts
ii) I will treat them as hazardous material in the meantime


Now where did I put my rubber suit?

Bri

Bri wrote:
Well, something of a hornet's nest here - pleased you are all enjoying the
debate.

My 'conclusion' thus far:

1) No one actually knows if the capacitors in question contain PCB's
2) If they do, they may or may not be hazardous even in small amounts

3) Therefo

i) I will test the fluid as described in posts
ii) I will treat them as hazardous material in the meantime


Now where did I put my rubber suit?

Bri

Bri,

The one part of the discussion that you should note, is that in industry,
folks were literally bathing in the stuff, (occasionally) with no problem.
We have several of those folks here on the group, and they have related their
personal experience.

Every single person that handled carbon and mimeograph paper in the 1930's
through 1970 came into contact with more PCB on each sheet than you will find
in the leakage around your capacitors. PCB was used to keep the ink soft.
Same with stamp pads, TTY ribbons, and single use carbon ribbons. I can vividly
remember the smell of the stuff on those products. Did we have a rash (sic humour)
of secretarial folks with chloroacne, and liver disease?

Other factory folks were exposed to it daily, ate lunch with hands that had it on
them, smoked cigarettes from fingers covered with it, and drank from wells that
were contaminated with the stuff, surprise! some of them showed
some symptoms, such as chloroacne and liver difficulties.

Still other folks got exposed unintentionally, through food made in mills that
accidentally leaked the stuff into the food, and wells that were contaminated by
extreme factory dumping, or ate fish from rivers that were subject to millions
of gallons of factory dumping, and they too showed symptoms.

If you take reasonable precautions to keep the stuff off of your skin, and
out of your mouth, you will not be harmed. Even if you don't, at those small
amounts, it is very doubtful that you will ever show any symptoms.

Now as to disposal: The last time I brought that subject up with the hazardous
chemical group at our local landfill, they were quoting something like $100 for
a single motor run capacitor (that may, or may not have contained PCB).

Better to sell your old caps to the audio/guitar guys on ebay ;-)

-Chuck

Phil Nelson wrote:
I used to wade knee-deep into tanks of the stuff, and slather it all over
transformer windings with bare hands. It turns out this is probably a bad
thing, but I haven't noticed any problems yet.

I smoked cigarettes for over 20 years, then quit. It turns out this is
probably a bad thing, but I haven't noticed any problems yet . . . .

Yes, probably a good comparison, I think.

And I remember Lucky Strikes as being advertised as a health product, too,
just as PCB oil was advertised as a safety product. "Reach for a Lucky
instead of dessert" or something like that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Chuck Harris wrote:


The one part of the discussion that you should note, is that in industry,
folks were literally bathing in the stuff, (occasionally) with no problem.
We have several of those folks here on the group, and they have related
their
personal experience.


Thats a bit like the "My grandad smoked 80 a day all his life and lived
to a 101" chestnut. Is this proof that smoking doesn't give you cancer
or that the cancer statistics are wrong?

Personal experience or anecdotal evidence means very little when dealing
with long term toxicity (unless the illness is specifically associated
with a given exposure, like asbestos and mesothilioma). It is medical
statistics of a large, controled group that shed any truth to a matter
such as this. Unfortunately, these are hard to come by because of the
long term nature of PCB toxicity in a society literally bathed in
chemical contaminants and highly mobile.

Even closely monitored exposures, like the Seveso incident in Italy are
inconclusive (I once spoke to the head of toxicology for the UKs
Chemical Response Unit who reckoned that no-one found any ill effect
from that incident, but she was defending a hazardous waste site at the
time.)


If you take reasonable precautions to keep the stuff off of your
skin, and
out of your mouth, you will not be harmed. Even if you don't, at those
small
amounts, it is very doubtful that you will ever show any symptoms.


'Symptoms' are a sign of acute poisoning, obviously to be avoided, but
the health authorities of EVERY developed country would consider someone
with levels of PCBs in thier bodies millions of times less than that
needed to cause 'symptoms' as being over the limit of reccomended
exposure and at possible risk.

