Hundreds visit protest website
Monday 20th October 2008, 10:29AM BST.
A website launched by protesters fighting plans for a multi-million pound waste incinerator in Shropshire has had more than 800 hits within days of being set up.
Campaign group Pain, (Priorslee Against Incinerator Now), also has its own page on Facebook against the plans for the Granville tip in Redhill, Telford.
Members of the group delivered 5,000 leaflets over the weekend in an attempt to encourage people to raise their objections to the plans.
A drop-in session will be held tonight at Priorslee Community Centre, Priorslee Avenue, between 6pm and 8pm, for people to discuss the proposed site.
A second meeting will be held tomorrow at Sheriffhales Church Hall at 6.45pm, where Doctor Dick Van Steenis will talk about the incinerator’s possible health impact.
James Hopkins, from Pain, said: “Awareness has been low across the areas we have been leafleting as when we have spoken to people they have been unaware of what is happening on their doorstep – the lack of consultation is a concern for us.”
Bosses at Sita and Cyclerval, who are behind the plans, say the incinerator would be a clean and efficient way to replace the vast amounts of rubbish being buried underground.
An outline planning application for the plant has been submitted to Telford and Wrekin Council.
Pain’s website can be found at TelfordPAIN.co.uk
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I suggest that Telford & Wrekin Borough Council ask their libraries to display copies of my A3 London map which shows the locations of ten incinerators and the 52 wards coloured red where the 2002-2006 infant mortality rates range from 9.0 per 1,000 live births to 15.1 per 1,000.
The same map also shows the 23 London wards which had zero infant deaths in the same 5-year period & these “zero” wards are coloiured green.
I’ve a second A3 map that should be displayed as it shows the wards with high & low percentages of low birth weight live births in 2003-2005 in London. The high percentage wards are red & the low ones green. When you see the maps, you’ll think that they’re very similar which isn’t surprising as the PM2.5s from incinerators cause low birthweight in addition to birth defects and infant deaths etc.
Shropshire County Council have refused to allow my maps to be displayed in their libraries and yet they also claim that they want the public to be informed.
Report abuse
Will anyone from Telford & Wrekin PCT attend the meeting at Sheriffhales and listen to Dr Dick van Steenis when he spells out the adverse health effects of PM2.5 emissions from incinerators and other industrial sources?
If Simon Conolly wishes to see the infant mortality data for electoral wards in Stoke-on-Trent and in Wolverhampton to see the variations between wards that are upwind & downwind of their respective incinerators I’ll be happy to e-mail him the set.
I’ve plenty more sets of data & the strange thing is that they all show that exposure to PM2.5s from incinerators always means high rates of infant mortality.
I’ve also a larger set of infant mortality data for London Boroughs which show that the infant death rate in Newham, which is immediately downwind of SELCHP incinerator with a SW wind, stopped falling after SELCHP started up and has remained very high ever since. It’s a different tale in Tower Hamlets borough which is due north of the incinerator and therefore gets far fewer PM2.5s from SELCHP.
The science and the data show that incinerator emissions harm health and shorten life-expectancy. Sita & Veolia know this to be a fact and that’s why they cannot get anyone to speak against Dr van Steenis in a public debate.
Report abuse
I wonder how much of the rubbish being dumped into the big hole at Granville is either recyclable waste or food waste?
Before considering an incinerator (the motivation is cash from the sale of electricity to the National Grid), better recycling awareness & facilities and possibly a biodigester for food waste, like the one in Ludlow, should be looked at.
Report abuse
It’s a shame they’ve nothing better to do than try to prevent progress.
Report abuse
I’ve e-mailed Simon Conolly today to let him know the infant mortality rates in Wolverhampton’s electoral wards upwind & downwind of the Crown Street incinerator.
I also e-mailed him the 2003-2006 infant mortality rates in some of Telford’s wards as these data are kept hidden from residents.
Jake’s wrong about the motivation as rubbish is being imported into the UK from around the world. It’s big business and if it’s incinerated then the profits of drug companies will soar as more people are chronically sick.
Check out the CRY.org.uk website and see how many of the sudden adult deaths are in locations with incinerators.
Ask Simon Conolly to publish the numbers of infant deaths in each Telford ward for the last ten years & you’ll see where the “bad” wards are.
Report abuse
This Incinerator must not be allowed to go ahead. I urge everyone to at least attend either a drop in centre meeting on Monday 20th October at the Priorslee Community Centre 6pm to 8pm. Or the Public meeting on Tuesday 21st October at 6.45pm in Sheriffhales in the Church Hall to listen to a talk by Dr Dick Van Steenis (Authority on Health Impacts). If you hear the serious HEALTH implications as I have done Along with other effects like Traffic polution and Noise levels, it will i’m afraid have an impact on us all if it goes ahead. Extra Waste will be able to be trucked into the area from others that do not have an Incinerator. TELFORDPAIN currently have a good campaigne, see the website.
Report abuse
H. St. John Peasbody – It is not about stopping progress. It is about the safety of people who are in the area affected by the ‘fall-out’ from this and all other incinerators.
Look into the science of them if the facts presented by Micahel Ryan are not enough for you.
