Apparently a study in Japan once revealed much higher levels of suicide in Carp down wind of incinerators…

Report abuse

Does John also think the government were right in saying that the nuclear testing on the Christmas Islands were safe????? Has John seen the medical reports of those living down wind of the existing incinerators?

Report abuse

Michael Ryan’s and Dr van Steenis’s numerous maps, research, reports, references, etc can be accessed on our WebBlog

and all other relavant issues; other peer reviewed reports/research/expert views,media clips, Norfolks solutions to date,several modern alternative residual technologies available.

At the end of the day ; folk have to make their own minds up.

Report abuse

If the council allow the proposal are they going to pay any compensation to existing home owners in the area for any pollution and clean up required in the future due to any contamination which may be caused, also have they considered what impact it will have to house valuations in the area and whether lenders may now say that due to the close proximity of the site that they are not willing to lend against such a property?

Report abuse

Grey, your ‘either landfill or incineration’ question in#5 is a false dilemma, isn’t it?

Aren’t you forgetting recycling?

The UK recycles less than HALF of what the Germans and the Dutch achieve.

We should be re-using and recycling resources more, not sending them into the atmosphere.

Report abuse

Clearly its a grey area because its about long term exposure over time and there’s not enough research out there, but literally walking past one isnt going to make you drop down dead from dioxin, not like that Ukraine president dude, he was spiked with a truly massive dose, but the thing is when people live around them for a long time, and maybe have other risk factors like smoking etc, also i understand the farmers concern because it accumulates in fatty tissues, especially in pigs and cows and things, if you then also happen to me a meat and dairy fan, and you smoke, and you live next to the incinerator, then yes you will have your life shortened, obviously thats terrible but the powers that be have to weigh up that risk against the massive benefit of reduced landfill and free electricity for all the neighbouring housing

Report abuse

Huw, Dioxin is toxic, but it is my understanding that what comes out of new incinerators is not significant. you get far more significant exposure from day to day activities such as cooking.

Thats why people have now started to chase the particulate matter issue instead. But again, there are far more signinificant sources out there like cars.

I have been trying to find a single credible / robust scientific study that proves modern incinerators cause poor health. so far, i got zip. even that Japanese study you mentioned concludes that it couldnt attribute health risk to incinerators.

Report abuse

peter

all combustion forms dioxins

so it may not be advertised but yes the incinerator will put out dioxins it would be impossible for it not to

Report abuse

Jo your right, all burning forms dioxin, but modern incinerators have a controlled burn set at a temperature that reduces dioxin formation and then has millions of pounds worth of filtering equipment that scrubs the air to strict environmental limits.

You need to think about how much these incinerators actually pump out, in reality it’s far less than industry or power stations (as they don’t have to abide by the same standards) and even lower than domestic sources such as bonfires.

That’s why dioxin isn’t successfully raised as a reason to oppose these things.

Report abuse

loony tree hugging liberals want green electricity but they dont like the Swedish model of how to ween yourself off oil

its simple greenies a healthy diet of nuclear and energy from waste, good old fashioned power from steam, transported round the country, just without fossil fuels to make the steam in the first place

that’s what you wanted isnt it greenies? no?

hahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahh, now eat your words you socialists do gooders

Report abuse

Peter, I wouldn’t call bringing salient information into the public domain ‘grossly exaggerating a threat’.

I would call it asking important questions.

My opposition to this incinerator was primarily motivated by a desire to avoid recycling being undermined.

However, since becoming involved with these debates, and having seen the way that health concerns are treated with the same contempt as the peer-reviewed science of climate change, I have become more deeply interested in the health side of things.

The outrageous way that Michael Ryan is treated by fellow posters has heightened my interest in getting to the truth of the matter. And the bullying tactics used against him make me more keen to stand up to those who dole it out.

People are concerned about this ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/03/mps-survey-reveals-79-against-burner/ ) and they need to have their concerns answered in a courteous way, by officials who treat them with respect.

Mrs Jones’s concerns about her farm are genuine.

90% of dioxins enter our bodies through the food chain, according to the WHO.

New Scientist magazine did a feature last year on diabetes, which is epidemic in the 21st century (15 September 2008, Could the diabetes epidemic be down to pollution?).

‘According to a small but growing group of scientists … the real culprit [for diabetes] is a family of toxic chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants, or POPs.’

‘For most people, POPs are inescapable: meat, fish and dairy products all contain them. They enter the food chain from sources such as pesticides, chemical manufacturing and INCINERATED WASTE (my capitals), and accumulate in animals higher up in the chain. Once in the body they take up residence in fat.’

I know this is NOT PROVEN.

However, I think that Mrs Jones, who produces food for our consumption, deserves to be treated with respect not the sort of abuse that Mr J doles out.

Report abuse

All this recycling is nonsense. It was on the BBC tonite that experts are undecided as to if the “environmental cost” of recycling, (i.e. collecting, processing, refining) is less than making from natural resources.

Still I do my bit, by heating my home on waste wood that other people throw away, and I don’t go out of my way to collect this recycling material, so zero environmental cost there.

Of course I don’t like to go on about it as it upsets greenies who have a carbon foot print the size of Al Gore’s.

Report abuse

Hi Huw, nope, not a yank. originally from leafy Surrey, but became interested in the incinerator debate after hearing about the Newhaven incinerator.

I find it weird that we have got into a situation where the general public believe that they are more informed than health specialists and that there is some form of conspiracy to cover the health risk up.

Rob, on point number 25, you said that there are several peer reviewed studies of biomarkers around modern incinerators. Could you post the names of the studies, as I am keen to read.

