This cheery information is from an email that Safe Waste in Shropshire recently received from Dr Michael Warhurst, Senior Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
'Shlomo Dowen at UKWIN (UK Without Incineration Network) http://www.ukwin.org/ has been pulling together a list of victories in 2009 – see below – and it is pretty impressive. It shows how effective local activists can be [ ] when they are provided with the information & support they need. It’s not all over – there are still a lot of projects out there (e.g. http://bit.ly/4Rwyh6),) but there is a feeling of dominos toppling.... and the fight will go on in 2010! Even George Osborne is fighting one:
http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/news/4796923.Osborne_backs_campaign_against_incinerator/
Derby incinerator turned down at planning - http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Protesters-jubilant-incinerator-plan-goes-smoke/article-1624683-detail/article.html
Surrey dropping incineration - http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority <http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority>
Luton dropping out of the waste PFI - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/09/luton-borough-council-withdraws-from-bear-pfi-project-in-bedfordshire/ and http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Incinerator-plans-set-to-be.5638065.jp
Rufford (Sherwood Forest) inquiry adjourned until after Easter 2010
North Devon incinerator plans 'mothballed' - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/14/north-devon-incinerator-plans-mothballed/
Tockwith, North Yorkshire - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8413255.stm
Telford and Wrekin Council unanimously reject Sita’s waste incinerator proposal - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/08/sita-loses-again-as-telford-wrekin-council-rejects-granville-incinerator/
Sita withdraws Ernesettle plans - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/11/09/progress-in-plymouth/
Oxfordshire double victory - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/
Oxfordshire – Sutton Courtenay and Ardley (see above)
(Indefinite?) delays in Hull
Invergordon – http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey <http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey> - but to be appealed http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1498541?UserKey=
Dunbar proposals defeated - http://business.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Campaigners-delighted-as-incinerator-plan.5608678.jp
Cornwall planning victory (to be followed by a victory at the public inquiry next year?!)
Cardiff incinerator plan dropped As a result of this, DEFRA’s list of PFI projects only has 2 projects left for approval with Hull, Derby and Dorset leaving the list in the last few days. Also many approved PFIs are still not built: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/funding/pfi/projects.htm
Surrey County Council drops incineration plans and aims for 70% recyling
Surrey Surrey County Council has recently turned down two proposed incinerators infavour of anaerobic digestion, two small gasification plants and a target of 70%recycling by 2013.[Compare this with Defra's unambitious target of 50% by 2020. Meanwhile, San Francisco's recycling is currently at 72% and the city is aiming for Zero Wasteby 2020!!
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3]
The report below, from Surrey County Council's website,
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Surrey+County+Council+drops+incineration+plans?opendocument points a way forward for all councils that go against incineration.
That definitely needs to include Shropshire!
[We should point out that we would have reservations about gasification, preferring a 'no-burn' solution.]
Come on, Shropshire!
County Council today announced that there are no longer plans to buildEnergy from Waste (EfW) incinerators in Surrey. Outlining the council's new waste strategy plans, Leader of the Council Dr Andrew Povey said: "I am very pleased to announce that we are scrapping plans for any EfW incinerators in Surrey. Today I will be instructing that the planning applications for incinerators at Capel and Trumps Farm be withdrawn.
"With our help, and that of our partners, our residents are now doing so well at producing less waste and recycling more that we are in a position to look at alternative methods of dealing with our waste and saving both money and ourcountryside."
The way to achieve this is by diverting waste from landfill. The practice is not only destructive to our landscape and environment but the taxation on landfill alone currently costs us over £7 million per year. This tax is increasing at an alarming rate and will have almost doubled by 2013. If we don't act now the Surrey taxpayer could be paying as much as £13m annually in landfill tax alone within four years, so our goal is to avoid putting any waste in landfill by then."
The council's new approach to waste will concentrate on reducing the amount of waste Surrey produces, encouraging people to reuse things where they can and recycle as much as possible after that. The new plans will lead to a reductionin the amount of household waste dealt with every year by 35,000 tonnes, enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall 14 times. As a result the county will be making substantial savings in waste disposal costs by 2013. Minimising waste alone will result in estimated savings of £3.5 million per year in disposal costs.
Cabinet Member for the Environment Lynne Hack said: "A key element of the county council's new waste vision is an Eco Park, which would be the first of its kind in the country. It would incorporate a range of waste treatment facilities, an innovation centre to look at and develop the latest technologies and an education centre open to all. "The proposed location is the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, which has been in waste management use for many years.
The buildings would be designed sympathetically to fit in with the surrounding area and would look much more attractive than the existing development. There would be a reduction in traffic compared with the existing operation."
The Eco Park would include an anaerobic digester and a gasifier, which would be half the size of the EfW plants originally envisaged for Capel and Trumps Farm." In a gasifier, waste is heated to produce a gas, which can then be burned cleanly at high temperatures to provide energy in a similar way to natural gas. Anaerobic digestion is a natural treatment by which food waste is broken down producing gases, which can be converted into energy. Last year 100,000 tonnes of food were thrown away in Surrey. The council is already working with the district and borough councils on separate food collections, which should be operating throughout the county by the time the digester is ready.
Because of successes in minimising waste and increases in recycling, Surrey requires much smaller plant than the proposed EfW incinerators. Together the gasifier and the anaerobic digester would treat 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, a considerable reduction from the 270,000 tonnes proposed for the EfWincinerators. They would produce enough energy to power 10,000 households, which equates to one fifth of the houses in Guildford. This 'green' energy would be sold to the national grid. The new Eco Park plans would cost £50m, significantly less than the £200m it would have cost to build two EfW incinerators.
Local residents would of course be consulted during the planning process and their views taken into account. Dr Povey concluded: "We are currently recycling about 47% of our waste; our target is to be recycling around 70% by 2013, which will put us among the best performers in the world. By taking this new approach and with this flexible use of new technologies we will be a world leader in dealing with waste. This strategy will reduce the carbon impact and cost less than previous solutions, making it the best value for money for the taxpayer."
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3]
The report below, from Surrey County Council's website,
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Surrey+County+Council+drops+incineration+plans?opendocument points a way forward for all councils that go against incineration.
That definitely needs to include Shropshire!
[We should point out that we would have reservations about gasification, preferring a 'no-burn' solution.]
Come on, Shropshire!
County Council today announced that there are no longer plans to buildEnergy from Waste (EfW) incinerators in Surrey. Outlining the council's new waste strategy plans, Leader of the Council Dr Andrew Povey said: "I am very pleased to announce that we are scrapping plans for any EfW incinerators in Surrey. Today I will be instructing that the planning applications for incinerators at Capel and Trumps Farm be withdrawn.
"With our help, and that of our partners, our residents are now doing so well at producing less waste and recycling more that we are in a position to look at alternative methods of dealing with our waste and saving both money and ourcountryside."
The way to achieve this is by diverting waste from landfill. The practice is not only destructive to our landscape and environment but the taxation on landfill alone currently costs us over £7 million per year. This tax is increasing at an alarming rate and will have almost doubled by 2013. If we don't act now the Surrey taxpayer could be paying as much as £13m annually in landfill tax alone within four years, so our goal is to avoid putting any waste in landfill by then."
The council's new approach to waste will concentrate on reducing the amount of waste Surrey produces, encouraging people to reuse things where they can and recycle as much as possible after that. The new plans will lead to a reductionin the amount of household waste dealt with every year by 35,000 tonnes, enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall 14 times. As a result the county will be making substantial savings in waste disposal costs by 2013. Minimising waste alone will result in estimated savings of £3.5 million per year in disposal costs.
Cabinet Member for the Environment Lynne Hack said: "A key element of the county council's new waste vision is an Eco Park, which would be the first of its kind in the country. It would incorporate a range of waste treatment facilities, an innovation centre to look at and develop the latest technologies and an education centre open to all. "The proposed location is the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, which has been in waste management use for many years.
The buildings would be designed sympathetically to fit in with the surrounding area and would look much more attractive than the existing development. There would be a reduction in traffic compared with the existing operation."
The Eco Park would include an anaerobic digester and a gasifier, which would be half the size of the EfW plants originally envisaged for Capel and Trumps Farm." In a gasifier, waste is heated to produce a gas, which can then be burned cleanly at high temperatures to provide energy in a similar way to natural gas. Anaerobic digestion is a natural treatment by which food waste is broken down producing gases, which can be converted into energy. Last year 100,000 tonnes of food were thrown away in Surrey. The council is already working with the district and borough councils on separate food collections, which should be operating throughout the county by the time the digester is ready.
Because of successes in minimising waste and increases in recycling, Surrey requires much smaller plant than the proposed EfW incinerators. Together the gasifier and the anaerobic digester would treat 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, a considerable reduction from the 270,000 tonnes proposed for the EfWincinerators. They would produce enough energy to power 10,000 households, which equates to one fifth of the houses in Guildford. This 'green' energy would be sold to the national grid. The new Eco Park plans would cost £50m, significantly less than the £200m it would have cost to build two EfW incinerators.
Local residents would of course be consulted during the planning process and their views taken into account. Dr Povey concluded: "We are currently recycling about 47% of our waste; our target is to be recycling around 70% by 2013, which will put us among the best performers in the world. By taking this new approach and with this flexible use of new technologies we will be a world leader in dealing with waste. This strategy will reduce the carbon impact and cost less than previous solutions, making it the best value for money for the taxpayer."
Revealed: What Veolia wanted to be kept secret
Nottinghamshire PAIN (People against Incineration) has won a major victory against Veolia in the High Court. Like Safe Waste in Shropshire, they made a request to view the actual figures contained in the Waste Contract with Veolia to see if Nottinghamshire people were getting value for money. Unlike Shropshire Council, Nottinghamshire was willing to let Shlomo Dowen (campaign member and co-ordinator of UKWIN) see the books. Veolia promptly put an injunction on Nottinghamshire Council to stop it. Read the rest for yourselves.......
(However, Shropshire Council has deferred allowing us to see THEIR books until the outcome of the Nottingham case was decided. We are still waiting, Laura Rowley, Head of Resources!)
We also want to know why there is a £2.6 million discrepancy between payments made to Veolia under the Waste Contract and the total of Veolia's 12 monthly invoices. We discovered that just by examining the papers we were allowed to see!
Tuesday, October 06, Nottingham Evening Post
TAXPAYERS in Notts paid nearly £22m to have their household rubbish disposed of in the last financial year.Figures – which also show we threw away 420,000 tonnes of municipal waste last year – have come to light after a High Court battle won by eco-campaigners who wanted full details of Notts County Council's £850m PFI deal with Veolia Environment Services.
Campaigner Shlomo Dowen, from People Against Incineration (Pain), hopes the information may yield evidence he can use at a public inquiry today into plans for an incinerator at Rainworth, also to be run by Veolia.
Mr Dowen, 47, of Forest Town, said he initially made the request because he wanted to find out how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts – and to investigate if we are overpaying. He insists that Rainworth is the wrong site for an incinerator.He said: "It's the wrong site and the wrong technology. "This is a green field site that's to be restored to heath land and would be included as the Sherwood Forest Regional park. "The proposal was put forward at a time when waste in the county was increasing year after year. But in the last eight years the quantity of waste has actually fallen rather than risen, so it's no longer needed."We feel more should be done to reduce our waste and to recycle the compost we waste." We would rather see Notts County Council invest in an anaerobic digester for kitchen waste and taking weekly collections of food waste," he added.
Figures obtained by the Evening Post about the 26-year PFI contract show last financial year it cost the Notts taxpayer:
£32.14 to deal with compost per tonne/unit.
£29.66 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a person's home.
£36.34 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a tip.
£59.75 per tonne/unit to deal with recycling collected from a person's home until December 2008. This cost then dropped to £23.07 per tonne/unit once the £14m Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) opened near Mansfield.
Veolia wanted to keep secret the financial details of its contract with Notts County Council for commercial reasons. The council said it wanted to release the details and brought the High Court case last week. Its legal costs will be met by Veolia.
Mick Burrows, council chief executive, said: "We take our responsibility towards our tax-paying public very seriously and being honest, open and transparent is fundamental to that responsibility." We work with many contractors and are very sensitive to commercial interests. However, as a public body, we must ensure we comply with the law and are transparent and accountable."
Broadly speaking, the district and borough councils are responsible for collecting rubbish. The county council is responsible for arranging for the disposal of waste. It also provides the household waste recycling centres, commonly known as tips.The public has the right to inspect the council's accounts during one month every a year.But Veolia took out an injunction against the council releasing the details after it emerged that Mr Dowen was set to obtain copies of the contract. The Audit Commission and Mr Dowen submitted evidence to the High Court in London as "interested parties" and Mr Justice Cranston found in favour of making the details public.
(However, Shropshire Council has deferred allowing us to see THEIR books until the outcome of the Nottingham case was decided. We are still waiting, Laura Rowley, Head of Resources!)
We also want to know why there is a £2.6 million discrepancy between payments made to Veolia under the Waste Contract and the total of Veolia's 12 monthly invoices. We discovered that just by examining the papers we were allowed to see!
Tuesday, October 06, Nottingham Evening Post
TAXPAYERS in Notts paid nearly £22m to have their household rubbish disposed of in the last financial year.Figures – which also show we threw away 420,000 tonnes of municipal waste last year – have come to light after a High Court battle won by eco-campaigners who wanted full details of Notts County Council's £850m PFI deal with Veolia Environment Services.
Campaigner Shlomo Dowen, from People Against Incineration (Pain), hopes the information may yield evidence he can use at a public inquiry today into plans for an incinerator at Rainworth, also to be run by Veolia.
