'Two plumes of steam, one coming from the plant's chimney and one showing a release of steam from a steam vent'

As the control facilities at the Chineham burner shutdown, smoke and steam pour from the stacks. Photo: Martin Adams, Copyright: 2004, Martin Adams. All rights reserved. used according to BBAC website terms and conditions.
This picture shows an incident at Veolia's 'flagship' incinerator at Chineham.

[That's the one they take the Shropshire councillors and journalists to, give them a nice lunch, and then invite them to marvel at how clean and safe it is. ]

A report of the system crash depicted can be viewed at:

http://www.netpark-ltd.co.uk/bbac/Incidents.shtml#BBAC-Systems-crash-at-Chineham-Burner-causes-concern

Having got the Chronicle to print on 27.3.08 that the picture was false and couldn't possibly be Chineham incinerator, Veolia have now admitted that it is Chineham after all but wish us to believe that the picture shows steam coming out of the main chimney and a steam vent. Funny how the 'steam' looks black - what colour do you think those white-looking chimneys (or vents) really are then, allowing for the 'angle of light' (see below)?

We believe that what happened at Chineham is information in the public interest so the above link gives the text omitted from our original posting as well as the picture. The Chairman of the Chineham Parish Council has subsequently emailed Safe Waste in Shropshire to confirm that both the picture and the report are genuine.

[You may also be aware that if the smoke coming out of an incinerator isn't black, it does not mean that it is safe. It will contain PM2.5s - tiny toxic particulates and these are the most dangerous.]

'Beyond the Pale'

Veolia got the Chronicle to print an article denouncing us in the 27.3.08 edition of the Shrewsbury Chronicle:

Waste chiefs angry at false image of incinerator on web By Peter Kitchen

WASTE bosses have hit out at anti-incinerator campaigners after a false image of an existing facility appeared on a website.

'Sylvia Herbert, press spokesperson for Veolia, said: "I think it's beyond the pale. Chineham only has one chimney and it doesn't throw out smoke like the picture showed - it's just not right to put out pictures like that on websites." '

After we complained about the piece, the Chronicle contacted us to say that they would put the record straight in their 3.4.08 issue. Here is what they printed:

'Sparks Fly over website’s Picture of Incinerator' By Peter Kitchen

ANTI-incinerator campaigners have come out fighting In the row over online images of existing plants - claiming they prove the venues are not safe.

An image of Chineham energy recovery facility near Basingstoke on the Safe Waste in Shropshire website was criticised by officials at Veolia Environmental Services as it appeared to show the site having a phantom second chimney emitting black smoke.

But it has since been revealed the image was taken by a local campaign group in Hampshire during an incident at the plant four years ago, when smoke escaped from the facility following a systems shutdown.

Campaigners say the second “chimney'' is simply a plume of smoke. The leak created noise and a burning smell across the Chineham area. The image has since reappeared on the Safe Waste in Shropshire website with links to the original article, and campaigners have stood by their decision to publicise the picture.
Veolia officials are planning to build a £60 million pound energy recovery facility at Battlefield as part of a 27-year contract signed with Shropshire Waste Partnership.

Mirian Walton, secretary of the SWS group said: “When we verified where the picture had come from we knew it was completely legitimate – it shows the Chineham incinerator and gives details about an incident where systems shut down and smoke was able to escape. I so no reason whatsoever to remove this picture and in fact I have now highlighted both the picture and the accompanying story in a new posting which I believe is in the public interest.”
John Collis, project director, for Veolia Environmental Services said: “The photo of the Chineham energy recovery plant shown on the Safe Waste in Shropshire web blog was misleading because it appeared to show 2 smoking chimneys.”

“The picture from Sept. 2004 actually shows 2 plumes of steam, one coming from the plant’s chimney and one showing a release of steam from a steam vent. The plumes of steam are only seen as dark because of the angle of light at the time the photo was taken, which the Environment Agency verified at the time. The environment agency confirmed there was no breach of emission standards and there was no was no risk to human health from this steam release."

By the way, we never did take the picture off the site; it's still where it always was in our February posting. It's just bigger in this posting! And it's image, Shrewsbury Chronicle, not images. (Journalistic licence, we suppose)

[If, by any chance, any false information does appear on this site (we try very hard to make sure it doesn't) please accept our apologies. It's a campaign blog and we are not responsible for the content of every link we post].

