Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Expert claims incinerator will cause baby deaths
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'."
Your Say YourThe Argus
Rick H, Hove says...
10:25am Thu 24 May 07
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.
Eiblesh Coakley, Hove says...
10:33am Thu 24 May 07
Incinerators are only as good as their built components. Combusting plastics and other toxic substances will lead to pollution. Yes I think we can expect a rise in airborne irritants. The only answer is to drastically cut down on our wasteful consumerist,over packaged lives and recycle , reduce and reuse. The only reason there will be an incinerator is because of the huge amount of waste people at the moment produce.
kathy robson, australia says...
10:44am Thu 24 May 07
when i read this article I thought it was about cremations ...that i don't have a problem with...it also eliminates health problems
Dr. D. van Steenis, Mid Wales says...
11:19am Thu 24 May 07
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.
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
12:02pm Thu 24 May 07
Dr. van Steenis, as you rightly point out there are miriad sources of pollutants, with PM2.5 being one of the least understood and subject to future legislation. Having lived in the shadow of a waste incinerator myself for some years I can't say that I have noticed any adverse effects myself, although clearly I don't have the benefit of conducting longitudinal studies or source apportionment of ambient air. However, we all need energy, and waste is one viable source with established technology that is subject to some of the most stringent emission limits of any technology. Maybe if we recycled more and consumed less we wouldn't need to have incinerators in the first place. As I stated though, we need energy so I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Government's announcement today that one of the proposed sites for nuclear is... Brighton. Would you also be opposed to this installation on the grounds of air pollution?
Marc, Brighton says...
12:34pm Thu 24 May 07
I wonder what qualifies Dr van Steenis as an expert in this matter, it would be helpful before publishing alarmist claims such as this to submit his report to a full and detailed scientific examination. I wonder if it is any better that these same materials lie in landfill with the risk that the non-filtered pollutants get into the ground and water sources. Of course it is better that we focus on waste reduction and recycling however that is not the full answer in our consumerist society.
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.
Thanks.
Al, Brighton says...
12:47pm Thu 24 May 07
A agree, since when did a retired GP become an 'expert' on pullution? I thought GP's treated people for illness...
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:59pm Thu 24 May 07
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,
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,
Rick H, Hove says...
1:41pm Thu 24 May 07
...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?
Al, Brighton says...
1:41pm Thu 24 May 07
Trust 'Michael Ryan' to 'shoot down' what some of us said...
Lee Nicklen, Brighton says...
1:56pm Thu 24 May 07
Perhaps the government could take a few tips from Australia and stop wasting the methane gas which is released from landfill sites.
Someone needs to guide our governments a little better. I really do question their past education if they cannot initiate with other world governments and learn from how they are tapping into other natural sources of energy.
Methane to Markets Landfill Gas Technical Subcommittee: Australias first LFG project commenced in 1986. The 120 kW facility was operated by a local government waste disposal authority in Sydney, New South Wales. There are now 402 renewable energy generators currently in operation in Australia, with a combined capacity of 9082 MW.
In 2001/2002, LFG projects contributed 416 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity generation, representing AU $17 million in sales, out of a total of 16,763 GWh of generation from renewable sources.
Someone needs to guide our governments a little better. I really do question their past education if they cannot initiate with other world governments and learn from how they are tapping into other natural sources of energy.
Methane to Markets Landfill Gas Technical Subcommittee: Australias first LFG project commenced in 1986. The 120 kW facility was operated by a local government waste disposal authority in Sydney, New South Wales. There are now 402 renewable energy generators currently in operation in Australia, with a combined capacity of 9082 MW.
In 2001/2002, LFG projects contributed 416 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity generation, representing AU $17 million in sales, out of a total of 16,763 GWh of generation from renewable sources.
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
If their claims are so bullet proof - why dont they personally fund a legal challenge against the contractors and the government.
With the evidence they have they will win hands down.
Or is it because their evidence is not as striking as they lead us to believe.
By the way - Mr Ryan -what qualifications doe you hold to deem it appropriate that we are not able to make our own minds up? Please, as listed above provide all the details and proof for us to look at.
Secondly - the Dr appears to have gone quiet - again what qualifications do you have that supercedes other medical experts and thus allows you the opportunity to dismiss any of their claims?
No I am not for this project, no I am not anti this or anti that. I just want you to prove to me that you are qualified to make such statements.
With the evidence they have they will win hands down.
Or is it because their evidence is not as striking as they lead us to believe.
By the way - Mr Ryan -what qualifications doe you hold to deem it appropriate that we are not able to make our own minds up? Please, as listed above provide all the details and proof for us to look at.
Secondly - the Dr appears to have gone quiet - again what qualifications do you have that supercedes other medical experts and thus allows you the opportunity to dismiss any of their claims?
No I am not for this project, no I am not anti this or anti that. I just want you to prove to me that you are qualified to make such statements.
harry house, Brighton says...
2:27pm Thu 24 May 07
You people that scaremonger are obviously getting a kick out of aiming these stories at vulnerable sectors of the community. Parochial papers like the Argus areas bad as back-street abortionists in that they profess to provide a much-needed service, and then **** the consequences of their actions for a taste of filthy lucre. The Argus is good at stirring up the hornets nest, only to turn it's back on the consequences. Is this the reason that local newspapers very rarely follow up their spurious news stories.
A lapsed reader
A lapsed reader
Marc, Brighton says...
4:56pm Thu 24 May 07
It is interesting to catch up with the comments on here since my last post and they all appear sceptical in the main. Really we have to blame The Argus for shoddy and sensationalist reporting, trouble is some will question such tosh but others will take it as red. I read somewhere the other day that Australia are planning to evacuate 11m of its people because of the drought, perhaps not the Argus but I would not put it past them!
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:29pm Thu 24 May 07
I have sent the Argus sufficient "back-up" data to show that everything I have written is true.
If anyone has a complaint about the accuracy of anything written about the association between elevated infant mortality rates and exposure to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators or other industrial sources, they should make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.
Rick H seems a bright lad, but he hasn't grasped that when Dr John Snow was telling the world that contaminated water was the means of transmission of water, the so-called "experts" all thought cholera was caused by "miasma", ie the stench of sewage.
The Environment Agency and Health Protection Agency know that what I've written is true and Primary Care Trusts will not welcome any call from a journalist on this issue.
Pity Rick H wasn't at Costessey High School on 29 Jan 2007 when Dr Dick van Steenis and I lectured on incinerators. I had a set of overheads showing wards around incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry, Edmonton and Bexley which all showed elevated rates of infant deaths in the downwind wards compared with upwind.
Sixty-nine of the 625 electoral wards in Greater London had zero infant deaths during the three-year period 2003-5. Many of these "zero death wards" were where poor, s-called deprived people live and yet none of their babies have died.
Some of the very wealthy wards have had high rates of infant deaths.
I'm the first person in the UK to examine this data and have made a detailed submission to the House of Commons committee which investigated the Environment Agency. That statement of evidence was published in May 2006 and I challenge anyone to find any factual error. You'll find my statement on pages Ev202-206 and there's a link at www.ukhr.org
I hope some of you doubters have contacted the newsdesk of the Argus so that you can be identified in future articles.
This is a big, big issue which Erin Brockovich will appreciate as she has "been there, and done that" - but maybe not on such a grand scale.
If any Civil Engineers are in Brighton, maybe theu can ask ICE why they support incineration without examining any health or mortality data.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
If anyone has a complaint about the accuracy of anything written about the association between elevated infant mortality rates and exposure to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators or other industrial sources, they should make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.
Rick H seems a bright lad, but he hasn't grasped that when Dr John Snow was telling the world that contaminated water was the means of transmission of water, the so-called "experts" all thought cholera was caused by "miasma", ie the stench of sewage.
The Environment Agency and Health Protection Agency know that what I've written is true and Primary Care Trusts will not welcome any call from a journalist on this issue.
Pity Rick H wasn't at Costessey High School on 29 Jan 2007 when Dr Dick van Steenis and I lectured on incinerators. I had a set of overheads showing wards around incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry, Edmonton and Bexley which all showed elevated rates of infant deaths in the downwind wards compared with upwind.
Sixty-nine of the 625 electoral wards in Greater London had zero infant deaths during the three-year period 2003-5. Many of these "zero death wards" were where poor, s-called deprived people live and yet none of their babies have died.
Some of the very wealthy wards have had high rates of infant deaths.
I'm the first person in the UK to examine this data and have made a detailed submission to the House of Commons committee which investigated the Environment Agency. That statement of evidence was published in May 2006 and I challenge anyone to find any factual error. You'll find my statement on pages Ev202-206 and there's a link at www.ukhr.org
I hope some of you doubters have contacted the newsdesk of the Argus so that you can be identified in future articles.
This is a big, big issue which Erin Brockovich will appreciate as she has "been there, and done that" - but maybe not on such a grand scale.
If any Civil Engineers are in Brighton, maybe theu can ask ICE why they support incineration without examining any health or mortality data.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
Mr J Pine, Newhaven says...
9:20pm Thu 24 May 07
Why are the pro-incinerator folk posting on here so quick to rubbish this report?
What do they have to gain from it?
Do they have a vested interest?
Are there really so many people in favour of an incinerator on our doorstep or is it the same bloke posting & using different names?
I dont want this thing built anywhere near my home.
Even if these health risks were proved to be bogus (which I doubt) we'll still have 100's of heavy lorries thundering through the area which in its self is a risk.
If there are a few of you wanting it youre just like a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas.
LDC would be better employed fighting this proposal rather than wasting time, money & effort trying to stop a football stadium. Its time they got their priorities right
Why did ESCC approve it? & why didnt the Government call it in for a Public Enquiry?
I'd like to say a big Thank you to Dr Dick van Steenis & Michael Ryan for bringing these health risks to the public attention.
What do they have to gain from it?
Do they have a vested interest?
Are there really so many people in favour of an incinerator on our doorstep or is it the same bloke posting & using different names?
I dont want this thing built anywhere near my home.
Even if these health risks were proved to be bogus (which I doubt) we'll still have 100's of heavy lorries thundering through the area which in its self is a risk.
If there are a few of you wanting it youre just like a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas.
LDC would be better employed fighting this proposal rather than wasting time, money & effort trying to stop a football stadium. Its time they got their priorities right
Why did ESCC approve it? & why didnt the Government call it in for a Public Enquiry?
I'd like to say a big Thank you to Dr Dick van Steenis & Michael Ryan for bringing these health risks to the public attention.
mazza, NEWHAVEN says...
9:35pm Thu 24 May 07
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?
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?
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
A load of trival by alarmist who would rather have garbage delt with, as any where but their kneck of the woods.
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
9:39am Fri 25 May 07
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.
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.
Rick H, Hove says...
10:01am Fri 25 May 07
So lets summarise what we have so far: 3 direct questions unanswered; a request where we are able to access this 'peer reviewed' paper also unanswered; a vague attempt to patronise (always the sanctuary of so-called 'experts') by referring to me as a 'smart boy'; and the conceit to compare themselves to Dr J Snow and Erin Brockovich. Looks like what we've got here is what we all suspected - a couple of scare mongering malcontents who dress up their flights of fancy as fact with a thin veneer of pseudo-scientific respectability. I agree that energy recovery is not the best way to deal with waste (afterall, it wouldn't be near the bottom of the waste-reduction heirarchy if it was ie after 'reduce', 'reuse', 'recycle', 'reclaim' and 'landfill' - opps, being a smart boy again!!) but until a better technology happens what other solutions are there?
And there's nothing wrong with Enfield - I grew up and lived there for 25 years. I would just challenge the statement 'A rich ward to the east of Edmonton' - get real!
And there's nothing wrong with Enfield - I grew up and lived there for 25 years. I would just challenge the statement 'A rich ward to the east of Edmonton' - get real!
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:09pm Fri 25 May 07
If Rick H has any chums in Enfield, he'll be able to get the 3-page Enfield Advertiser article of 25 April 2007 about my research and also be able to read the follow-up letters by David Sargent of London Waste and by Kenneth Hill, of Edmonton, who lives to the west of the incinerator but who is "frequently on his my (ie Mr Hill's) computer checking wind direction becuase of that ghastly incinerator".
Mr Hill also wrote: "Fortunately for me, the winds are predominantly westerlies (ie blowing easstwards); thus it is the people who live in the Chingford and surounding areas (downwind) of the incinerator that suffer the most pollution, as you (ie Henry Ellis') article pointed out."
Ponders End ward had the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate in Enfield Borough at 12.5 infant deaths pere 1,000 live births, yet I defy anyone to prove that "deprivation" was a factor in any of the deaths in that ward.
The Waltham Forest ward with the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate was Chingford Green where the 2003-5 infant mortality rate was 17.1 per 1,000 despite it being a wealthy ward.
Chingford Green ward and Ponders End share a common boundary, and both are downwind of the Edmonton incinerator with a southwesterly wind.
Epping Forest District Council has a low average infant mortality rate for 2003-5, yet I'm sure that they wish to remain silent about the fact that one of their wards which is also downwind of Edmonton incinerator has an even higher infant mortality rate.
The London Borough of Harrow has some very wealthy wards, yet also has a ward with an infant mortality rate of 19.1 per 1,000 live births, the highest in London. If Ricky H has any chums in Harrow, he should ask for a copy of Dhruti Shah's 3-page article in the Harrow Observer of 3 May 2007, entitled "BABY KILLER?" with a picture of Colnbrook incinerator. Rick H might wonder why Harrow PCT will not give any comment on my research findings to the Harrow Observer. I suspect it's because the Harrow PCT already have access to the infant mortality rates by electoral ward and recognise that the table of infant mortality data on page 2 of the Harrow Observer undre the headline "MPs to probe worst death rate in London" is correct in every respect.
Rick, this might come as a bit of shock to you, but you are making negative comments about an issue which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.
Take a look at the articles in the two papers referred to above, and also read the South London Mercury articles by Julia Lewis, on 4th and 9th May 2007 about the SELCHP incinerator.
Anyone who has had to bury a child will be interested in this research, and they'll wonder why it's taken a Chartered Civil Engineer to "do the business" instead of a Director of Public Health, or a Department of Health employee, or some bright medical student.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Mr Hill also wrote: "Fortunately for me, the winds are predominantly westerlies (ie blowing easstwards); thus it is the people who live in the Chingford and surounding areas (downwind) of the incinerator that suffer the most pollution, as you (ie Henry Ellis') article pointed out."
Ponders End ward had the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate in Enfield Borough at 12.5 infant deaths pere 1,000 live births, yet I defy anyone to prove that "deprivation" was a factor in any of the deaths in that ward.
The Waltham Forest ward with the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate was Chingford Green where the 2003-5 infant mortality rate was 17.1 per 1,000 despite it being a wealthy ward.
Chingford Green ward and Ponders End share a common boundary, and both are downwind of the Edmonton incinerator with a southwesterly wind.
Epping Forest District Council has a low average infant mortality rate for 2003-5, yet I'm sure that they wish to remain silent about the fact that one of their wards which is also downwind of Edmonton incinerator has an even higher infant mortality rate.
The London Borough of Harrow has some very wealthy wards, yet also has a ward with an infant mortality rate of 19.1 per 1,000 live births, the highest in London. If Ricky H has any chums in Harrow, he should ask for a copy of Dhruti Shah's 3-page article in the Harrow Observer of 3 May 2007, entitled "BABY KILLER?" with a picture of Colnbrook incinerator. Rick H might wonder why Harrow PCT will not give any comment on my research findings to the Harrow Observer. I suspect it's because the Harrow PCT already have access to the infant mortality rates by electoral ward and recognise that the table of infant mortality data on page 2 of the Harrow Observer undre the headline "MPs to probe worst death rate in London" is correct in every respect.
Rick, this might come as a bit of shock to you, but you are making negative comments about an issue which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.
Take a look at the articles in the two papers referred to above, and also read the South London Mercury articles by Julia Lewis, on 4th and 9th May 2007 about the SELCHP incinerator.
Anyone who has had to bury a child will be interested in this research, and they'll wonder why it's taken a Chartered Civil Engineer to "do the business" instead of a Director of Public Health, or a Department of Health employee, or some bright medical student.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Andrew, BN2 says...
1:15pm Fri 25 May 07
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
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
Jostein, Sheffield says...
2:22pm Fri 25 May 07
So to back up his claims, Michael Ryan told us to look at 'a copy of Dhruti Shah's 3-page article in the Harrow Observer of 3 May 2007, entitled "BABY KILLER?"'
Good grief! I really hope you were being ironic there and I'm just being thick thinking you really are citing sensationalist tabloid journalism as proof.
Good grief! I really hope you were being ironic there and I'm just being thick thinking you really are citing sensationalist tabloid journalism as proof.
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
3:06pm Fri 25 May 07
Jostein, I agree.
Repeastedly with have asked for published work relating specifically this issue and yet all we have been offered is articles in local newspapers.
In addition, on the website you have cited earlier www.ukhr.org (which, may I add, I notice is registered to one Micheal Ryan - not exactly an impartial voice on this matter then), has an article which states that rural Devon has a birth defect rate "at least 39 times higher than central London". While Bexley isn't exactly central London does this not illustrate the variable nature of causes for birth defects in the UK?
Once again, I would be interested to see the data that proves there is a causal link between PM from incinerators and infant mortality (or other condition).
Repeastedly with have asked for published work relating specifically this issue and yet all we have been offered is articles in local newspapers.
In addition, on the website you have cited earlier www.ukhr.org (which, may I add, I notice is registered to one Micheal Ryan - not exactly an impartial voice on this matter then), has an article which states that rural Devon has a birth defect rate "at least 39 times higher than central London". While Bexley isn't exactly central London does this not illustrate the variable nature of causes for birth defects in the UK?
Once again, I would be interested to see the data that proves there is a causal link between PM from incinerators and infant mortality (or other condition).
Andrew, says...
4:16pm Fri 25 May 07
Terry and Jostein
The real problem is a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. There is a causal relationship of particulate matter exposure and increases in morbidity and mortality.
Clean Air for Europe, the Committee of Medical Effects from Air Pollution and the World Health Organisation have even provided exposure response mechanisms to quantify changes in risk from such exposure.
Now here is the important part, Energy from Waste facilities are not an important source for particulate matter. And before anyone starts, yes this includes Coarse (PM10), Fine (PM2.5) and Ultra fine (PM 0.1 and lower).
Energy from Waste facilities simply do not emit particulates of a level to result in any meaningful change in health.
Road vehicles are a far greater source for such emissions.
The real problem is a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. There is a causal relationship of particulate matter exposure and increases in morbidity and mortality.
Clean Air for Europe, the Committee of Medical Effects from Air Pollution and the World Health Organisation have even provided exposure response mechanisms to quantify changes in risk from such exposure.
Now here is the important part, Energy from Waste facilities are not an important source for particulate matter. And before anyone starts, yes this includes Coarse (PM10), Fine (PM2.5) and Ultra fine (PM 0.1 and lower).
Energy from Waste facilities simply do not emit particulates of a level to result in any meaningful change in health.
Road vehicles are a far greater source for such emissions.
Terry Ellis, BN2 says...
4:59pm Fri 25 May 07
Andrew,
Exactly what I was getting at, I couldn't have put it better myself.
While there is no doubt that incinerators lead to some emissions of PM, I cannot beleive they are the dominant source in urban areas with increasing numbers of diesel cars and the like. I wonder if anyone has analysed the links between the wards mentioned above and the number of 4x4 vehicles, or vehicle kilometres travelled per 100 of the population?
Exactly what I was getting at, I couldn't have put it better myself.
While there is no doubt that incinerators lead to some emissions of PM, I cannot beleive they are the dominant source in urban areas with increasing numbers of diesel cars and the like. I wonder if anyone has analysed the links between the wards mentioned above and the number of 4x4 vehicles, or vehicle kilometres travelled per 100 of the population?
Andrew, says...
5:56pm Fri 25 May 07
Terry
Not that I know of. The closest would be the London Low Emission Zone Health Impact Assessment. However, even here where a decrease in far more significant levels of Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide will be made, there is only a slight change in health effect.
I simply do not know what research has been applied that predicts this perceived catastrophic health risk. More likely, and this is a common mistake, the author has misunderstood the concepts of hazard and risk.
In short, hazard is the potential to cause harm (such as particulate matter), while risk is the likelihood of harm.
Ultimately, it is the level of exposure that defines the level of risk. Contrary to the Danger Zone put forward in the Argus the potential exposure concentrations are not of a level to constitute a significant risk to health.
Have a great Bank Holiday
Not that I know of. The closest would be the London Low Emission Zone Health Impact Assessment. However, even here where a decrease in far more significant levels of Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide will be made, there is only a slight change in health effect.
I simply do not know what research has been applied that predicts this perceived catastrophic health risk. More likely, and this is a common mistake, the author has misunderstood the concepts of hazard and risk.
In short, hazard is the potential to cause harm (such as particulate matter), while risk is the likelihood of harm.
Ultimately, it is the level of exposure that defines the level of risk. Contrary to the Danger Zone put forward in the Argus the potential exposure concentrations are not of a level to constitute a significant risk to health.
Have a great Bank Holiday
Phil, says...
7:44pm Fri 25 May 07
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
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
john, BN2 says...
10:40pm Fri 25 May 07
I've been reading these comments since they started and I'd like to add my experiences to this thread.
I am:
A Chartered Civil Engineer
Live in BN2
Was involved in the construction of the south coast's most recent incinerator plant which opened in 2005.
Yes older incinerators did cause a problem with emissions and were either closed down or upgraded (like I believe Edmonton was)in the mid 1990's to meet tighter European Regulations. Modern European technology (from the likes of CNIM and Lurgi) who are leaders in the field of energy from waste plants, is a world apart from the older incinerators we often associate the term with. (Before you ask, I don't work for either of these companies, or in the field of waste management.)
Have any of these 'experts' visited a modern plant? There may be one near them, Maidstone, Portsmouth, Southampton (Marchwood) and Chineham (Basingstoke)? They are all within a couple of hours drive of here. You can also see them on the web, through Vieola's web site if you want.
I have been fortunate enough to see at first hand the construction, operation and the modern technology involved that goes into such a plant. It's no bonfire. In fact about half of the buildings footprint is dedicated to gas cleaning (or scrubbing if you want to use the professional term).
