In a message dated 09/08/2004 2:31:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
Michigan has had some large poultry operations for some time now. And the manure to energy approach has been explored more than once. Your attention to the NOX issue is one that should be closely evaluated in any such approach to the use of manure as a resource. Likewise, the arsenical use in poultry feed would likely be concentrated in waste to ash conversion. And that would need to be explored also. We often move from one problem to another as we "solve" the first concern.
On the other hand, the arsenic is not going to disappear unless the industry stops using it in the feed. It will just wind up in a different place and it is fair to ask ahead of time, in whose life it will wind up.
We disagree on the use of public monies to assist industry in changing their mode of operation. If the fates of nitrogen and arsenic can be managed by an open discussion of the options and risks I have always advocated spending private and public money to achieve a cleaner industry and as a result less risks for us all. The real problem is to find a way to get there, and I am not opposed to sharing the costs among us all. I doubt those in the poultry industry are doing this completely at the public trough.
You are not thanked often enough for pointing out the lack of thorough exploration of all the issues - maybe it's your approach . Anyway, keep up the great work of keeping us from moving from one problem to another without thinking it all through.