The Chlorine Debate: A Selected Bibliography

Chlorine is one of the world's most widely used chemicals, the building element vital to almost every United States industry. We use chlorine and chlorine-based products whenever we drink a glass of water, buy food wrapped in plastic, purchase produce in the supermarket, pour bleach into a washing machine, have a prescription filled, print out a computer document or drive a car. Chlorine, a member of the halogen (salt-forming) group of metallic elements, was first made by Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1774, who treated hydrochloric acid with manganese dioxide. In 1810, the English chemist Sir Humphrey Davy determined that chlorine was a chemical element and named it from the Greek word meaning greenish-yellow. One hundred and eighty-five years later, chlorine compounds are ubiquitous components in the manufacturing of paper, plastics, insecticides, cleaning fluids, antifreeze, paints, medicines, and petroleum products. The unfortunate and unavoidable by-product of these manufacturing processes is dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. Dioxins are also produced whenever chlorine containing substances, such as PVC, are burned.

spokesmen argue that, if implemented with careful planning, the transition to a chlorine-free economy could save money, create new jobs, and be "economically and socially just." Greenpeace puts the savings from phasing-out chlorine at $80 to $160 billion annually.
The phase-out of chlorine would take place over a 30-year period and would involve substituting what Greenpeace describes as "traditional materials and non-chlorinated plastics." In the pulp and paper industry, for example, a totally chlorine-free bleaching process would be implemented, while, in dry cleaning, waterbased systems would replace chlorine-based solvents. Nothing is more contentious in the chlorine debate than Greenpeace's firm position that all chlorine and organochlorines threaten people and so should be banned. "Industry produces more than 11,000 chlorine chemicals, each of which could take years of study," explains Jack Weinberg, a spokesperson for Greenpeace's Chlorine Campaign. "Traditionally, we have looked at chemicals as being innocent until proven guilty. We need to change that approach." Industry warns that it is a big mistake not to distinguish among chlorinated compounds because the mere presence of chlorine does not render a compound carcinogenic or harmful. "Regulations should target specific substances whose environmental harm has already been demonstrated through rigorous scientific studies," says Anziano. "The sloppy reasoning used by Greenpeace and their allies is no substitute for careful risk analysis." Science aside, much of the chlorine debate has been emotional, and nothing has made tempers flare more than the issue of whether a link exists between breast cancer and chlorinated pesticides and other chlorinebased chemicals. Greenpeace has released a report, "Chlorine, Human Health and the Environment: The Breast Cancer Warning," which reviews "new scientific evidence" linking chlorine-based chemicals to breast cancer, an epidemic that kills 50,000 women annually in the U.S. alone. Not surprisingly, industry has produced its own "scientific evidence." For example, a study released by CanTox, a Canadian environmental consulting group, concluded that "it is evident ... the proposed causal association (of breast cancer) to bioaccumulative chlorinated organic compounds should be rejected." In the titanic struggle over chlorine's future, industry is clearly on the defensive. Recognizing that the court of public opinion will be the final arbiter on the issue, it has begun to shift its own public relations machine into gear. The Chemical Manufacturers Association has established the Chlorine Chemistry Council, which has a multi-million dollar budget, while big chemical companies such as Dow Chemical have created full-time positions with names like "Director of Chlorine Issues." "We need to offer the public a different view of chlorine chemistry than the one the anti-chlorine forces have been purveying for years", says Brad Lienhart, Managing Director of the Chlorine Chemistry Council.
The anti-chlorine camp, however, has garnered the support of several influential scientific, environmental, and international organizations, including the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes, the Paris Commission on the North Atlantic (a multinational-level meeting of 15 European governments and the European Community), the 21-nation Barcelona Convention on the Mediterranean, and the American Public Health Association.
Strong anti-chlorine sentiment exists in the White House, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Congress. President Clinton's proposal for the Clean Water Act involves a strategy for reducing or prohibiting chlorine use. Meanwhile, the chlorine industry is worried that the EPA might curtail or even ban the production of chlorine and organochlorines. These developments are making many chemical companies such as Vulcan and Dow Chemical look quietly for alternatives to chlorine. Dow, for example, has created a new business called Advanced Cleaning Systems, which provides water-based cleaning technology for green industrial niches. "In the future, we have to be more critical of irresponsible chlorine use to protect the essential uses of chlorine," Tom Parrott, Vulcan's Director of Environmental Health and Safety, explained to Chemical Week.
The following bibliography has been compiled to aid researchers interested in studying the chlorine issue.
Although the detrimental effect of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) on the ozone layer is a very important topic, it has been excluded from this bibliography because of the massive amount of literature available.
The bibliography includes monographs, journal and newspaper articles, UN, U.S., and international documents, Internet resources, and organizations to contact for more information. Except for newspaper articles, the bibliography fully covers the period from 1985 to 1994; because of the voluminous newspaper coverage, only articles from 1994 have been included. It is arranged by type of document, and, within types, the arrangement is alphabetical by author and chronological. 1994. Dioxin factories: a study of the creation and discharge of dioxins and other organochlorines from the production of PVC. Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace. 1994. Dressed to kill: the dangers of dry cleaning and the case for chlorine free alternatives. Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace. 1994. Transition planning for the chlorine phase-out: economic benefits, costs, and opportunities.
1992. Chlorine: An industry with no future. Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace. 1992. Death in small doses: the effects of organochlorines on aquatic ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace International. 1992. Dry cleaning: Hidden hazards. Washington, D.C. : Greenpeace International. 1992. Death in small doses: the effects of organochlorines on aquatic ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace. 1991.The product is the poison: the case for a chlorine phase-out.