Having been exposed to whopping doses doesn't mean you will be
comparitively more ill than someone with a lot less inside them in the
long term - the mechanisims of toxicity of PCBs are not the same as
mercury or arsenic, where the more you have, the sicker you are. The
endocrine system of the body works with tiny amounts of hormones and
messenger chemicals, and its having these messed with that is the real
worry (especially in developing children), and we DO know that PCB's and
the like do just this.

For instance, there is a disorder of the womb that is rampant today
(can't remember the name right now) that was extremely rare before the
invention of PCB's. There can never be a 'smoking gun' leading to the
prescence of all pervasive PCB's in the environment as being the cause
of this (for a number of reasons), but it is EXACTLY the type of illness
predicted to be caused by long term PCB body burden and endocrine
disruption.

The World Health Organisation place a TDI of 1-4 picograms (a picogram
being a *trillionth* of a gram) on Dioxin-like PCB's. That is an
incredibly small amount Chuck, and when dealing with large amounts of
this stuff (meaning any visible amount) you could easily get
comparitively huge doses inside you without noticing, and you can't in
all honesty state with confidence that 'you will not be harmed' by these
amounts. Nobody knows for sure, but there is certainly enough evidence
and (non-hysterical) concern around to be more than cautious.

Andy

Get your free morse ringtone at http://www.planetofnoise.com

AndyB wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:
....
We have several of those folks here on the group, and they have
related their
personal experience.


Thats a bit like the "My grandad smoked 80 a day all his life and lived
to a 101" chestnut. Is this proof that smoking doesn't give you cancer
or that the cancer statistics are wrong?

Smoking and cancer are a funny (as in peculiar) example to pull out as a
comparison to PCB exposure. First, the anti smoking groups pretend that
no one ever got lung cancer without smoking. The truth is more like as
many people get it with smoking as get it without. The cancer connection
is difficult. The heart disease and emphasema associations are much easier
to prove... and I am not now, nor have I ever been a smoker.

Second, smoking is a great act of self deception. People who smoke go out
of their way to become heavily exposed to tobacco smoke. It doesn't seem
to me that it would be all that common for people to intentionally ingest
PCB's.

Being in the presence of PCB is not the same as being exposed to PCB, or
ingesting PCB.

Personal experience or anecdotal evidence means very little when dealing
with long term toxicity (unless the illness is specifically associated
with a given exposure, like asbestos and mesothilioma). It is medical
statistics of a large, controled group that shed any truth to a matter
such as this. Unfortunately, these are hard to come by because of the
long term nature of PCB toxicity in a society literally bathed in
chemical contaminants and highly mobile.

There a couple of ways of looking at that. The one I tend towards is
the connection can't be found because it doesn't actually exist for such
small levels of exposure.

Even closely monitored exposures, like the Seveso incident in Italy are
inconclusive (I once spoke to the head of toxicology for the UKs
Chemical Response Unit who reckoned that no-one found any ill effect
from that incident, but she was defending a hazardous waste site at the
time.)

Again, this is probably because the connection doesn't exist for small
levels of exposure.

....


The World Health Organisation place a TDI of 1-4 picograms (a picogram
being a *trillionth* of a gram) on Dioxin-like PCB's.

Dioxin and PCB's aren't the same thing. The WHO TDI is a limit for *ingested*
amounts of PCB on a *continual* (eg. daily) basis, not an extremely
infrequent, accidental skin exposure to a very small quantity (such as might
happen if one touches a leaky PCB coated capacitor). You cannot legitimately
infer that because PCB has a 1-4 picogram TDI, that occasional skin
exposure to a 1-4 picogram sample is harmful.

No one is suggesting that the PCB be intentionally ingested over a long term.
And no one is suggesting that you make a habit of exposing yourself to PCB.

We are all going to die of something. And yet with all of our exposure to
toxic chemical coctails, heavy metals, and radiation, quality of life, and
life expectancy continues to rise...(even accounting for the extreme lack
of childhood deaths due to the success of vaccines on the usual childhood
diseases.)

