"Occupational HAZMAT for Eco-Architecture." a Proposal for a Master's Thesis in Occupational and Environmental Nursing at UCSF

Marion Gillen, Faculty Profile - UCSF School of Nursing - University of California, San Francisco - nurseweb.ucsf.edu:

TO: "Marion Gillen, RN, MPH, PhD, Director, Occupational and Environmental Health Program, UCSF Dept of Community Health Systems"

FROM: THOMAS MELLUS FENAUGHTY

RE: Proposal for Master's Thesis in Occupational and Environmental Nursing.

TITLE: "Occupational HAZMAT for Eco-Architecture."

Rethinking Industrial City Centers - Building the Occupational and Environmental Health framework for Industrial City Centers of the 21st Century.

It may seem odd and few people know it, but the driving vision of much of the Built Out Architecture in America today was inspired by an Englishman with very little or no sociological, economic, sanitation, environmental, biological, scientific, architectural or engineering training or experience AT ALL. Ebenezer Howard, who envisioned the Garden City, was a Court reporter in London in the late 1800's. SO my apparent lack of training in these fields that impinge upon people as they live in the city of the 21st century being based on formal education in the biological sciences, psychology, finance and now Nursing is already much greater than this vastly overly influential penny-paperback-writer. Once Government became involved in planning and architecture, the further development of Architectural visions had more to do with people of choice with large egos and large budgets (politicians, city planners and architects) deciding to simplify city administration & taxation systems and glorify the creators but limiting the lifestyle choices of the masses (those without economic power to create choice) to the demise of that public's health, economic and political vitality. The epitome of this type of egomaniacal “people should be free to do nothing” architect is Le Corbusier with his Radiant City, the vision of cities built of residential Towers in a Park (no factories, no stores, no places of public assembly) which has yielded the modern world of office towers standing in parking lots. To summarize the three greatest threats to productive modern city centers are:

1. Expansive Single Use Zoning - Howard's legacy - Over simplification of the "Solution to Pollution is Dilution".
   
2. The development of single use Buildings - Le Corbusier's favorite was to build homes which he saw as “machines for living in”, by which I think he meant, you could sit and breath but little else. (ie. “Silicon Valley/Cubicle World”)
   
3. Loss of productive agricultural terrain to industrial waste as well legislative use limitations, leading to wasted land and personal-motorized-transport dependent architecture essentially standing in parking lots (ie. “Sprawl”) - Le Corbusier's Utopian Dream become a Epidemic Nightmare suffered by millions.
   

