TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
7:13am Thursday 24th May 2007
Comments (138) Have your say »
A new waste incinerator could create a "fallout zone" that would shorten people's lives by up to 12 years, a leading expert has claimed.
Retired GP Dr Dick van Steenis said cancer rates are likely to soar, babies' lives will be put at risk and thousands living in a 15-mile radius of Newhaven could suffer health problems if the plant is built.
He believes the incinerator could cause a 480 per cent rise in cancer cases within 20 years - across a danger zone including Brighton and Hove, Lewes, Eastbourne, Polegate and Hailsham.
Veolia, the firm behind the incinerator, said his comments were at odds with the Health Protection Agency's conclusion that "modern well-managed waste incinerators will only make a very small contribution to background levels of air pollution".
Dr van Steenis, who has advised four parliamentary inquiries on pollution and the environment, said tens of thousands of people could suffer if the 14,000sqm site opens in 2010 as planned. He said the most damaging emissions would not be filtered out by the incinerator.
And he claimed living within 15 miles of the incinerator could lead to "sky high" rates of infant mortality, asthma and autism.
Dr van Steenis said: "The peak of health risk will be located within the first 7.5 miles so Lewes is going to take the brunt of it. Birth defects, infant deaths, asthma, autism - cases of which are five times higher in these polluted areas - heart attacks, all will rise as a result.
"Even the IQs of the children could be affected - all because of the incinerator."
East Sussex County Council chiefs approved the plans earlier this year. The Government decided not to call in the application despite a long-running campaign with nearly 15,000 written objections.
Dr van Steenis has given evidence in a number of public inquiries into incinerators and waste sites. He has campaigned for more stringent standards to apply to incinerators for 12 years after researching the health of families living around 15 different plants.
He said: "The effects were all the same - health suffers. It's not just the elderly who are dying but people in their 50s too. They have a huge impact on health."
In eastern Enfield, downwind of Britain's largest incinerator in Edmonton, London, the death rate for babies up to a year old is between 10 and 12 per thousand - more than twice the national average.
Anti-incinerator campaigner Gary Alderson said: "They are putting our lives and our children's lives at risk. Incineration is not the way forward and there needs to be an immediate rethink."
Veolia last night maintained that the Newhaven plant would be safe and said it could not find a report that supported the claims of Dr van Steenis. A spokesman said Veolia could assure people that the proposed energy recovery facility in Newhaven was safe.
He said: "The Environment Agency has granted the facility a pollution prevention and control permit and has stated that this facility does not cause a threat to the environment or human health'."
Rick H, Hove says...
10:25am Thu 24 May 07
Eiblesh Coakley, Hove says...
10:33am Thu 24 May 07
kathy robson, australia says...
10:44am Thu 24 May 07
Dr. D. van Steenis, Mid Wales says...
11:19am Thu 24 May 07
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
12:02pm Thu 24 May 07
Marc, Brighton says...
12:34pm Thu 24 May 07
Andrew, Patcham says...
12:43pm Thu 24 May 07
Peter Smith wrote:Peter, just to test your theory, can you confirm whether or not you were able to spell neighbourhood correctly before you lived downwind of the incinerator?
I lived for 17 years 3 miles downwind of an old style incinerator. There is no evidence that my family or anybody in the neighbouthood suffered any ill affects from this.
Al, Brighton says...
12:47pm Thu 24 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:59pm Thu 24 May 07
Rick H, Hove says...
1:41pm Thu 24 May 07
Al, Brighton says...
1:41pm Thu 24 May 07
Lee Nicklen, Brighton says...
1:56pm Thu 24 May 07
Rick H, Hove says...
2:00pm Thu 24 May 07
Dr. D. van Steenis wrote:OK then Dr van Steenis....time to 'fess up. Which of the wards are you talking about here? And then we can take a look at how 'rich' or 'deprived' that ward is. Looks to me that you're making claims without backing them up with evidence.
The highest level of infant mortality downwind of the Edmonton incinerator is in a rich ward just as Harrow from the Colnbrook incinerator. The high rates of infant mortality are identical downwind of just 15 UK incinerators ramdomly chosen similar to other PM2.5 emitting installations like cement works burning waste, oil refineries etc.Detailed studies & reports in the medical literature back up my report published today. DEFRA & the Health Protection Agency have no data or reports in peer-reviewed journals as they issue "spin" not facts.
Rick H, Hove says...
