The Chlorine Debate: How White Do You Want It? Essay -- essays researc

The Chlorine Debate How White Do You Want It?     Chlorine is unmatched of the worlds closely widely used chemicals, the buildingelement vital to almost every United States attention. We use centiliter andchlorine-based products whenever we drink a glass of water, buy nutriment wrapped inplastic, purchase produce in the supermarket, pour bleach into a washing machine,have a prescription filled, print out a computer document like this one, or evendrive a car. (Abelson 94)     Chlorine, a member of the halogen (salt-forming) group of metallicelements, was first made by Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1774, whotreated hydrochloric acid with manganese dioxide. In 1810, the English chemistSir Humphrey Davy determined that chlorine was a chemical element and named itfrom the Greek interchange meaning greenish-yellow. One hundred and eighty-five yearslater, chlorine compounds are ubiquitous components in the manufacturing ofpaper, plast ics, insecticides, cleaning fluids, antifreeze, paints, medicines,and petroleum products. The unfortunate and unavoidable by-product of thesemanufacturing processes is dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on theplanet earth. Dioxins are also produced whenever chlorine containing substances,such as PVC, are burned.     Life as we know it will change, if a Greenpeace campaign is successful.The powerful environmental group has mounted a well-organized campaign that hasas its objective nothing less than a total, worldwide ban on chlorine. With thepublic health and billions of dollars at stake, the debate over chlorine hasbecome one of the worlds most contentious and controversial issues. "Is achlorine-free future possible?" asked decorous Rice, a spokesperson forGreenpeaces Chlorine Free Campaign. "Yes, it can be done without massivedisruption of the economy and of society, if it is done in the right matter."(Gossen 94)     Th e chlorine industry and its allies say a total ban on chlorine wouldbe neither wise, possible, nor economically feasible. "We find the chlorinecampaign outrageous in its scope and purpose," explained Leo Anziano, theChairman of the Washington-based Chlorine Chemistry Council, and organizationthat lobbies on behalf of the chlorine industry. "We believe its bas... ...ingly undecidable debate, thebasis of the debate seems to be the solution. Banning or get rid ofchlorine, organochlorines, or most any opposite chemical can only cause moreproblems than they will solve unless a proven and stiff selection isdeveloped to take the place of that chemical. Most everyday things would haveto drastically be altered to make suit for a complete chlorine ban, and thatwould take a great deal of time, effort, and money to do.     If a ban on chlorine was implemented, who would be responsible for thecost and maintenance of switching the equipment the consumer, the p roducer,Greenpeace and other environmental watch organizations, or the government? Thebrunt of the cost would most likely fall into the hands of the consumers, whichwould kill most middle and lower-class families.     Chlorine is a building block of most of our everyday conveniences and amajor player in most chemical compounds. Until a sturdy and cost-effectivealternative is made, most of the everyday consumers will still have to go onusing the same chlorine and organochlorine-based products that they have usedfor years before.