Before I started the two year construction project, I was not an advocator of ERF, (if you want to call me that). But as an engineer I believe it has an important part to play in the management of non-recyclable waste and energy/ heat production. Yes we should adopt all the highly promoted Green processes such as reuse, recycling and reducing the amount of packaging on our products. Why can't an incinerator be seen as green too? It produces heat, electricity and the end ash products have a variety of uses.
As I say I'm not an expert in emissions, but is a retired GP? I've no problems with living near an incinerator, (the latest batch are also well designed by architects, (again I suggest you look on the web). People should be allowed to make their own informed decision on the subject, and not swayed by irresponsible tabloid journalism such as a scare story on the front page of the argus.
Unfortunately Brighton and its surroundings has a large population of nimby's when it comes to any new development, and often the public will jump onto the latest anti this and that bandwagon.
We need to invest in a diverse mix of energy production and waste management in this country for future generations and ERF can form a part of that.
If anyone wants to call me a nimby because i live in brighton then let me end with this. In the next few years I'll lose alot of my sea view to new developments in the marina right in front of me. Am I concerned - no, we need to move forward as a city. I'm more worried about the O2 mobile mast they want to erect opposite my flat, mainly as there are already four pointing into my lounge and look unsightly.
I am:
A Chartered Civil Engineer
Live in BN2
Was involved in the construction of the south coast's most recent incinerator plant which opened in 2005.
Yes older incinerators did cause a problem with emissions and were either closed down or upgraded (like I believe Edmonton was)in the mid 1990's to meet tighter European Regulations. Modern European technology (from the likes of CNIM and Lurgi) who are leaders in the field of energy from waste plants, is a world apart from the older incinerators we often associate the term with. (Before you ask, I don't work for either of these companies, or in the field of waste management.)
Have any of these 'experts' visited a modern plant? There may be one near them, Maidstone, Portsmouth, Southampton (Marchwood) and Chineham (Basingstoke)? They are all within a couple of hours drive of here. You can also see them on the web, through Vieola's web site if you want.
I have been fortunate enough to see at first hand the construction, operation and the modern technology involved that goes into such a plant. It's no bonfire. In fact about half of the buildings footprint is dedicated to gas cleaning (or scrubbing if you want to use the professional term).
Before I started the two year construction project, I was not an advocator of ERF, (if you want to call me that). But as an engineer I believe it has an important part to play in the management of non-recyclable waste and energy/ heat production. Yes we should adopt all the highly promoted Green processes such as reuse, recycling and reducing the amount of packaging on our products. Why can't an incinerator be seen as green too? It produces heat, electricity and the end ash products have a variety of uses.
As I say I'm not an expert in emissions, but is a retired GP? I've no problems with living near an incinerator, (the latest batch are also well designed by architects, (again I suggest you look on the web). People should be allowed to make their own informed decision on the subject, and not swayed by irresponsible tabloid journalism such as a scare story on the front page of the argus.
Unfortunately Brighton and its surroundings has a large population of nimby's when it comes to any new development, and often the public will jump onto the latest anti this and that bandwagon.
We need to invest in a diverse mix of energy production and waste management in this country for future generations and ERF can form a part of that.
If anyone wants to call me a nimby because i live in brighton then let me end with this. In the next few years I'll lose alot of my sea view to new developments in the marina right in front of me. Am I concerned - no, we need to move forward as a city. I'm more worried about the O2 mobile mast they want to erect opposite my flat, mainly as there are already four pointing into my lounge and look unsightly.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:31am Sat 26 May 07
BBC Radio London sent a journalist to interview me at my Shrewsbury home on 12 April 2007.
My recorded statements on that day are likely to be broadcast very soon as Dr Dick van Steenis was interviewed by telephone on 25 May 2007.
I hadn't fully analysed the infant mortality rates in London electoral wards by 12 April 2007, although I did have a full set of data which I gave to the journalist, plus other documents backing up the linkage between PM2.5 emissions and infant deaths.
If you blog readers try to imagine the Greater London Authority's area, or if you look at a road map of it, try to also imagine that area divided up into 625 electoral wards.
I have grouped the electoral wards into five "high infant mortality zones" and six "low infant mortality zones.
The high zones are all very clearly associated with emissions from incinerators at Colnbrook, Hillingdon Hospital, Edmonton, SELCHP, White Rose and the sewage sludge incinerators at Crossness and Beckton.
There are 115 electoral wards in these "high" zones where there were 67,465 live births and 511 infant deaths recorded by the Office for National Statistics during the three-year period 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for all 115 wards of 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births.
I also identified six groups of electoral wards with low infant mortality rates. There were 83 electoral wards in these groups and ONS recorded 36,485 live births and sixty three infant deaths during 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for these 83 wards of 1.7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
I believe that every UK citizen should be fully aware of the variations in sickness and mortality rates in the eelctoral wards where they live, or where they wish to live, or where they have family or friends.
Those sceptics who doubt the association between industrial PM2.5s from incinerators and other industrial sources should stop whingeing and start looking at data.
Anyone looking at a London map which shows the above high & low infant mortality zones together with the incinerators will, like me, immediately see that the high zones are all where there is exposure to incinerator emissions and the low zones are free from such emissions.
The Argus article of 25 May 2007, "Burner fear for children" mentions Veolia Environmental Services, who claim that my comments "are at odds with the findings of the Health Protection Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
DEFRA have not examined any health or mortality data around incinerators or any other industrial sources of PM2.5s.
The Health Protection Agency will be able to confirm that all my statements are correct as they have been involved with the Ironbridge Power Station issue here in Shropshire.
Remember that Harriet Grant of BBC Radio London interviewed me on the infant mortality issue on 12 April 2007, ie over six weeks ago. We mugs are all paying for the BBC which is never first with any news as far as I'm aware.
One of the "low" infant mortality zones in the Greater London Area is a group of wards in Havering and Barking & Dagenham. When Belvedere incinerator becomes operational, the infant mortality rate in this zone will soar.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
My recorded statements on that day are likely to be broadcast very soon as Dr Dick van Steenis was interviewed by telephone on 25 May 2007.
I hadn't fully analysed the infant mortality rates in London electoral wards by 12 April 2007, although I did have a full set of data which I gave to the journalist, plus other documents backing up the linkage between PM2.5 emissions and infant deaths.
If you blog readers try to imagine the Greater London Authority's area, or if you look at a road map of it, try to also imagine that area divided up into 625 electoral wards.
I have grouped the electoral wards into five "high infant mortality zones" and six "low infant mortality zones.
The high zones are all very clearly associated with emissions from incinerators at Colnbrook, Hillingdon Hospital, Edmonton, SELCHP, White Rose and the sewage sludge incinerators at Crossness and Beckton.
There are 115 electoral wards in these "high" zones where there were 67,465 live births and 511 infant deaths recorded by the Office for National Statistics during the three-year period 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for all 115 wards of 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births.
I also identified six groups of electoral wards with low infant mortality rates. There were 83 electoral wards in these groups and ONS recorded 36,485 live births and sixty three infant deaths during 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for these 83 wards of 1.7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
I believe that every UK citizen should be fully aware of the variations in sickness and mortality rates in the eelctoral wards where they live, or where they wish to live, or where they have family or friends.
Those sceptics who doubt the association between industrial PM2.5s from incinerators and other industrial sources should stop whingeing and start looking at data.
Anyone looking at a London map which shows the above high & low infant mortality zones together with the incinerators will, like me, immediately see that the high zones are all where there is exposure to incinerator emissions and the low zones are free from such emissions.
The Argus article of 25 May 2007, "Burner fear for children" mentions Veolia Environmental Services, who claim that my comments "are at odds with the findings of the Health Protection Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
DEFRA have not examined any health or mortality data around incinerators or any other industrial sources of PM2.5s.
The Health Protection Agency will be able to confirm that all my statements are correct as they have been involved with the Ironbridge Power Station issue here in Shropshire.
Remember that Harriet Grant of BBC Radio London interviewed me on the infant mortality issue on 12 April 2007, ie over six weeks ago. We mugs are all paying for the BBC which is never first with any news as far as I'm aware.
One of the "low" infant mortality zones in the Greater London Area is a group of wards in Havering and Barking & Dagenham. When Belvedere incinerator becomes operational, the infant mortality rate in this zone will soar.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
Rod Main, Newhaven says...
4:04pm Sat 26 May 07
Ah yes the NIMBY argument. Perhaps people who use this should actually do some research themsleves. Theres plenty out there. Just in case anyone thinks that Newhaven is being NIMBY, we did our research and proposed alternatives. Incineration is not just about whose back yard its not in, but on the medical evidence about what it does. Veolia themselves in their planning application said there is "...almost no risk to health". ALMOST. I don't think thats good enough. Neither does Newhaven.
Rod Main, Newhaven says...
4:21pm Sat 26 May 07
While I think on it, engineering: Rouen boasts a modern incinerator plant. It arn for probably 7 years outside of the regulations which was why the french government were taken to the EU court in 2002. So much for modern engineering. Why should we trust people to run these plants within the regs when history shows they can't, or worse, won't do it.
Particulates: Yes, they are produced by vehicles. So if this plant goes ahead we'll have another 250 heavy trucks a day coming into and going out of Newhaven from all over the county. So even if the incinerator wasn't a cause for concern, all these extra trucks would be and are.
How come everybody always says its other people who are NIMBY but never volunteer facilities in their own locale? In this day and age, why aren't people responsible locally for their waste? Why, when you have a public enquiry are Councils allowed to ignore 90% of the recommended changes? Why is it incinerators are always located in areas of Social deprivation?
Burying a 12 storey building in the middle of a 10 mile industrial area like Roune's rive gauche is one thing - having a similar building dominate the skyline next to an AONB is quite another.
This plant is wrong on just about every level bar one. Its a no-brain answer to a problem promoted by people with similar levels of intellect.
Particulates: Yes, they are produced by vehicles. So if this plant goes ahead we'll have another 250 heavy trucks a day coming into and going out of Newhaven from all over the county. So even if the incinerator wasn't a cause for concern, all these extra trucks would be and are.
How come everybody always says its other people who are NIMBY but never volunteer facilities in their own locale? In this day and age, why aren't people responsible locally for their waste? Why, when you have a public enquiry are Councils allowed to ignore 90% of the recommended changes? Why is it incinerators are always located in areas of Social deprivation?
Burying a 12 storey building in the middle of a 10 mile industrial area like Roune's rive gauche is one thing - having a similar building dominate the skyline next to an AONB is quite another.
This plant is wrong on just about every level bar one. Its a no-brain answer to a problem promoted by people with similar levels of intellect.
Ian, currently yorkshire says...
2:10am Sun 27 May 07
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
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
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
I have a school behind my house which I have no problem with at all, but I most certainly do not want to have the incinerator blocking my country views and all of the lorries that it will create, also it's quite clear that the only reason that Brighton wants to build the incinerator here is because of the port, to make it pay for itself it would need waste brought by ship here from Europe!!!
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:41pm Sun 27 May 07
John, of BN2, who is a Chartered Civil Engineer, might recall designing beams and other structures during his degree course and testing them to destruction in order to validate the design assumptions.
No incinerator company bothers to examine any health or mortality data around incinerators and neither does the Environment Agency.
No Chartered Civil Engineer will last long in his or her career if they base decisions on untested and unproven ideas of others.
No-one on this blog seems bothered at the huge disparity in the rates of infant deaths between the five groups of a total of 115 "high infant mortality" wards around London incinerators and the six groups of 85 "low infant mortality wards that are free from incinerator emissions that I've identified in the 2003-5 ONS data in Greater London.
If the infant mortality rate in the 115 "high" zone wards had been 1.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, there would have been 336 fewer infant deaths during 2003-5.
Are the lives of these infants of so little value that the data should be dismissed without further scrutiny?
I suspect that Newhaven has been chosen as an incinerator site to facilitate importing of waste to be incinerated.
Perhaps John, of BN2, will be able to tell us what abatement he has found effective for stopping emissions of radioctive PM2.5s from any of the 34 incinerators authorised by the Environmeent Agency to burn radioactive material as disclosed to me by Barbara Young, in her letter of 23 December 2002, Ref: BSY/MAB/1202-62-2800
, in which she wrote "The Environment Agency has a limited role with regard for human health and it is not appropriate for the Agency to comment on health issues concerning individuals."
Readers of this blog need to understand that the Health Protection Agency have supplied each Primary Care Trust with a 23-page set of "guidance notes" on how to deal with incinerator applications. None of the pages refer to any analysis of health or mortality before and after the incinerator(s) become operational.
The Environment Agency writes to the Director of Public Health, as "statutory consultee" to ask whether the incinerator at Newhaven, or Belvedere, or Colnbrook etc. will have a significant impact on human health. As far as I am aware, no Director of Public Health has ever replied in the negative which would lead to the refusal of IPC consent.
Note that the Director of Public Health will have access to all health and mortality data and hospital admission rates etc. both by postcode and by electoral ward and will easily be able to determine whether the installation he or she has effectively authorised is harming health and shortening lives.
If any of you bloggers were a Director of Public Health who had signed the IPPC declaration and then checked the data over subsequent years and saw, to your horror, that your signature had been a death warrant for hunbdreds of people each year, what would you do?
I suggest that you'd keep your mouth shut and look forward to your retirement and hope that nobody would notice, or that if they suspected something was amiss, they'd be unable to put any kind of a case to support their belief of harm.
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and I have extensive data showing a clear and consistent association between industrial PM2.5 emissions and elevated rates of illness and premature deaths.
The most compelling data that supports our case is government data and that's why every PCT in England and the equivalant bodies elsewhere in the UK are terrified of "Joe Public" being made aware of the lack of effective public health care in the UK.
John, of BN2, and others are criticising my work and yet that have not seen any of the extensive data I've examined or bothered to examine any themselves.
Those opposed to the Newhaven incinerator should have had Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting years ago. It might not be too late, even now.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
No incinerator company bothers to examine any health or mortality data around incinerators and neither does the Environment Agency.
No Chartered Civil Engineer will last long in his or her career if they base decisions on untested and unproven ideas of others.
No-one on this blog seems bothered at the huge disparity in the rates of infant deaths between the five groups of a total of 115 "high infant mortality" wards around London incinerators and the six groups of 85 "low infant mortality wards that are free from incinerator emissions that I've identified in the 2003-5 ONS data in Greater London.
If the infant mortality rate in the 115 "high" zone wards had been 1.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, there would have been 336 fewer infant deaths during 2003-5.
Are the lives of these infants of so little value that the data should be dismissed without further scrutiny?
I suspect that Newhaven has been chosen as an incinerator site to facilitate importing of waste to be incinerated.
Perhaps John, of BN2, will be able to tell us what abatement he has found effective for stopping emissions of radioctive PM2.5s from any of the 34 incinerators authorised by the Environmeent Agency to burn radioactive material as disclosed to me by Barbara Young, in her letter of 23 December 2002, Ref: BSY/MAB/1202-62-2800
, in which she wrote "The Environment Agency has a limited role with regard for human health and it is not appropriate for the Agency to comment on health issues concerning individuals."
Readers of this blog need to understand that the Health Protection Agency have supplied each Primary Care Trust with a 23-page set of "guidance notes" on how to deal with incinerator applications. None of the pages refer to any analysis of health or mortality before and after the incinerator(s) become operational.
The Environment Agency writes to the Director of Public Health, as "statutory consultee" to ask whether the incinerator at Newhaven, or Belvedere, or Colnbrook etc. will have a significant impact on human health. As far as I am aware, no Director of Public Health has ever replied in the negative which would lead to the refusal of IPC consent.
Note that the Director of Public Health will have access to all health and mortality data and hospital admission rates etc. both by postcode and by electoral ward and will easily be able to determine whether the installation he or she has effectively authorised is harming health and shortening lives.
If any of you bloggers were a Director of Public Health who had signed the IPPC declaration and then checked the data over subsequent years and saw, to your horror, that your signature had been a death warrant for hunbdreds of people each year, what would you do?
I suggest that you'd keep your mouth shut and look forward to your retirement and hope that nobody would notice, or that if they suspected something was amiss, they'd be unable to put any kind of a case to support their belief of harm.
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and I have extensive data showing a clear and consistent association between industrial PM2.5 emissions and elevated rates of illness and premature deaths.
The most compelling data that supports our case is government data and that's why every PCT in England and the equivalant bodies elsewhere in the UK are terrified of "Joe Public" being made aware of the lack of effective public health care in the UK.
John, of BN2, and others are criticising my work and yet that have not seen any of the extensive data I've examined or bothered to examine any themselves.
Those opposed to the Newhaven incinerator should have had Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting years ago. It might not be too late, even now.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:49am Mon 28 May 07
Rick H, Rod, John Terry. I think yours is a natural reaction. Mine was the same a year ago, before reasoning and digging further. Show me the beef thing. I'm a geographer and ex RN met. officer. I live in Norwich where we have defeated a WRG incinerator, not on NIMBY grounds, but Best Performancing Environmental Option, land aquisition and PM2.5 health grounds. Instead we have backed an MBT/AD facility that is not perfect, but produces energy and recovers 98% of waste input. We actually want this 150,000Tpa MBT/AD facility on our doorstep 1-2km away at Longwater Ind Park, Norwich.
Dr. van Steenis gave us and NAIL2 his research showing the mammoth links between PM2.5 emissions and infant mortality, ashmas and a myrad of other PM2.5 linked conditions. Over 12 years he has a vast amount of knowledge and research, and is seen by many Professors as an an expert in his field. Michael Ryan emailed several ward maps of Energy from Waste plants at Coventry, Edmonton, Bexhill and Kirklees (all with modern emissions abatement equipment to try to operate within the Waste Incinerator Directive limits) showing a duplicated downwind ward ill health pattern around all 4 incinerator of 3x that of upwind ward. In Kirklees 7x (60 in 2 years) more infant are dying downwind than upwind (10 in 2 years). With stories of Madeleine one begins to comprehend the value of infant life, and the hurt and loss to the parents involve, as well as the ill health after affects of these parents in downwind wards. I tried to write off the pattern as recurring deprivation, but could not as many of the downwind wards where leafy middle class suburbs. I actually looked up what makes up the measure of deprivation and a major ingredient is local air pollution any how, not just social or economic deprivation as one might assume. Actually, what is true also is anyone can access this data and draw the same maps under FoI to PCTs. Its damming and compelling. The info is there for sceptics. One does not have to be a Emissions Expert, Engineer although it does help. Ian the EA was not happy with the WRG Nottingham incinerator, 30+ times operating outside WID, shutting it down for repairs only once after the 25 March 2005 dioxin leak.
Discussing the Energy from Waste arguements neither Dr Van Steenis deny industry or local authorities from using waste to create energy. I have listened to them and they ideally prescribe MHT autoclaving (steam volume reducer and material sorting) followed by Plasma Gasification modules as a superior BPEO. They also accepted MBT/AD to be superior energy waste technology to use that incinerators. Check these technologies out to know this is the case. Its not about being NIMBY, scaremongering, pseudo science or denying energy recovery. Its about knowing the EfW alternatives (in Defras English Waste Strategy, CH5 last week), being rational and looking at ward data/incinerator distribution, reseach on PM2.5 types from incinerators and co incinerators. Aslo have a look through the must cited Health Protection Agency nov. 2005 report for PM2.5 incinerator emissions safety and research/ references. It is totallt abscent with most of the findings on 1990's dioxin/cancer research. After this the penny starts to drop, choose modern alternative EfW technologies (Food pure AD, MHT, MBT/AD and Plasma Gasification) than the first seemingly neat incinerator package and solution put on the table.
Dr. van Steenis gave us and NAIL2 his research showing the mammoth links between PM2.5 emissions and infant mortality, ashmas and a myrad of other PM2.5 linked conditions. Over 12 years he has a vast amount of knowledge and research, and is seen by many Professors as an an expert in his field. Michael Ryan emailed several ward maps of Energy from Waste plants at Coventry, Edmonton, Bexhill and Kirklees (all with modern emissions abatement equipment to try to operate within the Waste Incinerator Directive limits) showing a duplicated downwind ward ill health pattern around all 4 incinerator of 3x that of upwind ward. In Kirklees 7x (60 in 2 years) more infant are dying downwind than upwind (10 in 2 years). With stories of Madeleine one begins to comprehend the value of infant life, and the hurt and loss to the parents involve, as well as the ill health after affects of these parents in downwind wards. I tried to write off the pattern as recurring deprivation, but could not as many of the downwind wards where leafy middle class suburbs. I actually looked up what makes up the measure of deprivation and a major ingredient is local air pollution any how, not just social or economic deprivation as one might assume. Actually, what is true also is anyone can access this data and draw the same maps under FoI to PCTs. Its damming and compelling. The info is there for sceptics. One does not have to be a Emissions Expert, Engineer although it does help. Ian the EA was not happy with the WRG Nottingham incinerator, 30+ times operating outside WID, shutting it down for repairs only once after the 25 March 2005 dioxin leak.
Discussing the Energy from Waste arguements neither Dr Van Steenis deny industry or local authorities from using waste to create energy. I have listened to them and they ideally prescribe MHT autoclaving (steam volume reducer and material sorting) followed by Plasma Gasification modules as a superior BPEO. They also accepted MBT/AD to be superior energy waste technology to use that incinerators. Check these technologies out to know this is the case. Its not about being NIMBY, scaremongering, pseudo science or denying energy recovery. Its about knowing the EfW alternatives (in Defras English Waste Strategy, CH5 last week), being rational and looking at ward data/incinerator distribution, reseach on PM2.5 types from incinerators and co incinerators. Aslo have a look through the must cited Health Protection Agency nov. 2005 report for PM2.5 incinerator emissions safety and research/ references. It is totallt abscent with most of the findings on 1990's dioxin/cancer research. After this the penny starts to drop, choose modern alternative EfW technologies (Food pure AD, MHT, MBT/AD and Plasma Gasification) than the first seemingly neat incinerator package and solution put on the table.
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
5:48am Tue 29 May 07
The Incinerator.Time to face the truth.
