Regarding Uroboros, is it a ton of cadmium itself or cadmium-containing glass? What concentration is he speaking of when he says 2000 to 2500 lbs? That changes the concentration of cadmium and thus the amount of actual cadmium. Why are they not reporting to the Toxic Release Inventory if it's that much? They would seem to meet the criteria at those numbers.

Here's the checklist for TRI: http://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventor…

Also, I'm skeptical a baghouse will be effective enough. Yes, it's good for dust/particulates, but what if it's leaving sometimes in a vaporized state and not as a dust?

Does anybody know why a baghouse wasn't used for the furnaces? What kinds of baghouses were used? Here's a page on some different types:

http://www.neundorfer.com/knowledge_base/b…

Even if they are 98% efficient, a 50 fold reduction of 150 is still 3 times more than benchmarks. It might not be enough for that reason alone.

None of this would have happened if Portland had protected bike lanes.

(Sorry, had to break the tension. Thanks for the thoughtful comments & reporting).

Might want to read this before flying off various handles. Actual risk to the populace is pretty damn low. Exhaust fumes likely kill more people. http://wantonempiricist.blogspot.com/2016/…

The main problem here is that cadmium is a bio-accumulative toxin that has a half-life in the body of around 20 years. This pollution source has been around for a long time. You can test the air and soil, but urine cadmium will the best indicator of long term exposure and body burden.

These glass kilns operate at extremely high temps (>2500 F), and therefore any exhaust would be very hot. Metals such as these would be in vapor form until cooled, and therefore would not be removed by baghouses. As the vapors cool in the atmosphere, they will condense into a particulate form. Depending on it's density, and atmospheric conditions, it can travel for miles, or deposit out immediately, say in a rain drop.

Oh, and PS: Where is the outrage with the land use planners? DEQ nor OHA have nothing to do with where a facility is located. In order for a permit to be issued, the source must come in with land use documents approved by the planning authority in that region. Who allows for day care and schools next to industrial sites??? Portland has become such a mishmash of mixed use and density. Perhaps overlapping uses is not a good idea.

greeneyedpea: Portland's not unique in having mixed-used neighborhoods with strange bedfellows – most cities do. But in the case of the neighborhood around Bullseye, most of the houses and schools predate much of the industrial development. Cleveland High School was built in 1929; Winterhaven was built (as Brooklyn Elementary) in 1930. Many houses in the area were built between 1905 and 1940. Bullseye started in 1974 – in the backyard of a residential house – and then took over much of a residential neighborhood. I agree that land use planners could have been more strict back then, but awareness of pollution wasn't as strong in the past. Now that we know more, our government needs to step up.