The people against these things are not crackpots or drunks. They do an awful lot of research to arm themselves with the facts, because the people wanting to build these places are never forthcoming with the truth about them.
These things hang over an area like a death sentence. Lower house prices and more affect these areas. Wake UP! What? Don’t you think these people lie about things? Come on…
Report abuse
Seeing that priorslee is close to where the incirator is to be located i was wondering, that with all the waste thats there now in a few years time will they complain about all the VERMIN( RATS) that have come to the housing estate, and if the incinerator helps get rid off them then let them build it.
On the other hand tho there used to be one in stafford park.
Report abuse
NIMBYS. You chuck stuff away, what better way to dispose of it than burning it, controlling the emissions and getting lovely leccy without wind turbines or mining coal.
I’ll offer to dig the first sod.
Report abuse
As for the comment of H.St J P
Don’t feed the troll!
;)
Report abuse
800 hits? Thats not very many is it? 5,000 leaflets distributed and only a few hundred bothered enough to check the web site. Sounds like another case of ‘small minority’ trying to influence decisions made in the interest of the vast majority.
Report abuse
Doesn’t Andy realise that about thirty pecent of the volume of waste that’s incinerated is left as ash? What’s he going to do with that? Spread it on bread instead of Marmite?
The plasma gasification process also leaves a solid residue, but instead of being ash which blows around and can be inhaled, the process leaves “vitrified gravel” which is inert and can be safely used in road construction.
The UK could use plasma gasification to safely dispose of its waste and also safely dispose of existing landfill sites as is happening in St Lucie County, Florida.
Remember Hurricane Katrina in 2005? It was plasma gasification that was used to dispose of waste in New Orleans after Georgia Tech were asked to develop mobile plasma gasification units.
Report abuse
How about blasting all of our rubbish into outer space? A couple of well armed missiles and they could break the earth’s orbit.
Maybe in years to come we could have 2 moons in the sky and this new moon could indeed be made of cheese, old coks, supermarket wrappings,
Report abuse
Michael Ryan said:
“Jake’s wrong about the motivation as rubbish is being imported into the UK from around the world. It’s big business and if it’s incinerated then the profits of drug companies will soar as more people are chronically sick”
Are you suggesting that the real motivation is to cause illnesses and boost pharmaceutical sales? If so then that’s a dangerous allegation that verges on conspiracy theory and does nothing to lend credibility to your campaign.
I said that the motivation for building incinerators is that there’s profit to be made from the sale of cheaply generated electricity to the National Grid. Why would that be the wrong motivation by a profit-seeking company to (irresponsibly) burn waste?
Report abuse
Wake up to reality Jake and check this out.
The US introduced tougher emissions controls in 1997 which meant that US industry had to spend a fortune and denting profits. Any legislation that affects the US economy has to be costed and the White House Office of Management & Budget found that the nett savings of reducing PM2.5 emissions from industrial sources was up to 193 Billion dollars for the ten-year period 1992-2002 just due to fewer hospital visits & less days off work. The Washington Post of 27 September 2003 had a major article on this finding and no UK paper carried the story.
The US has been cleaning up industrial PM2.5 emissions while the UK has done the exact opposite & that’s why our health is in free-fall.
The current government is all for short-term gains & that’s what happens with damaging health if you ignore the overload on the NHS.
Hasn’t anyone in UK wondered why the rates of asthma & diabetes 2 are soaring? Both these conditions are major money-spinners for drug companies and both are caused by exposure to industrial PM2.5s.
If you missed the Washington Post article by Eric Pianin, you can read it via links section at http://www.ukhr.org
If you only read UK press, why didn’t you wake up to the Sunday Times articles about Alex Tovey, the former Environment Agency employee who blew the whistle on the fact that the UK ignored Interpol warnings that the UK was being targeted by criminal gangs for illegal disposal of waste and the Environment Agency kept inadequate records of imports. See articles in The Independent, 6 August 1998 & Sunday Times, 27 FEBRUARY 2000.
What about Fionnuala Bourke’s:
Sunday Mercury: THE WASTELAND EXCLUSIVE
Sunday Mercury (Birmingham, England) – Sunday, June 29, 2003
Author: FIONNUALA BOURKE
THE Midlands has become the world’s dumping ground -with thousands of tonnes of rubbish pouring in every year from as far away as Argentina and Australia.
————–
If health-damage costs of electricity generation are included, then incineration is a non-starter.
There was greater profit in electricity generation after WW2 by exporting high grade coal and getting UK residents top burn coal with a high sulphur content, leading to the infamous smogs such as in London in 1952 and elsewhere. Professor Virginia Berridge uncovered a genuine conspiracy where the actual number of London smog-related deaths was cut from 12,000 to 4,000.
The Independent: Secret plot to play down risks of air pollution
Independent, The (London, England) – Monday, December 9, 2002
Author: Steve Connor Science Editor
HAROLD MACMILLAN’S government put pressure on scientists to play down the dangers of air pollution.