NOTTINGHAM'S INCINERATOR WARNED ABOUT EMISSION BREACHES

The Environment Agency has revealed that Nottingham's Eastcroft Incinerator breached its permit six times over the last six months. The good news is that the Agency has issued a warning, pointing out that these breaches have a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or a prison sentence upto 2 years. The bad news is that they are not going to prosecute.

Some of the breaches are a failure to monitor emissions correctly: - failure to provide valid data for cadmium, thallium, mercury and other heavy metals for the third quarter of 2007 - failure to provide valid data for particulates, PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for the whole of Jul-Dec 2007 - failure to provide valid data for chemical oxygen demand discharged to sewer in the fourth quarter - failure to provide data on emissions to air and sewer due in January 2008 until March.

During this time there were a number of 'abnormal emissions' which were actually measured:

carbon monoxide - 'sudden release of a hydro-carbon substance resulted in depletion of the excess oxygen' (i.e. probably explosion of a gas canister)
hydrogen fluoride - probably also caused by dodgy waste
carbon monoxide - caused by boiler tube failure
excess carbon in bottom ash - indicates inadequate combustion, blamed by the operator on use of oil burners to compensate for unpredictable combustion conditions

The Agency has given them until 2009 to install a new grate and combustion system. Last month the incinerator followed this up with a 'filter bypass' in which unfiltered fly ash was spewed over the surrounding area for 5 minutes.

The Agency has declared that this was not a breach of their permit! Last year (before the above breaches), the Agency declared in response to a planning application to expand the incinerator: "the compliance record of WasteNotts (Reclamation) Limited (part of WRG) since issue of the PPC permit has been very good.

Only four instances of failure to comply with emission limit values have occurred since the permit was issued on 22 December 2005..." Details of emission breaches are on the Nottingham Against Incineration & Landfill website at: http://www.nail.uk.net/Emissions.htm

Viridor withdraws incinerator application/ Veolia to run an MBT plant in Southwark

The link, below, shows an Edinburgh Evening News article from 18 March 2008 saying that Viridor has withdrawn its planning application for a super incinerator near Dunbar in Scotland because of tough new limits laid down by theScottish Governmentwhich state that no more than 25% of municipal waste can be burned.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Incinerator--plan--9up.3887947.jp

In February, Veolia signed a contract with Southwark Council to manage their waste. The contract includes a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant. Bidders for the contract were specifically briefed NOT to include 'energy from waste' solutions i.e. incineration.

It's not perfect - it looks like Southwark will still send some waste to the Lewisham incinerator but it gives the lie to Veolia's claim that they don't run any other kind of waste treatment facility than incinerators.

Southwark signs deal with Veolia for new 25-year waste contract 12.2.2008

(Full article is at: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Public/NewsArticle.aspx?articleId=28488)

One of the most ambitious local authority waste schemes in the UK was agreed on Monday (11 February) after Southwark Council signed a contract with Veolia Environmental Services Plc, its partner for the project. The PFI partnership with Veolia, the UK’s waste management market leader, is worth £665 million over 25 years and will deliver on council promises to increase the rate of recycling to nearly 50 per cent by 2021. Southwark aims to have the highest recycling rate of any urban authority in the UK. Veolia will provide Southwark with a fully integrated and sustainable waste service. This includes the construction of a purpose built state-of-the-art waste and recycling facility on the Old Kent Road.

How is Southwark currently operating its waste services? Southwark’s waste services currently consist of an in-house collection service for residents and business, and external processing of waste and recycling. At the moment 20% of our rubbish is recycled and about a quarter is sent to the South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) incinerator plant in Lewisham, where it is burned and electricity is generated. The rest - around 90,000 tonnes every year, is sent to landfill. That amount needs to be dramatically reduced. By 2020 we will be able to send less than less 6,000 tonnes.

Why has Southwark undertaken this waste initiative? Southwark is committed to the sustainability agenda and tackling climate change and already has a well functioning waste and recycling service. The council wants to continue to dramatically increase the recycling rate and recognises the need for long-term sustainable waste management.

The new facility on the Old Kent Road will us clean, green technology to:

• Deal with recycling collected from local homes
• Sort remaining rubbish to recycle as much waste as possible
• Turn as much remaining waste as possible into a fuel There will be no incineration on site, only mechanical and biological treatment facilities. The facility will be contained inside a building: noise, smell and traffic will be managed on site. The majority of material to leave the site will be products: compost, recyclables and fuel for energy generation. Residual waste on the site will be processed using a method known as Mechanical Biological Treatment. This involves sorting waste to remove things that can be recycled. Once sorted as much material as possible is recycled. Any waste that can't be recycled is broken down so that it can be used for fuel.

