Health claims made by objectors to a proposed incinerator in Telford are “old-fashioned and misguided” according to the consortium behind the project.
Bosses of Sita UK today criticised campaigners for being swayed by “wild” allegations with no basis in fact. And they insisted the energy-from-waste plant would be a clean way of dealing with Telford’s rubbish and providing electricity for local businesses.
The controversy is over a planning application by Sita UK and its partner Cyclerval UK for an incinerator at Granville tip on the east of the borough.
- See also: MP to hold talks on burner bid
Telford & Wrekin Council will decide later this year whether to give the go-ahead. Campaign group TelfordPAIN (Telford Protest Against Incinerator Now) hopes to block the scheme, clai
ming that it would produce a plume of harmful emissions.
But Geraint Rees, Sita UK spokesman, said: “There are some serial agitators who claim energy-from-waste facilities can cause anything from breathing difficulties to crime or sub-normal intelligence.
“When you stop to consider the sheer breadth of potential problems attributed to the technology, it becomes clear the claims are pretty wild and have no factual basis.
“The waste Granville is designed to treat is not from some distant planet – it is Telford’s waste.
“People need to understand this is a local problem that calls for a local solution and not something that can be shunted off elsewhere.”
Mr Rees said not all rubbish could be recycled and it was environmentally more desirable to treat this leftover waste at source.
“Energy-from-waste is one of the safest processes involving burning today. It is far cleaner than emissions from coal fires and central heating boilers, for example – less efficient sources of heat it could be used to replace,” he said.
• TelfordPAIN is holding a day of protest on Sunday including a street rally in Newport from 10.30am and a party at the Park House Hotel, Shifnal, at 5pm.
See Also:
14 Comments
I for one support the Incinerator plans. We are currently piling our rubbish into a big hole in the ground. What kind of a time bomb is that. With the fume scrubbing technology that is available today the actual pollution caused would be minimal. I do have concerns however. Would that council cease to increase recycling levels? This is not an alternative to recycling! It must be complimentary to it. I belive that an amount of what we all recycle still ends up in landfill. We must, using legislation if necessary increase our recycling levels. We must also, again using legislation force producers to use minimal packaging.
Report abuse
The legislation for packaging is already in place and has been for over 10 years. SITA themselves said, if it worked, there would be no need for incineration.
Report abuse
It is indisputable that we must reduce landfill by recycling and waste reduction. The argument is whether burning waste is the most appropriate and environmentally safe method. There are alternatives such as anaerobic digestion which are more prevalent in Europe and Scandinavia and are being built at an increasing rate. Perhaps we should be asking our political and local authority representatives why they are not promoting a much wider reaching strategy for waste management? I suspect we know why.
Report abuse
There are very good alternatives to incineration, such as composting.
So the Ironbridge power station is closing due to “pollution” – and we are replacing it with two more?
Report abuse
Will Geraint Rees care comment on the fact that the infant mortality rates in the electoral wards in Kirklees are highest downwind of the Sita incinerator and lowest in wards that are upwind?
I’ve e-mailed relevant data to Cllr Raistrick of Kirklees Council who has passed my e-mail on to the local Primary Care Trust.
Sita must have been fuming when the Dorking Advertiser and the Surrey Mirror printed ward maps showing high infant death rates in wards downwind of three Sita owned or operated incinerators at Coventry, Edmonton and Kirklees – the maps being part of a set of overheads I’d used to illustrate my lecture at Costessey High School where Dr Dick van Steenis & I spoke against the proposed incinerator at Norwich on 29 January 2007 at the public meeting co-hosted by the Norwich Evening News.
Will Sita be prepared to field an expert to argue their case against Dr Dick van Steenis in a public meeting in Telford?
Veolia weren’t prepared to in Shrewsbury.
Are you frightened of people learning about the health effects of industrial PM2.5 emissions from incinerators & other sources Mr Rees?
Report abuse
Where on earth do these NIMBY’s think the waste THEY generate goes to!!!!!
If you make the WASTE you must accept some harmful toxins to get rid of the waste.
If everyone stopped buying goods with excess packaging and throwing so much rubbish away the need for this incinerator would not exist!!
Report abuse
With regard to pm2.5 emissions, is it true that Indoor air where a domestic fire is burning can make concentrations exceed 1000ug/m3, if that is the case how can all of the health effects that are claimed to be as a result of incineration, what about smoking ? diesel emmisions from poorly maintained cars ?
Report abuse
Risk of sub normal intelligence for those born in Telford – how would you be able to tell?
Report abuse
Y Mab Darogan seems unable to grasp the fact that plasma gasification is the safest method of waste disposal and that’s why the process should be adopted.
It’s also the cheapest method of waste disposal which is a bonus.