———— &
The Guardian: Anti-smoking agenda caused air pollution problem to be obscured
Guardian, The (London, England) – Monday, December 9, 2002
Author: SARAH BOSELEY, HEALTH EDITOR
Governments concealed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution in the wake of the great London smog 50 years ago, and attempted to shift all the blame on to cigarette smoking, a medical historian will allege today.
————-
Report abuse
If this incinerator plan goes ahead, it won’t be any worse than the smoke fumes at the entrances to Telford Town Centre and outside every public house in the country. Let’s get it pushed through and operational.
Report abuse
Michael, you are throwing everything you have at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. What exactly am I meant to be reading in that enormous rant?
My point was that waste companies see an opportunity to make profit by burning waste and generating power – and surely that’s their motivation to want to built incinerators rather than consider the unprofitable (to them) alternatives. What’s with the insulting attacks, like “wake up to reality”…? We’re on the same side, I don’t want this incinerator either!
But if you’re still going to insist that the real motivation behind incinerators being built in the UK is a cosy, clandestine relationship between the Government and pharmaceutical companies then I suggest you keep that to yourself, because if you use that as your primary line of attack in the campaign against an incinerator in Granville then you risk making a mockery of the whole thing and we *will* see a smoke stack next to the landfill site very soon. If you’re going to win local people over then you need to steer well clear of politics and conspiracies, otherwise you risk ending up looking like a raving crackpot with your own private agenda.
Report abuse
Its really great to see people caring for their local environments. Once again its all about the money and we have the usual idiotic crowd saying meaningless things like ‘nimby’ or ‘its green’ or ‘its eco’.
This is real progress the way so many people are coming together on issues like this and bypassing the politicians.
Report abuse
So how did the meeting go? Sorry I missed it.
Report abuse
H. St. John Peasbody so you want to make the problem even worse by having this incinerator built.
Report abuse
I agree with HSJP – get on with it, we can’t keep holding up this type of progress and using landfill.
Report abuse
i am all for any thing that cannot be recycled being incinerated as long as the incinerators are well away from any habitation. there are many decommissioned aerodromes in the county, one of these would do
Report abuse
Get it built. The place is a dump anyway, there should be plenty of local fuel to burn there. It wont even need to be staffed, just lock it and leave it and the local yobs will soon be in there incinerating everything in sight !
Report abuse
As a concened resident in Telford, I think people are are pulling together and are very worried about the health risks from an Incinerator. This Incinerator should not go ahead. I have looked on the TELFORDPAIN WEBSITE. 1800 visitors to date is not a small number, I think it raises very important issues.
I will be writing tomorrow to Catherine Woodward TELFORD & WREKIN PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR asking for an assessment to be carried out on the proposed Incinerator
Report abuse
yes, as I have said before, all incinerators do release toxins, dioxins and pollutants into the air, but it is only a fraction compared to the toxins, dioxins and pollutants that will be released into the air around bonfire night and no-one is calling for fireworks to be banned are they!!!
Report abuse
more toxins, dioxins and pollutants are sent into the air from fireworks around bonfire night than incinerators but nobody wants these banned do they!!!!!
Report abuse
Where were the “more toxins, dioxins and pollutants” from fireworks measured?
“get a life” is repeating an urban myth with no basis in fact.
Did get a life get a lift to Sheriffhales to hear Dr van Steenis speak?
What about Picklepie? Too busy blogging to hear the facts?
Report abuse
Incinerators burn 24hours a day and 7 days a week. So it will be releasing extra polution all the time. Everyone around the local area will be effected. In 2001 the Proposed Incenerator was stopped from opening in Kidderminster due to the fact that Recycled waste was going to be burnt (what’S the point of that?), Theatening health risks and increaseed trafic and polution to the area. Nows the time to register your protest—ACT NOW
Report abuse
Michel: Dont know who has the facts/data, but did hear on Roadio 4 a couple of years ago that there is more polution from “Bonfire night” than from Industry all year!
Getalife: I’m calling for a partial ban on firework. That is ban noisey ones. I dont see why my pets should be scared to the point where they are incontinent. Is this necessary to celebrate the execution of a Catholic? I mean would my neighbour like to listen to me banging a drum all night for several weeks to celebrate my cat getting run over?
Report abuse
Lucy, I’ve seen you tell some whoppers before, but that one about bonfire night takes the biscuit.
Report abuse
**Fleischer et al [Fleischer O., Wichmann H. e Lorenz W. (1998) ‘Release of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans by Setting Off Fireworks.’ Chemosphere, vol. 39, Nº 6, pag. 925-932:], for example concluded:
Concerning the emission of PCDD/F, the majority of the investigated pyrotechnic products proved to be harmless. The typically very small amounts of contaminations are only transferred from one sink (raw materials, paper) into another (ashes, residues). The extremely toxic 2,3,7,8 TCDD could not be detected in any of the samples. No indications were found that PCDD/F emissions from fireworks may cause air pollution. We expect that the increased background concentration detected by DYKE and COLEMAN [P. Dyke, P. Coleman, Dioxins in ambient air, bonfire night 1994, Chemosphere 34, 1191-1201 (1997) ] was mainly due to bonfires, not to fireworks.
Report abuse
I recently had an e-mail from Dr Caroline Lucas MEP to thank me for letting her know the latest about my incinerator/infant mortality research & apparently my e-mail has been copied to Green Party groups around the country.