SAFE WASTE in SHROPSHIRE - OUT AND ABOUT!

Fordhall Farm Open Day

Members of Safe Waste in Shropshire leafletted and collected petition signatures at Fordhall Farm, near Market Drayton yesterday at a well-attended event (with a biting north-easterly wind for good measure!)

There was a good response, with almost 70 signatures on the petition and many people taking away leaflets. People were attending the event at the community-owned farm from all over the area with a lot attending from North and East Shropshire i.e. the area which stands to be most affected by emissions from the proposed incinerator.

As usual, most people were unaware of the proposed incinerator.

Display
At the same time, Safe Waste in Shrophsire has mounted an ongoing display in the Darwin Centre in Shrewsbury town centre.

Most of the time the display will be unmanned but members of the group will be in attendance on Wed 19th, Fri 21st, Mon 24th, Wed 26th, Mon 31st March and on Thurs 3rd, Tues 8th, Thurs 10th, Tues 15th and Fri 18th April with other dates on offer to anyone interested:

email: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com,

if you're interested in helping.

Members of the public are telling Safe Waste in Shropshire members that they have been making a real effort to recycle. Even people who 'hate recycling' reckon that they are only putting 1 or 2 small bags in their bin each week.

'Recycling Challenge' coming soon!

Watch out for our 'Recycling Challenge', to be announced, soon.

Shropshire Waste Partnership and Veolia's projected figures for recycling in Shropshire are a mere 50%. Members of Friends of the Earth and Safe Waste in Shropshire are planning to demonstrate that it is easy to achieve 80% or more. We will be asking for volunteers in Shropshire to accept the challenge.

So, what will be left to fuel Veolia's toxic and expensive 'power-station'?

IMPRESSIONS OF THE VEOLIA 'ROADSHOW'

FEEDBACK #1

We went this evening. No surprises, really; a very slick presentation as expected, but they did not have hard copy of all the information on their boards (They have promised to send us this information).

Questions were answered quickly and honestly; what was interesting was what was not said, or shown. Apparently they say ERF because that is Government terminology.

Fly Ash is called Alkaline Waste (it is taken to Walsall to be mixed with acid waste and the resulting "Ph neutral" waste is taken to landfill; they admitted that it still contains toxic substances, eg dioxins, but that the sites are lined and any ground water is treated and then sent to normal sewage plants!

The landfill site locations are in Staffs & Wales, but the staff could not say exactly where. One board said 10 or 11 lorries going to the site daily, only 5 leaving, so I asked them where they were going to store the others. They didn't see the joke, but will change the display! (I think I know what they MEANT to say).

The video of Chineham is very interesting; stuff goes in, gets burnt, ferrous material gets separated by magnet, but not shown was how the lorries are loaded to prevent dust flying around, or what happens to it thereafter.

The Michigan plasma gassification plant is not used for household waste, and the man I spoke with did not consider that it would be suitable. Also it is not Federal US laws which decree what type of incinerator, it is up to individual states.

They say my gas central heating pushes out more toxins than the incinerator will.

They say that they will bear the costs if the EU requires more stringent monitoring or filtering during the 20 years the plant will operate. Oh yes?

Unfortunately, a lot of people will come away pro-incinerator.

ps. I thought the letter from the Green Party in tonight's Shrewsbury Chronicle was very well written.

FEEDBACK #2

[We] went to the Veolia "do" today. Their claim is that plasma gasification works only on toxic waste liquid, deny that particulates are any sort of problem, and that Dr van Steenis is basically talking out of his sphincter!

We've got Veolia so wrong.........

Look, Safe Waste Shropshire has made a big mistake. It now appears that if we just ask Veolia nicely, they'll replace the church windows, make life sweet for the birdies, put the boy scouts in new uniforms, in fact, anything in our community we want them to help us with, even reducing pollution!

All we have to do is stop using that horrid 'I' word and learn to love our ickle-pretty Energy from Waste Facility. Now who said 'Waste of Energy' naughty, naughty - no new uniform for you!!