2:05pm Thu 24 May 07
Michael Ryan wrote:Ok then Mr Ryan...show us a report that shows that there is a direct causal link between the siting waste incinerators and increased infant mortality. And I'm talking about a proper statistical analysis showing the link. And, no I don't work for the industry, I'm just tired of scare mongering from so called 'professionals' who make claims then fail to back them up. And whilst I can't afford a new car for you, I'm happy to stump up a beer or three (or maybe a small donation to a nominated charity of your choice).
I am the person who has analysed the ONS infant mortality data around many sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions in England & Wales and I have consistently found elevated rates of infant deaths in the electoral wards downwind of incinerators compared with upwind. I\'d like a newer car, and wonder if some of those who are so confident that there is no provable link between incinerator emissions and elevated rates of infant deaths would like to club together and wager me the price of a nice new Audi TT that they are correct and that I am wrong? I doubt if anyone connected with the incinerator industry wishes to take up my challenge because they know that I\'m right and must have been wondering ho long it would be before they were found out. Remember that I\'ve already got all the data by electoral ward for the whole of England & Wales. Check out more about incinerators at www.ukhr.org and read Dr van Steenis\' reports listed at the botom of the home page at www.countrydoctor.co .uk Kind regards, Michael Ryan,
Phil, says...
2:23pm Thu 24 May 07
harry house, Brighton says...
2:27pm Thu 24 May 07
Marc, Brighton says...
4:56pm Thu 24 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:29pm Thu 24 May 07
Mr J Pine, Newhaven says...
9:20pm Thu 24 May 07
mazza, NEWHAVEN says...
9:35pm Thu 24 May 07
mazza, Newhaven says...
10:08pm Thu 24 May 07
mazza wrote:Just realised that I've spelt proposed wrong oops!
Dear Mr Pine, Please look at the Green issues of the Argus forum & you will see that I put a posting in it on the PROPOSSED INCINERATOR FOR NEWHAVEN last night, quite a coincidence don't you think?
Ponders End Massive, says...
10:35pm Thu 24 May 07
Rick H wrote:You lay off Enfield - it was never that bad.
More alarmist nonsense from the NIMBY brigade! Modern incinerators are clean and efficient, especially when coupled with a combined heat/power system. And as for eastern Enfield having an infant mortality twice the national average - I recall that area (very close to where I grew up and lived for 25 years) as being a deprived area, with high rates of crime, unemployment and a large immigrant population. To link the infant mortality rate directly to the Edmonton incinerator without considering any confounding variable is very poor science.
Dr. D. van Steenis, MidWales says...
11:21pm Thu 24 May 07
Rick H wrote:There is no space in the paper for my 338 references but Rick could begin by reading the study by Dr. Perera of Columbia University New York & the heart attack study in the 1/2/07 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Why not invite myself & Michael Ryan to debate the company & PCT??? Then lots of proof can be oresented.
...and as I suspected, a quick review of the wesbite is enought to
convince me that this is the same old alarmist nonsense. The 'report'
on the website is no such thing - it is an unreferened and unattributed
'summary'. If the report is that important and 'true' why not post the
whole thing on the site?
Terry, Kent says...
1:44am Fri 25 May 07
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
9:39am Fri 25 May 07
Rick H, Hove says...
10:01am Fri 25 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:09pm Fri 25 May 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
1:15pm Fri 25 May 07
Jostein, Sheffield says...
2:22pm Fri 25 May 07
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
3:06pm Fri 25 May 07
Andrew, says...
4:16pm Fri 25 May 07
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
4:59pm Fri 25 May 07
Andrew, says...
5:56pm Fri 25 May 07
Phil, says...
7:44pm Fri 25 May 07
john, BN2 says...
10:40pm Fri 25 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:31am Sat 26 May 07
Rod Main, Newhaven says...
4:04pm Sat 26 May 07
Rod Main, Newhaven says...
4:21pm Sat 26 May 07
Ian, currently yorkshire says...
2:10am Sun 27 May 07
MARION GOODWIN, Newhaven says...
9:11am Sun 27 May 07
Ian wrote:Then I'm quite sure that the residents of Newhaven would be more than happy for that lecturer and any others who are more worried about the qualities of the schools to have the Incinerator built on their doorstep and NOT OURS.