I hope Shropshire & Staffs Green Party members have read it
Report abuse
Lucy
I have to put up with cat mess on my lawn and in my flower beds all year long thanks to people who decide to own cats irrespective of the nuisance it will cause the rest of the community they live in.
To hear you moaning about how you and your cats are inconvenienced once a year by the rest of us enjoying ourselves really is hilarious.
Go and live somewhere in the country away from other houses if you dont want to be disturbed on bonfire night. Then everyone else wont have to put up with your cats messing in their gardens and yowling in the night all year round !
Report abuse
the biggest cause of Dioxin is domestic fires because there are so many of them, so overall between them they are the biggest source, but also bbq’s and power stations and incinerators, anything which burns in the presence of oxygen emits dioxin, it is deadly in large quantities, but the risk is more pronounced in some, lactating mammals are the main ones as the stuff bioaccumulates in the fatty tissue, thus the concern about cows milk for those grazing near power plants etc, the case of the buffalo mozerella in naples recently highlighted how burning rubbish can pollute the air causing adjacent bovines to produce contaminated milk, my real concern though is pregnant women who are lactating mammals after all, there is evidence that their breasts and their milk could be contaminated and surely our rubbish and power needs must be less important important than the health of our women and children?
Come on guys, be a man, recycle more…
Report abuse
Huw: Typical Huw debating. He accuses me of porkies when he doesn’t have anything constructive to say. Previously Huw, I have offered you evidence when you “disbelieved” my eco-credentials but you declined to receive it. Not really a fair debate is it?
There are technical papers on the web, but you always descend the tone to abuse when you don’t understand them and get miffed when I do.
You are obviously still sore after you made a fool of the Green Party and their policy for a change in the law for empty dwellings when the Housing Act 2004 already has the provision in it that the Greens propose!
I would have thought that you learnt at least something from the 3rd May 2007 – seems not.
Report abuse
The following was very interesting:
“We expect that the increased background concentration detected by DYKE and COLEMAN [P. Dyke, P. Coleman, Dioxins in ambient air, bonfire night 1994, Chemosphere 34, 1191-1201 (1997) ] was mainly due to bonfires, not to fireworks.”
I wonder where measurements were taken? Not in a rural area I bet. I wonder is they bothered to check dioxins in the rest of the year?
Report abuse
There’s a rumour that Council employees are banned from incinerator meetings. I’ve just had an e-mail from Carolyn Downs to say that Shropshire County Council employees are free to attend any meetings they wish in their own time. If anyone stayed away from the Sheriffhales meeting because they were told not to go, I suggest that they speak to the Shropshire Star newsdesk which has the e-mail correspondence on this issue.
As far as I’m aware, dioxins are measured just twice a year near incinerators. There’s a 2 in 365 chance that one of the times is on 5 November if anyone fancies a bet.
Report abuse
Please visit the website of TelfordPain ‘www.TelfordPain.co.uk’and view the Dr Van Steenis presentation. It makes compelling viewing.
Report abuse
I’m pleased to read in today’s Star that Dr Catherine Woodward has told Telford & Wrekin Council that a health impact assessment is required for the proposed Granville incinerator. I hope it will be available online as soon as it is prepared so that there’s a chance for public comment before any decision taken.
I wonder if Dr Isobel Gillis has decided whether or not a health impact assessment is needed for the Harlescott incinerator?
Perhaps both doctors would do well to study rates of illness and premature deaths at electoral ward level around incinerators in Wolverhampton and Stoke-on-Trent?
Will Dr Gillis insist on a health impact assessment for the Bishops Castle biomass plant?
Report abuse
OK, ‘Lucy’.
Over to you.
Can you provide evidence for your absurd claim in #29 that ‘there is more polution from “Bonfire night” than from Industry all year!’
Thought not.
Report abuse
Michael, I have read your incinerator documentation, which you sent to me, and it does look persuasive.
Are there any other peer-reviewed scientific studies which you recommend that people read?
Report abuse
There is strong evidence that incinerators cause serious harm to peoples health. WHY, WHY, WHY should we put up with having them in this country. We are talking about irreversible health implications – for those of you that need this spelling out we are talking about dead babies, cancer, horrible nasty diseases and illness of all varieties. We do not want an incinerator in Telford, nor do we want one in Shrewsbury. If you google the word incinerator you’ll find that most of the human population doesn’t want them either. We actually believe that we have a right to breathe clean air. Sita and Veolia take your planning applications for incinerators and put a match to them. If Telford and Shrewsbury residents get their way it’ll be the only thing you see go up in smoke !
Report abuse
Dear Huw: #29 clearly stated what I had heard on Radio 4. How can I proove what I heard? Impossible.
However I can prove my eco-credentials but you continue to decline such proof – so just what is the point?
You are just selective in order to skew the debate to our own pseudo-religious beliefs.
Or do you in fact accept that my eco-credentials are true?
Report abuse
J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.
Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan.
Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T.