I am the director of a small enviromental think tank in Brighton. Last year, We produced a long report about the entire Newhaven/brighton project.There was a major story in the Argus about it. We showed how the incinerator was not, in any real way, "An energy recovery facility" as it was probably going to recover, (Net) about only 10% of the energy in the waste for public use. We showed how it would add huge costs, of about 700 million, to the local Council budget, over the next 25 years. We also warned about the health dangers, and the fact that this incinerator technology is now obsolete, and that they should use a state of the art bio-reactor, to convert most of the waste to Green bio-fuels. (This would be carbon neutral.) A copy went to every Brighton Councillor, all of whom ignored us completely, except for two greens and one Labour. We were well aware of the health dangers, and said so, but did not have messrs Ryan and Steenis to hand to demonstrate them.
This Public Science report was written by three scientists, and we got trashed, by people who themselves, had not bothered to do any work or research on the problem. One thing that strikes me, is that all the nastier comments on here about the attempt to show the dangers, by Steenis and Ryan, come from people, who almost certainly, will not make the effort to do any research themselves, and will oppose those who do. I call these people NIMB's, (Not In My Brain). They simply don't want to hear the truth, and lash out at people who try to do public good. What, I may ask, are they doing for the benefit of the enviroment in Brighton, apart from saying nasty things on this Forum?.
Lets get real: This incinerator will kill several jumbo-jet loads of children and frail old people over the next 30 years, just as surely as terrorist bombs would. It's just as big an outrage.
Personally, after a lot of thinking, I am now looking very hard at doing a legal challange to the whole incinerator project. Children come first, for they are our future. Without them, we have none.
Regards
Graham Ennis
Director, Omega Institute.
I am the director of a small enviromental think tank in Brighton. Last year, We produced a long report about the entire Newhaven/brighton project.There was a major story in the Argus about it. We showed how the incinerator was not, in any real way, "An energy recovery facility" as it was probably going to recover, (Net) about only 10% of the energy in the waste for public use. We showed how it would add huge costs, of about 700 million, to the local Council budget, over the next 25 years. We also warned about the health dangers, and the fact that this incinerator technology is now obsolete, and that they should use a state of the art bio-reactor, to convert most of the waste to Green bio-fuels. (This would be carbon neutral.) A copy went to every Brighton Councillor, all of whom ignored us completely, except for two greens and one Labour. We were well aware of the health dangers, and said so, but did not have messrs Ryan and Steenis to hand to demonstrate them.
This Public Science report was written by three scientists, and we got trashed, by people who themselves, had not bothered to do any work or research on the problem. One thing that strikes me, is that all the nastier comments on here about the attempt to show the dangers, by Steenis and Ryan, come from people, who almost certainly, will not make the effort to do any research themselves, and will oppose those who do. I call these people NIMB's, (Not In My Brain). They simply don't want to hear the truth, and lash out at people who try to do public good. What, I may ask, are they doing for the benefit of the enviroment in Brighton, apart from saying nasty things on this Forum?.
Lets get real: This incinerator will kill several jumbo-jet loads of children and frail old people over the next 30 years, just as surely as terrorist bombs would. It's just as big an outrage.
Personally, after a lot of thinking, I am now looking very hard at doing a legal challange to the whole incinerator project. Children come first, for they are our future. Without them, we have none.
Regards
Graham Ennis
Director, Omega Institute.
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:28am Tue 29 May 07
Michael just commenting on your evidence of risk from PM2.5. I do not doubt there is a correlation between exposure and health response. In fact, current research although uncertain on the causal path are quite clear on the end effect.
However, and as I am sure you are aware the health impact is relatively small measured on a scale of 100,000 people exposed to an increase of 10 micrograms per year.
Such facilities do not generate particulates of a level to quantify any meaningful health effect, and thats even when considering if 100,000 people lived at the top of the stack. Following air dispersion modelling potential exposure is simply not significant.
Rod you commented that almost no risk from such facilities is not acceptable. In short, there is an element of risk with everything. It would be incorrect to state that there is no risk from such facilities, the same way as it would be incorrect to say there is no risk from indoor air quality at home or in the office.
Rod you also mentioned the movement of trucks to such facilities further contribute to local air pollution. Firstly, such vehicles will be required to collect and dispose of waste regardless of if the facility is constructed or not. As such, the facility will not increase vehicle movements and associated risk, but redistribute it.
Secondly, did you ever give some thought to what managing waste close to the source of generation would mean in terms of vehicle kilometres per year. Thats right, you would expect a net decrease in waste vehicle transport as waste is reduced up to 80-90%.
Someone also mentioned that energy from waste is not efficient. I cannot comment on that, but surely its more efficient then burying it.
Best Regards
Andrew
However, and as I am sure you are aware the health impact is relatively small measured on a scale of 100,000 people exposed to an increase of 10 micrograms per year.
Such facilities do not generate particulates of a level to quantify any meaningful health effect, and thats even when considering if 100,000 people lived at the top of the stack. Following air dispersion modelling potential exposure is simply not significant.
Rod you commented that almost no risk from such facilities is not acceptable. In short, there is an element of risk with everything. It would be incorrect to state that there is no risk from such facilities, the same way as it would be incorrect to say there is no risk from indoor air quality at home or in the office.
Rod you also mentioned the movement of trucks to such facilities further contribute to local air pollution. Firstly, such vehicles will be required to collect and dispose of waste regardless of if the facility is constructed or not. As such, the facility will not increase vehicle movements and associated risk, but redistribute it.
Secondly, did you ever give some thought to what managing waste close to the source of generation would mean in terms of vehicle kilometres per year. Thats right, you would expect a net decrease in waste vehicle transport as waste is reduced up to 80-90%.
Someone also mentioned that energy from waste is not efficient. I cannot comment on that, but surely its more efficient then burying it.
Best Regards
Andrew
Chris Wick, Worthing says...
4:31pm Tue 29 May 07
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
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
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
4:33pm Tue 29 May 07
Those with internet access can easily access the following:
1. SELCHP waste to energy plant health impact assessment, June 2005, final report, which states the following on page 6 under the heading "Key issues arising"
"The issues arising included:
a lack of trust in the authorities"
The rest of the above report is of little value.
2. The London Health Observatory's website allows access to the low birthweight babies born in each of the 625 electoral wards in London. These data are available in two pooled sets, 2002-4 and 2003-5. On the page which allows the access, the following is written in the first sentence:
"Low birth weight is a risk factor for infant mortality."
I have checked the above data for 2003-5 and noted that nineteen electoral wards had 12.0 per cent or more of live births that were "low birthweight", ie less than 2,500 grams.
All 19 of the above wards are within range of PM2.5 emissions from one or more of the incinerators within the Greater London Authority's area, plus Colnbrook incinerator just outside.
S=SELCHP incinersator B=Beckton
Cs=Crossness
Ck=Colnbrook
E=Edmonton
H=Hillingdon
Glyndon, 15.8
Edgware 15.3
Blackheath Westcombe, 15.1
Thamesmead East 14.9
Woolwich Riverside 14.5
Thamesmead Moorings 14.4
Kidbrroke with Hornfair 14.1
Abbey Wood 14.0
Woolwich Common 13.8
Plumstead 13.6
Charlton 13.5
Lesnes Abbey 13.2
Greenwich West 12.8
Roxeth 12.6
Eltham North 12.5
Forest Gate North 12.5
Kenton East 12.1
Green Street East 12.0
Only four London Boroughs hold the above 19 wards, and all those without the Borough identified are within Greenwich, one of the Boroughs most affected by PM2.5 emissions from SELCHP.
You'd think that the SELCHP Health Impact Assessemnt would have included data from Newham and Greenwich boroughs, and also included data from a "control" area that was free from industrial PM2.5 emissions.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
1. SELCHP waste to energy plant health impact assessment, June 2005, final report, which states the following on page 6 under the heading "Key issues arising"
"The issues arising included:
a lack of trust in the authorities"
The rest of the above report is of little value.
2. The London Health Observatory's website allows access to the low birthweight babies born in each of the 625 electoral wards in London. These data are available in two pooled sets, 2002-4 and 2003-5. On the page which allows the access, the following is written in the first sentence:
"Low birth weight is a risk factor for infant mortality."
I have checked the above data for 2003-5 and noted that nineteen electoral wards had 12.0 per cent or more of live births that were "low birthweight", ie less than 2,500 grams.
All 19 of the above wards are within range of PM2.5 emissions from one or more of the incinerators within the Greater London Authority's area, plus Colnbrook incinerator just outside.
S=SELCHP incinersator B=Beckton
Cs=Crossness
Ck=Colnbrook
E=Edmonton
H=Hillingdon
Glyndon, 15.8
Edgware 15.3
Blackheath Westcombe, 15.1
Thamesmead East 14.9
Woolwich Riverside 14.5
Thamesmead Moorings 14.4
Kidbrroke with Hornfair 14.1
Abbey Wood 14.0
Woolwich Common 13.8
Plumstead 13.6
Charlton 13.5
Lesnes Abbey 13.2
Greenwich West 12.8
Roxeth 12.6
Eltham North 12.5
Forest Gate North 12.5
Kenton East 12.1
Green Street East 12.0
Only four London Boroughs hold the above 19 wards, and all those without the Borough identified are within Greenwich, one of the Boroughs most affected by PM2.5 emissions from SELCHP.
You'd think that the SELCHP Health Impact Assessemnt would have included data from Newham and Greenwich boroughs, and also included data from a "control" area that was free from industrial PM2.5 emissions.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
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
Again you do not seem to have answered this.
I will repeat this request on a daily basis until you answer
Kind regards
Phil
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
5:45pm Tue 29 May 07
Andrew, in response to you first three points. Incinerator stacks are static "localised" point sources of emissions, with 65% of emissions follwing either a westerly or northwesterly (plume path) direction over 25years. This point source operates 24hr of the day, 365 days of the year over the same communities (ie constant). This is less the case with link based sources such as vehicles (although significant). My understanding is that with modern EfW facilities 65% of PM2.5 emissions still pass through the bag filters (30Tonnes/ annum for a 150,000 Tpa plant)of incinerators, have no PM2.5 specific continual monitoring requirements under WID, or in reality, and are lumped into PM10 monitoring, the vast majority of PM10s are captured by bag filters. This is the problem. Also PM2.5 toxicity from incinerators is more cocktailed and potent than those from a lot of other volume PM2.5 sources (ie sulphites). The threat of 3x downwind ward health affects (15 incinerator data sets) such as increased Standard Mortality Rates (SMR 110 +), infant mortality rates and child asthmas (inhaler rates) I would view as significant, unacceptable, and indeed criminal. What is the value of a child's life or health? How little has "little" have to be? Are not children and people continuing to be Guinea Pigs in these downwind wards when The Precautionary Principle under international law should apply to these major waste facilities and concerns of PM2.5 emissions, or does denial become the norm?
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:49pm Tue 29 May 07
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
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
rob whittle, norwich says...
6:10pm Tue 29 May 07
Chris Wick, EA. Can you highlight in the same HPA Nov.2005 report any specific reference to PM2.5 incinerator derived health impact. The term PM2.5 does not appear in the report so this is why report and official statements like yours are meaningless. It like reporting presenting a Polar Bear numbers report when people are concerned about Walrus numbers. At the time of the report Dioxins/Furins were the issue of health contention. The HPA report has nothing on PM2.5s if you have read it in detail, and loosely refers to "particles" as being an unresearch problem. As we know there are many different sized PMs of different bioaccumulative toxicity. Lets be specific! It does not matter is an expert or lay person poses the question. Where is the EA,HPA and PCT "beef" on incinerator dirived PM2.5s?
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:56pm Tue 29 May 07
Ian, currently working in Yorkshire, should contact his opposite number at the Shrewsbury office of the Environment Agency so that he can compare notes on how to deal with a major source of industrial PM2.5 pollution, namely the Ironbridge Power Station.
Following the correspondence between the Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust and Dr Dick van Steenis and myself, regarding the elevated rates of illness and premature deaths in the downwind zones, a meeting was called by the Health Protection Agency at which officers from Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust, Shropshire County PCT, Environment Agency, Environmental Heallth DEpt officers from Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council, Borough of Telford & Wrekin, and Bridgnorth District Council, and representatives of Eon from their head office and from their Ironbridge power station met in November 2005 and agreed an eight-page document on how to deal with the issues raised by Dr Dick van Steenis and myself.
Anyone can obtain a copy of that document following an FoI request to any of the public bodies named above, but they must be prepared to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner to force disclosure, just as I had to.
I wonder if Ian will be able to tell us what differences to health or mortality will accrue to those living within the plume-grounding area of the incinerator he was involved with and whether the local PCT advised him of any deterioration in health or mortality rates.
I hope that Chris Wick, of the Environment Agency's Worthing Office reads this and acknowledges the truth of what I've written about the November 2005 cover-up regarding Ironbridge Power Station.
You should have kept your head down, Chris.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
Following the correspondence between the Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust and Dr Dick van Steenis and myself, regarding the elevated rates of illness and premature deaths in the downwind zones, a meeting was called by the Health Protection Agency at which officers from Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust, Shropshire County PCT, Environment Agency, Environmental Heallth DEpt officers from Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council, Borough of Telford & Wrekin, and Bridgnorth District Council, and representatives of Eon from their head office and from their Ironbridge power station met in November 2005 and agreed an eight-page document on how to deal with the issues raised by Dr Dick van Steenis and myself.
Anyone can obtain a copy of that document following an FoI request to any of the public bodies named above, but they must be prepared to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner to force disclosure, just as I had to.
I wonder if Ian will be able to tell us what differences to health or mortality will accrue to those living within the plume-grounding area of the incinerator he was involved with and whether the local PCT advised him of any deterioration in health or mortality rates.
I hope that Chris Wick, of the Environment Agency's Worthing Office reads this and acknowledges the truth of what I've written about the November 2005 cover-up regarding Ironbridge Power Station.
You should have kept your head down, Chris.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan
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
Again you post another comment and ignore my request.
Why are you so rude to people who disagree with you????
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.
Proof of baby deaths from PM2.5s is published by ehponline.org May 2006 and reduction of PM2.5s resulting in longer lives is found in the Harvard 6 Cities Followup 15/3/06 just 2 out of hundreds of references. I am published in 4 peer-reviewed medical journals including The Lancet. Why not look at pollution section bottom of main page of www.countrydoctor.co
.uk????
rob whittle, Norwich says...
10:56pm Tue 29 May 07
Phil, For the research Michael has undertaken on mapping health conditions linked with PM2.5 linked health conditions (well researched in the States and the EPA), from "Government/ PCT" data obtained under Freedom of Information around 15 incinerators, same pattern. I could have done it. Phil, you could have done it. Its basic data mapping a GCSE geography pupil can undertake given the raw data.
Dr John Snow in London used the same mapping technique to firm the Midden distribution with Chlorera outbreaks proving the likely link between midden leachate and water borne deseases. This led to the Sanitation acts and proper sewage systems for London etc.
I happen to know Michael is an experienced Civil Engineer who has quite a career in the water industry, corporate member of ICE with several years working with Dr van Steenis MBBS. To my knowledge Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan finance their own independent work. I have nothing but praise for these two individuals. I'm sure if you mail Michael or Dick they will show you their maps and research.
My personal background is Geographic Information Systems, Durham Grad, RN and ROW surveyor, and I all I can tell you Phil there is nothing incorrect with Michaels use of PCT health data, the ward mapping (infant mortalities/ Standard Mortality Ratio)and presentation of this upwind/ downwind data. I have looked into the possible deprivation explanations for specific ill healths and spatially these do not match. Some very deprived upwind of incinerators have low Standard Mortality Ratios SMR, whilst leafy suburbs near incinerators have high SMRs and infant mortality rates. Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan left their research and references with NAIL2 up in Norwich when they each gave a research lecture in Norwich at Public Meeting 29/1/06, attended by 400 people including several MPs, Robert Study MEP and numerous county councillors.
The point is if their was a couple of downwind patterns around incinerators, one mind be looking for other factors such as socio-economic deprivation. When you see 4 maps all the same pattern and similar 15 data sets around urban area with incinerators the evidence is fairly daming. Also as control, one look a cities without incinerators (eg Bristol and Liverpool) and they do not have these same patterns.
Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan left their research and references with NAIL2 up in Norwich when they each gave a research lecture in Norwich at Public Meeting 29/1/06, attended by 400 people including several MPs, Robert Study MEP and numerous county councillors. Phil if you have heard of Bacton Terminal toxic poisonings (do a google search), expert witnesses or Castle Cement in Clitheroe amongst others, and expert witnesses, then you might have half your own questions easily answered.
Dr John Snow in London used the same mapping technique to firm the Midden distribution with Chlorera outbreaks proving the likely link between midden leachate and water borne deseases. This led to the Sanitation acts and proper sewage systems for London etc.
I happen to know Michael is an experienced Civil Engineer who has quite a career in the water industry, corporate member of ICE with several years working with Dr van Steenis MBBS. To my knowledge Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan finance their own independent work. I have nothing but praise for these two individuals. I'm sure if you mail Michael or Dick they will show you their maps and research.
My personal background is Geographic Information Systems, Durham Grad, RN and ROW surveyor, and I all I can tell you Phil there is nothing incorrect with Michaels use of PCT health data, the ward mapping (infant mortalities/ Standard Mortality Ratio)and presentation of this upwind/ downwind data. I have looked into the possible deprivation explanations for specific ill healths and spatially these do not match. Some very deprived upwind of incinerators have low Standard Mortality Ratios SMR, whilst leafy suburbs near incinerators have high SMRs and infant mortality rates. Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan left their research and references with NAIL2 up in Norwich when they each gave a research lecture in Norwich at Public Meeting 29/1/06, attended by 400 people including several MPs, Robert Study MEP and numerous county councillors.
The point is if their was a couple of downwind patterns around incinerators, one mind be looking for other factors such as socio-economic deprivation. When you see 4 maps all the same pattern and similar 15 data sets around urban area with incinerators the evidence is fairly daming. Also as control, one look a cities without incinerators (eg Bristol and Liverpool) and they do not have these same patterns.
Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan left their research and references with NAIL2 up in Norwich when they each gave a research lecture in Norwich at Public Meeting 29/1/06, attended by 400 people including several MPs, Robert Study MEP and numerous county councillors. Phil if you have heard of Bacton Terminal toxic poisonings (do a google search), expert witnesses or Castle Cement in Clitheroe amongst others, and expert witnesses, then you might have half your own questions easily answered.
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
Phil,
http://archive.corpo
ratewatch.org/magazi
ne/issue8/cw8tox3.ht
ml
http://archive.corpo
ratewatch.org/magazi
ne/issue8/cw8tox3.ht
ml
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:35am Wed 30 May 07
Dear Doctor Dick van Steenis, resorting to character assassination is the last resort of a week case. No I am not a Government Stooge. I am a Brighton Resident living very close to a local crematorium and within your so-called fall out zone from the Newhaven Facility.
Please tell me this is not the same approach you have applied to your research, wild and unfounded accusation.
I can appreciate that you may perceive some form of conspiracy theory from government. However, we do not all think the same way. I have come to my decision following a thorough review of International research. It just so happens that the Health Protection Agency and DEFRA have come to the same conclusion as myself and experts qualified in the areas of air quality, health risk, toxicology and waste management.
Everything I have shared with this forum has been impartial and presented without malice. It was my intention to open my mind to both sides of the case and to aid in alleviating some of the very real community stress only made worse by your inflammatory article.
Although I have a great deal of respect for GP's, I do not believe you are qualified to make such damming and I might point out unsubstantiated conclusions.
Please consider your actions before presenting such so called evidence to the public. Your GP title, even though no longer active means people believe you know what youre talking about.
Please tell me this is not the same approach you have applied to your research, wild and unfounded accusation.
I can appreciate that you may perceive some form of conspiracy theory from government. However, we do not all think the same way. I have come to my decision following a thorough review of International research. It just so happens that the Health Protection Agency and DEFRA have come to the same conclusion as myself and experts qualified in the areas of air quality, health risk, toxicology and waste management.
Everything I have shared with this forum has been impartial and presented without malice. It was my intention to open my mind to both sides of the case and to aid in alleviating some of the very real community stress only made worse by your inflammatory article.
Although I have a great deal of respect for GP's, I do not believe you are qualified to make such damming and I might point out unsubstantiated conclusions.
Please consider your actions before presenting such so called evidence to the public. Your GP title, even though no longer active means people believe you know what youre talking about.
Phil, says...
11:16am Wed 30 May 07
Rob
Thank for answering. I am baffled though as to why Andrew or the Retired GP cannot answer the question for themselves.
I note that you state someone with GCSE Geography could conclude the same answers as they did.
My concern is that GCSE Geography does not include significant health risk variables that are associated with all persons living in the UK.
Yes there maybe definate reasons for pockets of health problems but the reluctance of the Retired GP and Andrew to reveal their academic cards makes me naturally very sceptical.
Whilst it is possible to be involved at a high level of discusssions into a subjuect people demand the right to know the full academic background of people to aid them assess whether they are believeable or not as self described experts. Just because someone says they are does not, in my book, make them one. They have to prove it
Citing 'read this' book 'read that' study are no substitute for qualifications.
Therefore please can you contact the two parties and ask them to answer my questions.
Their non reply is rude, arrogant and quite frankly makes me beleive that they are part of a conspiracy.
PLEASE PLEASE help me to believe you. I cannot do so unless they pass on all of the questions I need answering.
Thank for answering. I am baffled though as to why Andrew or the Retired GP cannot answer the question for themselves.
I note that you state someone with GCSE Geography could conclude the same answers as they did.
My concern is that GCSE Geography does not include significant health risk variables that are associated with all persons living in the UK.
Yes there maybe definate reasons for pockets of health problems but the reluctance of the Retired GP and Andrew to reveal their academic cards makes me naturally very sceptical.
Whilst it is possible to be involved at a high level of discusssions into a subjuect people demand the right to know the full academic background of people to aid them assess whether they are believeable or not as self described experts. Just because someone says they are does not, in my book, make them one. They have to prove it
Citing 'read this' book 'read that' study are no substitute for qualifications.
Therefore please can you contact the two parties and ask them to answer my questions.
Their non reply is rude, arrogant and quite frankly makes me beleive that they are part of a conspiracy.
