'Don’t let high paid consultants take either your common sense or your democracy away from you.' : Doctor Paul Connett.
On Saturday 1 March, BBC Radio Shropshire invited John Collis of Veolia to answer questions on the proposed incinerator. This was occasioned by a public meeting Safe Waste in Shropshire held the night before which had been addressed by Dr Dick Van Steenis, an independent health campaigner.
During the programme, Mr Collis dismissed Dr Van Steenis as just another of the occasional anti-incineration experts who 'pop-up from time to time' and then leave the country (this must invalidate their work, presumably). He specifically mentioned Professor Vyvyan Howard and Paul Connett in this context.
For the information of Mr Collis, Professor Vyvyan Howard is living in Belfast and is still working on links between incineration and health. Dr Paul Connett does indeed work in the USA and he has just produced a chapter on Zero Waste v. incineration for a forthcoming book. Here is an extract (a link for the full article can be found at the bottom of the piece).
Thanks to the member of Safe Waste in Shropshire who got in touch with Dr Connett and found this information.
Extract from: 'Zero Waste: A Key Move towards a Sustainable Society'
by Paul Connett, PhD
Our current age is sleep walking. Most of us living in Western societies have nearly
everything our parents and grandparents ever dreamed of – except one thing,
sustainability. We cannot share our current consumption patterns with the future. We are
living on this planet as if we had another one to go to. A little thought should make us
realize that, as far as raw materials are concerned, we simply can’t run a “throwaway
society” on a finite planet.
Waste is the evidence that we are doing something wrong. Landfills simply bury the
evidence and incinerators (by whatever fancy name they are called) simply burn the
evidence. We have to face the real problem: our task is to fight over-consumption and its
most visible manifestation: the throwaway ethic. Instead of trying to become more
sophisticated about getting rid of waste, we have to stop buying things we do not need,
and industries have to stop making things, which cannot be reused in some way.
Meanwhile, not only is the throwaway society presenting us with a local waste crisis, it is
contributing to the global crisis. It is important to see what has caused this crisis and how
a Zero Waste strategy can take an important step towards addressing the issue. We need
to move from a linear society to a sustainable society.
Conclusions
Incineration is not necessary. There is a better alternative strategy, which is not only
better for our health, but is better for the local economy, and for our planet.
However, there remains an obstacle, which I call “the bad law of pollution.” When we
compare communities, provinces or countries, “the level of pollution increases as the
level of corruption increases.” The more corrupt your community the more polluted it
will be. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the city of Naples, Italy.
Fortunately, there is “the good law of pollution,” which states that “the level of pollution
decreases as the level of public participation increases.” In short, we need to clean up the
political system in order to clean up our environment.
Nowhere is this corruption more apparent than the continued promotion of mega-landfills
and incinerators. A few people make a huge amount of money from building and running
these entities but the rest of the public foots the bill in countless ways.
However, the one good thing that comes out of these projects is that it galvanizes the
public into vociferous opposition. It is this passion, and the networking it generates,
which provides the push for the alternative zero waste strategy. In the last few years in
Italy this networking has received a huge boost from Beppe Grillo, a former TV
comedian who is capable of drawing 10,000 people at a time to meetings where he uses
his wit (along with recruited scientists) to educate millions on waste and other pressing
social and technical issues.
Today, nowhere is the struggle between the mindless political pressures for incineration
and the counter citizen pressure for Zero Waste more apparent than in Italy. The world
watches its response to the Naples crisis. Will invested interests succeed in getting
communities to build incinerators or will its citizens demand the kind of creative
leadership in these matters that the world once saw from Italy in artistic and scientific
matters during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution?
Three final messages.
I always end up my public presentations with three short messages.
The first message is directed towards CITIZENS. Don’t let high paid consultants take
either your common sense or your democracy away from you.
The second is directed towards POLITICIANS. Put your faith back in people. Without all
waste solutions will fail. Give us source separation and door to door collection systems
and we will not let you down!
The third is for ACTIVISTS. Have fun! This is essential if we are to avoid burn out.
http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/zerowaste.pdf
Strict environmental regulations pay dividends (in the USA)
Campaigners against incinerators often point out that the USA has moved away from incineration as the preferred option for waste disposal on health grounds. Incineration firms know that they would never survive the ensuing lawsuits rising from the health effects (even if they got a pollution permit in the first place). The USA also monitors fine particulate emissions, unlike the UK, where our elected representatives and health professionals prefer to bury their heads in the sand.
For example, we met Mark Southgate - the Head of Planning and Environmental Assessment at the Environment Agency - last weekend and he couldn't tell us anything about the EA's policy on licensing incinerators in the light of the recent EU directive on the need to reduce fine particulate emissions. He appeared to know nothing about emissions at all but then he did move to the EA from the RSPB!
A White House study carried out in 2003 showed that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society.