Department of Technology Assessment and Biostatistics, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
BACKGROUND: Great public concern about health effects of dioxins emitted from municipal solid waste incinerators has increased in Japan. This paper investigates the association of adverse reproductive outcomes with maternal residential proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators. METHODS: The association of adverse reproductive outcomes with mothers living within 10 km from 63 municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels (above 80 ng international toxic equivalents TEQ/m3) in Japan was examined. The numbers of observed cases were compared with the expected numbers calculated from national rates adjusted regionally. Observed/expected ratios were tested for decline in risk or peak-decline in risk with distance up to 10 km. RESULTS: In the study area within 10 km from the 63 municipal solid waste incinerators in 1997-1998, 225,215 live births, 3,387 fetal deaths, and 835 infant deaths were confirmed. None of the reproductive outcomes studied here showed statistically significant excess within 2 km from the incinerators. However, a statistically significant peak-decline in risk with distance from the incinerators up to 10 km was found for infant deaths (p=0.023) and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined (p=0.047), where a “peak” is detected around 1-2 km. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined. However, due to the lack of detailed exposure information to dioxins around the incinerators, the observed trend in risk should be interpreted cautiously and there is a need for further investigation to accumulate good evidence regarding the reproductive health effects of waste incinerator exposure.
Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined.
Epidemiology:Volume 18(5) SupplSeptember 2007p S125
Infant Mortality in 27 Italian Municipalities With Solid Waste Incinerators (1981-2001)
[ISEE 2007 CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS SUPPLEMENT: Abstracts]
Bianchi, F; Minichilli, F; Pierini, A; Linzalone, N; Rial, M
CNR National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Epidemiology Unit, Pisa, Italy.
ISEE-546
Objective:
Recently, an epidemiological study was carried out to verify the hypothesis of an association between infant mortality and residence near incinerators (Tango, 2004). Limits to the study were represented by rarity of death events and heterogeneity of infant mortality. However, availability of mortality data and of an incinerator database has allowed performing an exploratory investigation.
Materials and Methods:
Infant mortality was investigated over 2 periods (1981-1991, 1992-2001) in 27 municipalities with active incinerators in the 1981-2001 time frame. For each municipality the observed/expected ratio (O/E) was obtained. To calculate expected mortality, municipalities were included inside a 50-km radius circle. A pooled estimation of the O/E ratio obtained by meta-analysis was performed for the 27 municipalities. A multiple metaregression model was used to analyze the study, activity and latency periods, the incinerator burning capacity, the number of resident newborns, the residence density, the deprivation index.
Results:
Mortality analysis was performed on resident population for the whole period on approximately 250,000 infants under 1 year of age. In the overall period 1673 cases of infant mortality were observed. The pooled estimation of the O/E ratio resulted 1.04 (CI 95%: 0.97-1.11) for total cases. The multiple metaregression model showed the incinerator burning capacity as a statistically significant factor (P=0.011). Municipalities having incinerators with a burning capacity >50,000 ton/year showed a higher mortality excess (O/E=1.11, CI 95% 1.03-1.20) compared to municipalities with incinerators of <50,000 ton/year (O/E=0.95; CI 95%: 0.86-1.04).
Conclusions:
Findings call for further insight by analytic epidemiologic studies to confirm possible association between infant mortality and living near incinerators.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Report abuse
Here’s front page of Harrow Observer, 3 May 2007:
http://www.st-ig.co.uk/harrow_observer.html
& here’s article in South London Press of 4 May 2007:
http://www.st-ig.co.uk/south_london_press.html
& here’s Sunday Express article 29 April 2007:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/5688
Babies are dying in a predictable and consistent pattern where they and their parents are exposed to industrial PM2.5 emissions from incinerators and other sources.
The Harrow Observer had a full-page follow-up article on 31 May 2007 and the PCT refused to comment on the ONS data at electoral ward level for 2003-2005 which was shown in a table on page 2 of the 3 May issue.
The 1st London paper to report my research was Enfield Advertiser, whose 3-page article “THE BABY KILLER?” was printed 25 April 2007 and led to Sunday Express article.
As Shropshire Star and Express & Star are to merge, they could print ward maps of Wolveerhampton and of Stoke-on-Trent showing range of infant mortality rates and the incinerator locations.
Report abuse
‘Lucy’, Michael Ryan has mentioned a number of scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, which talk about the dangers of living close to incinerators.
After failing to provide ANY evidence for your bonfire night claim in #29, whereas Mr Ryan provides plenty to show the dangers of incinerators, I think readers of this thread have a right to ask what global-warming-denier ‘Lucy W’ means by ‘pseudo-religious beliefs’ (#43).
Report abuse
Huw: You failed to withdraw your remark that my eco-credentials are false or state which one you believe to be false so I can provide evidence which I have fequently laid down the gauntlet.
I think people understand my words quite well.
I am leaving this forum as a comment was not published (as is the right of the star) and therefore I do not feel I can add anymore in the circumstances.
By the way, why aren’t you on the Market Drayton wind farm thread telling everyone the benefits of renewables?
Report abuse
Bye, then, ‘Lucy W’, and thanks for the tip.