Maybe someone would like to get together a funding proposal for a 'project that reduces or prevents pollution on land.' Can we think of one, perhaps? [Clue, it begins with 'Safe']

Meanwhile, here are some inspiring examples from the Gospel:

http://www.telfordjournal.com/news/publish/article_19111.php
Telford Journal 20 Feb, 2008 Church is set to return to old glory

Work has started on a £200,000 project to return Horsehay Methodist Church to its former glory by this summer, in time for its 150th anniversary celebrations.The leaky church and adjoining community hall will both be re-roofed, replacing the tiles which date back to 1858. Double glazing is also being installed and the hall will get new flooring. External brickwork will be restored.Graham Miatt, chairman of the fundraising committee, said: “We are really pleased to see it starting because although it’s taken only a comparatively short time to raise all the money – a year – it’s been a lot of hard work.”The work will ensure the community have use of the church for worship and other activities such as a youth club for at least the next 50 years. The church is one of the oldest buildings in Horsehay. Repairs began last week and are expected to be finished by May. The church is currently being stripped out but the hall is still in use. The main grants for the project were awarded by Veolia Environmental Trust, Heritage Lottery Fund and Methodist Circuit. The church also received a number of minor grants and held fundraisers.Mr Miatt said they were already lining up a host of activities for the anniversary celebrations in the summer.He said central to the occasion will be craft and flower festivals. A quilt, which is more than a century old, will be on view together with a new quilt. Like the original, the new one will be embroidered with local family names.

www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/communityprojectnovember07.pdf

Veolia Environmental Trust Veolia (previously Onyx) Environmental Trust will fund community and environmental projects under the landfill tax credit scheme. You can apply for funding if your project
comes under one of the following categories:

• projects that involve reclaiming land, the use of which has been prevented by some previous activity.
• projects that reduce or prevent pollution on land.
• projects that provide or maintain public amenities or parks.
• delivery of biodiversity conservation for UK species habitats.
• projects to restore or repair buildings for religious worship, or of architectural or historical interest.

Projects must be within five miles of a site operated by Veolia Environmental Services. The maximum award for any one project is £150,000. However, this sum is only awarded in exceptional circumstances and the majority of grant awards are much less than this amount. For an application form or advice telephone 01902-794677, e-mail info@onyxenvtrust.org
or visit their website www.onyxenvtrust.org

www.veoliaescleanawaymardyketrust.co.uk/whowhat.htm

The Veolia ES Cleanaway Mardyke Trust can give grants to help improve the physical and social environment in:

South Ockendon
North Stifford
Stifford Clays
Blackshots and Grays, north of Lodge Lane
Aveley
Kenningtons
Purfleet, west of the railway line

Sometimes the Trust will also help other projects in Thurrock, or within one mile of Thurrock’s borders, but only where there is a significant benefit to people from the areas listed.

All the schemes the Trust can support must be schemes that the general public can benefit from, not things that are for private profit. Examples of projects are improvements to:

Village or church halls or social clubs, where there is a range of organisations that can use the hall, or where anyone can join for a reasonable fee
• Almost anything to improve a public park, play area, or woodland open to the public
• Sports facilities and clubs that any member of the public can use or join for a reasonable fee
• Scouts huts• Tree planting or community gardens on open spaces
• Play areas, ball courts, skate parks, teenage meeting shelters, including lighting for any of these
• Repair and restoration of churches
• Libraries and museums
• Cycle paths, footpaths and bridleways
• Repairs and restoration of buildings of historic or architectural interest
• Projects to sustain local biodiversity

The Veolia ES Cleanaway Mardyke Trust is an independent Registered Charity, Number 1089288 ENTRUST Registration Number 557167

www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/guide/c/churchwood/work.asp

Church Wood is managed with minimal intervention to allow dead wood to provide natural habitats for wildlife. Modest management, with regular support from two groups of local volunteers, ensures a superb and very beautiful local amenity. ...

This nature reserve is supported by funds from Hedgerley Parish Council, Veolia Environmental Trust through the Landfill Communities Fund (formerly the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme) and various charitable trusts, RSPB local groups and supporters

http://www.megmunnmp.org.uk/datapages/outandabout/outaboutviewentry.asp?id=350

Helping St Peter’s Church Thursday, February 07, 2008

On a visit to St Peter’s Church, Greenhill, Meg Munn MP saw some of the benefits of the Landfill Communities Fund. The Church has had work done on its roof and stained glass window, made possible thanks to a grant from The Veolia Environmental Trust, made under the Landfill Communities Fund.

The Landfill Communities Fund was established to ensure landfill site operators donate funds back into local communities. Operators donate a percentage of their landfill tax liability in return for a tax credit which currently stands at 6.6%.

