DaytonDailyNews.com

By Cynthia

August 23, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

I don’t belong to any organization and I don’t live in the areas of Cemex. My son have many allergies and it’s so crucial to do reasearchers on many of the homes in this area and simply, I won’t even buy a homes in the Yellow Springs areas, and the areas in Fairborn, Bath Township, and Beavercreek that is in the 5-10 miles redius of Cemax. Community need to educated many of their citizens, at less to protect children with asthma and respiratory problems.

By statecourierwaterheaterSl

August 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

The site www.daytondailynews.com is amazing resource, respect, admin. But see this [url=http://carolinecs.150m.com/statewaterheaters_uk.html] state water heaters uk [/url]

By thomas

July 23, 2008 8:53 PM | Link to this

some one has to test it .i think it is a good idea you are just mad its not your idea there is so much polution you arent gonna die if it is regulated and you pray to the lord god almighty .s**t from you toilet goes into the lakes for god sakes

By Pat

May 22, 2008 1:14 AM | Link to this

Why questionable? a) Cement kilns when stack tested show products of incomplete combustion (PICs) just like incinerators and other combustors demonstrating that perfect combustion is not achieved. So something is not right with combustion. 
b) Turbulence for good combustion may not be as perfect as some experts claim in cement kilns due to the extraordinarily large volumes of solid materials in the kiln being used to make clinker and then cement product, in part since a cement kiln is a giant oven used to bake rock and turn it into clinker. c) cement kilns typically run on the lower limits of excess air for good combustion due to the huge quantities of air required to be heated from ambient temps to 3,000 degrees F, and to heat this much air to such high temps requires tremendous energy costs. So every single pound of air heated in a cement kiln exacts certain operating costs in fuel use and thus cement kilns try to keep the excess air (and oxygen) at the borderline of safe combustion.

But during stack tests of TDF, cement kilns will do several things to make emissions and combustion look good-to-decent for such facilities: a) run at higher excess air to improve combustion efficiency, b) control kiln parameters more precisely, c) prevent kiln solid ring formation and buildup that creates havoc for good combustion of any fuels, d) burn lower TDF levels during stack tests than they may be seeking to burn operationally, e)operate and maintain their ESPs or baghouses in top condition to keep particulate emissions to a reduced level, and f) miscellaneous tricks.


By Annie

May 22, 2008 1:09 AM | Link to this

Cement kilns certainly do have combustion upsets and smoke may be emitted during such events. Cement kilns are not designed or required to have major fail-safe combustion devices such as large afterburners that all state-of-the-art incinerators must have by federal law today.

These are complex process questions that can be debated by different technical experts to give very different sets of answers, and because there are generally two different kinds of cement kilns such as 1} old, energy inefficient wet process kilns and 2}newer, more energy efficient dry process cement kilns. Generally cement kilns run at higher combustion temperatures than incinerators, but I think it is highly questionable that anyone can make an absolute blanket statement supported by solid scientific proof that cement kilns provide longer residence times and adequate oxygen (i.e. as excess air) to give complete combustion.

By rational rick

May 21, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

So the argument FOR burning tires is that otherwise they’d be an eyesore? HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF SHREDDING TIRES FOR MULCH AND PLAYGROUNDS? Or, since I’m a stupid liberal hippie environmentalist, why can’t we just roll them up and smoke them?

By commonsense

May 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

I’d like to know the source of the comments about this “reducing” NOx. You can’t make a statement like that without backing it up with a credible (third party) source. So far, the only ones commenting that have cited sources are the ones talking about the health effects. There are other alternatives for energy besides fossil fuels and tires. Also, Ohio EPA’s enforcement standards have been repeatedly called into question in the public arena. Their best interest is not necessarily mine.

By Chris

May 21, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

WOW - there are alot of misconceptions in your posts. Tire burning in kilns is not toxic and actually REDUCES NOx levels up to 40% so burning tires IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. The “test” is exactly that, so that sampling can be done to be sure that pollution levels are being reduced. (The black smoke that one sees in burning tires in one’s backyard does not occur in a cement kiln because the level of combustion is at a higher temperature, thus at a higher rate.)

By Annie

May 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Tires contain much higher concentrations of lead, arsenic, zinc, and chromium than does coal. Metals do not burn. Many will attach to particulates exiting the stack. Many states have seen extremely high increases in particulate emissions (over 85%), by substituting tires for less than 20% of their coal. Many recent studies on particulates show small increases in particulates (1-2%) to be responsible for observable increases in disease and death.

Published data is available from many studies from other states, which clearly demonstrate a serious public health threat from increased levels of toxic emissions due to tire incineration. For example, a California Bay Area AQMD concluded, after conducting a test burn at Kaiser Cement, that burning tires increased the cancer risk in surrounding communities by 20%.

By Annie

May 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

The Sierra Club nation-wide has consistently and actively promoted source reduction and recycling of waste tires to eliminate existing dangerous waste tire piles and stop the practice of building up new piles in the future. Sierra Club believes that waste tires are a re-usable resource, and much opportunity exists for re-using tires in products and applications such as rubberized asphalt, re-treading, playground surfaces, sound barrier panels, and replacements for all-steel guardrails, carpet-underlay, and roofing products.