All these results could have been foreseen, but have not been, in my humble opinion, sufficiently responded to in the way that gives us a healthful framework in which to design our city centers of the future or the buildings that will serve them. Regulating regions of activity may seem to be the ONLY logical way to protect the Public Good from industrial toxins but I believe that the knowledge, technologies and materials handling processes (environmental toxicological, medical diagnosis and treatment of occupational diseases, sanitation & recycling industrial technologies, HAZMAT procedures, etc.) are currently available or at least the vast progress in these technologies, from nearly a generations worth of work, have reached the point where we can selectively reintegrate many, if not all of societies Essential Industries back into our city centers jeopardizing neither health nor economy, creating healthy, low polluting cities that are highly energy efficient, healthful both medically as well as psychologically, sociologically, ecologically, economically and politically. Big Dream right, but cities and especially city centers are a problem of Complex Organization (ref. Jane Jacobs) more like an ecosystem which WILL AND MUST interact with other ecosystems, both natural (the biosphere) and artificial (other city centers/districts) on a ecological, chemical, economic, sociological and political scale. The greatest danger lies in the oversimplification of these problems not in admitting their complexity.
There are some ideas that begin to address some of sociological, technological and public health aspects of the problems created by the Built Out America of Today, but few if any of these are complete visions in and of themselves which rethink the city and ALL her systems and functions (except Paolo Soleri – arcosanti.org). These include: "New Urbanism", "Off Grid Buildings", Solar Power, BioGas Technologies, HAZMAT procedures & regulations, Full Cycle Building Analysis, Hydrogen and junkyard/recycling technologies. While the damage of these “Traditional” architectural visions to the environment and society have NOW become OBVIOUS after two generations of Build Out, there are certain visionaries in the last generation (Soleri & Khalili at the forefront), while others have moved obscure and little known technologies forward without much outside support, being considered the lunatic fringe. Some of these ideas are getting wider support as entrepreneurs are proving that new technologies, or more often than not - the revival of an older technology with a new technological twist, can solve pollution problems as well as energy problems and technologies are becoming so well developed and economically feasible that they are on the verge of "The Tipping Point" (ref. Malcolm Gladwell) at which point these clean technologies will burst into the public consciousness and become the "New Tradition".
The currently trendy philosophical interest by some Architects in what is being called "New Urbanism" and "Walk-Able Communities" still fail both as self supporting zero emissions healthy city centers and as vibrant economic communities (see Santana Row, San Jose, Ca) due the limitations on economic (read light industrial) and social (read public assembly) activities and the economically self-selecting characteristics of the target population which excluded the worker class that services the community from residence within the community. Local Governments, Architects and City Planners still have an exaggerated view of their own predictive powers when it comes to the best uses of terrain and buildings by real people living real lives, making real things that real people buy. (ref. Jacobs). The only Architect who I have found who at least attempts to incorporate all city functions into his self sufficient architectural plans for communities of up to 7000 is Paolo Soleri, who lives and works near Tempe, AZ developing plans for archiologies or ecological architecture or as I like to call it Eco-Architecture.
The movements of "Zero Emission" buildings, "off- grid" building technologies, passive solar and available material construction techniques are making great progress toward entering their designs into the Building Code (see Khalili & CalEarth.org). The trend to analysis the environmental impact of various construction techniques in a "Full Life cycle analysis" (as the electronics industry has done for components for years) is yielding a new view of the true expense of wood based architecture on the biosphere. But these new visions still require HAZMAT regulations and guidelines for these inherently more biological, organic and thus more toxicologically sensitive processes to merge them with High Technology Materials and processes (for example the flame toxicity of Solar panels must be considered as well as the possible limitations of a Bio-Gas Sanitation System to absorb standard household cleaning fluids, especially the newly highly unwise endemic use of antibiotics in hand soaps). These are the highly medical/toxicological questions that will guide the development of safer, cleaner, more productive industrial city centers.
In order to effect the "granularity" of activities that create vibrant industrial city centers (ref. Jane Jacob's), we need closer proximity of activities from agricultural to industrial including facilities (or at least buildable space) for any activity in between, which of course requires greater control of environmental toxins and disease within the city centers and especially the buildings that will serve these city centers of the 21st century. This is the crux of my work in Environmental and Occupational Nursing to help avoid the greater disasters that could occur when we build low emissions buildings that will house activities from sterile hospital units and wards for "aging in place" to daycare facilities to restaurants to a limited number of toxic industrial activities. I plan to designate activities zoning and HAZMAT regulations for blast-proof chambers within these city center buildings based on the toxicity of chemicals, vapor characteristics and other products used in and produced by the activity within that chamber as opposed to designation and build out of individual buildings for a predicted activity. (ie regulate, physically, the disposal of such things as cleaning supplies, Chemotherapy drugs and antibiotics to a dedicated toxins sewer at the level of the “occupied space” as opposed to zoning for “industrial waste” on an acreage basis). For example, I envision the first basement level of the city center building of the future should be able to accommodate the light industries that actually built and now service the building itself as well as the local free market with products such as oil production (think Olive Presses) for human consumption as well as bio-diesel generation, fruits & vegetables, fresh slaughtered meat, glass, ceramic, mini steel mill, copper plumbing, leather tanning, cellulose-based plastics (biodegradable), paper for printing, soap production, etc. There is absolutely no insurmountable reason, I see, not to be able to accommodate the traditional crafts, industrial arts (even the more toxic ones) as well as high technologies within a well-monitored and well-controlled environment that is healthy and reduces, controls or eliminates the toxins used and produced within it’s walls. This is called internalization of industrial costs.
In order to accomplish this, I need to make a survey of USEFUL technologies classifying all the major chemicals used in and created by the processes in terms of their occupational/health hazards, their feasible uses and give each one of these chemicals and processes a rating by which their use will be regulated within this far more stringent environment of the zero emission building. Full Life Cycle analysis of a large number of these toxins will be incorporated into a financial benefit/health cost analysis of several industrial processes. I am certain that certain chemicals and processes will be eliminated from this list of possible activities to be permitted in city centers due to excessive space requirements, energy requirements, the potential for uncontrollable health risks, excessive explosion risks and environmental toxic and treatment risks that outweigh their economic benefits to community (ie nuclear energy until further notice, but we will still have radioactive waste from Radiological medicine to be dealt with, in which case, I prefer to defer to other experts).
The health impact/economic impact analysis of technologies especially those newer technologies alongside old technologies, from Heron of Alexandria’s mechanics (300 BC) to Joe Engelberger’s robotics (2005 AD), both judged on the same criteria of healthfulness will allow us to maximize human and ecological health and energy efficiency while minimizing pollution from human activity. I intend to literally rethink HAZMAT from a full life cycle financial/technological/environmental/health cost/benefit analysis and come up with a framework for classification of industrial toxins more related to the “biological significance” of the chemical structure of these materials, the total cost of their procurement, use and disposal which of course related directly to their environmental persistence, biodegradability, bioaccumulation and susceptibility to bioremediation. A good example would be the analysis of potential health hazards of toxins released when electronics and solar panels of plastics, rubbers and rare metals are consumed on a more regular basis in household fires (possibly already done – boring). Or defining and proposing occupational and environment standards for the development of new building systems including on-site water procurement, treatment, storage, use and reuse, sewage treatment systems (biological and toxicological), air circulation & filtration technologies, environmental & industrial process monitoring systems, integration of low technologies with high technologies and developing a new ecologically friendly technology ladder. But first we must open our eyes wide to capture every USEFUL technology from basic low-tech water treatment techniques like distillation **** to UV treatments and heavy metals and pathogen removal, biogas digestion of human, animal and plant waste and the optimization of this system for safety and production within the building is rife for innovation, further miniaturization of heavy industrial processes like metal recycling, mini steel mill operations, precious metal reclamation from electronics will make them accessible to create employment without jeopardizing public health.
On a larger more international scale, I intend to work toward developing a package of appropriate and ecological industrial technologies, strongly based in this Environmental Toxicology Cost/Benefit Analysis perspective and place these Essential Technologies within a new technological ladder framework which could be exported to what Thomas M Burnett, Senior Strategic Researcher at the US Naval War College calls, "The Gap" countries (formerly referred to as “The Third World” vs. "The Core" countries or Developed World) Allowing "The Gap" countries them to leap frog many or at least some of the environmental and epidemiological disasters that scarred the environments and populations of "The Core" countries in their development of this industrial capacity. In this larger view, The Christmas Tsunami of 2004 is a watershed moment in our rethinking of city centers for greater health, safety and economic development throughout the World. God Bless Us, Everyone.