Does Y Mab Darogan advocate throwing away money and health as well as rubbish?
Report abuse
Unfortunately health issues, regardless of how accurate or not they maybe cannot be used as a protest against the incinerator, it must be on the application itself. I don’t like the idea of incineration as so many alternatives are available that are not being fully implimented, i’m not convinced that burning industrial waste is the right option, households must recycle but large amounts of trade waste could be burnt to bring up the tonnage to make it a viable working option.
Report abuse
John Franklyn is wrong on this issue.
It was the proven adverse health effects of the Sint Niklaas incinerator that persuaded the Belgian High Coourt to order its closure in December 2001.
It was the adverse health effects of incinerating 20 tonnes of arsenic at the Wingerworth incinerator that forced its closure after soil sampling revealed the extent of arsenic contamination.
If Mr Franklyn wants a political career, he needs to have the guts to blitz a sitting MP on a major local issue, such as the health effects of emissions froom Ironbridge power station.
David Wright MP didn’t like my statement of evidence to the EFRA committee at the House of Commons which was published 11 May 2006 and is available online. Mr Wright’s dislike of the text didn’t make it wrong.
Doesn’t Mr Frankily realise that the UK is importing waste from other countries and that the imported waste is mostly hazardous?
Plasma gasification is the only safe method of waste disposal.
Report abuse
Here’s an article that FoE and others stood aside from:
The Observer: Cancer fear over plans for pounds 50m waste plant: 4,500 sign petition as GP warns of heart attacks, asthma and depression
Observer, The (London, England) – Sunday, October 5, 2008
Author: BY PAUL KELBIE
Peterhead power station seen from Boddam harbour. Plans to build a new, unconnected plant have been greeted by protests and petitions.
Photograph by Simon Price/Alamy
A PLAN to develop a waste-to-energy plant in Aberdeenshire has sparked a massive protest campaign over fears it could cause health problems.
More than 4,500 people living in and around Peterhead have signed a petition against the pounds 50million plant which developers Buchan Combined Heat and Power Ltd claim will burn a third of the north-east of Scotland’s rubbish and produce enough power for approximately 10,000 homes. Six hundred letters of objection have been submitted against the proposal.
Residents are concerned it will spew a deadly mixture of chemicals over the area, causing increased rates of cancer, heart attacks, clinical depression, autism, asthma and coronary heart disease. Their fears have been fuelled by a retired GP from South Wales, Dick Van Steenis , who claims research into similar plants in other parts of the country has demonstrated an alarming rise in serious illnesses in surrounding communities.
‘The company’s own environmental statement says it will emit arsenic and dioxins which are highly carcinogenic. One of the main things it emits apart from mercury, arsenic, cobalt, and lead is particulate matter,’ said John Askey, a father of two who organised the petition. ‘Particulate matter are very fine parti cles. In a smog you get very big particles, but it’s the fine ones you can’t see that cause an awful lot of illnesses like heart disease, eczema, asthma and cancer.
‘Buchan already has the highest cancer, heart disease and stroke rate in the whole of Grampian, so we don’t want this incinerator adding to our woes by blow ing these fine particles over Peterhead.’ Concerns about the plant have also been raised by NHS Grampian and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency which both questioned the suitability of the proposed location of the plant on an industrial site outside Peterhead.
In a submission to Aberdeenshire Council’s planning department, NHS officials said they were concerned that the incinerator will be located right beside a children’s nursery and less than a mile from the small community of Invernettie.
However, Buchan CHP insists that, if its plant goes ahead, there will be no significant risk to human health, and its director, Glenn Jones, has insisted that any emissions will be ‘no more dangerous than those from a domestic car or a wood-burning stove’.
‘All our research and documentation are based on fact and in-depth analysis of the process and the technology,’ said a spokesman. ‘We would be very interested to see Van Steenis ’s research papers and analysis and find out where it has been reviewed by experts or peer-reviewed by recognised academics.
‘These plants are operating cleanly, safely and effectively in Shetland, Switzerland, Germany and Scandinavia, among many other places. Contrary to what a handful of objectors are saying, the plant will not use gas to support the burning of waste; ash and emissions from the plant will not affect human health or local water supplies and monitoring of the emissions will be a continual and robust process.’
Report abuse
Michael, i think the 2nd to last paragraph you quoted in point 12 is very important. From what i have seen, a common criticism of your research is that it is argued to be unsubstantiated. if you get it reviewed by a leading expert, this will either strengthen your case or address your concerns. either way, this will go along way to generating a more credible debate against incineration.
Report abuse
WHY BUILD AN INCINERATOR
WHY NOT USE BUILDWAS POWER STATION , BACK IN THE 1990`S THEY USED POWER STATION TO BURN RUBBISH
TO MAKE POWER
Report abuse