Reasoned caution is good, but hysteria isn't all that useful in cases like
this.

-Chuck

I wasn't directly relating PCB exposure to smoking, just the practice
of citing anecdotal evidence like 'it never did me/him any harm' as
anything meaningful or to suggest that something isn't harmful. Your
quote on lung cancer levels being the same with/without smoking is crap
though - where did you get THAT from, the Marlboro good health guide?

I know Dioxins and PCB's are not the same, but they are often present
together - as I said, only specialist testing will tell you the actual
I-TEQ (overall dioxin-like toxicity) of anything PCB-like.

You cannot legitimately
infer that because PCB has a 1-4 picogram TDI, that occasional skin
exposure to a 1-4 picogram sample is harmful.

I wasn't infering that at all, but the amounts involved in even the
slightest contact with *actual* PCB fluid (such as getting enough on
you to actually see, say a fingertip smear) would involve amounts
millions (possibly billions) of times greater than levels we are
exposed to in the environment. Lots of studies show that PCBs are
rapidly absorbed into the skin, so its quite possible to absorb doses
that would equal a lifetimes normal exposure just by touching a 'leaky
PCB coated capacitor' with bare hands.

Being in the presence of PCB is not the same as being exposed to PCB, or ingesting PCB.

Wasn't aware I said it was, though you shouldn't discount dust vectors.


Reasoned caution is good, but hysteria isn't all that useful in cases like
this.

If you look at what I'm saying and compare it to the typical
environmentalist view you'll find its a million miles away from being
hysterical. Most environmentalists would class my current views as
downright evil.
I won't say what they'd call you.

What about you Chuck - I'm interested to know where your views on the
subject come from. Have you physically worked a lot with PCB's or come
from a healthcare/medical background? Done lab work with hazardous
chemicals? Why do you trust one view (not very dangerous) over the
other (very dangerous). Just hate tree huggers?

Andy

wrote:

What about you Chuck - I'm interested to know where your views on the
subject come from. Have you physically worked a lot with PCB's or come
from a healthcare/medical background? Done lab work with hazardous
chemicals? Why do you trust one view (not very dangerous) over the
other (very dangerous). Just hate tree huggers?

Andy


I am an EE. I know rather a lot of folks that have spent rather
a lot of time up to their armpits in PCB laden transformer oils.
They did this back when everyone *knew* the stuff was harmless.
It probably isn't quite as harmless as we thought, but it certainly
isn't the cause of instant death and dismemberment that the enviro's
say it is. As far as I can tell, none of the people I know who
were exposed was harmed. No cases of chloroacne, and all of their
kids look and perform normally. Anecdotal, to be sure, but it is
what I have observed. If the stuff was as bad as the enviro's say
it is, there should be a very significant number of problems in the
folks in the electrical professions... and an even greater problem
in the older hams. We all have been exposed. Where are these problems?
EE's seem to be making it to the normal ages before dying.... so do
hams (in spite of their smoking...)

I have seen the hysterical reactions that environmentalists have had
to quite a number of substances that the research shows to be fairly
harmless. I don't trust people like that. Everything is a little
good, and a little bad. They see things completely black and white
with no shades of grey.

Hate tree huggers? No, I own a staggeringly large number of trees.
I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political
power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury,
anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this
pattern.

-Chuck

I also dislike hysterical rhetoric for political or monetary gain, but
it cuts both ways. I've found that the worst evironmentalists are no
more hysterical than industry PR is in reverse (completely playing down
dangers of its products or byproducts).

I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political
power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury,
anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this
pattern.

I'm sensing a lot of hate there Chuck - maybe you should go and hug
your trees

Do I take it that you also think DDT, nukes, lead, mercury and guns are
not as bad as most people make out or are 'fairly harmless'?

wrote:
I also dislike hysterical rhetoric for political or monetary gain, but
it cuts both ways. I've found that the worst evironmentalists are no
more hysterical than industry PR is in reverse (completely playing down
dangers of its products or byproducts).