The report, issued by the Office of Management and Budget, concluded that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.
By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulphur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.
Read it all at:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Gain-Pollution-Rules-OMB27sep03.htm
For example, we met Mark Southgate - the Head of Planning and Environmental Assessment at the Environment Agency - last weekend and he couldn't tell us anything about the EA's policy on licensing incinerators in the light of the recent EU directive on the need to reduce fine particulate emissions. He appeared to know nothing about emissions at all but then he did move to the EA from the RSPB!
A White House study carried out in 2003 showed that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society.
The report, issued by the Office of Management and Budget, concluded that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.
By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulphur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.
Read it all at:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Gain-Pollution-Rules-OMB27sep03.htm
ENERGY FROM WASTE OR WASTE OF ENERGY?
The term 'Energy from Waste' so beloved of incinerator-mongers was coined because the previous name 'Waste to Energy' was so often ridiculed in the USA as 'Waste of Energy'(a reference to the flawed accounting which makes it sound as if it makes a significant contribution to energy-generation when it doesn't. Recent studies suggest that it's actually cheaper to do nothing at all for several years than have an incinerator, even including paying landfill fines. How much better to create less waste in the first place.
Read Dr. Paul Connett on this subject at:
http://www.cank.org.uk/connett1.html#4.%20Incineration%20is%20a%20waste%20of
Read Dr. Paul Connett on this subject at:
http://www.cank.org.uk/connett1.html#4.%20Incineration%20is%20a%20waste%20of
NEW E.U. DIRECTIVE ON PM 2.5s
14/04/2008
Today the European Commission has introduced measures to improve air quality throughout Europe. A new directive sets binding targets for reducing concentrations of fine particles which can cause asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The European Union has today taken a decisive step in tackling a major cause of environmental and health problems. The new directive on air quality addresses this concern by providing ambitious but realistic standards for fine particle PM2.5 pollution in the European Union."
Under the directive EU Member States are required to reduce exposure to PM2.5 in urban areas by an average of 20% by 2020 based on 2010 levels. It obliges them to bring exposure levels below 20 micrograms/m3 by 2015 in these areas. Throughout their territory Member States will need to respect the PM2.5 limit value set at 25 micrograms/m3. This value must be achieved by 2015 or, where possible, by 2010.
Air pollution is caused by the emission to the atmosphere of certain substances. The pollutant which causes the most damage to human health is ground level ozone and airborne fine dust, known as particulate matter (PM). Ozone is not emitted directly but is formed through the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunshine. Fine dust can be emitted directly to the air (primary particles) or can be formed in the atmosphere by certain gases (secondary particles) such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia.
Air pollution has impacts on human health ranging from minor effects on the respiratory system to reduced lung function, asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy. Air pollution in the European Union, notably from fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone, causes the premature death of almost 370,000 citizens every year, reducing average life expectancy by an average of 9 months.
Background
The new directive on air quality (see Commission welcomes EP vote on the air quality directive and Questions and Answers on the new directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) is one of the key measures outlined in the 2005 Thematic Strategy on air pollution adopted by the Commission in September 2005. It establishes ambitious, cost-effective targets for improving human health and environmental quality up to 2020.
Today the European Commission has introduced measures to improve air quality throughout Europe. A new directive sets binding targets for reducing concentrations of fine particles which can cause asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The European Union has today taken a decisive step in tackling a major cause of environmental and health problems. The new directive on air quality addresses this concern by providing ambitious but realistic standards for fine particle PM2.5 pollution in the European Union."
Under the directive EU Member States are required to reduce exposure to PM2.5 in urban areas by an average of 20% by 2020 based on 2010 levels. It obliges them to bring exposure levels below 20 micrograms/m3 by 2015 in these areas. Throughout their territory Member States will need to respect the PM2.5 limit value set at 25 micrograms/m3. This value must be achieved by 2015 or, where possible, by 2010.
Air pollution is caused by the emission to the atmosphere of certain substances. The pollutant which causes the most damage to human health is ground level ozone and airborne fine dust, known as particulate matter (PM). Ozone is not emitted directly but is formed through the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunshine. Fine dust can be emitted directly to the air (primary particles) or can be formed in the atmosphere by certain gases (secondary particles) such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia.
Air pollution has impacts on human health ranging from minor effects on the respiratory system to reduced lung function, asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy. Air pollution in the European Union, notably from fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone, causes the premature death of almost 370,000 citizens every year, reducing average life expectancy by an average of 9 months.
Background
The new directive on air quality (see Commission welcomes EP vote on the air quality directive and Questions and Answers on the new directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) is one of the key measures outlined in the 2005 Thematic Strategy on air pollution adopted by the Commission in September 2005. It establishes ambitious, cost-effective targets for improving human health and environmental quality up to 2020.
