I don't claim to be an expert about ethanol production and my profession is limited to patient care in the specialty of oral/maxillofacial surgery. But, I am also trained as a scientist (Ph.D.) and it has been my privilege to have served the National Institutes of Health as a consultant for several years.

I believe my training, experience and knowledge of the biology, physiology and of the disease processes produced by carcinogens and environmental irritants, allows me to make an objective assessment of benefits/risks of the proposed ethanol plant in Greene Township. And for that matter, anyone who takes the time to look at the real facts of ethanol production and use will likely come to the same conclusions that I have.

There is a huge amount of money (profit) for the investors who want to put this plant in our neighborhood. The anticipation of large profits appears to have made them short on ethics and produced substantial memory loss; the investors forgot to mention the hazards that are described in the scientific literature that are associated with ethanol production.

The only positive side of this plan that I see is limited to those who will benefit financially from it. And the majority of the investors who will benefit don't even live in Pennsylvania. It adds very few jobs in proportion to the health and economic costs, a burden that will be placed on us who live in Franklin County as well as Greene Township.

Despite claims of "clean air" and the alleged minimal risks associated with production of ethanol along with the economic benefit to the community, a review of the science of ethanol production and its hazards leads to a single conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that the plant will benefit our community in any way nor will it be as safe as claimed.

Factual data contradict the claims of safety, economic, and environmental benefits stated by the ethanol proponents, and we all need to protect ourselves from this industry.

Cornell University ecology and agricultural sciences professor David Pimentel estimates that ethanol has benefited from a $1.4 billion subsidy while degrading the environment and diverting a crop better suited for food. He has calculated ethanol takes more energy to produce than it yields, which he said makes it difficult to describe as a renewable resource; that it causes water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides on corn crops; and causes air pollution at ethanol plants.

Dr. Pimentel knows that in the pro ethanol argument that good science showing the hazards and risk of this industry cannot compete on equal footing with the politics of big money. Scientists don't have the lobby money that the ethanol industry has — a significant amount of which was created when the U.S. taxpayer contributed $1.4 billion as a subsidy to this industry. But we can compete; we are the voters in Franklin County and Greene Township.

The $1.4 billion given to the ethanol industry does not include the other "support" services for the ethanol industry that science has shown produces very little, if any benefit to us. Taxpayers have produced the roads, the maintenance of roads over which the large and heavy vehicles will travel, and support services in fire and police protection.

We also will produce the injuries and the lives lost during large vehicle transport required to keep this ethanol plant supplied when our cars meet up with one of the transport vehicles that has failed to stay on its side of the road, or lost control on a slick road. After all, we just have to look at Interstate 81 to know about this hazard.

And the 75,000 gallons of gasoline to be stored at the plant can create one huge explosion with one gallon of gasoline equal to 30 sticks of dynamite. This creates an explosive hazard of 2,250,000 sticks of dynamite but with the added risk that gasoline can give off explosive vapors (flash point) as low as -50° F!

The toxic hazards that we will be placed on us are a major and adverse feature of production that the ethanol industry does not want us to point out. As an example of this, an ethanol plant in Craig, Mo., has recently been cited by the Department of Justice for violation of the Clean Air Act because of the production of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, from the ethanol manufacturing facility.

Volatile organic compounds that include carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides can cause serious health problems such as cancer. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it reduces oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues.

The California Air Board has even recognized that adding ethanol to fuel is not the panacea described by the ethanol industry. Jerry Martin, spokesman for the California Air Board stated, "Ethanol really doesn't do anything for fuel anymore."

Martin said oil companies have developed improved formulas for making gasoline that burns more cleanly without ethanol. And newer cars, with on-board diagnostic equipment and better emissions controls, no longer need the additive, he said.

...Ethanol more easily vaporizes than gasoline, escaping from fuel tanks and fuel lines, resulting in an increase in the emission of hydrocarbons that are carcinogenic. In addition, ethanol use adds nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog and fine-particle pollution.

...A 2001 study by a coalition of Northeastern states that said wide use of ethanol fuels could result in additional ozone and toxic emissions.

So with this clear and easily found documentation that the ethanol industry is not what it claims to be in safety, environmental improvement and economic benefits, it is time to say no. And while we have a temporary stay in the development of the proposed ethanol plant in Greene Township, we must say no loudly enough for all of our politicians to understand we mean it.