Letter pubs.acs.org/est
Publishing Research Findings as Opinion Can be Perilous
W
misrepresentation as fact in the public domain and possibly used to support unfounded attacks against industry.
e wish to comment on a recent Viewpoint article, Potential for Serious Environmental Threats f rom Uncontrolled Coprocessing of Wastes in Cement Kilns (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 13031−13032). The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) represents U.S. cement producers that recover energy from secondary materialsmainly industrial byproducts designated either as hazardous or nonhazardous wastes. CKRC’s member companies are committed to safely using alternative fuels in cement kilns and they have invested significant resources to demonstrate the safety of their energy recovery technologies. Combustion emissions from cement kilns are stringently regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). However, due to the contentiousness surrounding combustion issues, we are concerned that the cited article could easily be misconstrued. First, the cited article’s conflation of “coprocessing” in cement kilns in the developing world with the reuse of secondary materials in the U.S. cement industry could cause misunderstanding or invite misrepresentation. Second, the article is actually a research paper as demonstrated by its acknowledgment that “This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China...” (Emphasis added.) It seems fair to ask, “Why seek to publish “research” findings as an opinion article?” Viewpoint is a forum for opinions, which are not subjected to the rigors of peer-review. That makes sense if what is published truly is an opinion. It is important, however, that opinion articles are not research reports in disguise, having gained publication without the scrutiny that ordinarily would be applied to technical articles. Co-processing in U.S. cement kilns has been proven safe and sustainable. Each year, our industry recycles and reuses millions of tons of secondary materials as alternative fuels and raw materials, replacing and conserving virgin resources. These recycling technologies have been developed over the past 35 years and have been tested extensively to ensure protection of human health, the environment, and product quality. There is no mystery about how to do this safely. Questions about the safety of cement produced in kilns using alternative fuels were addressed long ago, when USEPA investigated this matter under the Toxic Substances Control Act. After thorough study, EPA found a “lack of convincing evidence that WDF [waste-derived f uel] contributes materially to the hazards posed by cement.” (Fed. Reg., August 1, 1995, Vol. 60, No. 147), confirming the integrity of cement is unaffected by coprocessing of alternative fuels. We hope future Viewpoint articles selected for publication do not have the potential to be misunderstood or misrepresented as peer-reviewed technical articles. Because discussion of environmental issues is frequently politicized and too often unconstrained by the factual limitations of science, we hope the editors of ES&T understand the potential harm that can be caused by publishing a so-called opinion that can lend itself to © 2013 American Chemical Society
Michel R. Benoit*
■
Cement Kiln Recyling Coalition, PO Box 7553, Arlington, Virginia 22207, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected] . Notes
Environmental Science & Technology edits all Letters for length, punctuation, and clarification of references. Authors approve of changes prior to publication. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 3545
March March March March
4, 2013 6, 2013 13, 2013 25, 2013
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4009807 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 3545−3545