Report abuse
Michael,so your evidence is that newspapers print your stuff. dosent sound very scientific
Report abuse
Bye Huw, catch you on another thread no doubt. *hugs*
PS I have had a bonfire burning for over 24 hours now as everyone seems ok we me doing that. So relieved that Messers Ryan and Peach, and Dr Dick dont have an issue with that.
Going to do some more gardening and get it burning all weekend.
And of course my wood burning stove is smouldering 24/7 to keep my caravan all snug now winter is here. But it is even ,more cosier in the knowledge that the environmental campaigners approve of my behaviour.
Report abuse
Lucy W is wrong to make any assumption that bonfires are not harmful to health.
Burning wood produces harmful emissions and that’s why wood-burning is limited in certain parts of US due to health damage.
Bush fires are also very dangerous to health.
When infant mortality rates were examined in Africa, it was noticed that the rate fell when cooking was done out-of-doors and there was less exposure to emissions from cooking fires which burned wood and animal dung.
The lack of comment on your blogs by either Dr van Steenis or myself should not be construed as endorsement of your opinions.
Report abuse
Ryan: So if bonfires are so bad, why aren’t you and Dr Dick campaigning against the 30 foot high pile of recyclable pallets and other unknown waste in Donnington that is going to go up in smoke on Nov 14th?
It just doesn’t make sense to me. It sounds so irrational and emotional to form this PAIN group against industrial incinerators with advanced technology when you are so complicit with Bonfires. Typical NIMBY hypocrasy if ever there was!!
Was interesting to see your display at ASDA Donnington today, just wondered if you will be at the Donnington Bonfire preaching the evils of burning stuff?
Report abuse
The tactics of the denial industry are remarkably consistent: deny, trivialise, divert attention and attack ‘emotional’ campaigners.
Who do you work for, ‘Lucy W’?
Report abuse
Hugh: #53, You wouldn’t “believe” me if I told you, so whats the point?
Anyway, I have answered mant personal questions before and you ignore similar questions as both Dave, Brian(2) and myself have pointed out.
Debating is a two way thing, whereas you prefer interrogating.
Report abuse
Hi Lucy, you’re not imagining it and it’s not an urban myth that bonfire night is a key source for pollution and represents more pollution in one night than all EfW in a year.
I have no idea why people have been so aggressive towards you on this. You have to be mad to think that the random materials burned on bonfire night with no means to manage an effective burn other than petrol, coupled with no filtering of emissions or requirement to meet environmental standards at a national level is going to have no impact on the environment. Better yet, we then pay to take our kids and stand as close to it as possible. And what do people think happens to all the ash afterwards. I am certain that the schools do not pay for it to be taken from their playing fields to a hazardous waste landfill.
Lucy, the National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) support what you have said, as does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the UK Health Protection Agency and the United Nations Environmental Services Association (ESA).
I have the links to them if you want them, but I think this blog filters out any URLs. See below for a flavour of what they have said and for those that think I’m fibbing have a Google yourself rather than picking on me or Lucy.
The NSCA says:
A significant share of the UK’s annual dioxin emissions are released by Bonfire Night celebrations which also create a spike in levels of other pollutants as fireworks and smoke fill the sky.
According to environmental protection charity the NSCA, around 14% of the year’s emissions of dioxins can be traced back to the festival fires with particulates, carbon dioxide and sulphur compounds also seeing a surge and small amounts of highly toxic chemicals like furans, heavy metal oxides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also released by thousands of fireworks.
DEFRA say:
A study of Bonfire Night 1994 in Oxford by Dyke et al. (1997) found a fourfold increase of dioxin and furan levels in the ambient air over the course of the event. Levels in Cardiff were found to increase by a factor of 10.
Emissions of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs from bonfires may also be important. Because of the ready access to target audiences (gardening community) and target times (Bonfire Night in the UK and July bonfire season in Northern Ireland), there is also an opportunity for a useful campaign to reduce emissions of dioxins and furans from bonfires.
The UK Health Protection Agency says:
The incineration of Municipal Solid Waste accounts for less than 1% of UK emissions of dioxins, and are significantly less than the amount of dioxins released into the atmosphere on bonfire night or from accidental fires.
ESA says:
The combined emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and volatile organic carbon (VOC) from the all of the UK’s EfW facilities are significantly lower than that emitted by transport and other major industries.
Report abuse
Thank you R Nut, hope the doubting Thomas’s make themselves sick eating their humble pie now.
At the end of the day, I can tell that the air quality is attrocious around bonfire celebrations just by going outside.
But thank you again for your learned input.
So are the Greens and the PAINs going to make a stance against bonfire night? or are they just hypocritical NIMBYs of the highest order who like the idea of polluting the world for the sake of burning an effigy of a Catholic executed for his religious beliefs?
Report abuse
Well these Incinerator Hypocrits have gone vet quiet now. I think we can see them for what they are!
Report abuse
Even the Green-Guru, ‘Hugh Teach’ has read this and must be busy de-frosting the humble pie.
Report abuse
R Nut I have just checked your figures on the NSCA site.
Clicking on http://www.nsca.org.uk/ re-directed me to http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/.
I put your claims (below) (#55) into the search engine on the site.