PLEASE PLEASE help me to believe you. I cannot do so unless they pass on all of the questions I need answering.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:31pm Wed 30 May 07
Phil,
Dr van Steenis has 12 years experience specialising in toxicology and industrial emissions, following a career as a GP. Normally a paper PhD can be gained in 3 years.
http://www.ukhr.org/
contact.htm
nail2@gmail.com
www.countrydoctor.co
.uk for Dr Van Steenis (pollution). Remember there were many government sponsored highly qualified government and "acedemic"experts who told us servicemen that Gulf War Syndrome didn't exist, etc, Dr van Steenis didn't support this so called qualified view. We now know the truth.
My point with GSCE is that given the PCT protected data(FoI), the mapping is relatively simple, and several similar patterns (several swallows do make a summer) does not need a PhD to put 2 + 2 together and see see there is a incinerator/ downwind health pattern problem. For me it not necessarily about qualification (it helps) or "belief", its about evidence, health maps and rational weight of evidence. Sceptiscm is a positive trait, people have to make their own minds up. HPA report is downloadable. As a layperson with regards to PM2.5, I ask why PM2.5 research findings are totally absent from this document. Would you not also ask the same blairing question? This is the foundation health document that EA, Defra, Incinerator Corporates, CIWM refer to. But the document is largely a Dioxin/Furans report, not a PM2.5 report. IMHO this is no way to reach the HPA incinerator statement (see Chris W, Andrew's post and HPA/Defra refs).
Phil. Hope this helps.
Dr van Steenis has 12 years experience specialising in toxicology and industrial emissions, following a career as a GP. Normally a paper PhD can be gained in 3 years.
http://www.ukhr.org/
contact.htm
nail2@gmail.com
www.countrydoctor.co
.uk for Dr Van Steenis (pollution). Remember there were many government sponsored highly qualified government and "acedemic"experts who told us servicemen that Gulf War Syndrome didn't exist, etc, Dr van Steenis didn't support this so called qualified view. We now know the truth.
My point with GSCE is that given the PCT protected data(FoI), the mapping is relatively simple, and several similar patterns (several swallows do make a summer) does not need a PhD to put 2 + 2 together and see see there is a incinerator/ downwind health pattern problem. For me it not necessarily about qualification (it helps) or "belief", its about evidence, health maps and rational weight of evidence. Sceptiscm is a positive trait, people have to make their own minds up. HPA report is downloadable. As a layperson with regards to PM2.5, I ask why PM2.5 research findings are totally absent from this document. Would you not also ask the same blairing question? This is the foundation health document that EA, Defra, Incinerator Corporates, CIWM refer to. But the document is largely a Dioxin/Furans report, not a PM2.5 report. IMHO this is no way to reach the HPA incinerator statement (see Chris W, Andrew's post and HPA/Defra refs).
Phil. Hope this helps.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
3:22pm Wed 30 May 07
Andrew, repectfully, I can see why there might be grounds to query your suggestion that you have studied all the relevant research, open mindedly as in your reference to the HPA response to ECOMED, you and not included the several counter responses from ECOMED back to HPA. I hope you were able to refer to these, and the recent PM2.5s / illnesses research in the New England Medical Journal. I'll include some of them here, as they are relevant to this continued forum /debate to provide balance:
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/pub_waste.php
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPA.pdf
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPA.pdf
I'd even suggest Dr van Steenis heavily contributed his expertise to parts of the orginal ECOMED report particulate content, without being reference.
Personally I think more long term research needs to be carried out, before any further incinerators like Belvedere, St Dennis and Newhaven are given the green like. This would entail continual accurate stack top EA/independent monitoring of PM2.5 tonnage, chemical composition and % PM2.5s escaping bag filtering, on all existing incinerators (eg Marchwwod, Havant, Chineham etc in Hampshire); also with detailed by ward upwind/downwind mapping of SMRs, Asthmas, Infant Mortalities and other suspected PM2.5 linked conditions, over at least a 5 year historic period.
Personally I do not see the case for more incinerators with the several better BPEO alternative technologies previously described. For example MBT/AD scored 65 compared to 55 in BPEO scorings in Norwich, Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Durham similarly.
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/pub_waste.php
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPA.pdf
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPA.pdf
I'd even suggest Dr van Steenis heavily contributed his expertise to parts of the orginal ECOMED report particulate content, without being reference.
Personally I think more long term research needs to be carried out, before any further incinerators like Belvedere, St Dennis and Newhaven are given the green like. This would entail continual accurate stack top EA/independent monitoring of PM2.5 tonnage, chemical composition and % PM2.5s escaping bag filtering, on all existing incinerators (eg Marchwwod, Havant, Chineham etc in Hampshire); also with detailed by ward upwind/downwind mapping of SMRs, Asthmas, Infant Mortalities and other suspected PM2.5 linked conditions, over at least a 5 year historic period.
Personally I do not see the case for more incinerators with the several better BPEO alternative technologies previously described. For example MBT/AD scored 65 compared to 55 in BPEO scorings in Norwich, Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Durham similarly.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
3:59pm Wed 30 May 07
EDMED response doc to HPA response
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPAResponse.pdf
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPAResponse.pdf
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
5:34pm Wed 30 May 07
Chris Wick, Environment Agency Manager, Worthing, has had plenty of time to check with the Shrewsbury office of the Environment Agency that my comments regarding Ironbridge Power Station are correct. Will he dare to call me a liar, I wonder?
If the Environment Agency was doing its job correctly with regard to incinerator regulation, they would have done the following to allay local fears over the incinerator at Newhaven:
1. Publish health & mortality data in wards upwind and downwind of existing incinerators at SELCHP, Edmonton, Colnbrook, Kirklees, Coventry, Edmonton, Hillingdon Hospital, Singleton Hospital , etc. and allowed the public to judge for themselves whether there was any differential in sickness rates and mortality rates between groups of downwind wards and those upwind of the above installations.
The Environment Agency have a "cover-up" culture over incinerators and many other aspects of their work.
Michael Meacher MP appointed Alan Dalton onto the Board of the Environment Agency and after Alan Dalton became concerned over varioius issues, including the way that the Environment Agency had "regulated" Byker incinerator, Newcastle, and Normanton Waste Tip, outside Wakefield, the Environment Agency sacked Alan Dalton as the Board Member for the North East, and them Michael Meacher sacked Alan Dalton on the 19 December 2001.
The Environment Agency is an organisation that is uncomfortable with the truth, and that's why they rely on "modelling" instead of checking to see what health effects could be associated with industrial PM2.5 emissions.
If Alan Dalton had not died prematurely, he'd be at the forefront of this issue today. Some of you might recall that Alan Dalton started a magazine called "DIRT" as a vehicle for some of the action groups concerned about health isues related to the Environment Agency's supposed regulation of incinerators, cement works etc.
Why is the Environment Agency so afraid to let the general public, or their elected councillors examine data which enable them to see the excess rates of sickness and premature deaths at all ages in zones that are downwind of sites that the Environment Agency is supposed to regulate.
We only have one life. Why should it be shortened unnecessarily?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
If the Environment Agency was doing its job correctly with regard to incinerator regulation, they would have done the following to allay local fears over the incinerator at Newhaven:
1. Publish health & mortality data in wards upwind and downwind of existing incinerators at SELCHP, Edmonton, Colnbrook, Kirklees, Coventry, Edmonton, Hillingdon Hospital, Singleton Hospital , etc. and allowed the public to judge for themselves whether there was any differential in sickness rates and mortality rates between groups of downwind wards and those upwind of the above installations.
The Environment Agency have a "cover-up" culture over incinerators and many other aspects of their work.
Michael Meacher MP appointed Alan Dalton onto the Board of the Environment Agency and after Alan Dalton became concerned over varioius issues, including the way that the Environment Agency had "regulated" Byker incinerator, Newcastle, and Normanton Waste Tip, outside Wakefield, the Environment Agency sacked Alan Dalton as the Board Member for the North East, and them Michael Meacher sacked Alan Dalton on the 19 December 2001.
The Environment Agency is an organisation that is uncomfortable with the truth, and that's why they rely on "modelling" instead of checking to see what health effects could be associated with industrial PM2.5 emissions.
If Alan Dalton had not died prematurely, he'd be at the forefront of this issue today. Some of you might recall that Alan Dalton started a magazine called "DIRT" as a vehicle for some of the action groups concerned about health isues related to the Environment Agency's supposed regulation of incinerators, cement works etc.
Why is the Environment Agency so afraid to let the general public, or their elected councillors examine data which enable them to see the excess rates of sickness and premature deaths at all ages in zones that are downwind of sites that the Environment Agency is supposed to regulate.
We only have one life. Why should it be shortened unnecessarily?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Phil, says...
5:58pm Wed 30 May 07
Michael
Another rant and you do not have the decency to answer my question about your expertise in this field.
Stop chucking insults and answer me!!!!
I may want to believe you but you are making it dammed hard!!
Another rant and you do not have the decency to answer my question about your expertise in this field.
Stop chucking insults and answer me!!!!
I may want to believe you but you are making it dammed hard!!
JANICE, newhaven says...
10:34pm Wed 30 May 07
we in newhaven are not nimbys - for six years we have been researching these 'destructor units and have discovered that even with half a brain the possibility of breathing in lead, arsenic, dioxins, dog poo, and low grade nuclear waste from hospitals would not be good for our health, this waste will be unsorted. this incinerator will be inefficient for energy recovery as it is NOT heat & power 50% energy created goes out of chimney along with the dioxins - thESW ARE GENDER BENDERS AND INCREASE THE AGING PROCESS, the chemicals which come out are those used in 'agent orange' in vietnam = as well as all the other things you have heard on this blog - 25% is lost by application to nsational grid and other downsides are that because waste will be travelling a long way from source - more energy is lost. in sweden and france (yes - the french do not want incinerators any more due to health probs) waste is being bio-degested - that is made into a gas which is used for runnung engines - it is 10 times greener than incineration and 80% efficient. the bin wars that are going on at present are exaserbated by not seperating out our boidegradable compostable - waste which is causing the filth and methane - this waste is 60%++ of waste stream - and can be used to make above bio-gas. in britain this equates to 90 million tons of energy going into landfill or worse - being incinerated - dont be fooled - onyx/violia are applying the quick fix solution as they can't speculate in france anymore. in america money has been saved in health costs since incinerators (due to public pressure)have been closed down - dick van has details of this. i would also like to say that the environment agency have no scientists working for them - they have done no studies and yet they have 'rubber stamped' this through WE DONT WANT IT AND WE DONT NEED IT = IT STINKS and is a waste of energy and of our health.
rob whittle, Norwich says...
2:37am Thu 31 May 07
Phil, hope this is useful regarding Michael Ryan's Qualifications and some of his Incinerator research in London.
http://www.dove2000.
org.uk/documents/gre
ater_london_report.p
df
Dick Van Steenis paper
http://www.countrydo
ctor.co.uk/precis/pr
ecis%20-%20Incinerat
ors%20-%20WMDs.htm
http://www.dove2000.
org.uk/documents/gre
ater_london_report.p
df
Dick Van Steenis paper
http://www.countrydo
ctor.co.uk/precis/pr
ecis%20-%20Incinerat
ors%20-%20WMDs.htm
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:41pm Thu 31 May 07
Phil, who wishes to learn various details about me, has failed to disclose why he considers such matters of any relevance.
Dr John Snow, the "father of epidemiology" had no qualifications to plot cholera deaths on a map and deduce what was the most likely cause of cholera. He was correct about contaminated water being the cause of transmission of cholera and yet "the authorities" only acknowledged it many years after his death.
Dr Snow's research was "self-funded", and Phil might consider that to indicate lesser worth, whereas he should realise that the value of any research is the content, not the author, or the funder.
Professor Malcolm Hooper is a co-author of a booklet entitled "What is CFS? What is ME?" that I suggest Phil obtains and reads carefully as it details how research into issues such as those explored by Dr Dick van Steenis and myself are controlled.
LOrd Sainsbury is named in the above booklet, as is Professor Simon Wesselly, neither of whom have taken any action to have statements changed as far as I am aware.
The following can easily be checked online and illustrates nicely how "research" is a politcal football.
The autism issue is a red-hot potato for thie government, so a research award of £480,000 was made to Professor Jean Golding's department at Bristol University so that her team could make use of the medical records they hold for "The Children of the 90s", a group of around 14,000 children born in the Bristol area in the early 90s whose parents agreed to allow Bristol University to have access to their children's medical records.
Think about the following carefully Phil, as if you were in a lecture room with me in charge.
Phil, you seem a bright lad, now supposing you have computerised medical records of around 14,000 children and you wished to examine any possible linkage between vaccines and autism, what data would you examine from the computerised records at your disposal?
I assume that the first thing you'd check would be the number of children who have been diagnosed as autistic.
The second thing would be to examine the vaccine history of that group and tabulate it into various groups, eg
1. those who had received DTP followed by MMR .
2. THose who think that DTP and MMR have nothing to do with autism would be looking for a large group of autistic children who had not received either vaccine and yet the numbers exoected are not there.
What do you do Phil?
I'll tell you what Professor Jean Golding did when I asked her for a breakdown of numbers of autistic & non-autistic children plus vaccine history under FoI. She told me that the data was not releasable as it was intended for publication and that publication would no take place for about four years.
There aren't many people in the UK who do not know a family with an autistic child and yet the academic research that is government funded is a sick joke.
Dr Dick van Steenis has explained autism in his report "The Autism and Multiple Sclerosis Process" and those who think that autism has nothing to do with vaccines should take a look at Dan Olmsted's articles about The Amish, a group of people in the US who tend to not vaccinate their children. There are very few autistic Amish and there's a research project awaiting someone who can prove that "being around horses" gives some immunity to autism.
I've never set myself up to be an expert of any kind. What I have tried to do is explain things in a simple manner and I do this so that the majority of people can understand what is said or written.
If you want to see what others have published about infant mortality, low birthweight, PM2.5 - I suggest that you enter those into a search engine and take a look at the Edmonton Journal of 26 May 2007 "LOw birthweights puzzle Alta.doctors and other items in newspapers and medical journals.
KInd regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Dr John Snow, the "father of epidemiology" had no qualifications to plot cholera deaths on a map and deduce what was the most likely cause of cholera. He was correct about contaminated water being the cause of transmission of cholera and yet "the authorities" only acknowledged it many years after his death.
Dr Snow's research was "self-funded", and Phil might consider that to indicate lesser worth, whereas he should realise that the value of any research is the content, not the author, or the funder.
Professor Malcolm Hooper is a co-author of a booklet entitled "What is CFS? What is ME?" that I suggest Phil obtains and reads carefully as it details how research into issues such as those explored by Dr Dick van Steenis and myself are controlled.
LOrd Sainsbury is named in the above booklet, as is Professor Simon Wesselly, neither of whom have taken any action to have statements changed as far as I am aware.
The following can easily be checked online and illustrates nicely how "research" is a politcal football.
The autism issue is a red-hot potato for thie government, so a research award of £480,000 was made to Professor Jean Golding's department at Bristol University so that her team could make use of the medical records they hold for "The Children of the 90s", a group of around 14,000 children born in the Bristol area in the early 90s whose parents agreed to allow Bristol University to have access to their children's medical records.
Think about the following carefully Phil, as if you were in a lecture room with me in charge.
Phil, you seem a bright lad, now supposing you have computerised medical records of around 14,000 children and you wished to examine any possible linkage between vaccines and autism, what data would you examine from the computerised records at your disposal?
I assume that the first thing you'd check would be the number of children who have been diagnosed as autistic.
The second thing would be to examine the vaccine history of that group and tabulate it into various groups, eg
1. those who had received DTP followed by MMR .
2. THose who think that DTP and MMR have nothing to do with autism would be looking for a large group of autistic children who had not received either vaccine and yet the numbers exoected are not there.
What do you do Phil?
I'll tell you what Professor Jean Golding did when I asked her for a breakdown of numbers of autistic & non-autistic children plus vaccine history under FoI. She told me that the data was not releasable as it was intended for publication and that publication would no take place for about four years.
There aren't many people in the UK who do not know a family with an autistic child and yet the academic research that is government funded is a sick joke.
Dr Dick van Steenis has explained autism in his report "The Autism and Multiple Sclerosis Process" and those who think that autism has nothing to do with vaccines should take a look at Dan Olmsted's articles about The Amish, a group of people in the US who tend to not vaccinate their children. There are very few autistic Amish and there's a research project awaiting someone who can prove that "being around horses" gives some immunity to autism.
I've never set myself up to be an expert of any kind. What I have tried to do is explain things in a simple manner and I do this so that the majority of people can understand what is said or written.
If you want to see what others have published about infant mortality, low birthweight, PM2.5 - I suggest that you enter those into a search engine and take a look at the Edmonton Journal of 26 May 2007 "LOw birthweights puzzle Alta.doctors and other items in newspapers and medical journals.
KInd regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Phil, says...
5:02pm Thu 31 May 07
Michael.
The content and style of your answer is sarcastic, demeaning and full of self importance.
I specifically asked you for your academic credentials and you have hidden behind a well rehearsed answer to deflect the fact that................
........ YOU have NONE.
As I stated earlier I do feel very sympathetic to your cause. Your responses have let you down.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you try and be-little them as you have done with others in this thread and mine.
'Those who shout often have the least important things to say'
Perhaps you should consider that when trying to get people on your side.
I was for a moment.
The content and style of your answer is sarcastic, demeaning and full of self importance.
I specifically asked you for your academic credentials and you have hidden behind a well rehearsed answer to deflect the fact that................
........ YOU have NONE.
As I stated earlier I do feel very sympathetic to your cause. Your responses have let you down.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you try and be-little them as you have done with others in this thread and mine.
'Those who shout often have the least important things to say'
Perhaps you should consider that when trying to get people on your side.
I was for a moment.
JANICE, newhaven says...
5:27pm Thu 31 May 07
i apologise for all the spelling mistakes in my comments last i broke my arm up on our lovely south downs at back of newhaven - just a small thought - FOR EVERY TON OF WASTE INCINERATED - 2.8 tons CO2 are released into our atmosphere (greenpeace, 203 FOE,205 and the Ecologist, march 207) HOWS THAT FOR GLOBAL WARMING - and all we needed to do was bio-degest it! janice alderson
rob whittle, norwich says...
6:13pm Thu 31 May 07
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.
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.
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.
Also for too long we have suffered from experts who quite frankly..........arn
't.
My question has been to cement in my mind the credence he has in this field and the level of expertise I should level towards him when I make my OWN mind up.
If he does not care for friends then I do not care for your thoughts when this was aimed at him, not you.
Are you the same person??
Anyway, I DO wish you well. However with his style of delivery and interaction I fear that you have absolutely no chance of success.
Whether we agree with it or not style is importance nowadays - not bullish comments and sacastic remarks.
Goodbye
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
I really am a bit disgusted by the way some people on here have been behaving. Two credentialed scientists, and several people with excellent technical backgrounds, have all made key points, with reference to public sources, downloadable science papers, refereed science journals, etc etc, and the evidence, stretching back over years, is absolutely damning. These incinerators kill children. Thats it!. To build anymore is goverment licenced baby-murder. There is absolutely no need to build them, either. Safe, efficient, alternative technologies, such as bio-reactors and plasma reactors exist, that are very energy efficient, and do not pollute the landscape with deadly toxic fallout. So why this obsession of people, such as the mysterious "Phil", who regularly posts on here, (but won't tell us anything about himself, not even his real name) to trash the careful findings of people like Dr Van Steenis?. Phil, I do not think you are a scientist. You are, I notice, very careful not to come out and directly say you do not believe that these incinerators kill children. You instead, make insinuations, never clear and direct, about the moral and scientific character of the two scientists and others involved. So who really are you, Phil?. You will notice that scientists like me always put our full name on our posts, and do not hide our identities. Do you have any scientific and technical qualifications whatsoever, Phil, or experience?. Who really are You?. What gives you the right to trash years of careful science, most of which I seriously doubt you could understand?. I notice that nearly all those, like you Phil, that attack the science, etc, all hide in the shadows. They never say who they are.
Experienced political activists such as myself, who are also science and technical experts, are very familiar with this sort of public attack on us, by anonymous people who hide. Scientist after scientist has been attacked, (sometimes physically) for daring to stand up for the truth, they have lost jobs, families, money, careers, etc, and have had to fight for years against such campaigns, for the truth, until they are, usually, vindicated.
I might mention, of course, a recent example; Dr David Kelly, who told the truth about Iraq.
Phil, if you, and others like you, on here, can actually put together, a rational, coherant case, supported by proper scientific and technical arguments, for building these deadly giant incinerators, I would love to see it. In the meantime, please stop sniping from under-cover, at people like Dr Van Steenis. It's neither decent, or honourable, or the right thing to do.
Graham Ennis
Director
Omega Institute
Brighton
Experienced political activists such as myself, who are also science and technical experts, are very familiar with this sort of public attack on us, by anonymous people who hide. Scientist after scientist has been attacked, (sometimes physically) for daring to stand up for the truth, they have lost jobs, families, money, careers, etc, and have had to fight for years against such campaigns, for the truth, until they are, usually, vindicated.
I might mention, of course, a recent example; Dr David Kelly, who told the truth about Iraq.
Phil, if you, and others like you, on here, can actually put together, a rational, coherant case, supported by proper scientific and technical arguments, for building these deadly giant incinerators, I would love to see it. In the meantime, please stop sniping from under-cover, at people like Dr Van Steenis. It's neither decent, or honourable, or the right thing to do.
Graham Ennis
Director
Omega Institute
Brighton
Warren, BN2 says...
11:40pm Thu 31 May 07
Ok ladies when you have stopped whirling your handbags can someone please tell me what pollutants will be coming out of the stack, and in what amounts.
I do not care about your **** contest and will refer to the World Healh Orginisation.
And for your own sake, please show some respect to each other. this is supposed to be an exchange of information.
I do not care about your **** contest and will refer to the World Healh Orginisation.
And for your own sake, please show some respect to each other. this is supposed to be an exchange of information.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
11:44pm Thu 31 May 07
Phil, "Style" did not help us defeat the WRG Incinerator proposal in Norwich, nor NAIL in Nottingham of the 3rd rejected WRG incinerator. It was by being bullish, factual, attritional debate to a stonewalling and stylist local authotity officers. For us at NAIL2 in Norfolk, we have another term for style, its called presentention "spin", of which has spread to the Civil Service (EA,HPA,Defra etc) and Waste Management Officers delivering Incinerator proposals, and are commonly guilty of in recent years. Unlike the 1970's (Enginners used to design facilities locally and be constructional experts), todays officers tell to bend and follow Defra decrees and PFI credits). Its like a contagious disease today.