For more information visit www.veoliatrust.org

PLASTIC? No Thanks

Plastic? No thanks - in the Independent, Saturday, 8 March 2008

Appalled by reports of environmental pollution, Catherine Eade and her family decided to try to live without buying anything packaged in plastic. One month on, they are finding the experiment both life-changing and soberingly difficult. Click the title (in blue, above) to read the whole article on the Independent's website.

Plastic: the facts

*Packaging represents the largest single sector of plastics use in the UK, accounting for 35 per cent of UK plastics consumption. Plastic is the material of choice in nearly half of all packaged goods.

* Packaging accounts for 60 per cent of household waste, and 11 per cent of household waste is plastic, 40 per cent of which is plastic bottles.

* On average, every household uses 500 plastic bottles each year, of which just 130 are recycled. The UK disposes of an estimated 13 billion plastic bottles per year.

* According to a 2001 Environment Agency report, 80 per cent of post-consumer plastic waste is sent to landfill, 8 per cent is incinerated and only 7 per cent is recycled.

* More than 80 per cent of plastic is used once and then thrown into landfill sites. More than 60 per cent of litter on beaches is plastic.

* We produce and use 20 times more plastic today than we did 50 years ago

* Plastics consumption is growing about 4 per cent every year in western Europe

* Plastic food packaging uses about 4 per cent of all crude oil.

* Reprocessor demand for plastics outstrips supply three times over

Media Balance in Practice (or how to successfully evade awkward questions!)

Following the Safe Waste in Shropshire public meeting on 29 February, BBC Radio Shropshire reported (rather briefly) on the meeting at around 8.12 am on 1 March and then gave John Collis, Veolia's project manager an hour's interview between 10 and 11 am during which time he took public questions.

Apart from the information that he felt happy to live downwind of the proposed incinerator (does anyone remember John Gummer feeding his kids beefburgers on TV during the BSE crisis?) he also felt free to try and discredit Dr van Steenis and other anti-incineration scientists by feeding listeners disinformation about them.

Although we feel that the presenter, Eric Smith, did a fairly robust job on John Collis who didn't give a very good account of himself, Safe Waste in Shropshire has been engaged in correspondence with BBC Radio Shropshire about their interpretation of 'balance'. Read it at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/safe_waste_shropshire/message/58

and the BBC's latest reply at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/safe_waste_shropshire/message/59

Note the repeated evasion of our request that Dr Van Steenis and the campaign be given the right of reply to John Collis' 'terminological inexactitudes' or to have the legally-required 'last word' next time Veolia has one of their Roadshows (next one is 14-15 March at the Lantern Centre, Sundorne) if the BBC mentions it in any of their media.

Dr Dick van Steenis spoke at a public meeting on 29 February. Here is a reaction from one audience member:

Forwarded to Safe Waste in Shropshire on 5.3.08 (see earlier posting, below, for a precis of Dr van Steenis' lecture)

Councillor Clare pointed out that the Council's 'bible' promise to us, its clients, said that they would not build an incinerator -'unless there was a need'. By putting it that way they have already admitted its a dangerous and debatable thing to have. From my notes at his lecture, and also from other sources I have read, here are a few 'extras' to Dr Steen's precis of his lecture which is attached for you as PDF file:.... As well as the depression and suicides being higher and GCSE scores being lower, downwind of pollution from incinerators, the knock on effect of that, naturally, is more violence and crime than in less polluted areas. It really does poison all of you, body and mind, no separation.

We know our council cheat. They already opened a new incinerator at the hospital without planning consent and without public consultation - behind closed doors.

The point is that although that more recent hospital incinerator might be better than the one they closed down, its old chimney is still being used, and that is lined with highly toxic stuff now being freed up by the new incinerator's heat to poison us, at below PM.4 which they are NOT containing although equipment IS available to do it, and they are NOT even acknowledging, because they only monitor the PMs above .4 which are NOT the most dangerous particulates to us.

We therefore have to show that there is no need, for this new incineraor at Harlescott, or anywhere else. Then they have no excuse not to keep their promise of not building one.

If we spent the money that's allotted for Veolia's toxic outdated technology on refining, enlarging and improving our recycling of everything, we would not need an incinerator. An autoclaver to sterilise things would improve the workers' environment as well as ours.

[]

We are supposed to be saving materials, so lets speed that up instead of struggling to meet the government targets which are in any case too slow, and help it by improving recycling with this money. Much better sorting and separating of plastics, the really toxic offenders, is vital, and ditto awareness of metals and oils.