I feel it should be pointed out that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate and monitor discharges from incinerators and do shut them down if there not up to scratch, (I spent 3-4 months helping finish the case to restart one in a remote location last financial year). So analysing the discharge limits (and how often there broken) against the health factors your measuring, from the incinerators your looking at, would be worthwhile as it will provide more detail to the study (you should be able to get the data from the EA). Ill keep my industry brainwash options to the fact I know a Chemical Engineering lecture who stated, I wouldnt care if there was a incinerator or a nuclear power station near my home, Id be more worried about the quality of the schools
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:41pm Sun 27 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:49am Mon 28 May 07
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
5:48am Tue 29 May 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:28am Tue 29 May 07
Chris Wick, Worthing says...
4:31pm Tue 29 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
4:33pm Tue 29 May 07
Phil, says...
5:05pm Tue 29 May 07
Phil wrote:Michael
Michael You have still not answered this simple question; What qualifications do you hold that allow you to purport to be an expert in this field? What academic research have YOU compiled and where is it located? Who has financed this research? The same also goes for the Doctor. These are simple questions and require simple answers. Please do not be tempted to patronise or belittle me just because I question you. You have been prone to that is replies to others who question you. Thank you
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
5:45pm Tue 29 May 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:49pm Tue 29 May 07
rob whittle, norwich says...
6:10pm Tue 29 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:56pm Tue 29 May 07
Phil, says...
8:55pm Tue 29 May 07
Phil wrote:Michael,
Phil wrote: Michael You have still not answered this simple question; What qualifications do you hold that allow you to purport to be an expert in this field? What academic research have YOU compiled and where is it located? Who has financed this research? The same also goes for the Doctor. These are simple questions and require simple answers. Please do not be tempted to patronise or belittle me just because I question you. You have been prone to that is replies to others who question you. Thank youMichael Again you do not seem to have answered this. I will repeat this request on a daily basis until you answer Kind regards Phil
Dr. D. van Steenis MBBS, Mid Wales says...
10:54pm Tue 29 May 07
Terry Ellis wrote:Dear Terry
I would be interested to see the evidence that shows a causal link
between emissions of PM2.5 (or other fraction) from incinerators and
premature death. There are so many sources of PM that it is almost
impossible to ascertain which of the sources (if any) the causal one
is. I am not an expert in the health impacts of pollution, but when
road vehicles contribute so greatly to the total emissions of PM, I am
struggling to imagine how you can, without hesitation, it seems,
attribute precisely the effect of incinerators on human health.
While I understand that incinerators appear undesirable in many cases,
I think that they are an essential part of the energy ecosystem we need
and can aid reduce the landfill burden this part of the world faces.
Please, if you could direct me to a published source of your research I
would be most interested to read it.
rob whittle, Norwich says...
10:56pm Tue 29 May 07
Dr. D. van Steenis MBBS, Mid Wales says...
11:04pm Tue 29 May 07
Andrew wrote:Andrew must be a government stooge and is foolhardy to believe DEFRA or HPA who do not have a single proper journal reference or data between them. I met 2 HPA doctors who did not hasve a clue about incinerators or PM2.5s or toxicology. I believe in THE EVIDENCE not government quango spin that has resulted in invalidy benefits payout rising 20 TIMES under current government. It is time for HPA & DEFRA to start getting anxiety at being caught out!!!
Just a quick point, perceived risk can result in increased stress;
anxiety and can even lead to changes in behaviour and actual health
effects. Alarmist, unsubstantiated and completely unbalanced articles
may make good sales but are not in the interest of public health. For
those of you who want to know the facts from independent health experts
qualified to discuss this topic have a look at the UK Health Protection
Agencies Position Paper at the following site.
http://www.hpa.org.u
k/chemicals/ippc/inc
ineration_posn_state
ment.pdf
If still in doubt, then have a look at the HPA response to another
alarmist document at the following site.
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPA.pdf
I can appreciate that people do not want to be living close to such
facilities, but its important to note that they: · reduce the level of
waste sent to landfill and associated road movements (emissions, risk
of road traffic accidents etc); · redeem significant levels of energy
that would have required generation with subsequent environmental and
health costs (refinement, transportation and combustion of fuels); and
· can in certain cases include district heating systems, reducing the
requirement for the consumption of fuels to heat neighbourhoods.
Ultimately, it is our responsibility to reduce the level of waste we
produce. However, if people would rather not redeem energy that would
otherwise be lost to landfill, are still concerned with alarmist
reports from individuals with no experience in air quality or waste
management and believe Landfill poses no risk to environment and
health, then I recommend you have a look at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review of environmental and health
effects of waste management.
http://www.defra.gov
.uk/environment/wast
e/research/health/pd
f/health-summary.pdf
rob whittle, norwich says...