Sometimes it required courageous individuals with facts and concerns, to cut through stylist spin that smells more foul that the contents of Bio-Digester, and put real facts on the public table.
Many valid contributors have pointed to the "lack of specific PM2.5 substance" in the HPA Nov. 2005 "Municipal Incinerators and Public health", and point to the as COT group spin and glossy document (style). I just wish this Forum had an insert image function so we could display all Michael Ryans upwind/downwind incinerator maps he kindly left us at NAIL2 (with permission). Maps speak louder than words. I concur with Graham Ennis comments entirely.
Sometimes it required courageous individuals with facts and concerns, to cut through stylist spin that smells more foul that the contents of Bio-Digester, and put real facts on the public table.
Many valid contributors have pointed to the "lack of specific PM2.5 substance" in the HPA Nov. 2005 "Municipal Incinerators and Public health", and point to the as COT group spin and glossy document (style). I just wish this Forum had an insert image function so we could display all Michael Ryans upwind/downwind incinerator maps he kindly left us at NAIL2 (with permission). Maps speak louder than words. I concur with Graham Ennis comments entirely.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:26am Fri 1 Jun 07
Warren "can someone please tell me what pollutants will be coming out of the stack, and in what amounts".
This is a good reference.
http://www.nail.uk.n
et/Emissions.htm
although I'm sure Dr Van Steenis might elaborate more, and be more specific to the Newhaven EfW type incinerator.
This is a good reference.
http://www.nail.uk.n
et/Emissions.htm
although I'm sure Dr Van Steenis might elaborate more, and be more specific to the Newhaven EfW type incinerator.
Jan Marshall, Newhaven says...
8:49am Fri 1 Jun 07
Emisions from any source where the content is unsure will quite justifiably raise concerns. Incinerators are regulated and can be deemed to be safe according to the standards applied. However the regulations, standards and policing do not have people's justifiable concerns at heart.
An official line that incinerators dont (have to) cause an increase in cancer is not surprising. The keys are what is NOT said, NOT measured, NOT allowed for, and the speed at which things change. Research done by independent scientists is the only(?) way for further truths to be discovered, tested and then applied to the standards.
Basically it seems wrong to do something that is arguably not essential. Particularly when the outcomes are uncertain because of the content and mix of the material burnt and the atomosphere into which the emissions are expelled.
An official line that incinerators dont (have to) cause an increase in cancer is not surprising. The keys are what is NOT said, NOT measured, NOT allowed for, and the speed at which things change. Research done by independent scientists is the only(?) way for further truths to be discovered, tested and then applied to the standards.
Basically it seems wrong to do something that is arguably not essential. Particularly when the outcomes are uncertain because of the content and mix of the material burnt and the atomosphere into which the emissions are expelled.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:45pm Fri 1 Jun 07
I notice from the Argus article "Burner fear for children", 25 May 2007, that Veolia Environmental Services said my comments "were at odds with the findings of the Health Protection Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."
I agree with that statement of Veolia's and further add that any opinion I've so far read by these two public bodies with regard to health and exposure to emissions from incinerators is false.
The big incinerator at Lewisham has several shareholders, including the Boroughs of Lewisham and of Newham. These two Boroughs have enough to worry about with the South London Mrercury articles about my research to be concerned about the effects of the incinerator at Newhaven.
Argus readers might not know that Veolia is the parent company of Onyx Aurora, another of the shareholders of SELCHP.
If Veolia are so confident that their proposed facility at Newhaven "does not cause a threat to the environment or human health" as claimed in the above Argus article, they will be prepared to field a candidate to debate against Dr Dick van Steenis and I at a Brighton venue that is big enough for all those who wish to learn the truth at first hand.
Are you up for it Veolia? I doubt if you'll get anyone from HPA or DEFRA to come to such a public debate.
The Norwich Evening News hosted a public debate at which Dr van Steenis and I spoke in January 2007. Perhaps The Argus will consider hosting such an event?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
I agree with that statement of Veolia's and further add that any opinion I've so far read by these two public bodies with regard to health and exposure to emissions from incinerators is false.
The big incinerator at Lewisham has several shareholders, including the Boroughs of Lewisham and of Newham. These two Boroughs have enough to worry about with the South London Mrercury articles about my research to be concerned about the effects of the incinerator at Newhaven.
Argus readers might not know that Veolia is the parent company of Onyx Aurora, another of the shareholders of SELCHP.
If Veolia are so confident that their proposed facility at Newhaven "does not cause a threat to the environment or human health" as claimed in the above Argus article, they will be prepared to field a candidate to debate against Dr Dick van Steenis and I at a Brighton venue that is big enough for all those who wish to learn the truth at first hand.
Are you up for it Veolia? I doubt if you'll get anyone from HPA or DEFRA to come to such a public debate.
The Norwich Evening News hosted a public debate at which Dr van Steenis and I spoke in January 2007. Perhaps The Argus will consider hosting such an event?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
8:54pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Dear Michael Ryan,
I would be delighted to invite both you, Dr Van Seenis, and others, to hold a public debate in Brighton. I will organize it.
Don't count on the Argus though. i wrote a sharp letter, challaning Lord Bassam, the brighton New labour peer, to a public debate recently, on these and other gtreen issues. The Argus refused to publish it. But you never know.
The time has come to move this thing on. We need a major public event on this. lets challange violia, new labour, and the new Tory asministration in brighton to a public meeting.
This can be done in june. please let me know what you think, and likewise Dr Van Steenis, if you are reading this.
Best regards
Graham Ennis
Omega Institute.
I would be delighted to invite both you, Dr Van Seenis, and others, to hold a public debate in Brighton. I will organize it.
Don't count on the Argus though. i wrote a sharp letter, challaning Lord Bassam, the brighton New labour peer, to a public debate recently, on these and other gtreen issues. The Argus refused to publish it. But you never know.
The time has come to move this thing on. We need a major public event on this. lets challange violia, new labour, and the new Tory asministration in brighton to a public meeting.
This can be done in june. please let me know what you think, and likewise Dr Van Steenis, if you are reading this.
Best regards
Graham Ennis
Omega Institute.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
9:20pm Fri 1 Jun 07
I agree with Michael Ryan. The Argus would do Brighton and Newhaven a huge service. When Norwich Evening News hosted in Norwich hundreds turned up, many hadn't heard the PM2.5 debate. It was interesting that whilst many councilors attended, Robert Sturdy MEP, Richard Bacon MP; it was noticeable that the grey coats from the PCT (Dr John Battersby, EA, HPA and Defra stayed away/ could not be bothered. (They were all invited). It was ironic that SRM, the company offering MBT/AD turned up, faced the public, presented and got a relatively good reception. WRG, the incinerator bid didn't bother turning up. Most of these Incinerator decisions are made with the hope that with a bit of consultation (listening and ignoring), a few glossy powerpoint consultations, quoting HPA/Defra reports, Bid Procurement Models; an incinerator will get through, the proposers will con the general public with spin over resouce/energy recovery and PM2.5 emissions/ fly ash dispoasl. Once they face their public with experts scutinising their statements, they crumble into HPA/Defra verbage. This was Norwich's experience, anyhow.
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
11:28am Sat 2 Jun 07
Hi,
Thanks for Your comments, Mr Whittle. I support them totally, and agree with them. I think that We need to press ahead with a public meeting, in Brighton, to expose what is going on with the incinerator. I formally invite yourself, mr Ryan, and Dr Steenis. Please suggest any other key people who might want to attend. You can contact me via the Omega general email address: " omega-institute.org " to discuss this. I really think the people of Brighton need to listen to you.
Best regards
Graham Ennis
Thanks for Your comments, Mr Whittle. I support them totally, and agree with them. I think that We need to press ahead with a public meeting, in Brighton, to expose what is going on with the incinerator. I formally invite yourself, mr Ryan, and Dr Steenis. Please suggest any other key people who might want to attend. You can contact me via the Omega general email address: " omega-institute.org " to discuss this. I really think the people of Brighton need to listen to you.
Best regards
Graham Ennis
Graham Ennis, brighton says...
11:40am Sat 2 Jun 07
The comments thingy has mangled our email address!, that I gacve in my last post. it is: info@omega-institute
.org
.org
JANICE, newhaven says...
10:39pm Sat 2 Jun 07
Yes, i'm sure that all parties will be interested in having a public meeting - i'm also sure that Defra, The Environment Agency,Onyx or Veolia (or whatever they call themselves)would just love to bring on thier 'scientists' and clear their name! We must also invite Brighton & Hove City Council - (I doubt if THEY would present themselves though) - as they did not bother to attend the pivotal meeting last year when they were invited to ask the Environment Agency questions regarding the safety of the facility in Newhaven - Eastbourne CC were the only council that turned up! The others though will be sure to turn up; after all, they will be making enough money from the waste resourse - we have paid for, and will be paying for again as we witness he 'great landfill in the sky'.
One more point - if any of you would like a thorough list of materials which come out of these chimneys - you could do some WORK - telephone The Ecologist & ask them for a back copy of July/August 06 edition, inside is a comprehensive report entitled 'bin your bin' including everything you need to know about incineration. I QUOTE (from the report) 'THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS ADMITTED THAT CURRENT EMISSIONS STANDARDS ARE BASED ON WHAT IS TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABE - RATHER THAN WHAT IS SAFE FOR HUMAN HEALTH. yes we need a meeting in brighton.
One more point - if any of you would like a thorough list of materials which come out of these chimneys - you could do some WORK - telephone The Ecologist & ask them for a back copy of July/August 06 edition, inside is a comprehensive report entitled 'bin your bin' including everything you need to know about incineration. I QUOTE (from the report) 'THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS ADMITTED THAT CURRENT EMISSIONS STANDARDS ARE BASED ON WHAT IS TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABE - RATHER THAN WHAT IS SAFE FOR HUMAN HEALTH. yes we need a meeting in brighton.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
10:50am Sun 3 Jun 07
The incinerator industry rely mainly upon two "experts", neither of whom will wish to meet either Dr Dick van Steenis or myself at any public forum.
The first of these two is Professor Roy Harrison, of Birminghan University, who assessed the May 2006 report by Dr Catherine Woodward regarding the health impact of Ironbridge power station. You can read Dr Woodward's report online via www.ukhr.org or via Telford & Wrekin PCT's website, but you will not be able to see any of her data inline. PLease note that Dr Woodward failed to examine any data upwind of the power station and also that Professor Roy Harrison failed to notice that she had not done such a basic thing.
The second pro-incinerator expert is Professor Jim Bridges, who failed in his attempt to get the Hull incinerator passed in 2002 when Dr Dick van Steenis was an expert witness at that public inquiry.
If you read this post Jimmy boy, I'm the same Michael Ryan whose evidence about the Belvedere incinerator was never entered on the inquiry website as it was "too hot" and might have altered the foregone conclusion of that inquiry. You were sent a copy of my statement of evidence andyou prepared a report R-JWB6 which was sent to the Department of Trade & Industry and others regarding my evidence and also some of Ms Joanna Livingston, who acted on behalf of the local action group. On page 3 of your 7-page report, you state the following: "Consequently, the risk to public health from the emission of particles from the proposed plant will be negligible." You failed to provide any data to back up this assertion did you Jimmy boy. If you'd been a student of mine, you'd have been out on your ear at the end of the first year.
If Professor Jim Bridges, or Professor Roy Harrison, took the trouble to examine infant mortality rates in the electoral wards around any incinerator in England & Wales, they'll find the same pattern as I have, ie elevated rates in the downwind zones compared with upwind.
It's not the "Bad Fairy", or some latter-day King Herod character that's killing these babies as people are dying prematurely at all ages at a far higher rate in the high infant mortality zones compared with the low infant mortality zones. These findings are all based on government data and you should realise that these people are not dying early in a particular geographic pattern just to prove that Dr van Steenis and I are correct.
If there's such a thing as "trial by blog", I move that the case is proven against incinerators.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
The first of these two is Professor Roy Harrison, of Birminghan University, who assessed the May 2006 report by Dr Catherine Woodward regarding the health impact of Ironbridge power station. You can read Dr Woodward's report online via www.ukhr.org or via Telford & Wrekin PCT's website, but you will not be able to see any of her data inline. PLease note that Dr Woodward failed to examine any data upwind of the power station and also that Professor Roy Harrison failed to notice that she had not done such a basic thing.
The second pro-incinerator expert is Professor Jim Bridges, who failed in his attempt to get the Hull incinerator passed in 2002 when Dr Dick van Steenis was an expert witness at that public inquiry.
If you read this post Jimmy boy, I'm the same Michael Ryan whose evidence about the Belvedere incinerator was never entered on the inquiry website as it was "too hot" and might have altered the foregone conclusion of that inquiry. You were sent a copy of my statement of evidence andyou prepared a report R-JWB6 which was sent to the Department of Trade & Industry and others regarding my evidence and also some of Ms Joanna Livingston, who acted on behalf of the local action group. On page 3 of your 7-page report, you state the following: "Consequently, the risk to public health from the emission of particles from the proposed plant will be negligible." You failed to provide any data to back up this assertion did you Jimmy boy. If you'd been a student of mine, you'd have been out on your ear at the end of the first year.
If Professor Jim Bridges, or Professor Roy Harrison, took the trouble to examine infant mortality rates in the electoral wards around any incinerator in England & Wales, they'll find the same pattern as I have, ie elevated rates in the downwind zones compared with upwind.
It's not the "Bad Fairy", or some latter-day King Herod character that's killing these babies as people are dying prematurely at all ages at a far higher rate in the high infant mortality zones compared with the low infant mortality zones. These findings are all based on government data and you should realise that these people are not dying early in a particular geographic pattern just to prove that Dr van Steenis and I are correct.
If there's such a thing as "trial by blog", I move that the case is proven against incinerators.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:23pm Sun 3 Jun 07
If you look at the following House of Parliament committee list
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld199899/ldselect/l
deucom/71/7115.htm
, and look at who was advising in 1999 (8yrs ago, yes 8 years ago) No50 on the list is Dr VS, this might help some on history and industrial pollution expertise, for Rick, Marc, Al, Phil, Harry, and John, Andrew and Terry of BN2.
This is when the birth of Energy from Waste incinerator direction really became government policy in the Waste Strategy 2000 doc. many disagreed with this direction, were conerned (listed) and the long term health research promised never really materialised on PM2.5 from HPA/Defra. Also Jim Bridges and Roy Harrison were party to the fudge on public health/ lack of PM2.5 findings/monitoring, IMHO. In the list are the same old commercial interests over public health. Cement Kilms and SRF/RDF burning might even be relaxed this year to promote the RDF market in co incinerators, rather than keep safeguarding public health or directing RDF/SDF to be processed via better Plasma Gasification modules (eg AdvancedPlasmaPower, Farringdon, Oxon, and several other Plasma techology providers.
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld199899/ldselect/l
deucom/71/7115.htm
, and look at who was advising in 1999 (8yrs ago, yes 8 years ago) No50 on the list is Dr VS, this might help some on history and industrial pollution expertise, for Rick, Marc, Al, Phil, Harry, and John, Andrew and Terry of BN2.
This is when the birth of Energy from Waste incinerator direction really became government policy in the Waste Strategy 2000 doc. many disagreed with this direction, were conerned (listed) and the long term health research promised never really materialised on PM2.5 from HPA/Defra. Also Jim Bridges and Roy Harrison were party to the fudge on public health/ lack of PM2.5 findings/monitoring, IMHO. In the list are the same old commercial interests over public health. Cement Kilms and SRF/RDF burning might even be relaxed this year to promote the RDF market in co incinerators, rather than keep safeguarding public health or directing RDF/SDF to be processed via better Plasma Gasification modules (eg AdvancedPlasmaPower, Farringdon, Oxon, and several other Plasma techology providers.
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
9:27pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Update: I have been getting lots of emails and phone calls re My proposed public meeting on the incinerator. I think we have more than enough evidence now, of the appaling irresponsibility of the Local authorities in Sussex, and the large corporate, VIOLIA. The scientific evidence, even in the limited form I have seen, is very convincing. It is quite clear that the authorities, both nationally, and locally, have been complicit in something that will maim and kill large numbers of people. They had a public duty not to do harm to the local population, and to make proper investigations into any large project that they were involved in, as to public safety. likewise, the local Sussex Health Trusts. They were all responsible for what I see as one of the most appalling derelictions of responsibility and public trust you could find.
I think it is absolutely vital that the local public learn the truth about all this, and that they are told what has been done to their children. Two things ned to happen quickly; Firstly, a large scale public meeting, and exhibition. Secondly, a Court injunction against the two local authorities. Comments, please.
I think it is absolutely vital that the local public learn the truth about all this, and that they are told what has been done to their children. Two things ned to happen quickly; Firstly, a large scale public meeting, and exhibition. Secondly, a Court injunction against the two local authorities. Comments, please.
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:34am Mon 4 Jun 07
Morning All
This public meeting you mentioned, any idea on the format. Will someone impartial chair it, will it be organised similar to an Oral Hearing and what is the overall objective: a debate on the Newhaven facility or a more general discussion of waste to energy and risk to health.
I ask, as you need to be quite specific or risk poor or inappropriate responses, gaining no representation from appropriate parties or having the final outputs criticised.
Personally, I recommend you focus specifically on the Newhaven project and have the ability to either prove or disprove risk to local communities.
In short, you better have a fairly robust and impartial engagement strategy and agenda in place. If not you will experience similar critsism as you have on this forum.
Lots of luck
This public meeting you mentioned, any idea on the format. Will someone impartial chair it, will it be organised similar to an Oral Hearing and what is the overall objective: a debate on the Newhaven facility or a more general discussion of waste to energy and risk to health.
I ask, as you need to be quite specific or risk poor or inappropriate responses, gaining no representation from appropriate parties or having the final outputs criticised.
Personally, I recommend you focus specifically on the Newhaven project and have the ability to either prove or disprove risk to local communities.
In short, you better have a fairly robust and impartial engagement strategy and agenda in place. If not you will experience similar critsism as you have on this forum.
Lots of luck
Andrew, BN2 says...
11:19am Mon 4 Jun 07
I just went through last years London Health Report to see if the high infant mortality results stated are correct.
The report provides high-level indicators for health outcomes (i.e. morbidity and mortality), but also provides indicators, which help explain such patterns of health outcome (environmental, social etc)
In this report they not only show a gradual decline in London wide infant mortality rates, but also map the higher rates by London Borough. I personally do not know where the facilities are located, but it might be useful to prove or disprove any link to those that do.
You can get hold of this document at the following address.
http://www.lho.org.u
k/Download/Public/12
095/1/Health%20in%20
London%202006.pdf
Hope its of use.
The report provides high-level indicators for health outcomes (i.e. morbidity and mortality), but also provides indicators, which help explain such patterns of health outcome (environmental, social etc)
In this report they not only show a gradual decline in London wide infant mortality rates, but also map the higher rates by London Borough. I personally do not know where the facilities are located, but it might be useful to prove or disprove any link to those that do.
You can get hold of this document at the following address.
http://www.lho.org.u
k/Download/Public/12
095/1/Health%20in%20
London%202006.pdf
Hope its of use.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
3:43pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Andrew of BN2, and others reading this blog, should realise that the average infant mortality rates for Boroughs that are available for anyone to view, are just that, ie average rates for the whole Borough which might, as in the case of Telford & Wrekin, Shropshire, have 33 electoral wards.
The 2003-5 infant mortality rate for Telford & Wrekin is 4.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, ie not too far from the same range as the average rate for England & Wales.
Hidden within that average are the range of infant morality rates in individual wards, which, in 2003-5, range from zero in several wards to a staggering 29.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in Ironbridge Gorge ward, the closest ward to Ironbridge Power Station.
Now when I qualified as a Chartered Civil Engineer in 1976, we were expected to be able to handle data with confidence and it should be obvious to most people that it's better to live in a ward where the infant mortality rate is zero for many years, rather than one where the rate is approaching six times the average rate for England & Wales.
Andrew of BN2 should note that some Boroughs in London have not seen a decline in infant mortality rates, unlike the average rate for London. The average infant mortality rate for London has declined from 1990-2005, but certain Boroughs have not., including the London Borough of Bexley where the 1993-1995 infant mortality rate was 3.0 per 1,000 live births and the 2003-5 rate was 5.4 per 1,000. Andrew, of BN2, should spot that Bexley's average rate has nearly doubled, but unless he has purchased the ward-based data from ONS, he'll be unable to tell which six of the 22 Bexley wards had zero infant deaths in 2003, and which had rates more than 10.0 per 1,000 live births.
If you know where the incinerators are sited, and the wind direction, you can make a very good guess as the six "zero infant death wards" in Bexley are all in a single group that is upwind of both incinerators and outside the range of SELCHP.
The London Health Report is of very little value as it has no detailed data and fails to name the sixty-nine electoral wards in London where there were zero infant deaths in 2003-5.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
The 2003-5 infant mortality rate for Telford & Wrekin is 4.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, ie not too far from the same range as the average rate for England & Wales.
Hidden within that average are the range of infant morality rates in individual wards, which, in 2003-5, range from zero in several wards to a staggering 29.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in Ironbridge Gorge ward, the closest ward to Ironbridge Power Station.
Now when I qualified as a Chartered Civil Engineer in 1976, we were expected to be able to handle data with confidence and it should be obvious to most people that it's better to live in a ward where the infant mortality rate is zero for many years, rather than one where the rate is approaching six times the average rate for England & Wales.
Andrew of BN2 should note that some Boroughs in London have not seen a decline in infant mortality rates, unlike the average rate for London. The average infant mortality rate for London has declined from 1990-2005, but certain Boroughs have not., including the London Borough of Bexley where the 1993-1995 infant mortality rate was 3.0 per 1,000 live births and the 2003-5 rate was 5.4 per 1,000. Andrew, of BN2, should spot that Bexley's average rate has nearly doubled, but unless he has purchased the ward-based data from ONS, he'll be unable to tell which six of the 22 Bexley wards had zero infant deaths in 2003, and which had rates more than 10.0 per 1,000 live births.