Council facing ’waste’ lawsuit
MORE TROUBLE FOR CRYMLYN BURROWS INCINERATOR: SHROPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILLORS - TAKE NOTE!
Martin Shipton, South Wales Echo 1st May, 2008
A SOUTH Wales council is facing a £5m lawsuit over a waste processing and incinerator plant, it has emerged.
Bridgend council is understood to be locked in a secret battle with neighbouring Neath Port Talbot over problems relating to the Crymlyn Burrows Materials Recovery and Energy Centre (MREC).
The row, which is believed to involve Neath Port Talbot suing Bridgend to the tune of £5m, may even see Bridgend being banned from sending waste to the plant.
Domestic rubbish from both council areas are disposed of at the facility, which processes material for recycling and incinerates other waste.
It is also understood that during the course of legal arguments between the two councils, Neath Port Talbot has threatened to ban Bridgend from sending waste to the plant.
A political source told the Echo: “Leading politicians were told about this last week but they are all keeping tight lipped. I find it incredible that it has been allowed to get to this stage. Neath Port Talbot is apparently demanding that Bridgend pay up its fair share of the costs involved with various aspects of the MREC plant which have accrued since the collapse of the plant’s original operating company HLC.
“I understand that Bridgend has failed to pay an invoice for millions sent to them by Neath Port Talbot.”
The Crymlyn Burrows waste-processing plant, near the border of Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, has been hugely controversial since before it was opened in 2002.
Residents opposed it on health grounds, claiming there was no truly safe limit for the dioxins emitted by the incinerator. But councils, who point out that the incinerator has to comply with emission standards, saw it as a means of reducing the proportion of waste sent to landfill.
From the outset the plant processed about 150,000 tonnes of domestic refuse a year from Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend.
Much has been recycled, but an estimated 50,000 tonnes a year is burnt off in the incinerator.
The two councils issued a joint statement saying: “Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot councils are in discussions concerning a contractual matter related to waste disposal arrangements and both are hopeful that an early resolution will be possible. At this stage, neither council is prepared to make any further comment.”
martin.shipton@mediawales.co.uk
Martin Shipton, South Wales Echo 1st May, 2008
A SOUTH Wales council is facing a £5m lawsuit over a waste processing and incinerator plant, it has emerged.
Bridgend council is understood to be locked in a secret battle with neighbouring Neath Port Talbot over problems relating to the Crymlyn Burrows Materials Recovery and Energy Centre (MREC).
The row, which is believed to involve Neath Port Talbot suing Bridgend to the tune of £5m, may even see Bridgend being banned from sending waste to the plant.
Domestic rubbish from both council areas are disposed of at the facility, which processes material for recycling and incinerates other waste.
It is also understood that during the course of legal arguments between the two councils, Neath Port Talbot has threatened to ban Bridgend from sending waste to the plant.
A political source told the Echo: “Leading politicians were told about this last week but they are all keeping tight lipped. I find it incredible that it has been allowed to get to this stage. Neath Port Talbot is apparently demanding that Bridgend pay up its fair share of the costs involved with various aspects of the MREC plant which have accrued since the collapse of the plant’s original operating company HLC.
“I understand that Bridgend has failed to pay an invoice for millions sent to them by Neath Port Talbot.”
The Crymlyn Burrows waste-processing plant, near the border of Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, has been hugely controversial since before it was opened in 2002.
Residents opposed it on health grounds, claiming there was no truly safe limit for the dioxins emitted by the incinerator. But councils, who point out that the incinerator has to comply with emission standards, saw it as a means of reducing the proportion of waste sent to landfill.
From the outset the plant processed about 150,000 tonnes of domestic refuse a year from Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend.
Much has been recycled, but an estimated 50,000 tonnes a year is burnt off in the incinerator.
The two councils issued a joint statement saying: “Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot councils are in discussions concerning a contractual matter related to waste disposal arrangements and both are hopeful that an early resolution will be possible. At this stage, neither council is prepared to make any further comment.”
martin.shipton@mediawales.co.uk
Incinerator chemicals ‘might be good for you’
SAFE WASTE COMMENT: 'The claims referred to by Professor Jim Bridges at an incinerator planning enquiry in Cheshire presumably include those made by the likes of Dr Harold Shipman, Dr Crippen, the Borgias and members of the royal house of Denmark (as told in 'Hamlet')!'
Report by Paul Mannion, Chester Chronicle 28 April, 2008
A COCKTAIL of chemicals released from a proposed incinerator will pose no danger to its neighbours, a planning inquiry heard. The claim was made by international health expert Professor Jim Bridges in week two of the inquiry into Peel Holdings’ proposed incinerator, waste plant and technology complex in Ince.