11:38pm Tue 29 May 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:35am Wed 30 May 07
Phil, says...
11:16am Wed 30 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:31pm Wed 30 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
3:22pm Wed 30 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
3:59pm Wed 30 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
5:34pm Wed 30 May 07
Phil, says...
5:58pm Wed 30 May 07
JANICE, newhaven says...
10:34pm Wed 30 May 07
rob whittle, Norwich says...
2:37am Thu 31 May 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:41pm Thu 31 May 07
Phil, says...
5:02pm Thu 31 May 07
JANICE, newhaven says...
5:27pm Thu 31 May 07
rob whittle, norwich says...
6:13pm Thu 31 May 07
phil, says...
6:59pm Thu 31 May 07
rob whittle wrote:For too long this country has fallen fowl of governments who ride over the populations wishes.
Phil If you have done your research, you will find the following: Michael Ryan BSc, C Eng, MICE Other than this is pointless exercise IMHO. You seem to want something more/ else and seemed be shouting yourself in your posts. Just a point. You must appreciate Michael Ryan has been on the case for over 5 years, meeting quite a number of posters with malevalent and covert intentions. He probably doesn't want unquestioning beleivers/ mates; just people who look at the facts (ward data) and make their own mind up, stand up and be counted. Janine I agree. In Norfolk we are pushing for more AD (Bio-Digesters) to take kitchen caddy food waste. The new English Waste Strategy last week was pushing for this which was hopeful.
Dr. D. van Steenis MBBS, Mid Wales says...
9:14pm Thu 31 May 07
Chris Wick wrote:Chris Wick is living in the land of deception. I was present with 5 public health directors & 2 HPA doctors all of whom admitted they knew NOTHING about the subject. The HPA working papers "for internal use only" DO NOT EVEN MENTION HEALTH & are just rubbish. The HPA 2005 poisition is to stick to a frasudulent "study" of 1960s incinerators adjusting data & only looking at cancers within 10 years (when most are diagnosed in under 15 years) to fiddle the findings to almost nil That "study" is published by another government quango. The EA do NOT regulate as they do not have stack top or community PM2.5 monitors. It is only PM2.5s thast enter the lungs & cause the health damage.Chris Wick hence is not protecting poublic health at all.
The Environment Agency regulates municipal waste incinerators in
England and Wales and it is our job to ensure that they do not cause
significant harm to human health or pollution of the environment. We do
this by issuing Pollution Prevention and Control permits with strict
limits on emissions.
To assess the impact on health we carry out computer modelling to
determine the maximum levels of key airborne pollutants at ground
level. These are compared with air quality standards. The results of
our modelling for Newhaven were shared with health professionals at the
Primary Care Trust and Health Protection Agency. The Health Protection
Agencys view on municipal incinerators is summarised in a position
statement available on their website. After reviewing of available
evidence in 2005 they concluded that: Incinerators emit
pollutants into the environment but provided they comply with modern
regulatory requirements, such as the Waste Incineration Directive, they
should contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants
in ambient air. Epidemiological studies, and risk estimates based on
estimated exposures, indicate that the emissions from such incinerators
have little effect on health. For Newhaven our modelling has
confirmed that levels of airborne pollutants will not be significant,
providing the plant is operated in accordance with our permit. We will
be closely monitoring the plant to ensure this is the case, and have
the power to shut the plant down should it be warranted. We welcome
scientific evidence that helps us to understand the potential effect of
incineration on health. If Dr Steenis, or others have new evidence it
should be sent to the Environment Agency and the Health Protection
Agency for evaluation. If the evidence is compelling we can use it to
review how we permit and regulate plants such as Newhaven. You can find
out more about the permitting process, and see the responses from the
Primary Care Trust and Health Protection Agency by visiting our
website. http://www.environme
nt-agency.gov.uk/reg
ions/southern/201793
/1297536/?lang=_e
Chris Wick
Environment Manager
Environment Agency
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
10:35pm Thu 31 May 07
Warren, BN2 says...
11:40pm Thu 31 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
11:44pm Thu 31 May 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:26am Fri 1 Jun 07
Jan Marshall, Newhaven says...
8:49am Fri 1 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:45pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
8:54pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
9:20pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
11:28am Sat 2 Jun 07
Graham Ennis, brighton says...
11:40am Sat 2 Jun 07
JANICE, newhaven says...