If you know where the incinerators are sited, and the wind direction, you can make a very good guess as the six "zero infant death wards" in Bexley are all in a single group that is upwind of both incinerators and outside the range of SELCHP.
The London Health Report is of very little value as it has no detailed data and fails to name the sixty-nine electoral wards in London where there were zero infant deaths in 2003-5.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:35pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Andrew of BN2, the best Publish Meetings are were a balance debate, time for experts to present contrary views and a strong chair. This was more or less the format in Norwich where Norfolk CC fielded two representatives to present, the proposer comapany, and 2-3 speakers from the contrary position, with a neutral figure as a chairperson. It does need nitty gritty. A suitable chair might be could be an MP or Argus editor. Newhaven incinerator proposal cannot debated in a vacuum or without a broader context, and Andrew seems to wish, it needs the wider weight of evidence from other EfW incinerator sites in the UK, operating under WID. If strong culmulative evidence of Infant Mortality is presented around many other UK incinerators, them this should be sufficient to prove Veolias technology is the wrong technology for the long term, and the EU Precautionary Principle should be invoked to stop the proposal. I also think the Incinerator proposers should be able to present much more robust say so than the inconclusive HPA 2005 report or Defra report, that do not have PM2.5 reaesrch. If not they face ridicule like they did in Norwich, further questions about the credibility of HPA/Defra reports and continued opposition. Veolia and the county council has to provide credible beef of PM2.5 reseach around EfW incinerators, to answer the questions new reseach poses. Deprivation is becoming a weak argument. If not they will have contined problems.
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
Dear Doctor Dick Van Steenis, I would be most interested in reading these articles. Do you go as far as developing an exposure response mechanism, and if so how does it correlate with the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution, Clean Air for Europe or the World Health Organisations research?
P.S, again you have to be careful with your assumptions. Yes I have reviewed medical journals and yes there are known links between deprivation and health effects, including cardio vascular disease. Particulate mater is only one aspect of the environmental and socio economic influences on health. There are even known associations between noise exposure and cardio vascular disease.
Rob, I am sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. All I was trying to point out is that you have to be very clear on the purpose of the public meeting. If you are using it as a platform to present your perspective of such facilities, then by all means present information on all energy from waste facilities. But do not pretend that it relates to the Newhaven facility, and do not expect the Newhaven assessment team or developer to attend. Why would they let themselfs be questioned on projects across the country?
In contrast, if you specifically target the Newhaven facility then you need to have information specific to the area and address local community concerns. You are also more likely to get some form of participation from the assessment team or developer. However, and this is the important bit. I dont see why they would attend.
I did not infer that any such public meeting should be conducted in a vacuum or without broader context.
I just think it is important to recognise the differences between such projects. Some are smaller, others larger. Populations and subsequent exposure differ and it is widely recognised that urban areas have a higher rate of morbidity and mortality than rural areas such Sussex.
As such, if you are having a Newhaven focussed public meeting its recommended that you utilise the air quality modelling to demonstrate the potential risk from this facility and not base it on assumption from other facilities (using potentially different processes).
I was also trying to point out that if you are not very clear on the purpose, outputs and how such outputs will be applied then you risk this meeting being little more than an expansion of this forum.
You need to ask how the meeting would influence the decision, or if this is even your intention.
Hope this helps
Andrew
P.S, again you have to be careful with your assumptions. Yes I have reviewed medical journals and yes there are known links between deprivation and health effects, including cardio vascular disease. Particulate mater is only one aspect of the environmental and socio economic influences on health. There are even known associations between noise exposure and cardio vascular disease.
Rob, I am sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. All I was trying to point out is that you have to be very clear on the purpose of the public meeting. If you are using it as a platform to present your perspective of such facilities, then by all means present information on all energy from waste facilities. But do not pretend that it relates to the Newhaven facility, and do not expect the Newhaven assessment team or developer to attend. Why would they let themselfs be questioned on projects across the country?
In contrast, if you specifically target the Newhaven facility then you need to have information specific to the area and address local community concerns. You are also more likely to get some form of participation from the assessment team or developer. However, and this is the important bit. I dont see why they would attend.
I did not infer that any such public meeting should be conducted in a vacuum or without broader context.
I just think it is important to recognise the differences between such projects. Some are smaller, others larger. Populations and subsequent exposure differ and it is widely recognised that urban areas have a higher rate of morbidity and mortality than rural areas such Sussex.
As such, if you are having a Newhaven focussed public meeting its recommended that you utilise the air quality modelling to demonstrate the potential risk from this facility and not base it on assumption from other facilities (using potentially different processes).
I was also trying to point out that if you are not very clear on the purpose, outputs and how such outputs will be applied then you risk this meeting being little more than an expansion of this forum.
You need to ask how the meeting would influence the decision, or if this is even your intention.
Hope this helps
Andrew
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:42pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Will Andrew, of BN2, agree that the DEFRA report of May 2004, which alleges without any evidence that incinerators are not harmful to health, should be discarded as worthless as it failed to examine any health data?
It's a "Yes" or "No" answer, which anyone with any kind of scientific training, or a modicum of common sense will know how to answer.
I assume that you have read the document, and also the correspondence that Dr Dick van Steenis and I have had with one of the authors of the DEFRA report, namely Jonathan Davies, of Enviros Ltd on the letters page of the Shropshire Star.
These letters are reproduced in the incineration section at www.ukhr.org
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
It's a "Yes" or "No" answer, which anyone with any kind of scientific training, or a modicum of common sense will know how to answer.
I assume that you have read the document, and also the correspondence that Dr Dick van Steenis and I have had with one of the authors of the DEFRA report, namely Jonathan Davies, of Enviros Ltd on the letters page of the Shropshire Star.
These letters are reproduced in the incineration section at www.ukhr.org
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:23pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Hi Michael
Do you mean the DEFRA review of environmental and health effects of waste management: municipal solid waste and similar wastes (May 2004).
If so (and please tell me if I am wrong), I have to disagree. If you read the full report, section 4 provides the rationale for the quantification of health consequences from various waste management emissions to air.
It not only points out that the work is based upon research by the Committee of Medial Effects of Air Pollution and the World Health Organisation but even talks you through the methodologies employed and the assumptions they were forced to make.
If I remember rightly, they applied baseline hospital admission data from the Department of Health and mortality data from National Statistics. They even pointed out that applying this approach had its limitations and was only intended to compare and contrast the various waste management options. This is a common critsism of strategic level documents.
I do admit that the study failed to consider PM 2.5, but it looks like they applied the known exposure response mechanisms at the time. By the way, its also worth noting that there is one for PM 2.5 now.
I am not so eager to disregard this document as worthless. Its the best and most impartial comparison of the various waste management options at hand and provides people with a base template to do project level health risk assessments.
However, I do acknowledge that it is not an effective document to support Dr Dick van Steenis' or your own view point.
Again, you have to be careful with assumptions. Nope, I have not read the correspondence between Dr Dick van Steenis, Jonathan Evans and yourself. To be honest, I have trouble enough getting through my own mail.
All my best
Andrew
Do you mean the DEFRA review of environmental and health effects of waste management: municipal solid waste and similar wastes (May 2004).
If so (and please tell me if I am wrong), I have to disagree. If you read the full report, section 4 provides the rationale for the quantification of health consequences from various waste management emissions to air.
It not only points out that the work is based upon research by the Committee of Medial Effects of Air Pollution and the World Health Organisation but even talks you through the methodologies employed and the assumptions they were forced to make.
If I remember rightly, they applied baseline hospital admission data from the Department of Health and mortality data from National Statistics. They even pointed out that applying this approach had its limitations and was only intended to compare and contrast the various waste management options. This is a common critsism of strategic level documents.
I do admit that the study failed to consider PM 2.5, but it looks like they applied the known exposure response mechanisms at the time. By the way, its also worth noting that there is one for PM 2.5 now.
I am not so eager to disregard this document as worthless. Its the best and most impartial comparison of the various waste management options at hand and provides people with a base template to do project level health risk assessments.
However, I do acknowledge that it is not an effective document to support Dr Dick van Steenis' or your own view point.
Again, you have to be careful with assumptions. Nope, I have not read the correspondence between Dr Dick van Steenis, Jonathan Evans and yourself. To be honest, I have trouble enough getting through my own mail.
All my best
Andrew
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:43pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Michael, by the way there seems to be something wrong with the www.ukhr.org website. You have to scroll about 40 pages to the right to get hold of the main information.
Im not sure if its your site, but it could do with a fine tune or people will miss most of the web page.
All my best
Andrew
Im not sure if its your site, but it could do with a fine tune or people will miss most of the web page.
All my best
Andrew
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
7:05pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Andrew from BN
"But do not pretend that it (other EfW facilitie) relates to the Newhaven facility, and do not expect the Newhaven assessment team or developer to attend. Why would they let themselfs be questioned on projects across the country?"
With respect I fundimentally disagree on two points. Veolia operate similar facilities elsewhere in the UK, with health patterns around these EfW incinerators and secondly the commonality of the operator is also a key element for strutiny. In Norwich WRG so called state of the art incinerator was under scutiny due to "the way it operated" it Eastcroft incinerator with 30 WID/IPPC breaches, and St. Dennis with Sita with its history of exploding EfW facilities.
One cannot scutinise the Newhaven incinerator in isolation, pretending its somethime new, different and safe, with highly relevant and connected evidence being considered. The technology and company mode is fundimentally the same. Denial and splitting off Newhaven as a differnebt prototype cannot be a solid arguement or case. It just an excuse to operate the Incinerator without the comprehensive health and environmental scrutiny. No lessons are learned IMHO.
"But do not pretend that it (other EfW facilitie) relates to the Newhaven facility, and do not expect the Newhaven assessment team or developer to attend. Why would they let themselfs be questioned on projects across the country?"
With respect I fundimentally disagree on two points. Veolia operate similar facilities elsewhere in the UK, with health patterns around these EfW incinerators and secondly the commonality of the operator is also a key element for strutiny. In Norwich WRG so called state of the art incinerator was under scutiny due to "the way it operated" it Eastcroft incinerator with 30 WID/IPPC breaches, and St. Dennis with Sita with its history of exploding EfW facilities.
One cannot scutinise the Newhaven incinerator in isolation, pretending its somethime new, different and safe, with highly relevant and connected evidence being considered. The technology and company mode is fundimentally the same. Denial and splitting off Newhaven as a differnebt prototype cannot be a solid arguement or case. It just an excuse to operate the Incinerator without the comprehensive health and environmental scrutiny. No lessons are learned IMHO.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
7:24pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Andrew BN2.5 Can I bring something to your notice. "Air pollution" is a major sub criteria in the UK measure of Deprevation (not just socio-economics), so Air pollution is not something totally different from Depreviation (as measured in the UK). Its like PM2.5s/Air Pollution is the alcohol in a glass of wine, and the socio-economics is the water contents. You can't separate the socio-economics out for ones own counter arguement. Pm2.5/Air Pollution indicators are distinct can be distinctly identified and measured (per cu metre, where Deprivation is a crude "Statistical Amalgam" (Fudge, acedemically created) of different criteria, that includes measures of Air Pollution.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
8:00pm Wed 6 Jun 07
Andrew BN2 The point of a public meeting is surely more for the benefit of the local and wider public, as opposed to the proposer,to do the although the latter benefits from the consultation process, rather than ignoring new evidence and continuing regardless. The point of the meeting is public presentation of new PM2.5 research, health maps and expose the Pm2.5 weaknesses in the HPA/ Defra documents. Yes you are correct it will be an expansion of this forum (which is limited to those that refer to it), but a Public Meeting is an opportunity for the above new points to be properly presented in public, scrunised and debated, and pressure to bare on HPA/ Defra to put their air emissions/ science house in order with regards to incinerator PM2.5s. They need to do the long term research they promised in 1999/2000, before giving Green Lights to incinerator operator (EIAs) based on inconclusive reports and reliance on unrealistic air pollution modelling!Reality has to be measured long term over time, no short cuts such as modelling on computers, garbage in, garbage out. Personally with the several other possible better residual technologies (equal/better BPEO in 2007 to divert landfill/ acheive LATS etc) I outlined before, I see neither a case for an incinerator at Newhaven. Unfortunately the "bottom of the list technology" has been proposed for Newhaven, rather than a review of the better new ones now available higher up the ladder. Veolia and the County Council are being historic by clinging on to the "waste nugget" they decided upon 2-5 years ago.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:22pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Andrew, of BN2, seems to have forgotten that the DEFRA report he seems to think so wonderful is a "review", ie it failed to examine any data whatsoever and only relied on selected reports.
Andrew, and others, could be said to be reviewing posts on this blog by Dr van Steenis and myself, but any comments made could carry no weight unless you have also seen, and analysed the data at our disposal.
Perhaps he will try to prove me wrong by naming any UK incinerator for which rates of relevant health parameters, such as childhod asthma, heart attack, COPD, diabetes 2, infant mortality, age standardised mortality rates, etc. etc. have been examined. DEFRA will not do this, and they will not commission any research to examine such data as the results are already widely known to the Department of Health, and also to COMEAP. If Anrew doubts what I write, perhaps he'll ask Harrow Primary Care Trust why they will not respond to e-mails or telephone calls from Dhrutie Shah, the chief reporter of the Harrow Observer, to comment on the infant mortality rates in Harrow Borough, or individual electoral wards within that Borough and the fact that these rates are associated with emissions from the incinerators at Colnbrook and also from Hillingdon Hospital. There's a full-page article in the Harrow Observer of 30 May 2007, page 7, which includes part of a table of data showing how the London average infant mortality rate fell from 7.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990-92 to 5.2 per 1,000 in 2003-5 while the rate in Harrow Borough rose from 5.8 to 7.1 in the same years. Remember that 7.1 per 1,000 was the average rate for the Brough of Harrow in 2003-5 while the ward with the highest rate had 19.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, ie the parents of 2 per cent of all live births had to bury their baby before his or her first birthday.
Perhaps Andrew will kindly tell us why PM2.5s have at last been recognised as relevant by the UK government when the US government was fully aware of it in 1997, hence the US Clean Air Act which led to savings of 193 Billion Dollars through fewer hospital visits and days off work.
Perhaps Andrew will tell us where PM2.5 monitors are sited in the UK and what analyses have been carried out on the particles and what correlation has been found between PM2.5 exposure and rates of ill-health and premature death.
The massive SELCHP incinerator at Lewisham is partly owned by a Veiola-owned company, other private sector companies and also the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich.
Green Party Councillor, Sue Luxton, recently asked Lewisham Borough Council "what controls were in place to monitor small particles, known as PM2.5s, that might escape from incinerators like the South East London combined Heat and Power Plant, SELCHP, in Deptford." as reported by Julia Lewis, on page 14 of The Mercury, 31 May 2007.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Andrew, and others, could be said to be reviewing posts on this blog by Dr van Steenis and myself, but any comments made could carry no weight unless you have also seen, and analysed the data at our disposal.
Perhaps he will try to prove me wrong by naming any UK incinerator for which rates of relevant health parameters, such as childhod asthma, heart attack, COPD, diabetes 2, infant mortality, age standardised mortality rates, etc. etc. have been examined. DEFRA will not do this, and they will not commission any research to examine such data as the results are already widely known to the Department of Health, and also to COMEAP. If Anrew doubts what I write, perhaps he'll ask Harrow Primary Care Trust why they will not respond to e-mails or telephone calls from Dhrutie Shah, the chief reporter of the Harrow Observer, to comment on the infant mortality rates in Harrow Borough, or individual electoral wards within that Borough and the fact that these rates are associated with emissions from the incinerators at Colnbrook and also from Hillingdon Hospital. There's a full-page article in the Harrow Observer of 30 May 2007, page 7, which includes part of a table of data showing how the London average infant mortality rate fell from 7.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990-92 to 5.2 per 1,000 in 2003-5 while the rate in Harrow Borough rose from 5.8 to 7.1 in the same years. Remember that 7.1 per 1,000 was the average rate for the Brough of Harrow in 2003-5 while the ward with the highest rate had 19.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, ie the parents of 2 per cent of all live births had to bury their baby before his or her first birthday.
Perhaps Andrew will kindly tell us why PM2.5s have at last been recognised as relevant by the UK government when the US government was fully aware of it in 1997, hence the US Clean Air Act which led to savings of 193 Billion Dollars through fewer hospital visits and days off work.
Perhaps Andrew will tell us where PM2.5 monitors are sited in the UK and what analyses have been carried out on the particles and what correlation has been found between PM2.5 exposure and rates of ill-health and premature death.
The massive SELCHP incinerator at Lewisham is partly owned by a Veiola-owned company, other private sector companies and also the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich.
Green Party Councillor, Sue Luxton, recently asked Lewisham Borough Council "what controls were in place to monitor small particles, known as PM2.5s, that might escape from incinerators like the South East London combined Heat and Power Plant, SELCHP, in Deptford." as reported by Julia Lewis, on page 14 of The Mercury, 31 May 2007.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:46pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Wooooa, guys, is it me or is this slowly becoming less of a public forum with all the questions directed at me.
Dont get me wrong, Im flattered, but I believe a lot of what youre asking should be directed at Government.
I will try and respond to some of these issues after I get back from a quick dring on the sea front.
But on a quick note, generally environmental safe guards start in the US and then slowly filter to the UK. It was the case for Environmental Impact Assessment and is the case for emerging research on air pollution and health effects.
It is my understanding that this is partly because they have a worse track record for environmental pollution with clearer health effects.
Dont get me wrong, Im flattered, but I believe a lot of what youre asking should be directed at Government.
I will try and respond to some of these issues after I get back from a quick dring on the sea front.
But on a quick note, generally environmental safe guards start in the US and then slowly filter to the UK. It was the case for Environmental Impact Assessment and is the case for emerging research on air pollution and health effects.
It is my understanding that this is partly because they have a worse track record for environmental pollution with clearer health effects.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
6:23pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Andrew, Exactly, with reference to your comments, and this is the value of every Publuc Meeting in that the local population become aware of the lack of PM2.5 safeguards, monitoring and research; compared to the United States, and the USEPA, and this applies to UK EfW Incinerators in close proximity to populations like Newhaven, but also others sites. What is good for the US (quality), and PM2.5, we want in the UK. Lets save (£Bns)on National Health Service Bills. The UK is in denial and playing catchup on PM2.5s, especially industrial/ EfW incinerator (Government EWS Direction) derived PM2.5s. Public Meetings, Dr van Steenis and Michael Ryan help to continue to flag this issue up.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:36pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Here's your big chance Andrew.
SITA are unable to provide a "Health impact assessment" to Restormel District Council in respect of their proposed incinerator at St Denis, Cornwall. Perhaps you'd find time between "drings" to knock one out as you seem to have all the chat?
Remember that SITA operate incinerators at Edmonton, Coventry, and Kirklees and that maps showing the infant mortality rates in upwind and downwind zones around those incinerators were shown at the public meeting at which Dr Dick van Steenis lectured on 18 May 2007.
If SITA can't supply a health impact assessment for their latest, & presumably the safest, incinerator - what is the value of the health impact assessments that have been submitted & pored over by Primary Care Trusts around the UK for all the incinerators which have been passed?
I suspect that Veoila will not wish to allow Dr Dick van Steenis to comment on their health impact assessment.
KInd regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
SITA are unable to provide a "Health impact assessment" to Restormel District Council in respect of their proposed incinerator at St Denis, Cornwall. Perhaps you'd find time between "drings" to knock one out as you seem to have all the chat?
Remember that SITA operate incinerators at Edmonton, Coventry, and Kirklees and that maps showing the infant mortality rates in upwind and downwind zones around those incinerators were shown at the public meeting at which Dr Dick van Steenis lectured on 18 May 2007.
If SITA can't supply a health impact assessment for their latest, & presumably the safest, incinerator - what is the value of the health impact assessments that have been submitted & pored over by Primary Care Trusts around the UK for all the incinerators which have been passed?
I suspect that Veoila will not wish to allow Dr Dick van Steenis to comment on their health impact assessment.
KInd regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:12am Sat 9 Jun 07
I wonder how many people concerned about the health impact of the Newhaven incinerator have heard of the following: Thomas J Scanlon, Lydie Lawrence, Terry Blair-Stevens and Sarah Nichols?
The above four heroes work for Brighton & Hove City PCT, and have published "A programme for Health Impact Assessment in Brighton and Hove" in the June 2006 issue of the Journal for Social and Preventative Medicine", page 145-150.
Here is the summary: "HIA, ie health impact assessment, is based on the theory of health determinants, which recognizes that well-being is determined by a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors, by heredity and medical intervention. The intended HIA procedure represents a new approach to the evaluation of all local authority policies in order to assess their potential health impacts and to improve the quality of governmental decisions, through recommendations to enhance predicted positive health impacts and minimise negative ones."
Confused or re-assured by the above summary? You should't be as the above report refers to health impact of Newhaven incinerator which your precious PCT perceives as being "no problemo" despite all the actual evidence showing the exact opposite.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The above four heroes work for Brighton & Hove City PCT, and have published "A programme for Health Impact Assessment in Brighton and Hove" in the June 2006 issue of the Journal for Social and Preventative Medicine", page 145-150.
Here is the summary: "HIA, ie health impact assessment, is based on the theory of health determinants, which recognizes that well-being is determined by a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors, by heredity and medical intervention. The intended HIA procedure represents a new approach to the evaluation of all local authority policies in order to assess their potential health impacts and to improve the quality of governmental decisions, through recommendations to enhance predicted positive health impacts and minimise negative ones."
Confused or re-assured by the above summary? You should't be as the above report refers to health impact of Newhaven incinerator which your precious PCT perceives as being "no problemo" despite all the actual evidence showing the exact opposite.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
graham ennis, Brighton says...
12:24pm Sat 9 Jun 07
I have been following all the posts on here, since my last post, with amazement. once again, i note that all the criticisms of any opponent of the incinerator are still coming from people who do not want to give there real names and want to be identified. In contrast, all the scientists involved, 9including me) are preapared to say who we are, and stand by our public statements, which are now backed up totally by clear scientific evidence.