Mr Dowen, 47, of Forest Town, said he initially made the request because he wanted to find out how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts – and to investigate if we are overpaying. He insists that Rainworth is the wrong site for an incinerator.He said: "It's the wrong site and the wrong technology. "This is a green field site that's to be restored to heath land and would be included as the Sherwood Forest Regional park. "The proposal was put forward at a time when waste in the county was increasing year after year. But in the last eight years the quantity of waste has actually fallen rather than risen, so it's no longer needed."We feel more should be done to reduce our waste and to recycle the compost we waste." We would rather see Notts County Council invest in an anaerobic digester for kitchen waste and taking weekly collections of food waste," he added.
Figures obtained by the Evening Post about the 26-year PFI contract show last financial year it cost the Notts taxpayer:
£32.14 to deal with compost per tonne/unit.
£29.66 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a person's home.
£36.34 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a tip.
£59.75 per tonne/unit to deal with recycling collected from a person's home until December 2008. This cost then dropped to £23.07 per tonne/unit once the £14m Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) opened near Mansfield.
Veolia wanted to keep secret the financial details of its contract with Notts County Council for commercial reasons. The council said it wanted to release the details and brought the High Court case last week. Its legal costs will be met by Veolia.
Mick Burrows, council chief executive, said: "We take our responsibility towards our tax-paying public very seriously and being honest, open and transparent is fundamental to that responsibility." We work with many contractors and are very sensitive to commercial interests. However, as a public body, we must ensure we comply with the law and are transparent and accountable."
Broadly speaking, the district and borough councils are responsible for collecting rubbish. The county council is responsible for arranging for the disposal of waste. It also provides the household waste recycling centres, commonly known as tips.The public has the right to inspect the council's accounts during one month every a year.But Veolia took out an injunction against the council releasing the details after it emerged that Mr Dowen was set to obtain copies of the contract. The Audit Commission and Mr Dowen submitted evidence to the High Court in London as "interested parties" and Mr Justice Cranston found in favour of making the details public.
HOW TO OBJECT TO THE BATTLEFIELD INCINERATOR
Veolia's incinerator at Chineham, Hampshire, viewed from nearby fields.
Veolia's planning application for a 90,000-ton incinerator at Battlefield is now under consideration by Shropshire Council's planning department.
The registration number is: MS2009/0125/SY and can be viewed at: http://planning.shropshire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=59315
The hearing, which will be before the new Unitary Authority's Planning Committee, is not expected for several months.
The consultation period officially ends 30 April but you can still object to the proposal, if you have not already done so.
If you feel that you need more information, you can write a very short note or card with your brief reason for objecting and reserve the right to add more details later on. The earlier you write, the better.
Objections should be in writing and delivered by letter or email to:
Mr Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/index.nsf/contact?opennavigator&id=planning.921AC90983D3B05880256D9E0031E5D7
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER.
If you want to email an objection to us, we will deliver it for you. Just make sure it has your name and full home address on it: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com.
Here are some planning considerations which will be taken seriously by the committee when considering this application.
You can use any or all of these points or, of course, use your own!
Your fears about pollution and dangers to health:
Incineration does not remove waste, it converts it into another form (gas, particulates, ash) and these new forms are typically more hazardous. The fine particulate (less thanPM2.5) pollution, which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an important contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and causes a linear increase in mortality. Particulates from incinerators will be especially hazardous due to the toxic chemicals attached to them. Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the immune system and decrease intelligence.
Modern incinerators produce fly ash which is much more toxic than in the past, containing large quantities of dioxin-rich material for which there is no safe method of disposal, except vitrification, a method not being used in the UK.
The dangers posed by the disposal of 3,600 tonnes toxic fly ash and the need for transportation of huge quantitites (22,500 tonnes per year) of polluted bottom ash away from the Battlefield site.
The large carbon-footprint of an incinerator
The negative visual impact of a large plant next to the historic Battlefield site and which will also be clearly seen from the town and neighbouring residential areas
The flawed process leading up to the application - lack of Council scrutiny, the 'democracy deficit' in the processes leading up to the awarding of the contract and the poor level of consultation
Fears that incinerator emissions might affect people's health including yours and that of your family
The mismatch between actual falling waste figures, actual rising recyling figures and the claimed need for an incinerator
Concerns that the future costs of such a project could be ultimately borne by the council tax-payer as has happened in other areas such as Nottingham and South Wales when projected costs have fallen short of reality
The lack of consideration of cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives to incineration such as MBT, anaeorobic digestion and plasma-gasification.
The decision to depart from the Shrewsbury Waste Local Plan which precludes 'mass burn incineration' at the Battlefield site
The implications of the transport of hazardous waste from the incinerator near to residential homes and the increased number of lorries visiting the plant at a time when Peak Oil is nearing or has already been reached.
The proximity of an incinerator to the new food enterprise park
The increase in noise levels and distasteful odour
Non-compliance with the waste hierarchy: The proposal does not comply with the waste hierarchy, in that waste incineration should not be used in preference to waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (including anaerobic digestion).
Help the Campaign
Help us raise awareness - start spreading the word - tell all your friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours.
Lobby all candidates for the new Shropshire Council. Whatever they say, they are allowed to give an indication of their views on incineration and it is important that they understand the need to inform themselves properly, take note of public opinion (strongly against incinerators) and take the appropriate action to stop this proposal.
Please take action TODAY to have your objection considered for this planning application!
Register your e-mail address and/or address with us for further updates and keep on returning for updates to http://www.safewasteshropshire.co.uk/
Ways to help stop the Battlefield Incinerator:
Write to your local councillor/s
Distribute leaflets
Donate money to the campaign
Write to the local press
Veolia's planning application for a 90,000-ton incinerator at Battlefield is now under consideration by Shropshire Council's planning department.
The registration number is: MS2009/0125/SY and can be viewed at: http://planning.shropshire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=59315
The hearing, which will be before the new Unitary Authority's Planning Committee, is not expected for several months.
The consultation period officially ends 30 April but you can still object to the proposal, if you have not already done so.
If you feel that you need more information, you can write a very short note or card with your brief reason for objecting and reserve the right to add more details later on. The earlier you write, the better.
Objections should be in writing and delivered by letter or email to:
Mr Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/index.nsf/contact?opennavigator&id=planning.921AC90983D3B05880256D9E0031E5D7
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER.
If you want to email an objection to us, we will deliver it for you. Just make sure it has your name and full home address on it: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com.
Here are some planning considerations which will be taken seriously by the committee when considering this application.
You can use any or all of these points or, of course, use your own!
Your fears about pollution and dangers to health:
Incineration does not remove waste, it converts it into another form (gas, particulates, ash) and these new forms are typically more hazardous. The fine particulate (less thanPM2.5) pollution, which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an important contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and causes a linear increase in mortality. Particulates from incinerators will be especially hazardous due to the toxic chemicals attached to them. Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the immune system and decrease intelligence.
Modern incinerators produce fly ash which is much more toxic than in the past, containing large quantities of dioxin-rich material for which there is no safe method of disposal, except vitrification, a method not being used in the UK.
The dangers posed by the disposal of 3,600 tonnes toxic fly ash and the need for transportation of huge quantitites (22,500 tonnes per year) of polluted bottom ash away from the Battlefield site.
The large carbon-footprint of an incinerator
The negative visual impact of a large plant next to the historic Battlefield site and which will also be clearly seen from the town and neighbouring residential areas
The flawed process leading up to the application - lack of Council scrutiny, the 'democracy deficit' in the processes leading up to the awarding of the contract and the poor level of consultation
Fears that incinerator emissions might affect people's health including yours and that of your family
The mismatch between actual falling waste figures, actual rising recyling figures and the claimed need for an incinerator
Concerns that the future costs of such a project could be ultimately borne by the council tax-payer as has happened in other areas such as Nottingham and South Wales when projected costs have fallen short of reality
The lack of consideration of cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives to incineration such as MBT, anaeorobic digestion and plasma-gasification.
The decision to depart from the Shrewsbury Waste Local Plan which precludes 'mass burn incineration' at the Battlefield site
The implications of the transport of hazardous waste from the incinerator near to residential homes and the increased number of lorries visiting the plant at a time when Peak Oil is nearing or has already been reached.
The proximity of an incinerator to the new food enterprise park
The increase in noise levels and distasteful odour
Non-compliance with the waste hierarchy: The proposal does not comply with the waste hierarchy, in that waste incineration should not be used in preference to waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (including anaerobic digestion).
Help the Campaign
Help us raise awareness - start spreading the word - tell all your friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours.
Lobby all candidates for the new Shropshire Council. Whatever they say, they are allowed to give an indication of their views on incineration and it is important that they understand the need to inform themselves properly, take note of public opinion (strongly against incinerators) and take the appropriate action to stop this proposal.
Please take action TODAY to have your objection considered for this planning application!
Register your e-mail address and/or address with us for further updates and keep on returning for updates to http://www.safewasteshropshire.co.uk/
Ways to help stop the Battlefield Incinerator:
Write to your local councillor/s
Distribute leaflets
Donate money to the campaign
Write to the local press
HOW BIG WOULD THE BATTLEFIELD INCINERATOR BE?
'A giant landfill in the sky' - Chineham incinerator picture by Safe Waste in ShropshireYou can get an idea of the huge size of the proposed 90,000 ton Battlefield incinerator with its 80 metre (200 feet) high chimney by looking at this picture of Veolia's incinerator in Chineham, Hampshire. It is the same size and of a similar style to the proposed Battlefield incinerator.
Paperwork hitch delays £12m Staffs incinerator
From the Birmingham Post on 5 August:
"The error was unearthed after a member of the public complained to the council about the way the decision to build the incinerator was written
Plans for a £120 million rubbish incinerator in Staffordshire are being sent back to council planners over legal fears.
The incinerator earmarked for Four Ashes Industrial Estate, near Cannock, will go back before Staffordshire County Council's planning committee after it emerged that a "paperwork hitch" could leave it open to a legal challenge.
The council has admitted "technical details" were not included in the original planning application and the plan now needs to be reconsidered by the new planning committee so the error can be corrected. But the project, approved back in November, is still expected to go ahead as planned.
The council's project director Ian Benson said: "The planning application will be returning to the planning committee in the autumn due to a paperwork hitch. The planning committee approved the scheme at Four Ashes last November.
"The committee will revisit the paperwork to ensure technical details are included in the published decision. These were not included in the original decision and did not comply with recent judgements which meant the plan could have been vulnerable to a legal challenge."
It is believed the error was unearthed after a member of the public complained to the council about the way the decision to build the incinerator was written.
The Four Ashes Incinerator will handle an expected 300,000 tonnes of waste a year from Staffordshire and neighbouring authorities and is aimed at reducing the amount of rubbish going to landfill.
It is also predicted to generate enough power for over 25,000 homes and deliver surplus hot water to local industrial and commercial users.
But Friends of the Earth campaigners say the county could struggle to fulfill 30-year obligations as recycling will limit the amount of waste going to the burner.
"The error was unearthed after a member of the public complained to the council about the way the decision to build the incinerator was written
Plans for a £120 million rubbish incinerator in Staffordshire are being sent back to council planners over legal fears.
The incinerator earmarked for Four Ashes Industrial Estate, near Cannock, will go back before Staffordshire County Council's planning committee after it emerged that a "paperwork hitch" could leave it open to a legal challenge.
The council has admitted "technical details" were not included in the original planning application and the plan now needs to be reconsidered by the new planning committee so the error can be corrected. But the project, approved back in November, is still expected to go ahead as planned.
The council's project director Ian Benson said: "The planning application will be returning to the planning committee in the autumn due to a paperwork hitch. The planning committee approved the scheme at Four Ashes last November.
"The committee will revisit the paperwork to ensure technical details are included in the published decision. These were not included in the original decision and did not comply with recent judgements which meant the plan could have been vulnerable to a legal challenge."
It is believed the error was unearthed after a member of the public complained to the council about the way the decision to build the incinerator was written.
The Four Ashes Incinerator will handle an expected 300,000 tonnes of waste a year from Staffordshire and neighbouring authorities and is aimed at reducing the amount of rubbish going to landfill.
It is also predicted to generate enough power for over 25,000 homes and deliver surplus hot water to local industrial and commercial users.
But Friends of the Earth campaigners say the county could struggle to fulfill 30-year obligations as recycling will limit the amount of waste going to the burner.
PROBLEMS FOR VEOLIA'S WASTE MANAGEMENT SITES IN BRIGHTON
Brighton waste centre wrecked by fire
Monday 13th July 2009
A waste recycling centre remains closed today after fire engulfed the building. The centre in Wilson Avenue, Brighton, was wrecked after it caught light on Saturday evening. An investigation has been launched to investigate the cause but Sussex Police last night said there were no signs it had been caused by arsonists. Smoke from the site, which is run by Veolia on behalf of Brighton and Hove City Council, could be seen from miles away as the fire took hold. A council spokesman said:
“We would ask people to be patient while we investigate what has happened. “If people need to urgently use the recycling facility we would ask them to use the one in Old Shoreham Road instead.”
It is not yet known how long the centre will have to remain closed. Council officials are expected to visit the site to assess the damage again today. East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service received 20 999 calls when the fire started just before 6.30pm on Saturday, Crews from Preston Circus, Roedean and Hove were at the scene first and found the waste hall building well alight.
The blaze was out shortly before 10pm but firefighters stayed at the scene for the rest of the night and throughout Sunday morning to make sure the area was safe. A spokeswoman said:
“They needed to keep turning all the material over to make sure everything was properly out so there was no risk of the fire re-igniting.
“A large quantity of waste was destroyed and the building it was in was damaged. “We are investigating the cause of the fire as a matter of routine.”
Crews from Seaford, Uckfield, Newhaven and Lewes as well as two from West Sussex were brought in to provide cover. Lee Craig, who lives opposite the site, said:
“I noticed the smoke first and then when I went out to look I could see the building was well alight. “People were stopping their cars and getting out to take a look. “The smoke was really thick. “The police and firefighters closed off both ends of the road to stop any traffic going through but there were still a lot of people around watching. “I went to take another look on Sunday morning and you can see how badly damaged the building is. I don't think it will be opening for a while yet. “There were also bits and pieces of debris from the fire scattered about in the fields.”
It is the second time there has been a fire at the site. In February 2006 the waste hall caught alight, causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage.
Chemical alert shuts Brighton tip
Friday 26th June 2009
Binmen had to be taken to hospital after a mystery chemical alert at Brighton’s new £10 million waste centre. The Hollingdean waste transfer centre was closed and the area around it was sealed off after three men became ill. Emergency crews immediately shut the site and tried to determine exactly what caused the scare. They yesterday ruled out any danger to the public from the site.
The trio of City Clean workers – one driver and two operatives – were taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital with breathing problems at around 1pm yesterday. It is believed that two of the men were discharged yesterday afternoon but the other was kept in for tests and monitoring.
The dump, near Hollingdean Road, is run by waste firm Veolia, which is under contract with Brighton and Hove City Council and East Sussex County Council.
Fire crews do not know what caused the breathing problems but confirmed that it was not due to a chemical leak. A deodoriser that is used to mask the smell of the rubbish was originally blamed but was later found to be non-hazardous. Veolia said the site would be open for business this morning and that the closure yesterday would not affect recycling collections.
But union officials last night spoke of their concern that the cause of the incident had still not been identified. Mark Turner, the branch secretary for GMB, which represents 300 City Clean workers, said:
“Until they have done tests on the individuals involved then no one knows what the actual reaction is but it is concerning.
“We are concerned that the chemical that caused it has not been identified.
“We want to get to the bottom of this as it does not just effect council staff but also Veolia staff that work there eight hours a day, six days a week.
“If there is a substance out there that is not good for the body then that is concerning.”
Officials confirmed that staff had reported symptoms of burning throats and shortness of breath to City Clean management on Wednesday but that nothing was done before staff came in for work yesterday. One staff member, who did not want to be named, said:
“They went to the manager when their throats were burning and they were short of breath but they went back in there the next day.
“They raised the issue with the management on Wednesday but they had not done anything about it and the staff were back in this morning.
“One of them collapsed in the manager’s office.”
The situation has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive The Hollingdean Road site employs 30 Veolia staff. Mr Turner estimated that around 100 to 150 City Clean staff work at the site dropping off waste from their collections. Hollingdean residents fiercely opposed plans to build the controversial dump, which became fully operational in September 2008.
The Dump the Dump group campaigned against the waste transfer and recycling centre, arguing that it would smell and affect nearby houses and Downs Infants School. A spokeswoman for Veolia said: ''The incident was attended by the emergency services concluding that the site could continue to operate as normal. “We will be conducting an internal investigation in line with normal procedures.'' Brighton and Hove City Council confirmed that bin collections would be unaffected by the temporary closure.
A spokesman said:
“The waste transfer station is run by Veolia Environmental Services on behalf of the council.
“Veolia will be investigating in line with their normal procedures, and the matter is being reported to the Health and Safety Executive.
“We can confirm that three of our staff working at the waste transfer station were taken to hospital earlier today after complaining of feeling unwell. We very much hope they get well soon.
“Emergency services have attended and declared the site safe to continue to operate as normal.”
Monday 13th July 2009
A waste recycling centre remains closed today after fire engulfed the building. The centre in Wilson Avenue, Brighton, was wrecked after it caught light on Saturday evening. An investigation has been launched to investigate the cause but Sussex Police last night said there were no signs it had been caused by arsonists. Smoke from the site, which is run by Veolia on behalf of Brighton and Hove City Council, could be seen from miles away as the fire took hold. A council spokesman said:
“We would ask people to be patient while we investigate what has happened. “If people need to urgently use the recycling facility we would ask them to use the one in Old Shoreham Road instead.”
It is not yet known how long the centre will have to remain closed. Council officials are expected to visit the site to assess the damage again today. East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service received 20 999 calls when the fire started just before 6.30pm on Saturday, Crews from Preston Circus, Roedean and Hove were at the scene first and found the waste hall building well alight.
The blaze was out shortly before 10pm but firefighters stayed at the scene for the rest of the night and throughout Sunday morning to make sure the area was safe. A spokeswoman said:
“They needed to keep turning all the material over to make sure everything was properly out so there was no risk of the fire re-igniting.
“A large quantity of waste was destroyed and the building it was in was damaged. “We are investigating the cause of the fire as a matter of routine.”
Crews from Seaford, Uckfield, Newhaven and Lewes as well as two from West Sussex were brought in to provide cover. Lee Craig, who lives opposite the site, said:
“I noticed the smoke first and then when I went out to look I could see the building was well alight. “People were stopping their cars and getting out to take a look. “The smoke was really thick. “The police and firefighters closed off both ends of the road to stop any traffic going through but there were still a lot of people around watching. “I went to take another look on Sunday morning and you can see how badly damaged the building is. I don't think it will be opening for a while yet. “There were also bits and pieces of debris from the fire scattered about in the fields.”
It is the second time there has been a fire at the site. In February 2006 the waste hall caught alight, causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage.
Chemical alert shuts Brighton tip
Friday 26th June 2009
Binmen had to be taken to hospital after a mystery chemical alert at Brighton’s new £10 million waste centre. The Hollingdean waste transfer centre was closed and the area around it was sealed off after three men became ill. Emergency crews immediately shut the site and tried to determine exactly what caused the scare. They yesterday ruled out any danger to the public from the site.
The trio of City Clean workers – one driver and two operatives – were taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital with breathing problems at around 1pm yesterday. It is believed that two of the men were discharged yesterday afternoon but the other was kept in for tests and monitoring.
The dump, near Hollingdean Road, is run by waste firm Veolia, which is under contract with Brighton and Hove City Council and East Sussex County Council.
Fire crews do not know what caused the breathing problems but confirmed that it was not due to a chemical leak. A deodoriser that is used to mask the smell of the rubbish was originally blamed but was later found to be non-hazardous. Veolia said the site would be open for business this morning and that the closure yesterday would not affect recycling collections.
But union officials last night spoke of their concern that the cause of the incident had still not been identified. Mark Turner, the branch secretary for GMB, which represents 300 City Clean workers, said:
“Until they have done tests on the individuals involved then no one knows what the actual reaction is but it is concerning.
“We are concerned that the chemical that caused it has not been identified.
“We want to get to the bottom of this as it does not just effect council staff but also Veolia staff that work there eight hours a day, six days a week.
“If there is a substance out there that is not good for the body then that is concerning.”
Officials confirmed that staff had reported symptoms of burning throats and shortness of breath to City Clean management on Wednesday but that nothing was done before staff came in for work yesterday. One staff member, who did not want to be named, said:
“They went to the manager when their throats were burning and they were short of breath but they went back in there the next day.
“They raised the issue with the management on Wednesday but they had not done anything about it and the staff were back in this morning.
“One of them collapsed in the manager’s office.”
The situation has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive The Hollingdean Road site employs 30 Veolia staff. Mr Turner estimated that around 100 to 150 City Clean staff work at the site dropping off waste from their collections. Hollingdean residents fiercely opposed plans to build the controversial dump, which became fully operational in September 2008.
The Dump the Dump group campaigned against the waste transfer and recycling centre, arguing that it would smell and affect nearby houses and Downs Infants School. A spokeswoman for Veolia said: ''The incident was attended by the emergency services concluding that the site could continue to operate as normal. “We will be conducting an internal investigation in line with normal procedures.'' Brighton and Hove City Council confirmed that bin collections would be unaffected by the temporary closure.
A spokesman said:
“The waste transfer station is run by Veolia Environmental Services on behalf of the council.
“Veolia will be investigating in line with their normal procedures, and the matter is being reported to the Health and Safety Executive.
“We can confirm that three of our staff working at the waste transfer station were taken to hospital earlier today after complaining of feeling unwell. We very much hope they get well soon.
“Emergency services have attended and declared the site safe to continue to operate as normal.”
Environment Agency public event on Monday 8 June: incinerator environmental permit
Here's your chance to talk to the Environment Agency about the 'environmental permit' (it used to be called a 'pollution permit') for the proposed Battlefield incinerator. Please email us if you have objected to the permit and have actually received your own invitation to this event (Safe Waste in Shropshire didn't!).
Safe Waste in Shropshire. safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Event – Monday 8 June 2009 1pm - 6.30 pm
Proposed Battlefield Energy From Waste Plant, Shrewsbury
On Monday 8 June 2009 we will be holding a public event about the environmental permit application for the proposed Battlefield Energy from Waste Plant in Shrewsbury. As part of our public consultation exercise, the event is designed to give anyone who is interested in the application an opportunity to come and speak to us about our role. We also want to help them understand what information we base our decisions on.
To give members of the public an opportunity to understand how the planning and environmental permit applications are dealt with, officers from Shropshire Council will also be in attendance at the event.
The event is open to everyone and you can visit anytime between 1.00 pm and 6.30 pm, the event will be held at:
The Lantern
Meadow Farm Drive
Shrewsbury
SY1 4NG
We are also setting up an appointment system for one-to-one 20 minute appointments for members of the public to speak with our staff. These slots will need to be pre booked by contacting:
Alex Roberts on 01684 864516 or via e-mail midswest@environment-agency.gov.uk
Yours faithfully
Andrew Nixon
Project Manager
Direct dial: 01562 534172
Direct e-mail: andrew.nixon@environment-agency.gov.uk
Safe Waste in Shropshire. safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Event – Monday 8 June 2009 1pm - 6.30 pm
Proposed Battlefield Energy From Waste Plant, Shrewsbury
On Monday 8 June 2009 we will be holding a public event about the environmental permit application for the proposed Battlefield Energy from Waste Plant in Shrewsbury. As part of our public consultation exercise, the event is designed to give anyone who is interested in the application an opportunity to come and speak to us about our role. We also want to help them understand what information we base our decisions on.
To give members of the public an opportunity to understand how the planning and environmental permit applications are dealt with, officers from Shropshire Council will also be in attendance at the event.
The event is open to everyone and you can visit anytime between 1.00 pm and 6.30 pm, the event will be held at:
The Lantern
Meadow Farm Drive
Shrewsbury
SY1 4NG
We are also setting up an appointment system for one-to-one 20 minute appointments for members of the public to speak with our staff. These slots will need to be pre booked by contacting:
Alex Roberts on 01684 864516 or via e-mail midswest@environment-agency.gov.uk
Yours faithfully
Andrew Nixon
Project Manager
Direct dial: 01562 534172
Direct e-mail: andrew.nixon@environment-agency.gov.uk
Incinerators: Truths, half truths and outright lies
WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INCINERATORS - THE OFFICIAL SPIN VERSUS THE TRUTH:
Fears for your health are material planning considerations. Read this article by Doctor Jeremy Thompson of the British Society for Ecological Medicine www.ecomed.org.uk/ and then go to:
http://safewasteshrewsbury.blogspot.com/2009/04/battlefield-incinerator-energy-from.html
for how to object to the proposed Battlefield incinerator.
DISINFORMATION
Incinerators: Truths, half truths and outright lies by Doctor Jeremy Thompson
Many of the statements made about incinerators, by their supporters, are not true but you will hear them time and time again. We would like to give some answers to these.
Official Spin: Modern incinerators are safe. All the studies showing health effects (cancer, birth defects) relate to the old incinerators.
But the truth is a little different:
It is often claimed that modern incinerators are safer because they have better abatement equipment which reduce emissions of dioxins and other chemicals than older incinerators. There are good reasons to doubt this claim.
The parliamentary report (DSW 56) by Public Interest Consultants noted that “in spite of the efforts of incinerator promoters to make a distinction between “new” incinerators and those that were forced to close by European regulations in 1996, the “new” incinerators are not operating in compliance with their authorisations.”
There are several concerns about the newer incinerators:-
1) Modern incinerators are much bigger. Size itself increases the volume of emissions and hence the risk.
Many modern incinerators burn 400,000 tonnes per year. This would be nine times the size of the incinerator that devastated the community at Sint Niklaas. By analogy even with the best filters in the world 9 filter-tipped cigarettes would be more dangerous than one unfiltered cigarette.
2) There is no evidence that modern incinerators are any safer. There are no long term studies of modern incinerators. Looking at the Sint Niklaas study it is obvious that it would take a 20 year study to reveal an excess of cancer because of the long latent interval. Evidence from the Cape Cod and Long Island studies shows it would also require a study of considerable sophistication to show up increases of cancer. This means that, at the moment, incinerators are being operated in the absence of evidence that they are any safe. In effect people living nearby are being treated like guinea pigs.
The simple inescapable fact is that incinerators emit carcinogens. Particulates themselves are known to be carcinogenic, many heavy metals are carcinogenic, up to 10% of the chemical pollutants are carcinogenic and there is abundant evidence that carcinogens are far more dangerous when combined than when in isolation. To allow these to be released into the environment and into our bodies is both unacceptable and irresponsible.
3) The fly ash from modern incinerators is far more toxic. It takes a large number of tankers to transport this toxic fly ash from incinerators to waste sites. Just one accident would cause an ecological and health disaster. Sooner or later it will happen. Fly ash is dumped at waste sites. Here it can enter the air and water causing further health and environmental problems.
The bottom line is that it is foolish beyond belief to pour more carcinogens into the air at a time when cancer is at an all time high. Recent studies have shown we already have to cope with 65 carcinogens in food, 40 carcinogens in water and 60 carcinogens in the air we breathe. They should not be there at all. They should certainly not be increased. It is time to say enough is enough.
Official Spin: Incinerators are closely monitored so health effects cannot occur.
But the truth is a little different:
Incinerators have an appalling safety record. The Americans stopped building municipal waste incinerators 6 years ago. In France, Belgium, Germany, Holland and Portugal no more incinerators are being built because the public won’t stand for them. Two major political parties have declared there should be a moratorium on building incinerators with the Conservatives stating that local residents should receive benefits if they live near incinerators. But the Environment Agency claim they are safe.
We are told that incinerators are safe but they emit hundreds of chemical pollutants and we have no knowledge of how toxicity of 90% of them. We are told that incinerators are safe but they only measure a dozen of these pollutants. They haven’t a clue about the levels of all the others pollutants and they haven’t a clue about what effect they will have on us. Highly toxic chemicals such as brominated compounds, PBDEs, carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors, doubling in breast milk every 5 years, are not even measured.
There has been no attempt to measure the accumulation of poisonous chemicals in the bodies of people living in the vicinity even though we know (from studies of waste sites in the USA) that these are likely to be increased. Without that data how can anyone even begin to assume these incinerators are safe.
They rely on animal tests of toxicity and yet the SGOMSEC data on lead, mercury, PCBs have shown these have underestimated toxicity by between 100 to 10,000 times. We are told that incinerators are safe and yet they know nothing at all about the dangers of combinations of these pollutants. And yet the conservative voice of Science magazine recently found a 500 to 1000 fold increase in toxicity for combinations of chemicals such as heavy metals at so-called safe doses. Professor Doull, author of the authorative text on toxicology has said that science is incapable of assessing the dangers of mixtures of pollutants.
We are told that they’re safe but they are testing compounds as toxic as dioxins every 3 to 12 months when we know that a single exposure measured in parts per trillion can permanently damage the hormone system of a foetus or young child.
We are told that incinerators are safe but they are unregulated. A recent report showed that pollution offences are almost routine (over 500 offences by 10 incinerators in 2 years) – all criminal offences – all but one un-prosecuted. These were self-reported offences but when an environmental group did it’s own investigation they found 6000 breaches of regulations in 2 years with the abatement equipment (filters) being switched off 18 times.
In truth incinerators are inherently unsafe, they are poorly monitored and virtually unregulated.
Official spin: There is no evidence that incinerators cause cancer. Pollution is only responsible for a small proportion of cancers.
But the truth is a little different:
Firstly cancer is linked with pollution and toxic chemicals
Cancer has shown an unrelenting rise over the last century. The rise is gradual, steady and real. It has increasing by 1% per annum with an age standardized increase in mortality of 43% between 1950 and 1988 (1). Put another way the risk of cancer at the turn of the century was 1 in 13. It is now 1 in 3 with treatment a poor gamble. WHO data show that 80% of cancers are due to environmental influences (2), and evidence from migrant studies confirm that it is the environment rather than the genes that determine the cancer risk. In other words you take on the risk of the country you live in rather than having the risk of the country you were born in. (2).
Many people have noted that the rise in cancer has paralleled the rise in synthetic chemicals. These chemicals have doubled in quantity every 7 to 8 years with a 100 fold increase over the last 2 generations. Many converging pieces of evidence link chemicals to the relentless rise of cancer.
Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in man
Several observations support this connection. 1) Cancer is commonest in industrialised countries with 50% of cases in the industrialised 20% of the world (3) and the WHO have noted cancer rises with the GNP of a country. 2) There is the same correlation within countries. The highest mortality from cancer in the US is in areas of highest industrialised activity. There is also a correlation in the USA between cancer incidence and the number of waste sites in the county (4, 5). Counties with facilities for treating toxic waste have four times as much breast cancer (6). Cancer is also commoner in counties with chemical industries (7) Public Data Access in the USA shows a close correlation between cancer mortality and environmental contamination. 3) Numerous studies have shown high cancer incidence in industrial workers and in populations living in polluted areas (8, 9). 4) One of the three most rapidly rising cancers, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, is clearly linked with exposure to certain chemicals (for instance phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols) (10, 11).
Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in animals
Perhaps most importantly three decades of studies of cancers in wildlife have shown that these cancers are intimately associated with environmental contamination. This is particularly important as animals do not smoke, drink or eat junk food and cannot be accused of living in deprived areas. This strengthens the long-suspected link between environmental pollution and cancer. In a recent study of outbreaks of liver cancer in 16 different species of fish at 25 different sites, cancers were always associated with environmental contamination (12). Dogs have been found to have higher rates of bladder cancer in industrialised counties in the USA (13). It is inconceivable that we are not affected in the same way. Furthermore cancer rates in animals rapidly decline when the pollutants are removed showing the critical importance of an uncontaminated environment to health.
Large increases in cancer in fatty parts of body
Some of the steepest rises in cancer have occurred in parts of the body with high fat content. This including cancers of the brain, breast, bone marrow and liver. This again points the finger at toxic chemicals which are predominantly stored in the fatty tissues.
Chemicals can cause genetic mutation
Many chemicals are known to attach to DNA causing genetic damage in the form of DNA adducts. The research of molecular epidemiologist Dr Frederica Perera of Columbia University has shown consistent associations between exposures to pollution and DNA adduct formation on the one hand and adduct formation and cancer risk on the other (14,15). She found two to three times the level of adducts to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in people in polluted areas and also found higher levels of adducts in people with lung cancer than in those without. Mothers exposed to pollution will also form DNA adducts but their babies have even higher adduct levels putting them at increased risk of cancer from the very day they are born (16).
Cancers already demonstrated to occur with environmental pollution
Several studies have already given direct evidence of a link between airborne environmental pollution and cancer. These include the Long Island Study showing a link between airborne carcinogens and breast cancer (17,18) and the Upper Cape Study showing airborne dinitrotoluenes increased both breast and lung cancer (19,20,). It is noteworthy that initial investigations were negative in both these places and it took detailed and sophisticated studies by scientists from many fields to show up the true situation. Numerous other studies have shown links between cancer and chemicals including VOCs causing increases in leukaemia in New Jersey (21), increases in lymphoma due to dieldrin in Iowa, increases in leukaemia in children due to chlorinated solvents at Woburn (22), a cancer cluster due to industrial chemicals in Bynum, North Carolina (23) and increases in non-Hodgkins lymphoma due to chlorophenols in Finland (24).
10% of chemicals are carcinogenic
The frightening reality about most chemicals is that their risks are largely unknown. This is particularly true of chemicals new to the market. What we do know is that about 5 to 10% are probable carcinogens. The International agency for Cancer Research tested 1000 chemicals in 1993 and found that 110 were probable carcinogens (25) The National Toxicity Program tested 400 chemicals in 1995 and found that 5- 10% were carcinogenic (26). In spite of this only 200 of the 75,000 chemicals in existence are regulated as carcinogens. We have even less knowledge about the carcinogenic potential of combinations of toxic chemicals but what evidence we do have suggests combinations are particularly dangerous and yet these are what we are routinely exposed to.
Other important points to note about toxic chemicals are:-
Survival from cancer affected by pollutants
Airborne pollutants not only affect one’s chance of cancer but also one’s chance of surviving. It has been shown that exposure to pollutants reduces survival from cancer and increases the chance of spread (27).
Levels of Carcinogens in the body are already high
Although the UK figures are not available we know that 2.26 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the USA in 1994. 177 million pounds of these were suspected carcinogens. But what happens to all these chemicals?
The reality is that they end up inside us. The evidence for this is as follows:-
A study of have a group of middle aged Americans were found to have 177 organochlorine residues in their bodies (28, 29). A recent study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine measured chemicals in the blood and urine of healthy volunteers and found an average of 52 carcinogens, 62 chemicals toxic to the brain and nervous system and 55 chemicals associated with birth defects (30). They point out that these were chemicals that could be measured and there were many more that could not be measured, making this a gross underestimate. A study of pollutants in amniotic fluid found detectable levels of PCBs and pesticides at levels equivalent to the foetus’s own sex hormones (31). What is absolutely clear is that what we put out into the world sooner or later comes back to us, like a boomerang, and becomes part of our bodies. Our health is at risk whenever we do this.
AND CANCER IS LINKED WITH INCINERATION:
Direct Links between Incinerators and Cancer
With so many known links between cancer and toxic chemicals you might think that no one, in their right mind, would be foolish enough to build incinerators and deliberately discharge large amounts of pollutants into the air.
Many of the substances emitted by incinerators are known carcinogens. The majority of studies investigating this link have found an association between elevated rates of cancer and living close to an incinerator. The following studies have shown a link between cancer and incinerators:-
Particulates and Cancer
Incinerators are a major source of particulates and particulates cause lung cancer. No one is disputing this. Several large cohort studies link particulates with lung cancer. These include the Six City study (32) and the Cancer Prevention II study (33) both of which show high rates of lung cancer in populations exposed to increased levels of particulates. Quite small increases in PM2.5 particulates in the Cancer Prevention II study (10mcg/m3) gave large 8–14% increases in lung cancer. Put another way each 1mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5 particulates causes an incremental increase in lung cancer of around 1%. There is simply no excuse any more for using incinerators now that we have evidence of the profound carcinogenic potential of these particulates.
Other studies linking Incinerators with Cancer
Elliot: found an excess of all cancers within 7.5km of incinerators with a 37% excess of liver cancers within 1km (34,35).
Gustavsson: His study in 1989 found a 3.5 fold increase in lung cancer and a 2.8 fold increase in gastric cancer for incinerator workers (36). His 1993 study showed a 1.5 fold increase in oesophageal cancer in incinerator workers (37).
Biggeri: found a 6.7 excess of lung cancer related to an incinerator (38).
Doubs: found a 44% increased incidence of soft tissue sarcoma and a 27% increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in two areas close to an incinerator (39).
Ohta: found a 42% increase in cancer within 1km of a Japanese incinerator and this was twice that of the surrounding area (40).
Knox: Knox looked at the data from 22,458 children dying of cancer. His 1998 study showed an increase in children’s cancers around combustion sites including incinerators (41). His 2000 study showed a doubling of childhood cancers and leukaemias within 5km of municipal incinerators. In this study he found that the cancers were more frequent at decreasing distance from the incinerator, also that this excess only occurred during the operational period of the incinerator and that hospital incinerators gave a similar excess (42). This is very damning evidence.
Sint Niklaas Study: This is the only long term study of incinerators and as such is probably the most important study. It showed that childhood cancers increased after 5 years and adult cancers doubled after 13 years and continued to increase reaching a five-fold increase at 20 years. The findings of this study are extremely worrying and show how little we have learned from our mistakes (43).
1) NCI, 1991:NIH Publications No 91-2789
2) Tomatis IARC Scientific Publications 100, (Lyon, France IARC 1996)21
3) Lancet 1990; 336:474-81
4) Recent Results in Cancer Research 1989;14:196-207
5) International journal of Epidemiology 1985;14:528-37
6) Preventative Medicine 1985:14:620-35
7 Environmental Research 1975;9:196207
8) American J of Industrial Med 1993;24:753-66
9) American J Industrial Med 1994: 25:219-28
10) Epidemiology 1990;1:349-56
11) British Journal of Cancer 1981;43:169-76
12) Science of the Total Environment 1990;94:1-32
13) American Journal of Epidemiology 1981:114:229-33
14) Environmental Health Perspectives 1995;103:838-43
15) Nature 1992;360:256-58
16) Carcinogenesis 1990;11:1229-31
17) AEH 1996;51:255-65
18) The Long island Breast Cancer Study Reports 1-3 (1988-90), New York state Department of Health, department of Community and Preventative Medicine,Nassau County department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
19) Upper Cancer Incidence Study: Final report (Boston:Mass.Depts of Public Health and Environment Protection 1991.)
20) Public Health Reports 1996;111:495-507 (Silent Spring Institute, Boston,
Mass.)
21) American Journal of Public Health 1990;80:1209-12
22) J of American Stat Assoc 1986:395:583-96
23) American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132 (Supp 1):87-95
24) AEH 192;47:167-75
25) IARC Monographs on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Suppl 7 (lyon, France:IARC 1987)
26) USDHHS’s Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens
27) JTEH 1988;25:383-90
28) Environmental Health Perspectives 1996;104:606-10
29) Toxicology and Industrial Health 1993;9:913-59
30)Environmental Working Group: Body Burdens. http://www.ewg.org/?reports/bodyburden/findings.php
31) J Clinic Endocrinology & Metabolism 2000;85:2954-7
32) N Eng J Med 1993;329(24) 1753-9*
33) JAMA 2002; 287(9):1132-41*
34) British J Cancer 2000;82(5):1103-6
35) British J Cancer 1998;52(11):716-26
36) Am J Ind Med 1989;15(3):245-53
37) Archives Environ Med 1993;48(4):243-5
38) Environ Health Perspect 1996;104 (7):750-4
39) Am J Epidemiology 2000;152:13-19
40) Organohalogen Compounds 1997;32:155-60
41) J Epidemiology & Community Health 1998;52(11):716-26
42) International Journal of Epidemiology 2000;29:391-7
43) http://www.milieugezondheid.be/
Official spin: It is perfectly safe to incinerate radioactive matter as it is low level waste and a several hundred times less than natural background radiation.
But the truth is a little different:
When discussing radioactivity we need to make a clear distinction between internal irradiation and external irradiation. External irradiation, such as from an x-ray, is often a single exposure which is spread diffusely across an area of the body. Internal irradiation is produced by radioactive matter that is taken into the body. This is an entirely different process and far more sinister. Here the body mistakes the radioactive matter for a natural substance and it is then incorporated into the body. For instance radioactive iodine is stored in the thyroid instead of normal iodine. So it becomes attached to body structures and concentrated where it will act as a source of radiation and it will continue to emit this radiation over time. This is highly dangerous because these continuing radioactive emissions will target the nearby cells and their genetic material where they can induce cancer. We already know that radioactive isotopes can become attached to the chromosomes .
Recent sources suggest inhalation may be the most important route for internal irradiation. A major concern here is that radioactive matter will accumulate in the body over time. The study at the Hanford “atomic village”, in the USA found that the cumulative exposure was an important risk factor for cancer.
Unfortunately, safety measures make no distinction between internal and external irradiation. They are assumed to be equal. This is extraordinary as there is no scientific work on which to base this unwarranted assumption. In reality the evidence shows that internal irradiation is far more dangerous, something that it is intuitively obvious to most people.
Let’s compare the dangers of internal and external irradiation. A study by Beral showed that prostate cancer is higher in nuclear workers. There was no correlation with external irradiation but a highly significant correlation with internal irradiation. At Aldermaston there was an increase in leukaemia in children under 5. This was not related to external irradiation but to contamination in the fathers suggesting internal irradiation was the cause. Sternglass and Gould have demonstrated a clear correlation between increases in breast cancer in the USA and dietary Strontium 90 and Iodine 131.
The animal studies are perhaps even more striking. In one study it was found that after male mice were injected with radioactive matter the second generation (grandchildren) of these mice had enough radioactive matter inside them to cause lethal genetic damage. The amount of radioactivity here would be miniscule compared with external irradiation yet the biological effect was huge. Another study found pathological damage was caused by internal radiation in rats from Strontium 90 with doses as low as 0.01mGy, which is 200 times lower than natural background radiation.
So here we can see that internal irradiation is qualitatively quite different from external irradiation. Yet whenever questions about the safety of radioactivity the authorities inevitably come up with the tired old argument that the level of irradiation is hundreds of times less than natural background radiation (NBR). They may say it is less than you will get in a flight to Spain or some other silly comment.
Let’s look at this argument more closely. Although we cannot say natural background radiation (which includes cosmic radiation, radon gas and rocks containing radioactive matter) is completely harmless, there is little to suggest it is a major hazard. Cancer rates do not differ in areas with widely varying levels of natural background radiation.
We can compare NBR with man-made radioactivity. The most obvious illustration of this is the clusters of leukaemia and cancers that are found around nearly all of the world’s nuclear facilities. Sellafield has a tenfold increase in children’s leukaemia and a threefold increase in cancers. The authorities unsurprisingly maintain that it cannot be due to the radioactivity because the amount of external irradiation is much less than NBR. At Dounreay there is a 6 fold increase in children’s leukaemia and again we are told there is no risk from the radiation as it is less than NBR.
They fail to mention that Aberdeen has double the level of NBR but no increase in cancers and leukaemias. This, itself, should tell us that natural background radiation is irrelevant.
To say that internal irradiation is safe because it is less than background radiation is like saying a cobra must be far less dangerous than a cow because it is so much smaller. The truth is that this is not comparing like with like.
Official Spin: An increase in PM2.5 particulates would cause a negligible increase in mortality. Specifically they state that the increased mortality from a 1mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5 particulates would be in the order of 1.5 to 3.5 days for each person affected. (PM2.5 particulates are the characteristic emissions of incinerators)
But the truth is a little different:
For unexplained reasons the Environment Agency have not used generally accepted international criteria. The World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines show that a 10mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5 particulates would cause an average 1.1 year loss of life for each person living in the area. This means that a 1mcg/m3 increase would lead to an average 40 day loss of life.
Although this may not seem much the implications for loss of life in a populated area are profound as the WHO rightly point out. In the case of the Colnbrook incinerator, with a population of 200,000 in nearby Langley and Slough this would mean that each 1mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5s would lead to 22,000 years of life lost. An increase of 1mcg/m3 of PM2.5 particulates is quite a small increase for such a big incinerator and it could well be 2 to 3 times this amount. In addition the WHO data applies to a time period of between 8 and 15 years whereas an incinerator will normally be operating for 25 years. This means the loss of life would be more like 44,000 for the time the incinerator was operating.
It is important to realise this is a very conservative estimate for several reasons. Firstly, as stated, the estimated increase in PM2.5s is quite small. Secondly the population affected is in reality much greater and includes the densely populated area of West London. Thirdly mortality is not just affected by particulates but by other elements in the toxic cocktail. So the true mortality is likely to be many times the estimated 44,000 years of life lost over the operating life of the plant. All large incinerators in populated areas will cause this sort of increase in death toll.
It is tragic to think that this loss of life is completely unnecessary as safe technology is available.
Official spin: The National Society for Clean Air state that a firework display in London gives off more dioxins than an incinerator working for a hundred years.
But the truth is a little different:
The name National Society for Clean Air gives the impression of some wonderful group doing charitable work and carefully monitoring our air for our benefit. This is far from the case. The truth is that this is a society funded by the polluting industries including Grundons, the very firm that wants to build these incinerators.
For the polluting industries to fund a society pretending to promote clean air is a disgrace and says everything about the society.
The statement about fireworks has no scientific basis and has been discredited at numerous public enquiries in the past. Fireworks are in any case not made from chlorine so it is difficult to understand how they could produce dioxins.
Modern incinerators do remove more dioxins than the older ones. The older incinerators were largely responsible for the high levels of dioxin in the food chain today. This has been a huge tragedy for children brought up in the last few decades. Breast-feeding babies now take in 50 times the amount of dioxin that adults take in and 17 times the safe limit. These toxic chemicals reduce IQ, cause birth defects, reduce immunity and cause developmental and behaviour problems.
The Environment Agency told us these old incinerators were safe. They were not. They are now telling us the new incinerators are safe. They are not.
The problem is that dioxin levels are only monitored 3 to 6 monthly so each measure is just a snap shot. In Belgium this is rightly considered inadequate and they are measured on a continuous basis. We know that regulations are often ignored. A modern incinerator in Rotterdam was found to be by-passing its filters 10% of the time so emitting large amounts of dioxins into the atmosphere, showering people in the neighbourhood with five times the national limit of dioxin. This is bound to happen here sooner or later. What is certain is that the present system greatly underestimates releases of dioxins.
What this statement doesn’t say is that incinerators create huge amounts of dioxins and most of these appear in the fly ash creating a nightmare problem for future generations. This fly ash has to be transported vast distances to safe sites and any accident would be an environmental disaster.
In spite of the massive health risks associated with this fly ash, regulation is abysmal. At Byker, toxic ash laden with dioxins was for six years spread over allotments, bridle paths and footpaths. No one can have any confidence in the Environment Agency when they allow such irresponsible behaviour.
The statement about fireworks is misleading in another way. It is not just dioxins but numerous other toxic chemicals that are released from incinerators. For instance brominated compounds such as PBDEs are highly toxic, carcinogenic, they are endocrine disruptors and they are presently doubling in breast milk every 5 years. They are emitted by incinerators when computers and electrical goods are burned. They are unregulated. And just as the Environment Agency failed to prevent the tragedy that occurred from dioxin release they are failing to prevent another tragedy in the making from these toxic brominated compounds. They are allowing another highly toxic substance to be released without regulation with unknown and frightening consequences.
Official spin: PM2.5s particulates are not important. PM2.5s are simply a fraction of PM10s and we are measuring PM10s anyway. (This is important because incinerators are a major source of PM2.5 particulates –very tiny particles – which cause lung cancer and heart disease)
But the truth is a little different:
They are not equivalent. This is why industry in the USA was so concerned about PM2.5 regulations coming into force in the USA –they knew PM2.5 monitoring would cost them billions of dollars. They took the Environmental Protection Agency all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA and lost.
Firstly the health effects are markedly different. A 20mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5s would give an approximately 20% increase in long-term mortality whereas a similar increase in PM10s would give a 3.5% increase in mortality. In particular PM2.5s are much better more likely to cause deaths from heart disease.
In addition the composition of the particulates will be different and the heavy metals that attach to PM2.5 particulates will markedly increased the cancer risk.
Secondly the range of the monitors is different - the PM10 will cut off at a much higher level than the PM2.5.Some cut off as high as 3 microns. The PM2.5 monitors will go down much further to at least 0.1 micron and it is these very small particulates which are so dangerous and therefore crucial to monitor.
Thirdly if you get a reading of say 25mcg/m3 on a PM10 monitor then this could be predominately particulates of 9 microns or it could be predominately particulates of 1 micron. Same reading - very different health effects. The first would not be worrying (they would be filtered out by the lung) whereas the second would be very worrying (could double your risk of MI). Another way of saying this is that typically 60% of PM10s are in the PM2.5 range - but if 99% were in that range it would be a lot more dangerous. You need to know the percentage in the PM2.5 fraction - that's what your PM2.5 monitoring gives you.
Official Spin: Emissions from incinerators are likely to drop away to a negligible level about 500 metres from the plant.
But the truth is a little different:
This quote from the Environment Agency is so inaccurate as to be laughable and raise serious questions about their competence and integrity. The reality is that the more dangerous small particulates travel hundreds of miles. The evidence is given below.
The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, that was established to advise the US government, concluded that it was not only the health of workers and local populations that would be affected by incinerators. They reported that populations living more distantly are also likely to be exposed to incinerator pollutants. They stated “Persistent air pollutants, such as dioxins, furans and mercury can be dispersed over large regions – well beyond local areas and even the countries from which the sources emanate. Food contaminated by an incinerator facility might be consumed by local people close to the facility or far away from it. Thus, local deposition on food might result in some exposure of populations at great distances, due to transport of food to markers. However, distant populations are likely to be more exposed through long-range transport of pollutants and low-level widespread deposition on food crops at locations remote from an incineration facility.” (1)
They later report “the incremental burden from all incinerators deserves serious consideration beyond a local level.” This has obvious relevance to the present policy of building large incinerators all over the UK.
An important point is that the more toxic smaller particulates, which typically have more toxic chemicals and carcinogens attached, will travel the furthest (2).
Most chemical pollutants are lipophilic and are therefore not easily washed away by the rain after they settle. When they land on crops they enter the food chain where they bio-accumulate. It is already been admitted that most dioxin in food today in the UK came from the older generation of incinerators. All chemicals capable of entering the food chain will sooner or later reach their highest concentration in the foetus or breast fed infant.
A striking example of the unforeseen and tragic consequences of releasing pollutants into the air has been seen in Nunavut, at the far North of Canada in the polar regions. The Inuit mothers here have twice the level of dioxins in their breast milk as Canadians living in the South. There is no source of dioxin within 300 miles. At the centre of Biology of Natural Systems in Queen’s College, New York, Dr Commoner and his team used a computer programme to track emissions from 44,000 sources of dioxin in North America. This system combined data on toxic releases and meteorological records. Among the leading contributors were three municipal incinerators in the USA (3, 4).
1) National Research Council (2000): Waste Incineration and Public Health ISBN: 0-309-06371-X,Washington DC, National Academy Press.
2) Rev Environ Health 2001;16 (Pt 3):169-89
3) Final report to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Flushing, N.Y.: Centre for the Biology of Natural systems, Queens College, CUNY,2000).
4) Science News 2000;158:2
Fears for your health are material planning considerations. Read this article by Doctor Jeremy Thompson of the British Society for Ecological Medicine www.ecomed.org.uk/ and then go to:
http://safewasteshrewsbury.blogspot.com/2009/04/battlefield-incinerator-energy-from.html
for how to object to the proposed Battlefield incinerator.
DISINFORMATION
Incinerators: Truths, half truths and outright lies by Doctor Jeremy Thompson
Many of the statements made about incinerators, by their supporters, are not true but you will hear them time and time again. We would like to give some answers to these.
Official Spin: Modern incinerators are safe. All the studies showing health effects (cancer, birth defects) relate to the old incinerators.
But the truth is a little different:
It is often claimed that modern incinerators are safer because they have better abatement equipment which reduce emissions of dioxins and other chemicals than older incinerators. There are good reasons to doubt this claim.
The parliamentary report (DSW 56) by Public Interest Consultants noted that “in spite of the efforts of incinerator promoters to make a distinction between “new” incinerators and those that were forced to close by European regulations in 1996, the “new” incinerators are not operating in compliance with their authorisations.”
There are several concerns about the newer incinerators:-
1) Modern incinerators are much bigger. Size itself increases the volume of emissions and hence the risk.
Many modern incinerators burn 400,000 tonnes per year. This would be nine times the size of the incinerator that devastated the community at Sint Niklaas. By analogy even with the best filters in the world 9 filter-tipped cigarettes would be more dangerous than one unfiltered cigarette.
2) There is no evidence that modern incinerators are any safer. There are no long term studies of modern incinerators. Looking at the Sint Niklaas study it is obvious that it would take a 20 year study to reveal an excess of cancer because of the long latent interval. Evidence from the Cape Cod and Long Island studies shows it would also require a study of considerable sophistication to show up increases of cancer. This means that, at the moment, incinerators are being operated in the absence of evidence that they are any safe. In effect people living nearby are being treated like guinea pigs.
The simple inescapable fact is that incinerators emit carcinogens. Particulates themselves are known to be carcinogenic, many heavy metals are carcinogenic, up to 10% of the chemical pollutants are carcinogenic and there is abundant evidence that carcinogens are far more dangerous when combined than when in isolation. To allow these to be released into the environment and into our bodies is both unacceptable and irresponsible.
3) The fly ash from modern incinerators is far more toxic. It takes a large number of tankers to transport this toxic fly ash from incinerators to waste sites. Just one accident would cause an ecological and health disaster. Sooner or later it will happen. Fly ash is dumped at waste sites. Here it can enter the air and water causing further health and environmental problems.
The bottom line is that it is foolish beyond belief to pour more carcinogens into the air at a time when cancer is at an all time high. Recent studies have shown we already have to cope with 65 carcinogens in food, 40 carcinogens in water and 60 carcinogens in the air we breathe. They should not be there at all. They should certainly not be increased. It is time to say enough is enough.
Official Spin: Incinerators are closely monitored so health effects cannot occur.
But the truth is a little different:
Incinerators have an appalling safety record. The Americans stopped building municipal waste incinerators 6 years ago. In France, Belgium, Germany, Holland and Portugal no more incinerators are being built because the public won’t stand for them. Two major political parties have declared there should be a moratorium on building incinerators with the Conservatives stating that local residents should receive benefits if they live near incinerators. But the Environment Agency claim they are safe.
We are told that incinerators are safe but they emit hundreds of chemical pollutants and we have no knowledge of how toxicity of 90% of them. We are told that incinerators are safe but they only measure a dozen of these pollutants. They haven’t a clue about the levels of all the others pollutants and they haven’t a clue about what effect they will have on us. Highly toxic chemicals such as brominated compounds, PBDEs, carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors, doubling in breast milk every 5 years, are not even measured.
There has been no attempt to measure the accumulation of poisonous chemicals in the bodies of people living in the vicinity even though we know (from studies of waste sites in the USA) that these are likely to be increased. Without that data how can anyone even begin to assume these incinerators are safe.
They rely on animal tests of toxicity and yet the SGOMSEC data on lead, mercury, PCBs have shown these have underestimated toxicity by between 100 to 10,000 times. We are told that incinerators are safe and yet they know nothing at all about the dangers of combinations of these pollutants. And yet the conservative voice of Science magazine recently found a 500 to 1000 fold increase in toxicity for combinations of chemicals such as heavy metals at so-called safe doses. Professor Doull, author of the authorative text on toxicology has said that science is incapable of assessing the dangers of mixtures of pollutants.
We are told that they’re safe but they are testing compounds as toxic as dioxins every 3 to 12 months when we know that a single exposure measured in parts per trillion can permanently damage the hormone system of a foetus or young child.
We are told that incinerators are safe but they are unregulated. A recent report showed that pollution offences are almost routine (over 500 offences by 10 incinerators in 2 years) – all criminal offences – all but one un-prosecuted. These were self-reported offences but when an environmental group did it’s own investigation they found 6000 breaches of regulations in 2 years with the abatement equipment (filters) being switched off 18 times.
In truth incinerators are inherently unsafe, they are poorly monitored and virtually unregulated.
Official spin: There is no evidence that incinerators cause cancer. Pollution is only responsible for a small proportion of cancers.
But the truth is a little different:
Firstly cancer is linked with pollution and toxic chemicals
Cancer has shown an unrelenting rise over the last century. The rise is gradual, steady and real. It has increasing by 1% per annum with an age standardized increase in mortality of 43% between 1950 and 1988 (1). Put another way the risk of cancer at the turn of the century was 1 in 13. It is now 1 in 3 with treatment a poor gamble. WHO data show that 80% of cancers are due to environmental influences (2), and evidence from migrant studies confirm that it is the environment rather than the genes that determine the cancer risk. In other words you take on the risk of the country you live in rather than having the risk of the country you were born in. (2).
Many people have noted that the rise in cancer has paralleled the rise in synthetic chemicals. These chemicals have doubled in quantity every 7 to 8 years with a 100 fold increase over the last 2 generations. Many converging pieces of evidence link chemicals to the relentless rise of cancer.
Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in man
Several observations support this connection. 1) Cancer is commonest in industrialised countries with 50% of cases in the industrialised 20% of the world (3) and the WHO have noted cancer rises with the GNP of a country. 2) There is the same correlation within countries. The highest mortality from cancer in the US is in areas of highest industrialised activity. There is also a correlation in the USA between cancer incidence and the number of waste sites in the county (4, 5). Counties with facilities for treating toxic waste have four times as much breast cancer (6). Cancer is also commoner in counties with chemical industries (7) Public Data Access in the USA shows a close correlation between cancer mortality and environmental contamination. 3) Numerous studies have shown high cancer incidence in industrial workers and in populations living in polluted areas (8, 9). 4) One of the three most rapidly rising cancers, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, is clearly linked with exposure to certain chemicals (for instance phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols) (10, 11).
Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in animals
Perhaps most importantly three decades of studies of cancers in wildlife have shown that these cancers are intimately associated with environmental contamination. This is particularly important as animals do not smoke, drink or eat junk food and cannot be accused of living in deprived areas. This strengthens the long-suspected link between environmental pollution and cancer. In a recent study of outbreaks of liver cancer in 16 different species of fish at 25 different sites, cancers were always associated with environmental contamination (12). Dogs have been found to have higher rates of bladder cancer in industrialised counties in the USA (13). It is inconceivable that we are not affected in the same way. Furthermore cancer rates in animals rapidly decline when the pollutants are removed showing the critical importance of an uncontaminated environment to health.
Large increases in cancer in fatty parts of body
Some of the steepest rises in cancer have occurred in parts of the body with high fat content. This including cancers of the brain, breast, bone marrow and liver. This again points the finger at toxic chemicals which are predominantly stored in the fatty tissues.
Chemicals can cause genetic mutation
Many chemicals are known to attach to DNA causing genetic damage in the form of DNA adducts. The research of molecular epidemiologist Dr Frederica Perera of Columbia University has shown consistent associations between exposures to pollution and DNA adduct formation on the one hand and adduct formation and cancer risk on the other (14,15). She found two to three times the level of adducts to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in people in polluted areas and also found higher levels of adducts in people with lung cancer than in those without. Mothers exposed to pollution will also form DNA adducts but their babies have even higher adduct levels putting them at increased risk of cancer from the very day they are born (16).
Cancers already demonstrated to occur with environmental pollution
Several studies have already given direct evidence of a link between airborne environmental pollution and cancer. These include the Long Island Study showing a link between airborne carcinogens and breast cancer (17,18) and the Upper Cape Study showing airborne dinitrotoluenes increased both breast and lung cancer (19,20,). It is noteworthy that initial investigations were negative in both these places and it took detailed and sophisticated studies by scientists from many fields to show up the true situation. Numerous other studies have shown links between cancer and chemicals including VOCs causing increases in leukaemia in New Jersey (21), increases in lymphoma due to dieldrin in Iowa, increases in leukaemia in children due to chlorinated solvents at Woburn (22), a cancer cluster due to industrial chemicals in Bynum, North Carolina (23) and increases in non-Hodgkins lymphoma due to chlorophenols in Finland (24).
10% of chemicals are carcinogenic
The frightening reality about most chemicals is that their risks are largely unknown. This is particularly true of chemicals new to the market. What we do know is that about 5 to 10% are probable carcinogens. The International agency for Cancer Research tested 1000 chemicals in 1993 and found that 110 were probable carcinogens (25) The National Toxicity Program tested 400 chemicals in 1995 and found that 5- 10% were carcinogenic (26). In spite of this only 200 of the 75,000 chemicals in existence are regulated as carcinogens. We have even less knowledge about the carcinogenic potential of combinations of toxic chemicals but what evidence we do have suggests combinations are particularly dangerous and yet these are what we are routinely exposed to.
Other important points to note about toxic chemicals are:-
Survival from cancer affected by pollutants
Airborne pollutants not only affect one’s chance of cancer but also one’s chance of surviving. It has been shown that exposure to pollutants reduces survival from cancer and increases the chance of spread (27).
Levels of Carcinogens in the body are already high
Although the UK figures are not available we know that 2.26 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the USA in 1994. 177 million pounds of these were suspected carcinogens. But what happens to all these chemicals?
The reality is that they end up inside us. The evidence for this is as follows:-
A study of have a group of middle aged Americans were found to have 177 organochlorine residues in their bodies (28, 29). A recent study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine measured chemicals in the blood and urine of healthy volunteers and found an average of 52 carcinogens, 62 chemicals toxic to the brain and nervous system and 55 chemicals associated with birth defects (30). They point out that these were chemicals that could be measured and there were many more that could not be measured, making this a gross underestimate. A study of pollutants in amniotic fluid found detectable levels of PCBs and pesticides at levels equivalent to the foetus’s own sex hormones (31). What is absolutely clear is that what we put out into the world sooner or later comes back to us, like a boomerang, and becomes part of our bodies. Our health is at risk whenever we do this.
AND CANCER IS LINKED WITH INCINERATION:
Direct Links between Incinerators and Cancer
With so many known links between cancer and toxic chemicals you might think that no one, in their right mind, would be foolish enough to build incinerators and deliberately discharge large amounts of pollutants into the air.
Many of the substances emitted by incinerators are known carcinogens. The majority of studies investigating this link have found an association between elevated rates of cancer and living close to an incinerator. The following studies have shown a link between cancer and incinerators:-
Particulates and Cancer
Incinerators are a major source of particulates and particulates cause lung cancer. No one is disputing this. Several large cohort studies link particulates with lung cancer. These include the Six City study (32) and the Cancer Prevention II study (33) both of which show high rates of lung cancer in populations exposed to increased levels of particulates. Quite small increases in PM2.5 particulates in the Cancer Prevention II study (10mcg/m3) gave large 8–14% increases in lung cancer. Put another way each 1mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5 particulates causes an incremental increase in lung cancer of around 1%. There is simply no excuse any more for using incinerators now that we have evidence of the profound carcinogenic potential of these particulates.
Other studies linking Incinerators with Cancer
Elliot: found an excess of all cancers within 7.5km of incinerators with a 37% excess of liver cancers within 1km (34,35).
Gustavsson: His study in 1989 found a 3.5 fold increase in lung cancer and a 2.8 fold increase in gastric cancer for incinerator workers (36). His 1993 study showed a 1.5 fold increase in oesophageal cancer in incinerator workers (37).
Biggeri: found a 6.7 excess of lung cancer related to an incinerator (38).
Doubs: found a 44% increased incidence of soft tissue sarcoma and a 27% increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in two areas close to an incinerator (39).
Ohta: found a 42% increase in cancer within 1km of a Japanese incinerator and this was twice that of the surrounding area (40).
Knox: Knox looked at the data from 22,458 children dying of cancer. His 1998 study showed an increase in children’s cancers around combustion sites including incinerators (41). His 2000 study showed a doubling of childhood cancers and leukaemias within 5km of municipal incinerators. In this study he found that the cancers were more frequent at decreasing distance from the incinerator, also that this excess only occurred during the operational period of the incinerator and that hospital incinerators gave a similar excess (42). This is very damning evidence.
Sint Niklaas Study: This is the only long term study of incinerators and as such is probably the most important study. It showed that childhood cancers increased after 5 years and adult cancers doubled after 13 years and continued to increase reaching a five-fold increase at 20 years. The findings of this study are extremely worrying and show how little we have learned from our mistakes (43).
1) NCI, 1991:NIH Publications No 91-2789
2) Tomatis IARC Scientific Publications 100, (Lyon, France IARC 1996)21
3) Lancet 1990; 336:474-81
4) Recent Results in Cancer Research 1989;14:196-207
5) International journal of Epidemiology 1985;14:528-37
6) Preventative Medicine 1985:14:620-35
7 Environmental Research 1975;9:196207
8) American J of Industrial Med 1993;24:753-66
9) American J Industrial Med 1994: 25:219-28
10) Epidemiology 1990;1:349-56
11) British Journal of Cancer 1981;43:169-76
12) Science of the Total Environment 1990;94:1-32
13) American Journal of Epidemiology 1981:114:229-33
14) Environmental Health Perspectives 1995;103:838-43
15) Nature 1992;360:256-58
16) Carcinogenesis 1990;11:1229-31
17) AEH 1996;51:255-65
18) The Long island Breast Cancer Study Reports 1-3 (1988-90), New York state Department of Health, department of Community and Preventative Medicine,Nassau County department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
19) Upper Cancer Incidence Study: Final report (Boston:Mass.Depts of Public Health and Environment Protection 1991.)
20) Public Health Reports 1996;111:495-507 (Silent Spring Institute, Boston,
Mass.)
21) American Journal of Public Health 1990;80:1209-12
22) J of American Stat Assoc 1986:395:583-96
23) American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132 (Supp 1):87-95
24) AEH 192;47:167-75
25) IARC Monographs on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Suppl 7 (lyon, France:IARC 1987)
26) USDHHS’s Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens
27) JTEH 1988;25:383-90
28) Environmental Health Perspectives 1996;104:606-10
29) Toxicology and Industrial Health 1993;9:913-59
30)Environmental Working Group: Body Burdens. http://www.ewg.org/?reports/bodyburden/findings.php
31) J Clinic Endocrinology & Metabolism 2000;85:2954-7
32) N Eng J Med 1993;329(24) 1753-9*
33) JAMA 2002; 287(9):1132-41*
34) British J Cancer 2000;82(5):1103-6
35) British J Cancer 1998;52(11):716-26
36) Am J Ind Med 1989;15(3):245-53
37) Archives Environ Med 1993;48(4):243-5
38) Environ Health Perspect 1996;104 (7):750-4
39) Am J Epidemiology 2000;152:13-19
40) Organohalogen Compounds 1997;32:155-60
41) J Epidemiology & Community Health 1998;52(11):716-26
42) International Journal of Epidemiology 2000;29:391-7
43) http://www.milieugezondheid.be/
Official spin: It is perfectly safe to incinerate radioactive matter as it is low level waste and a several hundred times less than natural background radiation.
But the truth is a little different:
When discussing radioactivity we need to make a clear distinction between internal irradiation and external irradiation. External irradiation, such as from an x-ray, is often a single exposure which is spread diffusely across an area of the body. Internal irradiation is produced by radioactive matter that is taken into the body. This is an entirely different process and far more sinister. Here the body mistakes the radioactive matter for a natural substance and it is then incorporated into the body. For instance radioactive iodine is stored in the thyroid instead of normal iodine. So it becomes attached to body structures and concentrated where it will act as a source of radiation and it will continue to emit this radiation over time. This is highly dangerous because these continuing radioactive emissions will target the nearby cells and their genetic material where they can induce cancer. We already know that radioactive isotopes can become attached to the chromosomes .
Recent sources suggest inhalation may be the most important route for internal irradiation. A major concern here is that radioactive matter will accumulate in the body over time. The study at the Hanford “atomic village”, in the USA found that the cumulative exposure was an important risk factor for cancer.
Unfortunately, safety measures make no distinction between internal and external irradiation. They are assumed to be equal. This is extraordinary as there is no scientific work on which to base this unwarranted assumption. In reality the evidence shows that internal irradiation is far more dangerous, something that it is intuitively obvious to most people.
Let’s compare the dangers of internal and external irradiation. A study by Beral showed that prostate cancer is higher in nuclear workers. There was no correlation with external irradiation but a highly significant correlation with internal irradiation. At Aldermaston there was an increase in leukaemia in children under 5. This was not related to external irradiation but to contamination in the fathers suggesting internal irradiation was the cause. Sternglass and Gould have demonstrated a clear correlation between increases in breast cancer in the USA and dietary Strontium 90 and Iodine 131.
The animal studies are perhaps even more striking. In one study it was found that after male mice were injected with radioactive matter the second generation (grandchildren) of these mice had enough radioactive matter inside them to cause lethal genetic damage. The amount of radioactivity here would be miniscule compared with external irradiation yet the biological effect was huge. Another study found pathological damage was caused by internal radiation in rats from Strontium 90 with doses as low as 0.01mGy, which is 200 times lower than natural background radiation.
So here we can see that internal irradiation is qualitatively quite different from external irradiation. Yet whenever questions about the safety of radioactivity the authorities inevitably come up with the tired old argument that the level of irradiation is hundreds of times less than natural background radiation (NBR). They may say it is less than you will get in a flight to Spain or some other silly comment.
Let’s look at this argument more closely. Although we cannot say natural background radiation (which includes cosmic radiation, radon gas and rocks containing radioactive matter) is completely harmless, there is little to suggest it is a major hazard. Cancer rates do not differ in areas with widely varying levels of natural background radiation.
We can compare NBR with man-made radioactivity. The most obvious illustration of this is the clusters of leukaemia and cancers that are found around nearly all of the world’s nuclear facilities. Sellafield has a tenfold increase in children’s leukaemia and a threefold increase in cancers. The authorities unsurprisingly maintain that it cannot be due to the radioactivity because the amount of external irradiation is much less than NBR. At Dounreay there is a 6 fold increase in children’s leukaemia and again we are told there is no risk from the radiation as it is less than NBR.
They fail to mention that Aberdeen has double the level of NBR but no increase in cancers and leukaemias. This, itself, should tell us that natural background radiation is irrelevant.
To say that internal irradiation is safe because it is less than background radiation is like saying a cobra must be far less dangerous than a cow because it is so much smaller. The truth is that this is not comparing like with like.
Official Spin: An increase in PM2.5 particulates would cause a negligible increase in mortality. Specifically they state that the increased mortality from a 1mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5 particulates would be in the order of 1.5 to 3.5 days for each person affected. (PM2.5 particulates are the characteristic emissions of incinerators)
But the truth is a little different:
For unexplained reasons the Environment Agency have not used generally accepted international criteria. The World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines show that a 10mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5 particulates would cause an average 1.1 year loss of life for each person living in the area. This means that a 1mcg/m3 increase would lead to an average 40 day loss of life.
Although this may not seem much the implications for loss of life in a populated area are profound as the WHO rightly point out. In the case of the Colnbrook incinerator, with a population of 200,000 in nearby Langley and Slough this would mean that each 1mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5s would lead to 22,000 years of life lost. An increase of 1mcg/m3 of PM2.5 particulates is quite a small increase for such a big incinerator and it could well be 2 to 3 times this amount. In addition the WHO data applies to a time period of between 8 and 15 years whereas an incinerator will normally be operating for 25 years. This means the loss of life would be more like 44,000 for the time the incinerator was operating.
It is important to realise this is a very conservative estimate for several reasons. Firstly, as stated, the estimated increase in PM2.5s is quite small. Secondly the population affected is in reality much greater and includes the densely populated area of West London. Thirdly mortality is not just affected by particulates but by other elements in the toxic cocktail. So the true mortality is likely to be many times the estimated 44,000 years of life lost over the operating life of the plant. All large incinerators in populated areas will cause this sort of increase in death toll.
It is tragic to think that this loss of life is completely unnecessary as safe technology is available.
Official spin: The National Society for Clean Air state that a firework display in London gives off more dioxins than an incinerator working for a hundred years.
But the truth is a little different:
The name National Society for Clean Air gives the impression of some wonderful group doing charitable work and carefully monitoring our air for our benefit. This is far from the case. The truth is that this is a society funded by the polluting industries including Grundons, the very firm that wants to build these incinerators.
For the polluting industries to fund a society pretending to promote clean air is a disgrace and says everything about the society.
The statement about fireworks has no scientific basis and has been discredited at numerous public enquiries in the past. Fireworks are in any case not made from chlorine so it is difficult to understand how they could produce dioxins.
Modern incinerators do remove more dioxins than the older ones. The older incinerators were largely responsible for the high levels of dioxin in the food chain today. This has been a huge tragedy for children brought up in the last few decades. Breast-feeding babies now take in 50 times the amount of dioxin that adults take in and 17 times the safe limit. These toxic chemicals reduce IQ, cause birth defects, reduce immunity and cause developmental and behaviour problems.
The Environment Agency told us these old incinerators were safe. They were not. They are now telling us the new incinerators are safe. They are not.
The problem is that dioxin levels are only monitored 3 to 6 monthly so each measure is just a snap shot. In Belgium this is rightly considered inadequate and they are measured on a continuous basis. We know that regulations are often ignored. A modern incinerator in Rotterdam was found to be by-passing its filters 10% of the time so emitting large amounts of dioxins into the atmosphere, showering people in the neighbourhood with five times the national limit of dioxin. This is bound to happen here sooner or later. What is certain is that the present system greatly underestimates releases of dioxins.
What this statement doesn’t say is that incinerators create huge amounts of dioxins and most of these appear in the fly ash creating a nightmare problem for future generations. This fly ash has to be transported vast distances to safe sites and any accident would be an environmental disaster.
In spite of the massive health risks associated with this fly ash, regulation is abysmal. At Byker, toxic ash laden with dioxins was for six years spread over allotments, bridle paths and footpaths. No one can have any confidence in the Environment Agency when they allow such irresponsible behaviour.
The statement about fireworks is misleading in another way. It is not just dioxins but numerous other toxic chemicals that are released from incinerators. For instance brominated compounds such as PBDEs are highly toxic, carcinogenic, they are endocrine disruptors and they are presently doubling in breast milk every 5 years. They are emitted by incinerators when computers and electrical goods are burned. They are unregulated. And just as the Environment Agency failed to prevent the tragedy that occurred from dioxin release they are failing to prevent another tragedy in the making from these toxic brominated compounds. They are allowing another highly toxic substance to be released without regulation with unknown and frightening consequences.
Official spin: PM2.5s particulates are not important. PM2.5s are simply a fraction of PM10s and we are measuring PM10s anyway. (This is important because incinerators are a major source of PM2.5 particulates –very tiny particles – which cause lung cancer and heart disease)
But the truth is a little different:
They are not equivalent. This is why industry in the USA was so concerned about PM2.5 regulations coming into force in the USA –they knew PM2.5 monitoring would cost them billions of dollars. They took the Environmental Protection Agency all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA and lost.
Firstly the health effects are markedly different. A 20mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5s would give an approximately 20% increase in long-term mortality whereas a similar increase in PM10s would give a 3.5% increase in mortality. In particular PM2.5s are much better more likely to cause deaths from heart disease.
In addition the composition of the particulates will be different and the heavy metals that attach to PM2.5 particulates will markedly increased the cancer risk.
Secondly the range of the monitors is different - the PM10 will cut off at a much higher level than the PM2.5.Some cut off as high as 3 microns. The PM2.5 monitors will go down much further to at least 0.1 micron and it is these very small particulates which are so dangerous and therefore crucial to monitor.
Thirdly if you get a reading of say 25mcg/m3 on a PM10 monitor then this could be predominately particulates of 9 microns or it could be predominately particulates of 1 micron. Same reading - very different health effects. The first would not be worrying (they would be filtered out by the lung) whereas the second would be very worrying (could double your risk of MI). Another way of saying this is that typically 60% of PM10s are in the PM2.5 range - but if 99% were in that range it would be a lot more dangerous. You need to know the percentage in the PM2.5 fraction - that's what your PM2.5 monitoring gives you.
Official Spin: Emissions from incinerators are likely to drop away to a negligible level about 500 metres from the plant.
But the truth is a little different:
This quote from the Environment Agency is so inaccurate as to be laughable and raise serious questions about their competence and integrity. The reality is that the more dangerous small particulates travel hundreds of miles. The evidence is given below.
The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, that was established to advise the US government, concluded that it was not only the health of workers and local populations that would be affected by incinerators. They reported that populations living more distantly are also likely to be exposed to incinerator pollutants. They stated “Persistent air pollutants, such as dioxins, furans and mercury can be dispersed over large regions – well beyond local areas and even the countries from which the sources emanate. Food contaminated by an incinerator facility might be consumed by local people close to the facility or far away from it. Thus, local deposition on food might result in some exposure of populations at great distances, due to transport of food to markers. However, distant populations are likely to be more exposed through long-range transport of pollutants and low-level widespread deposition on food crops at locations remote from an incineration facility.” (1)
They later report “the incremental burden from all incinerators deserves serious consideration beyond a local level.” This has obvious relevance to the present policy of building large incinerators all over the UK.
An important point is that the more toxic smaller particulates, which typically have more toxic chemicals and carcinogens attached, will travel the furthest (2).
Most chemical pollutants are lipophilic and are therefore not easily washed away by the rain after they settle. When they land on crops they enter the food chain where they bio-accumulate. It is already been admitted that most dioxin in food today in the UK came from the older generation of incinerators. All chemicals capable of entering the food chain will sooner or later reach their highest concentration in the foetus or breast fed infant.
A striking example of the unforeseen and tragic consequences of releasing pollutants into the air has been seen in Nunavut, at the far North of Canada in the polar regions. The Inuit mothers here have twice the level of dioxins in their breast milk as Canadians living in the South. There is no source of dioxin within 300 miles. At the centre of Biology of Natural Systems in Queen’s College, New York, Dr Commoner and his team used a computer programme to track emissions from 44,000 sources of dioxin in North America. This system combined data on toxic releases and meteorological records. Among the leading contributors were three municipal incinerators in the USA (3, 4).
1) National Research Council (2000): Waste Incineration and Public Health ISBN: 0-309-06371-X,Washington DC, National Academy Press.
2) Rev Environ Health 2001;16 (Pt 3):169-89
3) Final report to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Flushing, N.Y.: Centre for the Biology of Natural systems, Queens College, CUNY,2000).
4) Science News 2000;158:2
Battlefield incinerator: Energy from Waste? OR Dangerous Waste of Energy?
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR AN INCINERATOR AT BATTLEFIELD: MS2009/0125/SY. The public has until 30 April to submit comments on/objections to this application (see bottom of this post for more details).
INCINERATION – VEOLIA’S CLAIMS:
Shropshire residents currently produce ‘around’ 1.25 tons waste per year. Landfill is being used up and councils will now be fined if we don’t find a way to minimise it.
The incinerator will form part of a ‘sustainable package’ including composting, recycling and ‘energy recovery’ which will reduce landfill to 5% by 2015
The incinerator will produce 8mw of power, enough to power 10,000 homes. It will ‘help towards supplying greater energy security for the UK’
The ash produced by the 90,000-ton incinerator can be recycled as a construction material
The facility will complement and not compromise recycling and composting.
The incinerator ‘will generate enough electricity to power about 10,000 homes’
It will provide ‘a proven and safe means to handle rubbish from Shropshire that is not recycled or composted
To meet the targets set in line with the Government’s commitment to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover.
To create up to 180 jobs during the construction and 21 additional permanent jobs, once operational.
The incinerator is considered to be ‘carbon-neutral’ by climate-change experts.
The site is close to where most of Shropshire’s waste is generated, there are excellent road links and it is also adjacent to the Waste Transfer Station and Household Recycling Centre
The incinerator has an extensive gas cleaning process ensuring only gases which meet strict emission regulations are released to the atmosphere and these will be monitored.
The facility must also meet the EU’s strict criteria in the Waste Incineration Directive and Veolia must comply with the stringent emission controls which will be monitored by the Environment Agency for the life of the facility
The proposed incinerator can easily be modified to meet possible future more stringent emission standards.
The aim has been to focus on creating a high quality innovative design....that reflects the context of the industrial surroundings with the neighbouring rolling countryside and the viewpoint from the Battlefield Heritage Site.
In 2008, Veolia set up a ‘Community Liaison Group’ with a ‘wide cross-section of membership from the local area.’
Veolia says that it safely operates waste management services in 33 countries worldwide
INCINERATION – THE REALITY:
Waste figures: UK waste figures, including Shropshire’s, are falling rapidly. Shropshire is now at almost 60% recycling. Veolia is using inflated figures for household waste which show clearly that they will be relying on commercial and industrial waste in order to keep the incinerator burning.
Incinerators can generate 1 ton of toxic waste per 3 – 4 tons burned! This is not reducing waste to 5% but manipulating the figures to make incinerators look ‘green’. Yet, landfill figures can be reduced to 5% by reducing packing, recycling, deconstruction, re-use and composting. It’s called Zero Waste and they are doing this in many places, world-wide.
A combination of recycling and composting is 46 times better at reducing electricity greenhouse gases than ‘Energy from Waste’. But burning waste is highly profitable for the operator. So profitable that both Veolia and Sita want to build incinerators in Shrewsbury and Telford.
Sustainable: Mixed waste incinerators are inefficient, capturing only about 20% of energy generated by the waste. A huge amount of valuable resources and energy already used are lost. Recycling plastic, paper and metal saves many times more energy that is gained through incineration. Waste is not renewable and destroys resources that could be recovered or minimised. At the moment, Veolia has not even developed plans to collect and recycle most plastics –it is much cheaper for them to burn it!
Studies done in other countries show that incineration and high recycling figures are incompatible. In Geneva, they have had to start importing waste from Italy because their recycling figures are so high!
Power generation: The electricity will only benefit the operator as it will be sold on to the National Grid. We asked the people in Chineham, where Veolia’s‘ flagship’ incinerator started operating in 2004, if they have benefited yet from reduced council tax bills or cheaper electricity. The answer was a resounding ‘no’. (They call the incinerator their ‘silent and deadly neighbour.’)
Ash: The Environment Agency has recently admitted it does not "have 100% confidence" in its classification of incinerator bottom ash (IBA) as non-hazardous waste. For more on safety, see monitoring, below. Fly ash is toxic and has to be sent away to special landfill sites.
Government targets: The incinerator contravenes the Government-approved Waste Hierarchy which puts incineration at the very bottom of the pile. Veolia has had to re-name the incinerator an ‘Energy from Waste’ facility because they know it cannot meet the stringent requirements required to call it an ‘Energy Recovery Facility.’
Job creation: Nova Scotia in Canada achieved 50% diversion from landfill in 5 years and created 1000 jobs collecting and treating discarded materials. Another 2000 jobs have been created in the industries handling the collected material. Nearly all the separated materials are re-used in Nova Scotia’s own industries.
Carbon emissions: Incineration releases high levels of CO2, the main climate warming gas. Incineration is accompanied by twice or more the CO2 per unit of power than the same energy (as electricity or combined heat-and-power) produced from fossil fuel. The Environment Agency’s WRATE software is used to claim energy-from-waste is beneficial, but this depends on faulty assumptions on efficiency and bio-carbon. The better ATROPOS model found that “scenarios using incineration were amongst the poorest performing” according to a report produced in 2008.
Proximity to other facilities: The incinerator will also be near to a precious heritage site (Battlefield), a food enterprise centre and several food outlets as well as several thousand homes and prime farmland.
Monitoring emissions and your health: Veolia states that the proposed incinerator can easily be modified to meet possible future, more strict emission standards. So why not now? Monitoring the emissions for dioxins will only be done at six-monthly intervals with prior notice by taking samples from the flue gases, yet there are systems, approved by the EA, to monitor them continuously; why don’t they want to install them?
Most of Veolia’s studies to assess the impact of emissions have used computer modelling and no official research has been carried out into the actual health problems arising as a result of the emissions from the incinerators which have been built in the UK and elsewhere. Yet, there is growing and disturbing evidence that the very fine particles passing through the filters into the atmosphere stay suspended in the air and enter the bloodstream via the lungs causing immune reactions, particularly in the elderly, children and unborn babies.
Visual impact and design: With a building 27 metres/100 feet in height and a chimney height of 65 metres/200 feet; it will have a huge visual impact on the neighbourhood. Veolia’s pictures are all aerial views, and do not depict the actual size of the building as you will see it from the ground. In the Planning Application the photomontages have mostly been carefully taken from places where other buildings shield the full impact. As you can see from our cover picture of the Chineham incinerator, which used the same designer, nothing can disguise the ugliness and huge size of this proposed facility.
Community Liaison: Veolia set up a Community Liaison Group with some people from the local area. However, this consultation was on an “Energy Recovery Facility (ERF)” which fell into line with the Shropshire Waste Local Plan, not an Energy from Waste facility, which doesn’t.
In summer 2008, Shropshire County Council stopped Safe Waste in Shropshire putting leaflets in the Lantern giving the opposing view to incineration, saying that this was “political” and could not be allowed. There was nothing political about this, but it demonstrates the lack of democratic process being allowed in any discussion about the proposals.
Veolia’s track-record: Veolia has recently been fined £166,000 for the release of toxic fumes at its hazardous waste treatment plant in Liverpool and £30,235 for allowing 1,500 Cubic Metres of untreated sewage to flow into the sea at Dawlish. On 21 March 2009, fire destroyed a Veolia waste recycling warehouse in Birmingham. It has been fined in other countries as well for various offences including corruption. Investors were recently advised to sell their shares in Veolia and its profits recently (March 2008) fell by over 50%.
What you can do
Object to the incinerator, using any of the ‘reality’ arguments, above. They are all material planning considerations. You can write a very brief letter, card or email, but it needs to arrive by 30 April, 2009.
The registration number is: MS2009/0125/SY and can be viewed at: http://planning.shropshire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=59315 Or write to: Mr Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND. Or: planning.development@shropshire.gov.uk.
YOU MUST INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER: MS2009/0125/SY
Campaigners jubilant as incinerator rejected in Cornwall
Western Morning News - Friday 27th. March 2009Campaigners jubilant as incinerator rejected
JUBILANT scenes broke out after plans to build a giant incinerator in the heart of Cornwall were scrapped.
The vote by an overwhelming majority to refuse the application was greeted by whoops and cheers from the packed public gallery at County Hall.
The decision by Cornwall County Council planning committee, at the end of a rancorous battle over the plans, was greeted by protesters as a victory for common sense – with one campaigner saying yesterday that it felt "like winning the cup".
Sita, the French company behind the application for a 390ft incinerator at St Dennis in Mid Cornwall, said that it was considering its position and may appeal against the decision.
During the debate at County Hall yesterday, one councillor described the planned incinerator as "a festering boil waiting to erupt" and the local MP called on councillors to pull together in the interests of the people of Cornwall.
Ken Rickard, chairman of campaign group St Dennis Anti Incinerator Group (Stig), said after the meeting: "The overall result is nothing short of fantastic.
"It's been very intense and I've shed a few tears this afternoon. I can't explain it – it's like winning the cup.
"I would like to thank all of the county councillors for the way they have conducted themselves and shown common sense in coming up with the right decision."
In the council chamber, 20 councillors voted in favour of refusing the application. Glenton Brown, the Liberal Democrat member for Tintagel, abstained and Les Hunkin, Liberal Democrat member for Grampound and Mevagissey, voted against the refusal.
During the debate, Andrew Waters, independent councillor for St Enoder and Colan, said: "It will be more like a festering boil waiting to erupt."
Roger Bonney, chairman of the planning committee, said after the meeting:
"It's probably one of the most important meetings that this county council has ever had.
"It's one of the biggest projects ever looked at that could have affected people from Land's End to Launceston."
Coun Bonney commended the anti-incinerator campaigners on the case they put before the committee and the behaviour of more than 100 supporters at the meeting.
The bitter battle over the incinerator plans had become increasingly fraught over the past two weeks as the Western Morning News revealed that a draft report by planning officers recommending refusal of the plans had been changed at the last minute to recommend approval.
Campaigners against the incinerator said they feared massive health risks arising from the plant which would have processed 240,000 tonnes of municipal waste a year and seen 90 lorries visiting the site every day.
Many people were surprised yesterday by the huge margin by which the proposals were rejected. Dick Cole, Restormel borough councillor who spoke on behalf of St Enoder Parish Council, said after the vote: "We were confident we had the right arguments but we didn't expect to win as overwhelmingly as we did."
Truro and St Austell MP Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrat) said: "This was clearly the right decision as the overwhelming majority against the application clearly shows.
"The county should now urgently work to look at cheaper, quicker and more environmentally friendly options for dealing with Cornwall's waste."
Graeme Hicks, independent councillor for Redruth South, said: "They will now have to go back and look at other ways of disposing of waste and look at the latest technologies."
At yesterday's meeting, planning officer Adrian Lea explained the background to the incinerator plans saying the council needed to take action to tackle its reliance on landfill sites. The county could face fines in the future if EU targets for reducing landfill were not met, he said.
After the meeting, David Buckle, Sita's project director, said the company would now be considering the reasons given by the planning committee for the refusal.
When asked if Sita would be appealing against the decision, Mr Buckle said: "We will be speaking to the county council and will decide what to do next."
The money is coming from Paris!
'The money is coming from Paris' Adrian Poller, Shropshire Waste Partnership, September 2007.
an haute couture incinerator for Battlefield?
Local councillors have started asking tough questions about the proposed Battlefield incinerator and have publicly accused Veolia of ‘misleading the public’. Elected representatives including Shrewsbury MP, Daniel Kawczynski, are now demanding that the application be ‘called in’ by the Government Office of the West Midlands. Their objections to the proposed incinerator include concerns about the incinerator’s effect on public health and Veolia’s refusal to engage with these
concerns in the face of mounting evidence, the possible breach of national conservation legislation and conflicts of interest involving Shropshire Council.
Under the terms of the waste contract, signed in July 2007, Shropshire County Council agreed to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ in relation to Veolia obtaining planning permission for a waste treatment facility. Councillor Peter Nutting, leader of the former SABC, Cllr Maxwell Winchester and other councillors are ‘concerned that the application will be heard by Shropshire Council – the same authority which will control the waste contract with Veolia and that this will mean there is a conflict of interest.’ (Shropshire Star, 13 February, 2009.)
Now, according to breaking news from the waste industry, the future of Private Finance Initiative loans, such as the one which is driving the proposed incinerator deal, are beginning to look shaky in the current uncertain financial climate. The government may have to use taxpayers money to bail out Private Finance Initiative projects to the tune of £4bn in the next 18 months, an industry spokesman warned on 15 February.
PFI schemes like the proposed incinerator involve private companies paying to build and maintain public infrastructure projects. In return, the state then pays the firms for 20 – 30 years.
Chancellor Alistair Darling is being urged to "go back to the drawing board" rather than use public funds for these projects. The recession means that loans to firms are being limited on PFI projects and they might need state help (i.e. taxpayers’ money) for funding that should have come from commercial loans.
Dr Charles West, Liberal Democrat candidate for Shrewsbury told Safe Waste in Shropshire:
"PFI was always an expensive way of financing public sector procurement, typically the consortia (management consultant, builder and finance company or bank) expected a return of around 16% whereas if the government were to finance projects from direct public finance they could raise the money for 6% or less. The argument was that the PFI consortium were carrying the risk. It seems clear now that they are not capable of carrying the risk.
"What we should definitely NOT be doing is just pouring state money into the PFI contract and allowing them still to get their 16%. If the public sector is to take over projects then they should take it over in a clean way, pay off the contractors for the work they have done already and then start from scratch.
"The worst of all possible worlds would be if the PFI deal is allowed to pretend that it is going ahead, but that instead of getting the money from within the PFI consortium the tax-payer bails them out."
A SABC councillor has also made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency about Veolia’s claim that their proposed incinerator has ‘proven safety’ which is clearly aimed to mislead the general public of Shropshire. (Shropshire Star, 14 February, 2009 and Shrewsbury Chronicle, 19 February, 2009).
How can we trust these people with our health and our money for decades to come?
an haute couture incinerator for Battlefield?
Local councillors have started asking tough questions about the proposed Battlefield incinerator and have publicly accused Veolia of ‘misleading the public’. Elected representatives including Shrewsbury MP, Daniel Kawczynski, are now demanding that the application be ‘called in’ by the Government Office of the West Midlands. Their objections to the proposed incinerator include concerns about the incinerator’s effect on public health and Veolia’s refusal to engage with theseconcerns in the face of mounting evidence, the possible breach of national conservation legislation and conflicts of interest involving Shropshire Council.
Under the terms of the waste contract, signed in July 2007, Shropshire County Council agreed to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ in relation to Veolia obtaining planning permission for a waste treatment facility. Councillor Peter Nutting, leader of the former SABC, Cllr Maxwell Winchester and other councillors are ‘concerned that the application will be heard by Shropshire Council – the same authority which will control the waste contract with Veolia and that this will mean there is a conflict of interest.’ (Shropshire Star, 13 February, 2009.)
Now, according to breaking news from the waste industry, the future of Private Finance Initiative loans, such as the one which is driving the proposed incinerator deal, are beginning to look shaky in the current uncertain financial climate. The government may have to use taxpayers money to bail out Private Finance Initiative projects to the tune of £4bn in the next 18 months, an industry spokesman warned on 15 February.
PFI schemes like the proposed incinerator involve private companies paying to build and maintain public infrastructure projects. In return, the state then pays the firms for 20 – 30 years.
Chancellor Alistair Darling is being urged to "go back to the drawing board" rather than use public funds for these projects. The recession means that loans to firms are being limited on PFI projects and they might need state help (i.e. taxpayers’ money) for funding that should have come from commercial loans.
Dr Charles West, Liberal Democrat candidate for Shrewsbury told Safe Waste in Shropshire:
"PFI was always an expensive way of financing public sector procurement, typically the consortia (management consultant, builder and finance company or bank) expected a return of around 16% whereas if the government were to finance projects from direct public finance they could raise the money for 6% or less. The argument was that the PFI consortium were carrying the risk. It seems clear now that they are not capable of carrying the risk.
"What we should definitely NOT be doing is just pouring state money into the PFI contract and allowing them still to get their 16%. If the public sector is to take over projects then they should take it over in a clean way, pay off the contractors for the work they have done already and then start from scratch.
"The worst of all possible worlds would be if the PFI deal is allowed to pretend that it is going ahead, but that instead of getting the money from within the PFI consortium the tax-payer bails them out."
A SABC councillor has also made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency about Veolia’s claim that their proposed incinerator has ‘proven safety’ which is clearly aimed to mislead the general public of Shropshire. (Shropshire Star, 14 February, 2009 and Shrewsbury Chronicle, 19 February, 2009).
How can we trust these people with our health and our money for decades to come?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)