The facts that any incinerator will destroy valuable materials for recycling at the same times as poisoning us, and will draw other areas' waste to be burned in our yard, to keep it going, are further blatantly obvious reasons why this thing should never have been agreed to, and I'd like to know whose pockets would be lined by it ?.

If we do have an incinerator of any kind, then obviously the plasma gasification which gives us electricity, gas and gravel for construction and NO poisons, is the ONLY acceptable investment. And the argument - bound to be attempted - that it costs too much to build, is completely outweighed and negated by the much lower long-term running costs and its production of in-any-case-needed fuel resources.

The fact that it costs less than half what the incinerator would cost to run once in place speaks for itself and the products it gives us that we need anyway and save mining, generation and transport from elsewhere, are another eco-plus.

Our MP said he would table readings and hearings of objections in the commons. He well knows as Paul Marsden told us, that anything that has a profit tag or a bribery and corruption tag, gets very deliberately tabled right near the end of a session so it cant get a second hearing before a break and therefore gets out of time by the next session and therefore is passed as they intend. Democracy and laws are being eroded and remade by the day, to this effect.

Friends of the earth spokesman and another gentleman said, “ we only had a hope by challenging this at appeal and planning.” Since Veolia claim they have never lost an appeal and the planning permission is going to be given the same councillors that signed the contract already - having been misled and lied to by Veolia, []
The councillors who signed that contract must all read the full facts of Dr.Van Steens' research [ ] they must call another meeting and go backwards and revoke the contract.

The so-called argument that breaking the contract will lead to an increase of council tax to pay the fine for breaking the contract is unbelievable blinkeredness, acceptance and fear. It is blackmail.

Is the councils money theirs, ours, or the banks or the judges????. Can the judge and the banks move 'our' money around if we and the councilors say 'NO', - this is wrong, - it IS murder, and abuse and we don't want it and we are not accepting it?

Surely a judge of any breach of contract hearing cannot confiscate the Council treasury's credit card ? can it?.

I don't want to hear anyone saying “If this goes through” or “What if we cant prevent it” – they have already given in and committed us to it, by those words. Those words are banned and people finding themselves saying them need to examine their own fear and programming into acceptance of the chicken boxes of divide and conquer we are being increasingly subjected to. We need to be aware of the WHOLE reptilian agenda. This is not just ONE issue and we need to say “You are sussed and we are not afraid and not buying it.”

I for one would not pay an increase of council tax to fund that fine. So would the bailiff's break into my house and steal from me to get the extra council tax from selling my relatively worthless second hand stuff, or would I be evicted or WHAT???,- we have to stick together on this.

What we need, are a few actually honest people, who have nothing to lose!? - as the final stage of the court case + extra council tax scenario would be that you're not really told the reason for the tax increase as the pie chart is manipulated to make it seem as though the increase is somewhere else unavoidable and not from canceling the Incinerator contract 'fine', and that way they say you have no justification for not paying the tax increase. Any council employed moles amongst us ! ? to tunnel a labyrinthal, enmazed route through to the light, truth and love at the end of the dark tunnels of red tape, bureaucracy, profit, kudos, status, ego, power and greed?

Politicians united against the proposed Incinerator

90 people from all over Shewsbury and surrounding areas turned out on a wet and windy Friday night to hear Dr Dick van Steenis talk about the health effects of incineration. Also on the platform were politicians from all 3 main parties plus the Green Party. The meeting was chaired by Independent SABC councillor, Claire Wild. Dr van Steenis, who has made a 13-year study of the health effects of incineration, told the audience what we can expect if the incinerator is built: an increase in infant mortality, heart attacks, asthma, cancers, autism, ADHD and crime downwind (north and east) of the incinerator as far as 15 miles away.



PICTURED, A FRENCH INCINERATOR: French doctors have recently called for a moratorium on incineration


On non-windy days, the whole area within 2 miles of the incinerator will be affected; this will include the planned food enterprise park, the abbatoir, and a large residential area. He told the meeting that the main problem is particulates - tiny particles of heavy metals etc - which are invisible and lodge in the deepest part of the lungs. They are currently not monitored in this country and there are no plans to do so. Incinerators also emit other pollutants such as dioxins and furans, also highly toxic even in the infinitessimaly small quantities Veolia keep mentioning.

As well as being scientifically authoritative, Dr van Steenis, was witty and not afraid to mince words - 'Veolia talk about state of the art, well it's the wrong state and the wrong art.'; 'America doesn't want incineration any more so why are Veolia offloading this junk onto us - it's immoral - where are their morals?'