10:39pm Sat 2 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
10:50am Sun 3 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:23pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
9:27pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:34am Mon 4 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
11:19am Mon 4 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
3:43pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:35pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Dr. D. van Steenis MBBS, Mid Wales says...
8:21pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Andrew wrote:Andrew has not checked medical journals or the Health Effects Institute which all prove deprivation does NOT cause the effects of PM2.5 exposure. Heart attacks happen from just 7.7ug/m3 short term. I have UK PM2.5 readings in school playgrounds of 150ug/m3 month average and 600ug/m3 day reading. The infant death rate is a taster of the adult deaths that follow. eg in Slough PCT area there was a 11 year drop in lifespan within 11 years of the incinerator built 1990 from heart attacks etc. I am published in 4 peer-reviewed medical journals on these matters.
Michael
You mention range of PM2.5. Is this taken from the air quality
modelling? If so please can you tell me what the emission concentration
from the stack was, or better yet what the actual resident exposure
was.
Without such information you are making a very big leap assuming that
this is the cause for low birth weight.
I believe both Dr Dick van Steenis and yourself have also pointed out
that such facilities are frequently located in proximity to relatively
deprived communities. Are you aware as to the linkages with relative
deprivation, inequality, lifestyle and subsequent poor health? In fact
there are associations of relative deprivation and low birth weight.
I have to admit, I originally found this forum quite interesting and a
real opportunity to identify and address both perceived and actual
risks from such facilities. However, following some of the
unsubstantiated comments trying to scaremonger people into believing
the proposed facility is equal to terrorism (jumbo-jet loads of
children affected) and the level of venom within responses I believe
this forum has ended.
Thanks for all those involved and please try and base public
information with some form of robust evidence.
Andrew
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:36am Wed 6 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:42pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:23pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:43pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
7:05pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
7:24pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
8:00pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:22pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:46pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:23pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:36pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:12am Sat 9 Jun 07
graham ennis, Brighton says...
12:24pm Sat 9 Jun 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:33am Thu 14 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
2:49pm Thu 14 Jun 07
JANICE, newhaven says...
9:32pm Sat 16 Jun 07
Maz, Newhaven says...
9:28pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
8:31pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
3:13pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
6:01pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
8:33pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
9:07pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:26pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:36pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
11:59am Sun 8 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:40am Mon 9 Jul 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:49pm Sat 21 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:18am Mon 23 Jul 07
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
12:40pm Mon 23 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
2:35pm Mon 23 Jul 07
Andrew wrote:Afternoon Andrew,
Morning Michael. Im getting used to your, say we say unique people skills. Its fair to say that my grasp of the English language may not be up to your own standards, so I will do my best to keep this short, sweet and without malice. Your document has a critique from the Department of health stapled on the back saying as politely as possible that you are wrong. The Telford Primary Care Trust did their own study on your research and had it reviewed by an independent expert, who again said as politely as possible that you are wrong. I have also obtained the same data you applied and mapped 2005 infant mortality at the ward level though GIS (a computer based geographic information system), such mapping again indicated that you are wrong. There is simply no justification to your claims and you have not taken into account other risk factors for infant mortality (young mothers, ethnicity, lifestyle and socio economic status). Im sorry Michael, I do admire you for the strength of your conviction. But you are actually causing more harm than good. Some of the claims you and Dr van Steenis have put forward have significantly and needlessly raised community anxiety and fear. Worse yet, by forcing Primary Care Trusts to address and respond to your claims you are actually spending their budgets that would have been better spent on the community.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
4:03pm Mon 23 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:34am Tue 24 Jul 07
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
1:39pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
2:09pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
3:15pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
3:46pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
4:18pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Joëlle van Tinteren, says...
5:01pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Joëlle van Tinteren, says...
5:19pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:42pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:57am Wed 25 Jul 07
A.Dent, Bristol says...
12:41am Tue 9 Oct 07
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:26pm Fri 19 Oct 07
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
1:21pm Thu 25 Oct 07
Kim, Canada says...
2:01pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Keith, Offshore says...
9:53pm Mon 11 Feb 08
chumdan, derby says...
12:26am Sat 15 Nov 08
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for Jobs in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley and more...
Search Now »
Find the right person in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley...
Search Now »
Search for Homes in Brighton, Worthing, Hove, Lewes...
Search Now »
Search for Cars in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Worthing, Crawley...
Search Now »
Peter Smith, Saltdean says...
8:29am Thu 24 May 07