Report abuse

Howdy, Ryan.

What do you make of contribution #1 (‘the fumes will be clean, nothing will be toxic’)?

How reassuring do you think residents will find that coming from the abusive Mr J?

You said, ‘I find it weird that we have got into a situation where the general public believe that they are more informed than health specialists’.

One member of the general public (-me-, and yes, you are right, I am NOT a health specialist-) mentioned two studies in #11.

Perhaps you could comment on these, Ryan, and tell me what the health specialists would tell me.

The prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Shrewsbury, Charles West, is definitely more of a health specialist than myself.

He is a doctor.

In a letter to the Shropshire Star on October 18th 2008, he wrote a letter stating,

October 30, 2008, he said,

‘There is good evidence from soil sampling that incinerators built over the last twenty or thirty years have increased the levels of toxic materials in the environment. The main serious pollutants from Municipal Waste Incinerators, and from hospital incinerators are dioxins which arise from burning plastics. The main pollutant from crematoria is mercury.

There is also evidence that suggests that there have been more stillbirths and fatal birth defects in areas close to incinerators and crematoria. This seems to be particularly true of older incinerators. The evidence cannot prove that these health problems are caused by pollution from the incinerators, but there is some likelihood that there is a link. The increase seems to be about one per thousand births.

In the circumstances it would seem to be irresponsible to build a new incinerator anywhere that is likely to expose pregnant mothers to the toxic waste.’

As the general public are not living up to your high standards, Ryan, perhaps you could put us right on why we are all wrong to be concerned about our health.

Report abuse

Here’s letter from today’s Daily Telegraph:

Waste produces waste
SIR – Your correspondents on waste incineration (Letters, January 30) seem either to have been taken in by propaganda from the waste industry, or to be unaware of the research regarding incineration’s environmental impact.
Although superficially an attractive option, producing energy from burning waste (EfW) is actually a very inefficient way of producing electricity. Furthermore, unlike elsewhere in Europe, waste companies in Britain are being allowed to take a typically lazy approach to EfW and rarely offer local heating to the households around their plants.
There is no such thing as a “modern, clean incinerator”. Research is beginning to show that the current generation of incinerators will have serious environmental health impacts, just as the previous generations did.
As any GCSE chemistry student should be able to tell you, burning does not decrease the mass of waste; it actually increases it. The illusion of disposal is maintained because a large proportion is “aerosolled” into the air as highly reactive and toxic gases and dust.
The remaining ash goes to landfill, the very thing we are trying to avoid.
Dr A.M. Jones 
Appleford-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

Anyone on this blog passed GCSE chemistry or a higher exam?

Report abuse

Maybe he is taking responsibility and reducing, re-using, recycling and composting.

How do you explain the unpopularity of incineration, Lucy W ? ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/03/mps-survey-reveals-79-against-burner/ )

Report abuse

Getting back to incineration, Lucy W, do you think ‘Mr J’ insulting protesters and inciting violence against them ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/19/protest-over-burner-plans/ #2 + 4 ) makes incineration more or less popular?

Report abuse

I fear that contrary to suggestions made here the Isle of Wight has enough adverse health effects already and the local council tried incinerating waste. There were complaints from farmers in the surrounding area about the adverse effects seen in their animals.
Within the next week we are told that the local council will be the first in the country to use the gasification process for waste disposal.
I understand that this is a much safer process than incineration and will, as the earlier plan was supposed to do but failed, also provide electricity for the local community.

Report abuse

When Mr J said ’someone may be tempted to run them over’ I realise that that was your “incitement” but you really are stretching things. I know this isn’t a court of law using legal definitions of incitement, but even do i don’t see that Mr J is saying “someone should run them over”.

Re the list of qualities you listed, I think they could be equally applied to both sides of the arguement, with warping other peoples word being added to it.

Face fact, your idol Al Gore, the once Menace of the Motor Industry is now officially endorsing the diesel Audi A6. I for one respect that he has listened to the arguements and changed his position (regardless of the fact he was paid by Audi). However some people are so entrenched, they can not reason their position but merely copy and paste other people’s arguements.
I respect that Mr J made his own point with reasoning and read it. I don’t read copy/pastes and i think many people have also menetion form time to time.

Report abuse

Dear Huw
There is more to the world that google. I am stunned that if its not on google you don’t believe it. What a sheltered life you must need.

Audi magazine Winter08 has a full page image of Al Gore (page 42) with an article titleLeading Example in which Mr Gore is endorsing the A6 luxuury saloon.

I think the problem with some anti-incinerators is they believe in the world according to google – its a small world, but bigger than google.

So think twice before you accuse your oppenents of mis-information, it just makes you look like a Kermit.

And what puzzles me, is just why would you think I would make up such a claim as the Al Gore/Audi one?

Your debating problem is you nailed your colours to Al Gore’s mast and now they are going down with his ship.

Report abuse

Lucy W is as interested in road safety as she is in the health of people living near this incinerator.

I recommend this thread http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/10/21/arson-attack-on-speed-camera/ #25.

Report abuse

How about it, everyones on about me, I wouldnt actually run some one over, but thats properly the way people feel about these protesters, I just wish they go away, and now your on about Speed cameras and road saftey, thank you Lucy for pointing out Im entitled to free speech, to the rest of you, shame. this isnt a 3rd world country, do you all want to live like the people in Africa. If not, then its about time we moved on, improve our lives to improve other peoples lives. This incinerator will mean cheaper energy, which also means the goverment will have more money to spend on public facilites.

Report abuse

Lucy W, who do you think is being hysterical?

Campaigners representing the health concerns of ordinary people or people threatening to run them over?

Report abuse