‘more pollution in one night than all EfW in a year’
‘around 14% of the year’s emissions of dioxins can be traced back to the festival fires’
There was NO RESULT.
Report abuse
Your DEFRA reference did yield a result.
As did your HPA 1% dioxins claim.
However, I did NOT find the reference that you made to bonfire night.
Could you quote me the reference, please?
Report abuse
R Nut you referred to the Environmental Services Association as the ‘United Nations’ Environmental Services Association.
According to the ESA website, the ESA ‘represents the UK’s waste management and secondary resources industry.’
In other words this is a lobbying organisation for the waste industry.
It is not part of the UN, as you said.
Was this just a careless mistake, R Nut?
Report abuse
Hi Huw
I’m sorry you couldn’t find the quotes. I’m surprised they didn’t come up, through a Google search, that’s how I found them.
The NSCA quote comes from the following:
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12199&channel=0
The DEFRA quote comes from:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/pdf/dioxinsdomestic-final0605.pdf
The Environmental Services Association quote comes from the following:
http://www.esauk.org/waste/energy_from_waste/residue.asp
In addition, if you go to page 6 on the following link it shows that bonfire night (not including bonfires the rest of the year) in the UK contributes almost as much dioxin as all power stations. Dioxin from controlled incineration is orders of magnitude lower than bonfire night. I was wondering if they slipped household waste burning to generate electricity under power stations, but even if this is the case, to release the same annual contribution as all power stations in one night is pretty amazing.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/pdf/dioxinsreview-final0604.pdf
I can appreciate your scepticism on this, it was a shock to me is well and its something the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Managements (CIWEM) highlight in their position paper on energy from waste. Here they state:
‘the fact that about 14% of UK dioxin emissions are produced on bonfire night is probably not widely appreciated’.
http://www.ciwem.org/policy/policies/energy_recovery_from_waste.asp
I hope this answers your question
Report abuse
re #61: Lobbying: Yh. Just like Al Gore’s film “An inconvienient Truth” was made by a man who owns a Carbon Trading Company.
Can I assume that you are consistant in that you will dismiss Al Gore and his film because he stands to profit from its message as you do any other organisation who does like wise?
Report abuse
Thanks for the references RNut, which I will check in due course.
Could you first of all give some sort of comment on my point in #61 about what you called the ‘United Nations Environmental Services Association’, which was -in fact- nothing to do with the UN.
Naming an industry lobbying organisation as part of the UN is, in my book, an attempt to deceive.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only makes me more suspicicious.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, Al Gore’s film was motivated by a desire to wake international public opinion to the urgency of a phenomenon, which could lead to the deaths of millions (James Lovelock says billions) of people worldwide unless rapid, fore-sighted action is taken on a global level to avert this.
He highlighted in an extremely clear and cogent way the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community about climate change.
His activism was aimed at averting disaster and relieving the suffering of the poorest and most marginalised people in the world.
For that he won the Nobel Peace Prize and the utterly indefensible derision of anonymous, corporate-funded lobbyists, working for carbon-pumping industries.
Report abuse
It is well-documented that between 1998 and 2005 Exxon Mobil alone invested $16 million in think-tanks, astroturf campaigns and bogus research groups that argued that climate change wasn’t serious.
Report abuse
RJ; Re #62. That was very generous of you find the links.
And your penultimate line sums it up – ‘the fact that about 14% of UK dioxin emissions are produced on bonfire night is probably not widely appreciated’
However, Huw is a member of the Green Party and didn’t appreciate this does make you wonder whats the point of debating with him when all he does is ridicule such comments – simly because he is ignorant of the facts.
His answer to every learned cgallange to his views, it they are astroturfers (fake green loobyists). Well there are also “Kermits” (Green Muppets)!
Report abuse
‘Kermit’ Well you must know Al’s intentions better than me, however his Carbon Trading Company’s profits don’t go to environmental causes – they fund his love of travel by private jet!
Report abuse
Nobel’s will states, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Things started ok with Henry Durant winning for founding the Red Cross, in 1901, but Al Gore?
Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on raising public awareness of Global Warming. There has been some contention on whether the work was related to the stated purpose of the prize or not. In addition, there is much controversy surrounding his work in the area of Global Warming and, in fact, even controversy over whether Global Warming poses a real threat to mankind. Recently a UK High Court judge decreed that the government could only send a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” to every school if it was accompanied by guidelines to point out “nine scientific errors” and to counter his “one-sided views”. In his film, Al Gore called on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. In August 2006, Gore’s electricity bills revealed that in one MONTH he burned through 22,619 kilowatts – more than twice what the average family uses in an entire YEAR!!
So is Huw going to claim that the High Court is an “Astroturf “ organisation?
But it could have been worse, Stalin and Musolini were both nominated – or would it have been any worse?
Report abuse
RJ, you said that a Google search found the references R Nut quoted.
Interestingly, I put ‘more pollution in one night than all EfW in a year’ into Google and top of the list was this Shropshire Star thread.
Have you any suggestions why this is the case?
Report abuse
Stalin and Mussolini were nominated by ONE person.
NEITHER of these vicious dictators won the Peace Prize, because it is the decision of the Nobel COMMITTEE (5 members nominated by the Norwegian Parliament), which counts, not the whim of an individual.