He also talked about plasma gasification, which he believes is the safest alternative to incineration.

Also on the platform was Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, who made no bones that he lived in one of the potentially worst-affected places - Astley - with his wife and young child and that he intends to pursue the issue in parliament. He also made his office and researcher available to the campaign.

Cllr Miles Kenny (Lib Dem, SCC) told the meeting that he was one of the four councillors who had voted against the incinerator. He described the council as 'target-driven' which had contributed to the decision. He also felt that most councillors had acted in ignorance. He also advised campaigners of the need to educate people and that everyone should be lobbying their councillor.

pictured (left) a 'clean' Veolia incinerator at Chineham, near Basingstoke

Cllr Alan Mosley (Labour leader, SCC) confessed to the meeting that he had actually voted for the incinerator but had since done a lot of research and had realised his mistake. He told the meeting how Veolia had 'soothed' councillors with a trip to the Basingstoke's shiny clean-looking incinerator (no nasty black smoke that day, of course) with a free lunch (!) thrown in. He also informed the meeting about the process leading up to the contract being signed, how it had managed to avoid the normal scrutiny process (he is chair of SCC's Scrutiny panel) and that the council is obliged by the terms of the 27-year contract with Veolia to support the planning application when it goes in at the end of 2008.

This last fact was not generally known but the Shropshire Star, hitherto largely hostile to our campaign managed to put it on the front page on Saturday. Thank you to the Shropshire Star -Safe Waste in Shropshire hopes they keep this up! Local newspapers can play a crucial part in educating the public in the issues and even hosting the debate. (Veolia knows this and avidly analyses the media coverage of the proposed incinerator). The Norwich Evening News, by supporting the local anti-incinerator campaign, helped to stop an incinerator being built there.

Steve Boulding from Shropshire Green Party reminded the meeting that waste management should be seen as part of a bigger environmental picture. He pledged his party's support for the anti-incineration campaign.

On BBC Radio Shropshire on Saturday morning, John Collis, Veolia's project manager in Shropshire was given a whole hour to answer questions. The pretext for the show was the Safe Waste in Shropshire public meeting but Dr van Steenis got about 20 seconds of air time. The presenter, Eric Smith, did however question Mr Collis closely on the health issues. Mr Collis seemed to suffer from an inability to answer direct questions such as 'If you wanted to build this kind of incinerator in the US, would you get permission?'. He also told people that Dr van Steenis was a lone voice. This is true if you discount the World Health Organisation, the British Society for Ecological Medicine, Greenpeace scientists, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association, and many other independent experts. French doctors have called for a moratorium on incineration.

TOGETHER, WE CAN STOP THE INCINERATOR: JOIN SAFE WASTE IN SHROPSHIRE.

PRECIS OF DR VAN STEENIS' SHREWSBURY LECTURE

SHOULD REGULATORS PASS KILLING & MAIMING IN SHROPSHIRE? (Precis of lecture given in Shrewsbury on 29.2.08) Email: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com if you want to see the 338 references)

By Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Should you reside or work within 15 miles of Shrewsbury, which includes Telford & Wellington, Wem, Newport, Market Drayton, Shawbury, Baschurch & numerous villages, please read on. An incinerator planning application by Veolia is being promoted by the council. The council already allowed the Shrewsbury hospital incinerator to re-open a few years ago without allowing the public to comment under planning laws. The old chimney, full of carcinogenic radioactive particles & dioxins, was re-used. Incineration of waste causes a shortening of lifespan of up to 12 years often in the prime of life by increasing a range of diseases especially heart attacks & cancers. A 20 year university led study in Belgium detailed diseases and deaths caused during years 1 to 5, 6 to 10 and 11 to 20, ending up with a 480% rise in cancer incidence on top of the country's rise. The proposed chimney will spread the damage some 15 miles. Incineration of waste vaporises heavy metals making the particulates emitted even more lethal when you inhale them into your lungs. Emissions will consist of PM2.5 particulates which mostly pass through the abatement equipment and which go into the deepest part of your lungs when inhaled. Your health can be put at risk for 3 days just from an hour's exposure if the wind blows the PM2.5s your way. Readers should be aware that further interaction between gasses and ultrafine particles in the air from not just the proposed plant but others such as the existing hospital incinerator, Ironbridge Power Station (co-incinerator since 1998) and delivery vehicles will form new secondary PM2.5 particulates effectively doubling the incinerator's effects on health downwind.