By Pat

May 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Tire burning releases mercury into our air, which causes brain, lung, kidney damage, reproductive problems, and death. Just one drop of mercury can contaminate a 25 acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat, making mercury the most common reason for “fish advisories”. EPA states that 6 million women of childbearing age have unsafe mercury levels in their bodies, and 375,000 babies are born each year at risk for neurological problems due to fetal mercury exposure.

By Ace

May 21, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

I love liberals, they b***h and complain about reasonable solutions to problems, but thats all they do is b***h and complain. If they spent as much time bitching and complaining as trying to find a better solution, they might just get somewhere. Right now burning tires in kilns is one of the most environmentally sound ways to dispose of tires in large quantities. There are other ways to dispose of tires safely, but not in the neccessary quantities to eliminate stockpiles with 7 million tires.

By David

May 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Indeed. I live several miles from the plant, and if you venture into this area, you will see many “No tire burn” signs. These neighbors of mine have a legitimate concern which I share. It’s a sad sign of the times when financial matters will always take precedence over environmental/health issues.

By j

May 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

What kind of business will upgrade their equipment for a 120 day trail?, this is going for the long run, they already gave awards to themselves for going green while reducing costs, did I mention this situation happening in foreign countries?

By Phillip

May 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Yes, I think this is a good idea. It helps to lower the cost of operation and it gets rid of these eye sores. These tire would house pests. Insect bits can kill adults and children.I still think they should met or surpass the standards set by the E.P.A. and as long as they are within the set standards, I don’t see a problem. I don’t believe that anyone wants these tires in their water or wood lands.

By Ace

May 21, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if anyone writing on this page has actually worked in a cement plant, but if you could read the NOx levels coming out of kilns that burn tires compared to ones that do not, they are the same if not lower. Cement plants are highly regulated by the EPA, and have strict guidelines on acceptable emissions. The only greenhouse gas that could increase is CO, which the plant has limitations already in place that can not be exceeded. Burning tires also decreases the use of fossil fuels.

By Ace

May 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if anyone writing on this page has actually worked in a cement plant, but if you could read the NOx levels coming out of kilns that burn tires compared to ones that do not, they are the same if not lower. Cement plants are highly regulated by the EPA, and have strict guidelines on acceptable emissions. The only greenhouse gas that could increase is CO, which the plant has limitations already in place that can not be exceeded. Burning tires also decreases the use of fossil fuels.

By Ray

May 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

I think burning the tires is a great idea. The rubber burns hotter and this will reduce waste tires. People should realize the impact that radical environmentalism has on the economy, ie. gas prices, food prices, manufacturing, etc. Haven’t we given away enough? Let us use good science and safety practices and build the area to one of the best in the country. No politics! Just some commonsense and practicality. Thank you for your time and reading my post.

By whodatyou

May 21, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

Technology has the “potential” to make it a “fairly safe” practice. However it will be very expensive. That’s the first leg of the stool. Keeping the technology at peak accuracy is the second. The human element is the third leg. Which leg do you think would break first if emissions were to get “just a little” out of spec? Trusting human decisions where large amounts of money are involved is a tricky business. Only with 100% confidence in the technology and the people is it doable.

By william

May 21, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

If you poison the environment, the environment will poison you.

By Ryan

May 21, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Treehugging? What is wrong with looking for better (read cleaner) sources of energy? I guess you have to look at the tradeoff between burying the tires in the Earth or turning them into yet another unneccesary greenhouse gas. In general, I prefer to have me and my family breathe the cleanest air possible and I cannot believe that this is helping.

By painfultruth

May 21, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this

Let the tree hugging paranoids all freeze in the dark…

By Pa Ubu

May 21, 2008 7:47 AM | Link to this

The people of Dayton need to burn the spare tires that have accumulated around their stomachs. Bill Pout at DaytonMostMundane.Commedy will single-handedly produce 5000 kilowatt-hours of electricy!

By John H

May 21, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

Sure, as long as I’m upwind…

By tallsandi

May 21, 2008 7:16 AM | Link to this

If they have good scrubbers, and they are regularly testing at the stack for levels of toxins, then as long as the results come in good I think the 3 month test is a good idea.

By Ronda

May 21, 2008 6:35 AM | Link to this

This should be a no brainer. What better way to get rid of the millions of used tires than to burn them for fuel?

By Tim

May 21, 2008 5:46 AM | Link to this

Hey good website at greenlink.. read the article “Hazards of tire derived fuel”. It seems Cemex can make the test look acceptable but the potential for future contamination is large. Does Cemex have an afterburner? The people downwind in Yellow Springs have a legitimate concern. I vote NO!

By Annie

May 21, 2008 4:24 AM | Link to this

No, and many reasons can be found at:

http://www.greenlink.org/index.php?page=Cemex

Burning tires in cement kilns releases dioxin (causes cancer), benzene (lukemia), particulates, (asthma), and heavy metals including mercury (reproductive problems). The air pollution can coat crops and get into the food chain. All over the country people have been fighting this practice. There are non-toxic methods to recycle tires.

We folks downwind of Cemex don’t want to be their guinea pigs.

By John

May 21, 2008 2:11 AM | Link to this

NO! They should not be allowed to burn tires. I live only a few miles away from the plant and i’m not convinced that burning tires will not be harmful to our health.