I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political

power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury,
anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this
pattern.

I'm sensing a lot of hate there Chuck - maybe you should go and hug
your trees

The "I hate people" in the above statement is really a bad figure of
speech. It probably should be something more along the lines of "I am
truly disappointed when"...

I love my trees, but I don't worship them. When you have only one or
two trees, you tend to think they are each special, after a few acres
of trees, they start to become distinct only in groups, or clusters,
after the first dozen acres, they start to become a blurred mass, and
after the first 100 acres it is a little hard to get too personally
connected to any individual tree...sometimes it is a little hard to
even find an individual tree more than once...at 200 acres, well, that's
a heck of a lot of trees...

While you think I am some kind of environmental devil, in actuality,
through the careful management of the acreage I own, I do more for the
environment than any 1000 people.

Do I take it that you also think DDT, nukes, lead, mercury and guns are
not as bad as most people make out or are 'fairly harmless'?

Most anything can be harmful when it is misused, or improperly disposed.
It is long past time to include the full price of disposal of a product
in the retail cost of the product. If one was to do that, plastics would be
too expensive to use.

Mercury is a terrifically useful element. Without it, fluorescent and
compact fluorescent lamps (the fair haired child of the enviro movement)
would be non existent. Would that be a good, or a bad thing?

Lead brought us the only hybrid and electric cars yet on the road. Without
lead, they would be unaffordable. Without lead, you would still have to
hand crank your car to start it. Would that be a good, or a bad thing?

Guns save more lives, in the US, each year than they cost... by a factor
of more than 100 to 1. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

The banning of DDT was the political entry point of the international
environmental movement. It was the political brain child of Ruckleshaus.
He banned DDT in spite of science that did not support his conclusions,
and in spite of his own EPA committee's recommendation *NOT* to do so. The
fix was in. It has been said that the US ban on DDT has amounted to genocide
in third world countries. The blunt instrument used? Mosquitoes. The
victim? Children.

US Nuclear power plants have a safety record that is unmatched by any other
form of power generation... yet thanks to the enviro's, you cannot commission
a new nuke plant in the US. You cannot even upgrade an old nuke plant in the
US. The current generation of nuke plant only extracts a small portion of
the available energy from the fuel rods. Yet thanks to the enviros, you cannot
reprocess the spent fuel rods to extract the rest of the power. You cannot
even remove the "spent" fuel rods from the reactor facility for storage in
a better protected location.

Coal fired plants have killed thousands from air pollution and plant accidents,
and yet they are just ducky... Well, except for that global warming thing.
I know, wood fired power plants!

I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject... for now.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:


I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that
call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject...
for now.

-Chuck

Well since you're bailing I feel safe in agreeing with you because I
neither want to belabour an argument in whats good can be bad or vice versa.

But...

I worked a while in NE Oklahoma. Asbestos mines, lead mines. Pretty
much under the radar of the environmentalists who seem to need someplace
snazzier than Picher, Oklahoma to drive home their point.

I found the local conditions appalling. Maybe because I was constantly
reminded about don't drink the water...or inferences that "hell, thats
the way those crazy Okies are". I worked in direct contact with people
and it seemed as though EVERYBODY had a mentally defective family member
hidden away in a back room and there was certainly no shortage of
borderline cases outside and on the street. Anybody from outside would
notice it.

I'm 100% against the Kerry-camp type of "sky is falling" kneejerk
reaction to anything that isn't mountain spring water (imported from
France) so I'm not speaking from that context.

It would seem to me, an eternal Devil's Advocate, that there are indeed
issues with 'public level toxicity' that get totally overshadowed by
both extreme camps. The guy that puts on a hazmat suit to work on his
boatanchor or the politician that claims that they are producing honey
if the industry benefits his district. Both come off as fanatics
deflecting concern from the real world aspects.

So yeah, these scenarios really do exist but not because an old radio is
leaking fluids. If you want to save the earth you can start by saving
Picher, Oklahoma and forget about the miniscule implications of your
weenie little capacitors.

-Bill