Advertisement
First, we visited Preston, Minn., and I talked to the manager there. I told him the smell was more like pig manure than bread. He said, “I will agree with you on that.” Then I told him I did not notice any rail line — he said yes, a rail line would be a plus, but it certainly not a necessity.
At Stanley, Wis., the smell was different, more “chemical like.” We had a weird taste on our lips, and we noticed a fine dust on all the cars in the parking lot, which, I suppose, was why my eyes felt scratchy all the way home.
The most offensive odor was at Friesland, Wis., a very bad acid-like strong chemical smell. Both of us felt a tightness in our chest, we were slightly nauseated, and my trachea and throat felt raw and irritated.
Nebraska tests have shown the ethanol plants are not controlling their emissions of pollutants properly. Some common chemicals emitted by ethanol plants include, acetaldehyde, acerolein, acetic acid, methanol, formaldehyde, 2 furaldehyde and carbon dioxide.
Next, I decided to confer with some pharmacists to see which emissions cause all the bad health effects. All three pharmacists pointed out four or five that are the most dangerous.
Considering all the risks already mentioned, and the chances of nearly 350 people losing their jobs, I can’t believe anyone could be so calloused and greedy to even think of locating the ethanol where they propose it.
The Tribune encourages letters to the editor on current issues. Please limit letters to 250 words or less.
We reserve the right to edit all letters and require that all letters include the name, address and phone number of the writer for verification purposes.
Letter writers will be limited to no more than one letter a month. Please do not send poetry, or items taken from other publication or from the Internet.
Send letters to the editor to letters@lacrossetribune.com.