He went on to suggest that at low levels of potency, some of the dioxins released through industrial processes could even provide health benefits. Giving evidence for Peel, Prof Bridges said: “It can be concluded that the operation of the proposed incinerator plant, according to the statutory emission limits, will not result in adverse health effects in the local population.
“It has been concluded that airborne emissions of the chemicals of interest constitute a negligible risk to the health of the local community.”
In his proof of evidence for the inquiry at Forest Hills Hotel, Frodsham, he said: “Vitamins and essential minerals are examples of chemicals that have adverse effects at high exposure levels but beneficial effects at lower levels. It is apparent that a considerable number of chemicals fall into this class – indeed there are even claims that dioxins should be included.”
Referring to the build up of pollutants in locally grown produce, Prof Bridges added: “In the case of dioxins, an assessment has also been carried out of the possible contamination of locally grown food and the potential health implications of this. The risk, even to individuals whose diet throughout the year involves a substantial contribution from locally grown food, will not constitute a significant risk.”
Cross-examining for protest group Residents Against Incineration, chemical specialist Professor John Dearden questioned the accuracy of the existing scientific tests on the effects of incinerators. He also suggested there isn’t enough research into incinerators to know the full health impact.
In response, Professor Bridges said: “I would never say we know enough about anything from a scientific point of view.”
Next week, witnesses for Peel will continue their evidence. The public inquiry is running from 10am-5.30pm Tuesdays to Fridays.
There is a public meeting on Wednesday, May 14, at 7pm when the public can attend and give evidence if they first register with programme officer Jane Coslett on 01928 735255.
Where's Response to Incinerator Concerns? -
THIS CHALLENGE TO SCC AND VEOLIA WAS PRINTED IN THE SHREWSBURY CHRONICLE ON 1st MAY:
The Chronicle printed a letter of mine in its March 13 edition.
It related to Shropshire County Council's plans for a waste incinerator to be built at Battlefield.
I commented on the serious health concerns associated with such a facility that have been identified by pollution expert, Dr Dick van Steenis. He had given a talk on the subject at a public meeting in Sundorne, organised by the Safe Waste in Shropshire group.
I find it very odd that there has been no attempt by the council or Veolia, their waste contractor, to respond in public. Surely, local people are entitled to wonder, in the absence, whether both parties have something to hide.
Furthermore, Veolia chose to hold their public roadshow on the subject at the Lantern Centre in Sundorne. Whilst this is a pleasant venue, it is out-of-centre and I doubt whether more than a handful of people attended the two-day event.
One wonders whether this was Veolia's intention, to limit public involvement. In my view, this exercise should be repeated, but this time at a a centreal location in Shrewsbury. This would enable far more people to view the presentation.
This incinerator proposal is highly controversial and I believe the debate should be widely-aired.
So, come on Shropshire county council and Veolia, let us have a public response to the health concerns that have been raised.
Keith O'Neill, Shropshire Green Party
FOR THE RECORD - WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT DR VAN STEENIS WOULD BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE (Safe Waste in Shropshire).
More information about the health effects of incinerators at www.ukhr.org.
The Chronicle printed a letter of mine in its March 13 edition.
It related to Shropshire County Council's plans for a waste incinerator to be built at Battlefield.
I commented on the serious health concerns associated with such a facility that have been identified by pollution expert, Dr Dick van Steenis. He had given a talk on the subject at a public meeting in Sundorne, organised by the Safe Waste in Shropshire group.
I find it very odd that there has been no attempt by the council or Veolia, their waste contractor, to respond in public. Surely, local people are entitled to wonder, in the absence, whether both parties have something to hide.
Furthermore, Veolia chose to hold their public roadshow on the subject at the Lantern Centre in Sundorne. Whilst this is a pleasant venue, it is out-of-centre and I doubt whether more than a handful of people attended the two-day event.
One wonders whether this was Veolia's intention, to limit public involvement. In my view, this exercise should be repeated, but this time at a a centreal location in Shrewsbury. This would enable far more people to view the presentation.
This incinerator proposal is highly controversial and I believe the debate should be widely-aired.
So, come on Shropshire county council and Veolia, let us have a public response to the health concerns that have been raised.
Keith O'Neill, Shropshire Green Party
FOR THE RECORD - WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT DR VAN STEENIS WOULD BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE (Safe Waste in Shropshire).
More information about the health effects of incinerators at www.ukhr.org.
ANOTHER PLANNED INCINERATOR IS SCRAPPED
PLANS to build a massive incinerator in Renfrewshire have been scrapped. The
proposals were to create a waste-treatment plant, capable of burning 140,000
tonnes of rubbish a year, in Linwood. But after announcing a U-turn, council
bosses have promised to reduce landfill by increasing recycling..
proposals were to create a waste-treatment plant, capable of burning 140,000
tonnes of rubbish a year, in Linwood. But after announcing a U-turn, council
bosses have promised to reduce landfill by increasing recycling..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)