Report abuse
Could someone give some sort of comment on my point in #61 about what R Nut called (#55 paragraph 3) the ‘United Nations Environmental Services Association’?
The ESA has nothing to do with the UN.
Report abuse
Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939 by Erik Brandt, a member of the Swedish Parliament as well.
I notice Huw made his classical side-step of the High Court judgement in connection with the scientific errors and one-sidedness of Al Gores silly film.
I’m glad you pointed out that the Noble committe is chosen by politicians and so its selection is politically weighted.
However, our Judiciary is free from political pressure or influences. So what do you have to say about the Judgement? Is the High Court and “astroturf” court?
Report abuse
RJ and R Nut, what do you think of ‘Lucy W’s denial of climate change?
Report abuse
I dont deny climate change and have made that very clear in the past and recently. That probably why Rj & R Nut haven’t responded to Kermit.
Report abuse
However I think the “wider audience” is intreagued to hear what Mr Peach has to say about the High Court ruling that Al Gores film has scientific errors and was “one-sided” regardless of a feeble “Peace” prize.
Try answering some questions for a change Mr Peach or allow the wider audience to make inferences.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, this thread is about incinerators, not about your visceral hatred for Al Gore.
Similarly the PAIN campaign is about incinerators and the lack of consultation; not about bonfires.
I support PAIN because I believe that we should be reducing packaging at source, and increasing the recycling and/or composting of waste, not the burning of it.
Even if the quantities of highly toxic dioxins released are small, that is not going to reassure those who live nearby, is it?
These toxins persist in the body for years, and no-one wants to live near a plant, which releases dioxins near them.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) includes the following quotation on its November 2007 dioxin fact-sheet, which I think is much more salient to this debate than ‘Lucy W’ offensive comments about the Nobel Peace Prize, which are there to divert attention.
‘In terms of dioxin release into the environment, waste incinerators (solid waste and hospital waste) are often the worst culprits, due to incomplete burning.’
( http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html )
It goes on to say ‘Long-term exposure is linked to impairment of the immune system, the developing nervous system, the endocrine system and reproductive functions. Chronic exposure of animals to dioxins has resulted in several types of cancer. TCDD was evaluated by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 1997. Based on animal data and on human epidemiology data, TCDD was classified by IARC as a “known human carcinogen”.
Surely waste industry lobbying bodies like the Environmental Services Association* should be first and foremost concerned with their OWN impact on the environment, notwithstanding the thought-provoking information they produce about bonfires.
Could someone from the waste industry please explain, though, why if you put the words ‘bonfire night more pollution in one night than all EfW in a year’ into a search engine, the top entry is THIS Shropshire Star thread?
What does that say about the credibility of this statement?
Report abuse
Michael, possibly the way the search engine works (i.e. most recent first). I wouldnt read too much into that. Its also the reason why you cant rely on the internet for research. any old tosh gets published on the web.
Report abuse
Michael, i was under the impression that Dioxin isnt the big issue anymore. I cant remember where i read it, but Germany has stacks of incinerators and their background Dioxin has dropped through the floor. I think they also pointed out you get more exposure from a coal BBQ then a new incinerator (Albeit i dont spend every day infront of a BBQ).
Isnt particulate matter the big health risk now?
Report abuse
Martin, I disagree with you about the internet.
Some blogs are obviously unreliable, particularly the anonymous ones.
However, if you get your data from a reliable source, a reputable magazine or newspaper, scientific journal, a trusted TV news source or a well-known public figure with a reputation for accuracy and honesty, then the internet is clearly a resource with immense potential to connect, educate, enlighten and entertain people.
On the subject of Germany, according to a Spiegel magazine article from 21st Feb 2007, there is growing public opposition to Germany’s incinerators, which -you are right to say- has lots of incinerators.
The German public has discovered that Germany’s high-tech incinerators only make economic sense if they are used at or near full capacity.
This means they are importing hazardous waste, like toxic sludge, munitions waste, pesticides, asbestos and solvents from all over the world.
Martin, you say that ‘background Dioxin has dropped through the floor’.
However, according to this Spiegel article, ‘scientists insist there is no such thing as hazardous waste combustion without harmful emissions. Harry Rosin, a professor of medical microbiology, even thinks the statements issued by the industry are “stultifying nonsense.”
Even the best facilities release carcinogenic particles into the air, he says, adding that sooner or later, the dirt comes back to the ground, where the molecules are then eaten by grazing cows, thereby returning into the food chain. When that has happened, even tiny amounts of toxins are enough to harm human health, Rosin says.’
On the subject of particulates, is this not an attempt to divert attention from the subject of this thread?
By the way, my name is Huw, not Michael.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, my response to your Al Gore red herring is http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/23/fears-raised-over-speeding/ #241
…or this debate with anthropogenic climate change denialist, Ken Adams when the court case first happened.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/10/11/writer-fails-to-note-evidence/
Report abuse
Could you possibly respond to the WHO fact-sheet information now, ‘Lucy W’.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html
The World Health Organisation did not seem to share your opinion that the focus should be on bonfires.
Report abuse