When you inhale PM2.5 particulates the soluble fraction gets into the bloodstream and your cells, while the insoluble fraction is partly dealt with by macrophages and T-lymphocytes with the remainder walled off in the lungs causing COPD. When in the cells, mutations will occur due to heavy metals, PAHs any radioactivity or dioxins. Without adequate selenium in your blood to neutralise the metals, mutations will lead to birth defects and cancers. In USA even 12 year olds had 20% loss of lung function from PM2.5 induced COPD. Unlike USA where PM2.5s have been rigorously monitored & regulated since 1997, in the UK only PM1 Os (PM10 down to PM4—none of which gets into your lungs) are measured using instruments that can be adjusted to minus. Hence there is no regulation to protect the public. The IPPC law was downgraded by Prescott in 2000 to more or less "anything will do". The Environment Agency truthfully state that they know nothing about health. Far worse, the Health Protection Agency follows on from the Guy's Hospital unit director who said "Air pollution does not exist". So without knowledge of toxicology or using available data the PCT & Environment Agency & HPA only heed government "spin" and "reviews" and "diktat", while admitting they really know nothing. It is up to you, the reader, to challenge the PCT public health directors whom the GMC say must know the subject, be up to date and listen to & protect the public. The Environment Agency cannot finally authorise any application unless council and PCT public health director have both signed consent. The total NHS cost of this virtually unregulated industrial air pollution is c.L36 billion pa plus losses to education & productivity. it must also be understood that there will be cumulative impacts in the body and synergistic effects, for example cadmium & lead in the body will multiply the effects of mercury by 50 times – which will hence facilitate development of ADHD and autism processes.

The only safe way of handling waste is plasma-gasification which runs on electricity, produces vitrified gravel, hydrogen & electricity –all for sale- and has very low emissions at a nett cost of about £23 per ton compared with incinerators of £63 per ton plus another £67 of health damage p-.- ton plus huge volumes of toxic ash for disposal. Who has the morals to protect the public?? It is up to the reader to badger councillors & PCT to not only protect your health but to install this plasma gasification as the best available technique. If you read Popular Science of 30 October 2007, you will discover that even Panama will be treating all its waste by plasma producing 40% of its electricity and exporting hydrogen. Other plants are to be found seen in Ottawa, Michigan, Florida, New York etc. Veolia are building the Michigan plant while fobbing off English residents with inferior equipment by comparison.
The range of illnesses caused by inhaling PM2.5 particulates from waste burning include----Birth defects—terminations, live defects, miscarriages plus low birth weight babies.

Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults. In London the infant mortality in zones downwind of the incinerators is 7 times higher than in wards upwind. (ONS data 2003/5)

T-lymphocyte diversion to lungs with depletion causes SIDS, cot deaths, autism, MS, GBS Attention deficit and other behaviour problems.

Lower IQ & educational achievement down 2 years, worse GCSE grades Asthma, COPD, viral & bacterial respiratory & other infections (especially boys) Coronary heart disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADS.

Diabetes type 2, (sometimes type 1), Endometriosis & other hormone disruption. Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies & arthritis

ME, CFS, Hypothyroidism with low 'T3 level (adding to obesity)

Clinical depression & suicides, apathy, which increases the obesity problem. CANCERS—nonHodgkins lymphoma, brain, breast, colon, lung, prostate, kidney, liver etc Breast cancer for example can be caused by faulty genes (2%), HRT (5%) radiation, OP pesticides/herbicides, and from chimneys—cadmium, dioxins (& similar), & PAHs

Analysis of 9 health parameters in Telford by ward in 2005 revealed increases in illnesses and SMR in 7 polluted wards compared with 24 less polluted wards. An incinerator built in Colnbrook 1990 caused

Slough SMR to worsen from 88 to 121 by 2001 meaning 11 years off lifespan.

338 references are available to those interested in peer-reviewed reports in medical journals.

Those with internet can check www.ukhr.org and www.countrydoctor.co.uk (under pollution at bottom of main page) for more details.

It is up to you to act or you will have the consequences imposed on you. The regulators normally just follow government diktat.

Compiled 11 November 2007 by Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS who has reports in 4 peer-reviewed medical journals.

GLOSSARY

COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease PCT = Primary Care Trust
IPPC = Integrated Pollution & Prevention Control CFS = Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
GMC = General Medical Council USEPA = USA Environmental Protection Agency
PAH = Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder