Renowned incinerator health expert to speak in Shrewsbury on Friday 29 February

Safe Waste in Shropshire has secured Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS (internationally renowned expert on the health effects of incinerators) to speak at a public meeting on Friday 29 February at Sundorne School and Sports College, Corndon Crescent, Shrewsbury. The meeting, called ‘Shrewsbury’s incinerator: dangers and alternatives’ is a wake-up call for the people of Shrewsbury and surrounding areas. Shropshire County Council signed a 27-year contract with French firm, Veolia Waste Services, in September 2007 which includes a plan to build an burner-incinerator at Battlefield waste disposal site. The county council is now contracted to support Veolia’s planning application.

Dick van Steenis is truly independent. He is not in the pay of any vested interest or PR machine. Since his retirement as a GP in 1989, he has devoted much of his time and energy to research into the health effects of air pollution, especially incineration, and advocacy for safer methods of waste disposal.

Dick van Steenis has spoken at many public inquiries into incinerators and has been successful in helping get incinerators stopped in several places including Cambridge, Hull and Pembroke.

His research, which has been peer-reviewed and published in several respected health journals including the Lancet, shows that ‘Incineration of waste causes a shortening of lifespan of up to 12 years often in the prime of life by increasing a range of diseases especially heart attacks & cancers.’

Dick van Steenis will also explain that, ‘Incineration of waste vaporises heavy metals making the particulates emitted even more lethal when you inhale them into your lungs.’

He will also talk about plasma gasification which studies demonstrate is a much safer alternative to incineration. Many countries, including the USA are turning to this method instead of incineration. ‘Veolia are ……. fobbing off English residents with inferior equipment by comparison’

Other speakers include: Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Cllr Miles Kenny (Shropshire CC) and Cllr Alan Mosley (Shropshire CC).

The meeting will be chaired by Cllr Claire Wild (Independent, SABC)

Is Shropshire County Council budgeting for compensation claims?

Question to Shropshire County Council 22 February, 2008

Concerning the proposed EfW burner-incinerator at Battlefield, Shrewsbury:

‘The Department does not monitor the possible health implications of the emission of PM2.5 particles from incinerators or industrial processes directly on an ongoing basis.’ Dawn Primarolo, Secretary of State for Health, October 2007 [Hansard]

Independent, peer-reviewed studies indicate that PM2.5 (fine particulates) from incinerators pass through abatement equipment and are implicated in a range of adverse health effects, some fatal. In view of the current availability of this knowledge, how does SCC propose to budget for the settlement of compensation claims arising from the inhalation of emissions from the proposed incinerator at Battlefield?

Those selling incinerators constantly assure us that they are safe and that emissions are constantly monitored.

Incinerators emit tiny invisible particulates called PM2.5s. They are breathed into the deepest part of your lungs and stay there. The World Health Organisation says there is no safe level of PM2.5s and that they are implicated in a range of serious diseases and deaths.

In the UK, only PM10s are monitored despite a large body of evidence from the United States that PM2.5s lead to a rise in mortality near incinerators. The US has been moving away from incineration since the 1990s. Research indicates that at least 24 monitors, calibrated down to PM1 would need to be sited constantly all round an incinerator to be effective. The British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) regards the current state of incinerator monitoring to be inadequate and negligent.

Studies show increases in many diseases including cancers, heart disease, childhood cancers and leukaemia near incinerators. There is a 2-fold increase at 12 years of exposure; it is 5-fold at 20 years. Environment Agency models show a doubling of heart attacks after even short-term exposure to PM2.5s up to 20 kilometres downwind of an incinerator.

Apologists for incinerators try to brush aside the evidence, pretending that PM2.5s are a fraction of PM10s (which are monitored) and therefore do not require separate monitoring. Monitoring of PM2.5s would show the presence of the most dangerous particulates. These same apologists also cite that incinerators are not the only cause of pollution and therefore invite us to think that ‘one more’ won’t make any difference. These same apologists tend to accuse scientists of ‘scare-mongering’.

Do you remember when they called Sir Richard Doll a scare-monger for warning us about smoking?

The BSEM says in a reply to an evaluation of their report ‘The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators’:

Hidden Costs of Incineration

Enviros state the impacts of incineration should be properly understood. We would certainly agree with this and one of these impacts is the cost to the local community. The European Commission have estimated the health and environmental costs of a 400,000 tonne a year incinerator to be between £9,000,000 and £57,000,000 a year. Another report by the European Commission found the health costs to be 48,000,000 euros annually. Any local authority considering allowing an incinerator should look very carefully at these huge hidden costs and budget appropriately.

We believe all local authorities considering having an incinerator built should not be kept in the dark about these hidden costs. We would also add that anything that creates such huge health costs also creates much human misery.

Local authorities should also look at the experience at Crymlyn Burrows at Neath, near Swansea. Here a waste company built an incinerator and then went bankrupt leaving the Council to run the incinerator and also leaving them millions of pounds in debt, a debt that continues to increase. Several towns in the USA have gone bankrupt after signing contracts with incinerator companies and then finding they could not supply enough waste.

Evaluation and responses at http://www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php

‘The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators’: J Thompson and HM Anthony

British Society for Ecological Medicine, 2006

‘Reply to Enviros Communication of September 2006’ ; J Thompson and HM Anthony

British Society for Ecological Medicine

‘Reply to Health Protection Agency’: J Thompson and HM Anthony

British Society for Ecological Medicine

Hansard, October 2007

These are the specific documents I used for this question and the background information. However, there are many more accredited sources of information about the health effects of incinerators.

What is Safe Waste in Shropshire doing?

Safe Waste in Shropshire are:

Promoting the reduce, re-use and recycle message
Engaging Shropshire people and councillors in dialogue about the incinerator
Publicising the safer alternatives to burner-incineration
Preparing to fight the planning proposal
Organising meetings for people in Shropshire to hear the truth about incineration
Consulting independent experts in the field of safe waste disposal

JOIN SAFE WASTE IN SHROPSHIRE:








Visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/safe_waste_shropshire/
and click on 'JOIN THIS GROUP' to keep up with developments in the campaign

What's wrong with incineration?

• The burner-incinerator emissions, too small to see, are called PM2.5 particulates. They can pass into the deepest part of your lungs.
• Incinerator chimneys spread the damage at least 15 miles away
• Pollution from incinerators can double the effects of existing pollution

Incinerator emissions have been linked to:

• Birth defects and infant mortality
• Autism, Multiple Sclerosis, ADHD and a rise in learning difficulties
• Asthma and other respiratory diseases and infections
• Heart disease, arteriosclerosis, strokes and other heart problems
• Diabetes, endometriosis and hypothyroidism
• Allergies and arthritis
• M.E, depression (associated with higher incidence of suicides downwind)
• Various cancers

Environmental damage:

• Incineration leaves toxic waste which requires expensive disposal in specialist landfill sites
• Heavy traffic to and from the incinerator will greatly increase, including transport of toxic ash
• Incinerators have to burn 24/7 so recyclables and toxic business waste are likely to be burned to keep it going
• Increased CO2 emissions
  

What’s the plan?

Shropshire Waste Partnership (SWP) is the body responsible for collecting and disposing of household waste on behalf of 5 Shropshire councils. SWP has signed a 27-year contract with Veolia Environmental Services to manage the waste. Shropshire County Council is obliged by the terms of the contract to support Veolia’s application for planning permission for building the burner incinerator.

Imagine what life was like 27 years ago – no internet, no PCs, disposable nappies a new invention, little environmental awareness. Everything is changing fast: Shropshire’s recycling figures are going through the roof, burner incinerators are causing concern across the country, manufacturers and retailers are reducing packaging, new, safer technologies are being developed to deal with waste. Why is our council laying our health on the line for the next 27 years?

What are the alternatives?

Autoclaving: This sterilises the waste with steam and pressure. The organic fraction could have a number of uses depending on the quality of the material and the markets available e.g. land-spreading, fibre or fuel. There will be some residue sent to landfill.

Integrated Recycling Plants (IRP): An industrialised system of recycling and composting which has been designed to deal with a mixed domestic waste stream. Already widely in use in Europe and the United States. Reports suggest that it is a cost-effective, safe and effective waste strategy.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD): This treatment uses bacteria to break down organic material without oxygen. The process produces a biogas (mainly methane) and a digestate, or residue. Depending on the quality of the input material the residue produced may be suitable for composting, or it may only be suitable for landfill cover or as use as a fuel.

Plasma Gasification: This runs on electricity and produces vitrified gravel, hydrogen and electricity – all for sale – and has very low emissions. Cost per ton is £23. Incinerators cost £63 plus an estimated £67 per ton of health damage.

Can it be stopped?

Anti-incinerator groups have stopped incinerators being built in Kidderminster, Wrexham, Norwich, Belfast, Guildford and Essex, among other places

We can stop it in Shropshire too!

SAFE WASTE WINDOW DISPLAY AT WILD THYME

Wild Thyme wholefood shop (1-2, Castle Gates) kindly hosted a display : 'The incinerator - dangers and alternatives' display 2 weeks in January.

The display contained artwork by group members, a large poster produced by Friends of the Earth showing local people supporting the 'Recycle, no incineration' message and facts about the proposed incinerator.

Demonstration at Battlefield Site on Sunday 6 January, 2008

Members of Safe Waste in Shropshire leafleted members of the public and maintained a presence with placards and banners between 10am and 12 noon today.

The response from the public was excellent with the majority of drivers stopping to take leaflets and showing interest in the issue. Some people were already aware of the proposed incinerator and said they opposed it.

NEWHAVEN INCINERATOR - SECRET DEAL WITH VEOLIA - DETAILS PUBLISHED

News release, 29 November, 2007
INQUIRY HALTED AS 'SECRET' DEAL DETAILS PUBLISHED MEP TRIGGERS EU INVESTIGATION OF COUNCILS' 'RESCUE PACKAGE'
	THE PUBLIC Inquiry into plans to built a waste incinerator at Newhaven has been halted - to allow Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils to publish 'secret' papers relating to the deal. Press reports last month suggested that the councils had agreed to extend the proposed contract with the incinerator's operator Veolia to help the firm out financially - but that they had agreed to keep councillors and members of the public in the dark.
And yesterday the Newhaven inquiry was dramatically halted when the inquiry's adjudicator agreed it needed time to allow the councils concerned to publish the documents - and for all parties to fully digest the information. The adjournment - which could mean the hearing doesn't resume until after Christmas - has delayed the final day of evidence, which was due to be given by local MEP Caroline Lucas. The proposals would be an environmental and financial disaster for Sussex - and could breach EU law, Dr Lucas was due to tell the inquiry. The European Commission has already launched an official investigation into the matter after Dr Lucas lodged an official complaint in September. Dr Lucas, Green MEP for South-East England, has argued that the government should block the burner as it would increase pollution, traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, have an adverse impact on the adjacent South Downs Area of Natural Beauty and breach planning guidance and the agreed local plan. Further, it would tie Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils into a long-term contract to burn waste rather than re-use or recycle it - and, perhaps worst, it will cost the councils' tax-payers millions to ensure its financial viability. Speaking before her evidence was presented to the public inquiry, Dr Lucas said: "This scheme would be nothing less than an environmental and financial disaster for local people - and I hope this inquiry, which will focus on some of the planning issues, will prompt councillors to drop their support for the proposal. "It will represent a departure from the local development plan and, I fear, breach EU planning law in a number of ways: in particular a secret agreement by the councils concerned to extend the contract between the incinerator's private operator Veolia run counter to laws relating to transparency in financial dealings with public money. "The deal represents an unlawful use of state aid too, and may place the whole scheme on the wrong side of laws governing Government rescue packages for firms facing difficulty." Dr Lucas added: "We are drowning in a sea of waste and if we are to tackle it we must adopt strategies to cut the amount of waste we produce in the first place rather than the defeatist 'predict and provide' approach embodied in the decision to build this incinerator. "There would simply be no need to incinerate waste at all if the Government had the commitment and courage to adopt a 'zero waste strategy' such as that employed successfully in Canada and parts of Australia." ENDS For more information please contact Melissa on 020 7407 9935 or at carolinepress@greenmeps.org.uk

CAROLINE LUCAS MEP's LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE S.E.

Re: Planning application LW/462/CM(EIA) - Municipal Waste Incinerator at North
Quay, Newhaven. 05 March 2007

Dear Secretary of State

Following the recent approval of this planning application by East Sussex
County Council (ESCC) I am writing to ask you to call-in this decision for
examination at a Public Inquiry.
ESCC have already advertised this application as a departure from local
development plans because of its adverse visual impact on its adjacent Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the loss of areas for the storage and
processing of crushed rock and marine aggregates at North Quay.
I would further add to these concerns;
· incinerators have been shown to pollute surrounding areas with
cocktails of toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer, heart disease,
respiratory problems, immune system defects, increased allergies and birth
defects. (1)
· the construction and operation of an incinerator will have a massive
environmental impact on the local community, and will tie Brighton and Hove
and East Sussex councils into a long-term contract to burn waste – rather than
improve recycling rates.
· Additionally, reports have shown that electricity-only (such as that
proposed at Newhaven) emit 33% more fossil CO2 than gas-fired stations (2)
· 30% of household waste is food. This should be composted; yet the
contract allows this to be incinerated.
· No consideration of the impact of the proposal on areas of special
environmental protection is provided in the context of alternative means of
delivering a suitable waste management solution.
· North Quay Road and North Way junction show traffic impacts beyond
the 5% threshold limit for traffic increases as a result of a permitted
development.
· The proposal conflicts with the Council's planning policies. Policy
NH 24 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted
for port-related uses.
· The proposal does not contribute to sustainable development, which
PPS 1 suggests planning authorities should promote through urban regeneration
”to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high
quality and safe development and create new opportunities for people living in
those communities”.
· The application does not show that there is an overriding need to be
located at North Quay, Newhaven in preference to a site outside the flood
plain. This is in breach of PPG25.
· The proportion of municipal waste to be burned (54%) is too large and
will prevent higher recycling and composting levels in the future. This is
counter to the need to move waste up the waste hierarchy as required by PPS10.
· The incinerator would lead to an unacceptable adverse impact on the
adjoining Sussex Downs AONB and South Downs National Park and their settings,
which has not been given sufficient consideration and cannot be mitigated.
· Flood risk to surrounding users of land is worsened as a result of
the proposal
In my view the proposal conflicts with national policies on important matters
and will have significant effects beyond the immediate locality.
Additionally the issue is of demonstrable public controversy – over 16,000
letters of objection have been submitted.
I am fundamentally opposed to the principal of burning – rather than
recycling, reusing and reducing - our waste. There is no need to incinerate
waste at all if we improve recycling rates and cut waste by adopting the
principles of a ‘zero-waste strategy', such as that employed successfully in
Canada and parts of Australia .

Yours sincerely
Dr Caroline Lucas
Suite 58 The Hop Exchange
24 Southwark Street
London SE1 1TY
Phone: 02074076281 Fax: 02072340183

(1) See Table 1, ‘Incineration & Health Issues’, Friends of the Earth
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/incineration_health_issues.pdf
(2) See ‘Incineration & climate change’, Friends of the Earth
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/dirty_truths.pdf