I have to ask: "Who are you andrew?". Why do you hide in the shadows, conducting a skillful and persistent trashing of incinerator crtitics, nit-picking the evidence and not facing the awful, inconvenient truth: INCINERATORS KILL CHILDREN!. I have to ask you, given the amount of evidence, a simple question. Do you favour the building of the incinerator, do you believe it will not harm or kill children, and, crtitically, who exactly are you?.
Are you one of these paid "Interferers" who attack, undermine, and trash anyone who opposes the interests of big corporations?. Are you, what is known in the enviromental campaign community, an "EXXONERATOR"??.
lets hear, very clearly, if you want the incinerator or not. lets hear, very clearly, if you think it is harmless to children. lets hear, very clearly, who you really are, and who you represent. We are entitled to answers, I think
Graham Ennis
Omega Institute.
I have to ask: "Who are you andrew?". Why do you hide in the shadows, conducting a skillful and persistent trashing of incinerator crtitics, nit-picking the evidence and not facing the awful, inconvenient truth: INCINERATORS KILL CHILDREN!. I have to ask you, given the amount of evidence, a simple question. Do you favour the building of the incinerator, do you believe it will not harm or kill children, and, crtitically, who exactly are you?.
Are you one of these paid "Interferers" who attack, undermine, and trash anyone who opposes the interests of big corporations?. Are you, what is known in the enviromental campaign community, an "EXXONERATOR"??.
lets hear, very clearly, if you want the incinerator or not. lets hear, very clearly, if you think it is harmless to children. lets hear, very clearly, who you really are, and who you represent. We are entitled to answers, I think
Graham Ennis
Omega Institute.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:33am Thu 14 Jun 07
Without getting into too much detail, I think Graham E. has the finger on the pulse. Thnx DVS, MR.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
2:49pm Thu 14 Jun 07
Margaret Stoklosinski, who argued against the Colnbrook incinerator when she was a Councillor at Slough,
has sent a copy of my Greater London birth defect report to Slough Borough Council for comment.
A "Birth Defects Task and Finish Group" within Slough Council is to examine the above report which was published at www.ukhr.org in January 2006.
I suggest that anyone concerned about provable health effects from incinerators makes FoI requests for data from Slough PCT, Hillingdon PCT, Harrow PCT and the PCT that represents the residents of South Bucks District Council.
Kevin Barrett, of Slough Borough Council, has written to Mrs Stoklosinki and his letter of 12 JUne 2007 states: "The issue of the Task and Finish Group was raised briefly at last week's Overview and Scrutiny Committee when Councillor Arnold asked for a progress report. It was agreed that a progress report would be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee on 5th July and I will advise you of this in due course."
If anyone asks Mr Barrett for a copy of the above progress report, his e-mail address is kevin.barrett@slough
.gov.uk
Be sure to also ask for a copy of the document signed by Dr Don Sinclair, of Slough PCT, which gave the green light for the new incinerators at Colnbrook.
Around 30 per cent of infant deaths are due to birth defects.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
has sent a copy of my Greater London birth defect report to Slough Borough Council for comment.
A "Birth Defects Task and Finish Group" within Slough Council is to examine the above report which was published at www.ukhr.org in January 2006.
I suggest that anyone concerned about provable health effects from incinerators makes FoI requests for data from Slough PCT, Hillingdon PCT, Harrow PCT and the PCT that represents the residents of South Bucks District Council.
Kevin Barrett, of Slough Borough Council, has written to Mrs Stoklosinki and his letter of 12 JUne 2007 states: "The issue of the Task and Finish Group was raised briefly at last week's Overview and Scrutiny Committee when Councillor Arnold asked for a progress report. It was agreed that a progress report would be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee on 5th July and I will advise you of this in due course."
If anyone asks Mr Barrett for a copy of the above progress report, his e-mail address is kevin.barrett@slough
.gov.uk
Be sure to also ask for a copy of the document signed by Dr Don Sinclair, of Slough PCT, which gave the green light for the new incinerators at Colnbrook.
Around 30 per cent of infant deaths are due to birth defects.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
JANICE, newhaven says...
9:32pm Sat 16 Jun 07
THE BIG LAND GRAB IS UNDERWAY - on tuesday 26th JUNE a.m East Sussex CC has a 'single item' on its agenda - THIS IS THE COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF THE LAND FOR THE INCINERATOR - THIS LAND WILL THEN BE HANDED TO ONYX/VIOLA - LET'S STOP THEM - HAVE A DAY OFF - SUPPORT SUSSEX THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE LOVELY PEOPLE - WE WILL MAKE A NOISE AT COUNTY HALL LEWES ON THE DAY - BE THERE ABOUT 10 O CLOCK ish - BRING NOISY ITEMS TO BANG - we have a right to protest against this - no other options exlored by escc;bhcc; JANICE
Maz, Newhaven says...
9:28pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Below cut and pasted from DOVE website
Public meeting about waste
Dump the Dump is currently arranging a large public meeting in Brighton for the evening of 19th July. They have invited Dr Steenis and are busy confirming other speakers. They are asking Dr Steenis to talk about the health implications of both the incinerator and the dump. The focus of the meeting is on why the waste plan is so bad for East Sussex - and what alternative technologies need to be considered.
Public meeting about waste
Dump the Dump is currently arranging a large public meeting in Brighton for the evening of 19th July. They have invited Dr Steenis and are busy confirming other speakers. They are asking Dr Steenis to talk about the health implications of both the incinerator and the dump. The focus of the meeting is on why the waste plan is so bad for East Sussex - and what alternative technologies need to be considered.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
8:31pm Thu 28 Jun 07
I have tried to obtain the e-mail address of Chris Birk, of the Environment Agency, who thinks I have a duty to inform the Environment Agency, Health Protection Agency and PCT of the health effects of PM2.5 emissions from incinerators.
I suggest that he asks The Argus to print my London map which shows the municipal waste incinerators at New Cross, ie SELCHP, and at Edmonton; the sewage sludge incinerators at Crossness and at Beckton, the radioactive waste-burning incinerators at White Rose, Sidcup, at DEnmark Hill, and at StMark's Hospital, Northwick Park; the hospital incinerator at Hillingdon Hospital and also the Colnbrook incinerators which have been burning both municipal and also radioactive waste.
The Environment Agency's website only shows SELCHP and Edmonton.
My map also shows the groups of wards with high and with low infant mortality rates. The positions of these groups show clearly that the high zones are associated with emissions from incinerators - while the low infant mortality zones are all free from such emissions.
When the new Colnbrook incinerators and the Virginia Water incinerator are all operation, the low infant mortality zones in West London will change from low to high.
The new Belvedere incinerator will send PM2.5 emissions across the Thames to the low infant mortality wards in Barking & Dagenham and in Havering and the average infant mortality rate in London will rise again.
The facts will not change whether my research remains on my desk or is reported in every newspaper in the UK.
This blog has provided an insight into some of the factions who have an interest in getting the truth out, or in keeping it hidden.
Brighton isn't far from London and the research I've completed will aid you in stopping the incinerator.
If you want The Argus to be the first paper to show my map I suggest you ask them to contact me.
Anyone attending Dr van Steenis' lecture should have had time to study the London map of high & low infant mortality zones before going to the meeting.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
I suggest that he asks The Argus to print my London map which shows the municipal waste incinerators at New Cross, ie SELCHP, and at Edmonton; the sewage sludge incinerators at Crossness and at Beckton, the radioactive waste-burning incinerators at White Rose, Sidcup, at DEnmark Hill, and at StMark's Hospital, Northwick Park; the hospital incinerator at Hillingdon Hospital and also the Colnbrook incinerators which have been burning both municipal and also radioactive waste.
The Environment Agency's website only shows SELCHP and Edmonton.
My map also shows the groups of wards with high and with low infant mortality rates. The positions of these groups show clearly that the high zones are associated with emissions from incinerators - while the low infant mortality zones are all free from such emissions.
When the new Colnbrook incinerators and the Virginia Water incinerator are all operation, the low infant mortality zones in West London will change from low to high.
The new Belvedere incinerator will send PM2.5 emissions across the Thames to the low infant mortality wards in Barking & Dagenham and in Havering and the average infant mortality rate in London will rise again.
The facts will not change whether my research remains on my desk or is reported in every newspaper in the UK.
This blog has provided an insight into some of the factions who have an interest in getting the truth out, or in keeping it hidden.
Brighton isn't far from London and the research I've completed will aid you in stopping the incinerator.
If you want The Argus to be the first paper to show my map I suggest you ask them to contact me.
Anyone attending Dr van Steenis' lecture should have had time to study the London map of high & low infant mortality zones before going to the meeting.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury
Andrew, BN2 says...
3:13pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Hi Michael, just a quickie. Where did you get hold of the Ward level childhood mortality data?
The London Public Health Observatory and National Statistics dont do them as they are to low to calculate for wards.
If you could direct me to the source or provide a refrence i would be most greatfull.
All my best
Andrew.
The London Public Health Observatory and National Statistics dont do them as they are to low to calculate for wards.
If you could direct me to the source or provide a refrence i would be most greatfull.
All my best
Andrew.
Andrew, BN2 says...
6:01pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Hi Michael.
Not to worry, I think I found it. Your research on infant mortality is actually on Low Birth Weight and you have assumed that being a risk factor for infant mortality its the same thing.
Is this correct? If so, how do you account for other risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, teenage pregnancies and ethnic minorities having a higher infant mortality rate or relative socio economic deprivation)?
You mention on other websites that you have done similar research on a number of other pollutant sources. Can you point me to where they are published / posted?
Again, many thanks
Andrew
Not to worry, I think I found it. Your research on infant mortality is actually on Low Birth Weight and you have assumed that being a risk factor for infant mortality its the same thing.
Is this correct? If so, how do you account for other risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, teenage pregnancies and ethnic minorities having a higher infant mortality rate or relative socio economic deprivation)?
You mention on other websites that you have done similar research on a number of other pollutant sources. Can you point me to where they are published / posted?
Again, many thanks
Andrew
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
8:33pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Andrew, I have 4 ward maps in front of me at A3 showing the distribtion of Infant Mortility per 1000 live births, not under weight babies as you claim etc. The maps are repetative and many of the wards with higher Infant Mortlities are middle class leafy suburban wards. The common factor is they are adjacent and all downwind of an incinerator. I think you would have to apply for the same data sets from ONS under FoI. If you leave your contact email here I am sure Michael Ryan would send you a few data sets. For me from what I see in front of me there is a significant downwind pattern and link, it is that obvious and repetative.
Other contacts at the bottom of following link, if you are seriously interested, or email on www.ukhr.org.
http://www.countrydo
ctor.co.uk/precis/pr
ecis%20-%20Incinerat
ors%20-%20WMDs.htm
Other contacts at the bottom of following link, if you are seriously interested, or email on www.ukhr.org.
http://www.countrydo
ctor.co.uk/precis/pr
ecis%20-%20Incinerat
ors%20-%20WMDs.htm
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
9:07pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Well I can see past anti incinerator campaigner, now current waste and recycling minister Joan Rudduck MP for Lewisham will be interested in the health ward maps around ELCHP, as will Defra Secretary Hilary Benn MP for Leeds, currently an authority faced with a contraversial incinerator at Leeds, and a neighbouring exploding Sita Kirlees incinerator with 57 (9.4/1000 live births)Infant mortalities downwind wards compared to 5 (2.5/ 1000 live births) in downwind wards, that 400%. I hope both their consciences stop the madness rather than bending to Defra manderines and incinerator company linked consultants like Jonathon Davies and Enviros.
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:26pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Hi Rob, for my own piece of mind I have called the London Public Health Observatory and Enfield PCT to try and track down and replicate the data that Michael and Dick have applied. This proved a bit of a nightmare as they dont source or reference any of the data they have applied.
In both cases it was not possible to track down infant mortality at the ward level. What they did have was ward level low birth weight. Something Michael also referred to in the previous threads posted above.
So I then contacted National Statistics who put me through to Vital Statistics who discussed with me why such stats are not routinely collected and why ward level analysis wont show you any statistically significant correlations. They also explained why time series data can be misleading.
They did however provide me with 2005 stats for infant mortality in London. However, this still does not replicate the data Michael and Dick have applied. If you like I can send you the data table reference.
In fact, the only data that I can find that replicates their data is their data posted on other sites similar to this one.
Considering some of the claims, I dont think it unreasonable to ask for the actual source of data.
Please dont direct me to www.ukhr.org , country doctor or suggest I bug the PCT. Fair enough its a great tactic if you want people to run round in circles and panic. However, considering that I have talked to a number of people responsible for the collection and analysis of National Statistics and they dont have the data Michael and Dick have, I can only come to the conclusion that it doesnt exist.
Hey, I could be wrong, Michael and Dick may have aggregated the data, but again, because of a lack of a methodology, approach and rationale it is impossible for me to tell. Is there a single study?
All my best
Andrew
In both cases it was not possible to track down infant mortality at the ward level. What they did have was ward level low birth weight. Something Michael also referred to in the previous threads posted above.
So I then contacted National Statistics who put me through to Vital Statistics who discussed with me why such stats are not routinely collected and why ward level analysis wont show you any statistically significant correlations. They also explained why time series data can be misleading.
They did however provide me with 2005 stats for infant mortality in London. However, this still does not replicate the data Michael and Dick have applied. If you like I can send you the data table reference.
In fact, the only data that I can find that replicates their data is their data posted on other sites similar to this one.
Considering some of the claims, I dont think it unreasonable to ask for the actual source of data.
Please dont direct me to www.ukhr.org , country doctor or suggest I bug the PCT. Fair enough its a great tactic if you want people to run round in circles and panic. However, considering that I have talked to a number of people responsible for the collection and analysis of National Statistics and they dont have the data Michael and Dick have, I can only come to the conclusion that it doesnt exist.
Hey, I could be wrong, Michael and Dick may have aggregated the data, but again, because of a lack of a methodology, approach and rationale it is impossible for me to tell. Is there a single study?
All my best
Andrew
Andrew, BN2 says...
10:36pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Sorry Rob, heres my email address, if you could send me Michaels full report, the data or even the refrences i would be most greatfull.
Andrewbn2@hotmail.co
m
All my best
Andrew
Andrewbn2@hotmail.co
m
All my best
Andrew
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
11:59am Sun 8 Jul 07
Andrew, I have sent you the appropriate contact information. I am sure Michael will more than happy to assist you with specific queries on data sourcing, methodology, aggregtion, methodology, mapping approach/zoning. Its a fairly transparent approach and micro / ward study as far as I can see.
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:40am Mon 9 Jul 07
Thanks Rob.
Andrew
Andrew
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
1:49pm Sat 21 Jul 07
Andrew of BN2 seems to have difficulty with understanding English, so I hope that he can find someone to explain this to him.
The data I have examined is held by the Office for National Statistics, but is available to anyone on request. It is not published online, otherwise someone would have done the research I've carried out years ago and we would have clean air in the UK instead of a chemical soup in many places.
The infant mortyality rates for Boroughs is available online, but that is an average rate.
Ward-level data has to be pooled, ie at least three years of data, otherwise the variations are misleading.
In London, there are 625 electoral wards, so that meant opening a CD-ROM of data and getting the numbers of live births and the numbers of infant deaths in each ward for each of the years 2003-5 and then adding the numbers together to get the totals for the three years. Easy to follow, Andrew?
If you then divide the number of infant deaths in a ward by the number of live births and multiply the result by 1,000, you get the infant mortality rate expressed as deaths per 1,000 live births.
Harrow Weald had the highest infant mortality rate at 19.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, but unless you know where that ward, and all the other 624 wards are, you will struggle to get much further.
Enter Ken Livinstone, who kindly sent me an A1 map showing every electoral ward in London, which I then traced to give a ward map with no names, but which I numbered from 1, for Harrow Weald, to 625 for one of the sixty-nine wards that had zero infant deaths in 2003-5.
When the incinerators were marked on the map, it was immediately obvious that the sixty-nine zero death wards were free from PM2.5s from these installations as these wards were either outside the downwind range of the incinerators or were upwind of them.
Just over 20 years ago, I was called to a public inquiry as an expert witness over a planning application which had been refused on grounds of flooding, which the applicant felt was unjust. The Inspector quizzed me on the flooding history for the site, having earlier obtained my signed statement which had also been given to the applicants as the Inspector's decision meant that a small parcel of land was worth just five hundred pounds as summer grazing or about fifteen thousand pounds as a site with permission for a residential dwelling in a delightful area near the confluence of the Severn and Vyrnwy rivers.
The applicant was not interested in the historical flooding record, or the likelihood of future flooding, or the marooning of residents whose properties had not flooded in some past events, but who were miles from any dry road. The main focus for the applicant was financial and it's the same with the incinerator issue where there is so much money involved in the waste business that the last thing that anyone wants to do is examine any data in a rational and scientific manner.
It's unlikely that any Director of Public Health will want to telephone their local paper and say: "I've signed a document that says that Newhaven, or any other, incinerator will have no significant adverse impact on human health, but now I've checked data around other incinerators I'm worried that I've signed a death warrant for hundreds of people who are paying my salary and who will have been expecting me to be up to date in these sorts of matters. Please help me to publicise my blunder so that we can stop indiscriminant killing."
It's easier to keep quiet on matters of public health and that's why no PCT Director of Public Health has done the above.
When the first Director of Public Health is charged with failing to prevent needless deaths from industrial PM2.5 emissions, the remaining PCTs will start to act.
One Director of Public Health has asked me how I adjust the infant mortality data for deprivation. I replied that she does not adjust any data for measles, or COPD, or any other parameter for deprivation and neither do I for infant deaths. If you want to see this recent e-mail exchange with a London PCT that is within range of a major incinerator, you must get The Argus interested in following it up.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The data I have examined is held by the Office for National Statistics, but is available to anyone on request. It is not published online, otherwise someone would have done the research I've carried out years ago and we would have clean air in the UK instead of a chemical soup in many places.
The infant mortyality rates for Boroughs is available online, but that is an average rate.
Ward-level data has to be pooled, ie at least three years of data, otherwise the variations are misleading.
In London, there are 625 electoral wards, so that meant opening a CD-ROM of data and getting the numbers of live births and the numbers of infant deaths in each ward for each of the years 2003-5 and then adding the numbers together to get the totals for the three years. Easy to follow, Andrew?
If you then divide the number of infant deaths in a ward by the number of live births and multiply the result by 1,000, you get the infant mortality rate expressed as deaths per 1,000 live births.
Harrow Weald had the highest infant mortality rate at 19.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, but unless you know where that ward, and all the other 624 wards are, you will struggle to get much further.
Enter Ken Livinstone, who kindly sent me an A1 map showing every electoral ward in London, which I then traced to give a ward map with no names, but which I numbered from 1, for Harrow Weald, to 625 for one of the sixty-nine wards that had zero infant deaths in 2003-5.
When the incinerators were marked on the map, it was immediately obvious that the sixty-nine zero death wards were free from PM2.5s from these installations as these wards were either outside the downwind range of the incinerators or were upwind of them.
Just over 20 years ago, I was called to a public inquiry as an expert witness over a planning application which had been refused on grounds of flooding, which the applicant felt was unjust. The Inspector quizzed me on the flooding history for the site, having earlier obtained my signed statement which had also been given to the applicants as the Inspector's decision meant that a small parcel of land was worth just five hundred pounds as summer grazing or about fifteen thousand pounds as a site with permission for a residential dwelling in a delightful area near the confluence of the Severn and Vyrnwy rivers.
The applicant was not interested in the historical flooding record, or the likelihood of future flooding, or the marooning of residents whose properties had not flooded in some past events, but who were miles from any dry road. The main focus for the applicant was financial and it's the same with the incinerator issue where there is so much money involved in the waste business that the last thing that anyone wants to do is examine any data in a rational and scientific manner.
It's unlikely that any Director of Public Health will want to telephone their local paper and say: "I've signed a document that says that Newhaven, or any other, incinerator will have no significant adverse impact on human health, but now I've checked data around other incinerators I'm worried that I've signed a death warrant for hundreds of people who are paying my salary and who will have been expecting me to be up to date in these sorts of matters. Please help me to publicise my blunder so that we can stop indiscriminant killing."
It's easier to keep quiet on matters of public health and that's why no PCT Director of Public Health has done the above.
When the first Director of Public Health is charged with failing to prevent needless deaths from industrial PM2.5 emissions, the remaining PCTs will start to act.
One Director of Public Health has asked me how I adjust the infant mortality data for deprivation. I replied that she does not adjust any data for measles, or COPD, or any other parameter for deprivation and neither do I for infant deaths. If you want to see this recent e-mail exchange with a London PCT that is within range of a major incinerator, you must get The Argus interested in following it up.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:18am Mon 23 Jul 07
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.
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.
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
12:40pm Mon 23 Jul 07
As the former chairman of DOVE Ive been reading this online debate with great interest and some incredulity.
The most important point here is risk.
No matter where incinerators are proposed (and this is the true test of acceptability) significant numbers of the population simply do not accept the risk. From memory, during the first deposit of the Waste Local Plan it was more than 80% of Newhaven residents who objected to incineration. The objections have continued for a period which covers 8 years on 17th November this year).
Whether the risk is perceived or actual is unimportant. The point is people do not want that risk imposed upon them and who can argue with that?
Just cast your minds back to the smoking/anti smoking debate that raged from the 1950s. Smoking is now banned in public places on the basis that no-one should be inhaling other peoples cigarette smoke.
I would contend the percentage of the population objecting is more than the percentage who vote in a general election. Unlike at a general election, their opinions have brought no result so far!
In my personal evidence to the 2003 Public Inquiry I contended that incinerator proposals compromise parents duties to nurture and care for their children. My view in that remains unchanged.
It is also highly significant that people did not just object: they proposed alternatives.
An alternative plan entitled Getting to Zero Waste: A Citizens Resource Recovery Strategy for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove was appended to the DOVE representations to the Second Deposit of the Waste Local Plan. This strategy was drafted by waste economists and experts using the joint authorities own household waste figures. The East Sussex County Council representative and representatives from two of the contract bidders failed to persuade the audience in an open debate (all six bidders were invited to the meeting in May 2001 at Lewes Town Hall to speak against Professor Paul Connett).
So to summarise, in my opinion, pursuing plans for the incinerator:
impinges on democracy,
ignores the views of democratically elected Norman Baker, MP (who also gave evidence to the Public Inquiry regarding public acceptance of risk),
impinges on basic human rights of the population of a whole town (let alone the surrounding areas),
ignores the financial benefits to the district councils and city council of implementing proper recycling and composting facilities.
Finally, why would anyone seemingly wish to impose suffering (physical and/or psychological) upon an entire towns residents instead of first implementing more economically beneficial alternatives already proven in other areas of our country as well as other English speaking nations and Europe?
Yours, still very puzzled
Joëlle van Tinteren
The most important point here is risk.
No matter where incinerators are proposed (and this is the true test of acceptability) significant numbers of the population simply do not accept the risk. From memory, during the first deposit of the Waste Local Plan it was more than 80% of Newhaven residents who objected to incineration. The objections have continued for a period which covers 8 years on 17th November this year).
Whether the risk is perceived or actual is unimportant. The point is people do not want that risk imposed upon them and who can argue with that?
Just cast your minds back to the smoking/anti smoking debate that raged from the 1950s. Smoking is now banned in public places on the basis that no-one should be inhaling other peoples cigarette smoke.
I would contend the percentage of the population objecting is more than the percentage who vote in a general election. Unlike at a general election, their opinions have brought no result so far!
In my personal evidence to the 2003 Public Inquiry I contended that incinerator proposals compromise parents duties to nurture and care for their children. My view in that remains unchanged.
It is also highly significant that people did not just object: they proposed alternatives.
An alternative plan entitled Getting to Zero Waste: A Citizens Resource Recovery Strategy for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove was appended to the DOVE representations to the Second Deposit of the Waste Local Plan. This strategy was drafted by waste economists and experts using the joint authorities own household waste figures. The East Sussex County Council representative and representatives from two of the contract bidders failed to persuade the audience in an open debate (all six bidders were invited to the meeting in May 2001 at Lewes Town Hall to speak against Professor Paul Connett).
So to summarise, in my opinion, pursuing plans for the incinerator:
impinges on democracy,
ignores the views of democratically elected Norman Baker, MP (who also gave evidence to the Public Inquiry regarding public acceptance of risk),
impinges on basic human rights of the population of a whole town (let alone the surrounding areas),
ignores the financial benefits to the district councils and city council of implementing proper recycling and composting facilities.
Finally, why would anyone seemingly wish to impose suffering (physical and/or psychological) upon an entire towns residents instead of first implementing more economically beneficial alternatives already proven in other areas of our country as well as other English speaking nations and Europe?
Yours, still very puzzled
Joëlle van Tinteren
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.
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.
Dear Andrew,
Surely you are doing the opposite harm of encouraging complacency, by entrenching dissociation of potential risks, saying I live in close proximity three major waste site. I don't think they are a risk". Could this be so? Is this not the same mental state of the people who have been flooded out this weekend and living on flood plain, and dabbing the water off their insurance documents?
Also, are you suggesting PCT's/PCT Directors should not undertake their full statutory duties, and not really up to the job, or implying there responsibilities should be transferred to an independent body with a specific budget and day to day toxicology and emissions expertise on Industrial Emissions?
You are not trying to stiffle vital research per chance, per chance, or scrutiny of COMEAD/HPA incomplete findings PM2.5s Andrew? It sounds like it.
Using a GIS sounds technical to the blogs reader. Garbage in, Garbage out. I used my ArcInfo version on the data, which backed Michael Ryans findings up. What make the research salient is that it repeated downwind pattern around 15 incinerators that throws out the other parameters you mention. There are places Dr Van Steenis has studied with homogenious ethicity, areas without these illnesses in South Wales with high social economic factors. The higher the number of similar downwind/incinerator patterns, the less the chance at other risk parameters are significant. I haven't seen any contrary evidence from you on incinerator PM2.5 consequences, or that the parameters you mention explain Michael Ryans repeated Infant Mortality patterns.
Receiving a contrary letter from a Government Officer or Department does not mean one is wrong. It might also mean one is correct and the Government Department/ Respondant is wrong, or not ready to admit they are. I do detect a huge faith and affinity from you for such officialdom, expertise and perceived wisdom, whereas mine tends to be of the opposite pursuasion, especially in the last decade. You seem to know more than you let on about the details of the Telford case, with prejudice I'd suggest. Most Brighton residents, unless they were working for Sussex PCT, an official involved would not doing this level of response. Without identification, it begs an obvious question IMO.
The only thing IMO that is moral and environmental WRONG is EfW Incinerator being located in close proximities to populations and people, and powerful officials arrogance in their decision making and ignoring public, environmental and independent expert concerns, and progressing regardless. It does not bode well!
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
4:03pm Mon 23 Jul 07
Andrew BN2
The document was not an assertion, but your take on it was!
I'm not sure your comments add much other than being inaccurate and spun themselves or knit picking fron a current prejudiced position.
Dr van Steenis referenced his comments and for all bloggers/ readers the substance and style was very similar to the below Media Clip below.
http://www.st-ig.co.
uk/vansteenis.html
With reference to Hollingdean PM2.5s. Perhaps as you live on Lewes Rd you might ask the council themselves. Its would seem its your home, neighbourhood and health that will be affected, not mine.
The document was not an assertion, but your take on it was!
I'm not sure your comments add much other than being inaccurate and spun themselves or knit picking fron a current prejudiced position.
Dr van Steenis referenced his comments and for all bloggers/ readers the substance and style was very similar to the below Media Clip below.
http://www.st-ig.co.
uk/vansteenis.html
With reference to Hollingdean PM2.5s. Perhaps as you live on Lewes Rd you might ask the council themselves. Its would seem its your home, neighbourhood and health that will be affected, not mine.
Andrew, BN2 says...
9:34am Tue 24 Jul 07
How can you claim that my comments are inaccurate or that I am knit picking? The Michael Ryan report came with a Department of Health health warning on the back of it.
Thats not knit picking, thats a whopping great hole in your credibility.
And my point on the Primary Care Trust (PCT) is that they have a number of roles and responsibilities, being involved in the planning process is not in their job description but they do it.
My point was that the time Telford PCT had to set aside to address the public anxiety raised by your unsubstantiated claims, the report they commissioned and the independent expert they paid to review was completely unnecessary and had nothing to do with planning. They did what you have been asking all along, that a PCT do some research into potential risk to health.
And then when they issue it you simply put it down to a government conspiracy or that the PCT has a vested interest in keeping people ill.
Rob, get your researched peer reviewed and publish it. Thats the only way people will start to take you seriously.
Andrew
Thats not knit picking, thats a whopping great hole in your credibility.
And my point on the Primary Care Trust (PCT) is that they have a number of roles and responsibilities, being involved in the planning process is not in their job description but they do it.
My point was that the time Telford PCT had to set aside to address the public anxiety raised by your unsubstantiated claims, the report they commissioned and the independent expert they paid to review was completely unnecessary and had nothing to do with planning. They did what you have been asking all along, that a PCT do some research into potential risk to health.
And then when they issue it you simply put it down to a government conspiracy or that the PCT has a vested interest in keeping people ill.
Rob, get your researched peer reviewed and publish it. Thats the only way people will start to take you seriously.
Andrew
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
1:39pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Dear Andrew of BN2,
Can I ask you please - where would you look for research on the health effects of incineration?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Can I ask you please - where would you look for research on the health effects of incineration?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Andrew, BN2 says...
2:09pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Joëlle
The first stop would be the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP)
They have done some great studies on both the long term and short term effect from exposure to air pollutants. Some of its quite technical but all of it is supported by robust evidence and extensively peer reviewed.
http://www.advisoryb
odies.doh.gov.uk/com
eap/
The next stop is the World Health Organisation. The following link takes you to their 2005 guidance update on health and air quality.
http://www.euro.who.
int/Document/E87950.
pdf
http://www.euro.who.
int/air/activities/2
0050222_2
They go into PM2.5 is well.
There is more, but these have been the most use to me.
I hope these help
All my best
Andrew
The first stop would be the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP)
They have done some great studies on both the long term and short term effect from exposure to air pollutants. Some of its quite technical but all of it is supported by robust evidence and extensively peer reviewed.
http://www.advisoryb
odies.doh.gov.uk/com
eap/
The next stop is the World Health Organisation. The following link takes you to their 2005 guidance update on health and air quality.
http://www.euro.who.
int/Document/E87950.
http://www.euro.who.
int/air/activities/2
0050222_2
They go into PM2.5 is well.
There is more, but these have been the most use to me.
I hope these help
All my best
Andrew
Joëlle van Tinteren, Devon says...
3:15pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Andrew,
Have you considered the authorities' own expert health evidence?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Have you considered the authorities' own expert health evidence?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Andrew, BN2 says...
3:46pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Joëlle
Which authority did you mean?
I would have recommended the UK Health Protection Agency or the DEFRA health effects from waste management study.
www.ecomed.org.uk/co
ntent/IncineratorHPA
.pdf
www.defra.gov.uk/env
ironment/waste/resea
rch/health/pdf/healt
h-summary.pdf
However, these have been criticised by Dr van Steenis as being biased and Government Spin, still worth a peak though.
By the way, for those of you interested, COMEAPs latest report on long term effects from air pollution has a chunk on PM2.5, including a means to quantify potential health effects from changes in exposure.
Thanks Joëlle, I wouldnt have seen this if you had not asked.
Andrew
Which authority did you mean?
I would have recommended the UK Health Protection Agency or the DEFRA health effects from waste management study.
www.ecomed.org.uk/co
ntent/IncineratorHPA
www.defra.gov.uk/env
ironment/waste/resea
rch/health/pdf/healt
h-summary.pdf
However, these have been criticised by Dr van Steenis as being biased and Government Spin, still worth a peak though.
By the way, for those of you interested, COMEAPs latest report on long term effects from air pollution has a chunk on PM2.5, including a means to quantify potential health effects from changes in exposure.
Thanks Joëlle, I wouldnt have seen this if you had not asked.
Andrew
Andrew, BN2 says...
4:18pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Joëlle, by the way im a big fan of your Zero Waste Charter.
All my best
Andrew
All my best
Andrew
Joëlle van Tinteren, says...
5:01pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Andrew,
Do you mean the Charter itself or the "Getting to Zero Waste: A Citizens' Resource Recovery Strategy for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove"?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Do you mean the Charter itself or the "Getting to Zero Waste: A Citizens' Resource Recovery Strategy for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove"?
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Joëlle van Tinteren, says...
5:19pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Andrew,
I don't actually have time to read lots of reports any more but I did have a peek at the ecomed one and it has a forward by that superb and respected epidemiologist Dr. Vyvian Howard. I trust Dr. Howard's findings as I do his methods of communication. It's nice to find an even more up to date report. Will look at the DEFRA report just as soon as I can.
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
I don't actually have time to read lots of reports any more but I did have a peek at the ecomed one and it has a forward by that superb and respected epidemiologist Dr. Vyvian Howard. I trust Dr. Howard's findings as I do his methods of communication. It's nice to find an even more up to date report. Will look at the DEFRA report just as soon as I can.
Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:42pm Tue 24 Jul 07
Hi Andrew
How can you claim that my comments are inaccurate or that I am knit picking? The Michael Ryan report came with a Department of Health health warning on the back of it. Well because many of them are!
The basis howler is that you said it was my research. Michael Ryan or Dr Van steenis would not be happy with you on that point.
MR has already cleaned up on you DoH comments, 400 members at the Norwich Lecture 29/1/07 saw these full correspondences in full public display.
Your confirm that PCTs are simply not up to their statutory responsibilities on permitting waste incinerators. Perhaps this hived off to independents with the specialist day to day competancy and toxicology and medical training, with the required budget. I'm not suggesting the they might be found in the Cockcroft Building.
HPA have not done the necessary incinerator PM2.5 research or monitoring. PCTs/ Directors are left to Permit in ingorance, without this research, and other research/ authors such as Joëlle van Tinteren mentions is not considered either. Its currently esssentially a tick box/ rubber stamping process by PCT Directors.
"Lastly, im a big fan of your Zero Waste Charter". A little confusing. Reading through it I think you will find ZWC Point 6. Ban any new thermal treatment (ie EfW incineration) of mixed waste and limit disposal contracts to a maximum of ten years. Point 9. Open up waste planning to greater public participation and end the commercial confidentiality of waste contracts.
Point 10. Establish a Zero Waste Agency to promote resource efficiency and act as a guardian of public health. Perhaps you are a selective lective fan agreeing on the other 7 points, or zero waste realist of "zero waste to landfill and EfW incineration" like myself? Food for thought.
I also trust and respect Dr. Vyvian Howard and his findings as Joëlle van Tinteren rightly points out.
How can you claim that my comments are inaccurate or that I am knit picking? The Michael Ryan report came with a Department of Health health warning on the back of it. Well because many of them are!
The basis howler is that you said it was my research. Michael Ryan or Dr Van steenis would not be happy with you on that point.
MR has already cleaned up on you DoH comments, 400 members at the Norwich Lecture 29/1/07 saw these full correspondences in full public display.
Your confirm that PCTs are simply not up to their statutory responsibilities on permitting waste incinerators. Perhaps this hived off to independents with the specialist day to day competancy and toxicology and medical training, with the required budget. I'm not suggesting the they might be found in the Cockcroft Building.
HPA have not done the necessary incinerator PM2.5 research or monitoring. PCTs/ Directors are left to Permit in ingorance, without this research, and other research/ authors such as Joëlle van Tinteren mentions is not considered either. Its currently esssentially a tick box/ rubber stamping process by PCT Directors.
"Lastly, im a big fan of your Zero Waste Charter". A little confusing. Reading through it I think you will find ZWC Point 6. Ban any new thermal treatment (ie EfW incineration) of mixed waste and limit disposal contracts to a maximum of ten years. Point 9. Open up waste planning to greater public participation and end the commercial confidentiality of waste contracts.
Point 10. Establish a Zero Waste Agency to promote resource efficiency and act as a guardian of public health. Perhaps you are a selective lective fan agreeing on the other 7 points, or zero waste realist of "zero waste to landfill and EfW incineration" like myself? Food for thought.
I also trust and respect Dr. Vyvian Howard and his findings as Joëlle van Tinteren rightly points out.
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
12:57am Wed 25 Jul 07
Hi Joëlle
Also I think this more recent BSEM document adds to the debate and is useful supports what DVS and MR have been saying on health, their resrch, PM2.5 and the woeful HPA position
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPAResponse.pdf
I'm not sure the HPA have been back in touch.
Also I think this more recent BSEM document adds to the debate and is useful supports what DVS and MR have been saying on health, their resrch, PM2.5 and the woeful HPA position
http://www.ecomed.or
g.uk/content/Inciner
atorHPAResponse.pdf
I'm not sure the HPA have been back in touch.
A.Dent, Bristol says...
12:41am Tue 9 Oct 07
It is a little worrying, credibility-wise, that the Omega Institute is the 'brain'-child of Graham Ennis: a UFO 'expert' who once claimed that there are forests of trees on Mars. I believe that the 'Dr' title, used by Ennis, is bogus.
Andrew, BN2 says...
5:26pm Fri 19 Oct 07
Hey A-Dent, nice alias, wish i thought of it
Graham Ennis, Brighton says...
1:21pm Thu 25 Oct 07
I have just seen the spitful, and totally inaccurate comment, from "A-Dent" of 19th october on here, regarding myself. As usual, it's wrong, a personal sneering type attack, and full of falsehoods. I do not know who you are, "A-Dent", becuase as usual, people like you, unlike me, hide their identities when posting. (Why?). So lets set the record straight.
1: You accuse me of being a bogus "Doctor", and using a fasle academic title. (You did it in writing, it's wrong, and it's libel.)Where did you source this information?.....gos
sip?...one of the far-right political groups with whom I have clashed in the past?.....what is your source. I am not a "Doctor". I am a qualified aerospace expert, who switched disciplines and has worked on environmental issues for the last 5 years.
You report, inaccuratly, published work by myself, about plant life on Mars, 9supported by photographic space-probe evidence.) it may suprise an ignoramus like you that most scientists now accept that there is evidence for life on mars. Thats why the very expensive mars landers from the US are there, looking at the place. You also sneer that i am an "UFO-Expert". Actually, whats wrong with that?.....since when did i have to get permission from people like you to do UFO research?....actuall
y, it may suprise you, i was closely associated with such research for many years. So are dozens of other scientists. it 's an inter-disciplinery area of academic research. try looking at the MIT research on the subject, or the project "greenglow" work officially financed here in Uk by the goverment. I have written and spoken extensively on the subject, for years. So have many other scientists. ignoramus's like you of course, never do any real research into anything. The Omega Institute is a goverment registered, non-profit officialy registered organization, with the legal status of a foundation. what is your problem with that?....perhaps, "A-Dent", you would like to tell us all on here who you really are, what education and qualifications you have, what scientific and technological expertise you have, and why you are knowledgable enough to sound off in the way you do, about these incinerator issues. Or is it simply that you are one of these local malcontents, with a right wing extremist mentality, who simply hate anyone who does anything, for nothing, for the public good.?
Who are you, "A-Dent"...are you too frightened to tell us who you really are?
Graham Ennis
Director
Omega Institute.
1: You accuse me of being a bogus "Doctor", and using a fasle academic title. (You did it in writing, it's wrong, and it's libel.)Where did you source this information?.....gos
sip?...one of the far-right political groups with whom I have clashed in the past?.....what is your source. I am not a "Doctor". I am a qualified aerospace expert, who switched disciplines and has worked on environmental issues for the last 5 years.
You report, inaccuratly, published work by myself, about plant life on Mars, 9supported by photographic space-probe evidence.) it may suprise an ignoramus like you that most scientists now accept that there is evidence for life on mars. Thats why the very expensive mars landers from the US are there, looking at the place. You also sneer that i am an "UFO-Expert". Actually, whats wrong with that?.....since when did i have to get permission from people like you to do UFO research?....actuall
y, it may suprise you, i was closely associated with such research for many years. So are dozens of other scientists. it 's an inter-disciplinery area of academic research. try looking at the MIT research on the subject, or the project "greenglow" work officially financed here in Uk by the goverment. I have written and spoken extensively on the subject, for years. So have many other scientists. ignoramus's like you of course, never do any real research into anything. The Omega Institute is a goverment registered, non-profit officialy registered organization, with the legal status of a foundation. what is your problem with that?....perhaps, "A-Dent", you would like to tell us all on here who you really are, what education and qualifications you have, what scientific and technological expertise you have, and why you are knowledgable enough to sound off in the way you do, about these incinerator issues. Or is it simply that you are one of these local malcontents, with a right wing extremist mentality, who simply hate anyone who does anything, for nothing, for the public good.?
Who are you, "A-Dent"...are you too frightened to tell us who you really are?
Graham Ennis
Director
Omega Institute.
Kim, Canada says...
2:01pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Interesting that those who are suspicious of any statistics by Scientists are the first to run to the family GP for medical attention. I say if you believe them to be safe forfeit your rights to ANY medical attention. This way it becomes a win/win. You get your furnace and the rest of us get medical attention!
Keith, Offshore says...
9:53pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Hi I ahave been looking at this site for a couple of hours and regardless of personal opinions I have to say that the arguments for open debate cannot be faulted. I live in an area that is "looking at replacing its 20 year old EfW Incinerator with a new on in different location. What I am goint to try and find out tomorrow is if there are any available statistics relating to infant mortality and health over the past 20 years. What also may well be compounding the problems is the relativly new location of a greeen waste comoposting site that although recieving many complaints about smells and various chest complaints headaches , nausia drowsyness etc thay have all been denied as not being credible. Except when people move away even for holidays - they feel and look better I would like to invite Michael Ryan and Dr Dick van Steenis to a public debate. I have to say that until last Thursday I was a fan of Incineration mainly as I am not a big fan of recycling and thought that a highly efficient new incinerator would be the best long term solution. I was not exopecting the incinerator to be capable of producing much power locall due to the size of our input and belkieved that power generation has a break even point with reference to Rubbish volumes etc.
Perhaps I will get a responce in principal from the two gentlemen and if it comes off the result will vindicate whoever needs to be vindicated - other wise these discussions could go on ad infinitum
Perhaps I will get a responce in principal from the two gentlemen and if it comes off the result will vindicate whoever needs to be vindicated - other wise these discussions could go on ad infinitum
chumdan, derby says...
12:26am Sat 15 Nov 08
Again a so called expert makes a faulse comment and causes negative feedback to the public. obviously not a expert in the latest WTE technologies.
All the latest Waste To Energy powerplants have such high air filtration systems they emmit almost no toxic fumes(over 99% clean), the quality of air from the chiminey stack is usually cleaner that the air we breathe in a city. These WTE plants operate so clean that they qualify for carbon credits !. When waste is incinerated it eliminates the huge landfills sites that are polluting the ground and stormwater(from rainfall run off), also another major problem that it eliminates that we overlook is the huge amounts of toxic gases that are emmitted from the land fill waste exposed to the atmosphere, METHANE IS THE MOST COMMON GAS THAT IS EMMITTED AT A WASTE DUMP SITE, IT IS 20 TIMES MORE HARMFUL TO THE OZONE LAYER THAN CARBON-DIOXIDE.
WTE plants are the greatest inventions of all time.
-NO NEED TO RUIN THE ENVIRONMENT WITH LANDFILL DUMP SITES
-NO NEED TO MINE FOSSIL FUELS TO RUN IT
-AS A RESULT MUCH LESS DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
-ENERGY PRODUCED FROM INCINERATION PRODUCES THE ELECTRICITY THATS ALWAYS IN DEMAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
WTE plants solves many problems. its the only way forward.
The public need to understand the benifits rather than scared by people that live in the past with ignorence to current technology. TAKING ADVICE FROM THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
Chum Danthanarayana
All the latest Waste To Energy powerplants have such high air filtration systems they emmit almost no toxic fumes(over 99% clean), the quality of air from the chiminey stack is usually cleaner that the air we breathe in a city. These WTE plants operate so clean that they qualify for carbon credits !. When waste is incinerated it eliminates the huge landfills sites that are polluting the ground and stormwater(from rainfall run off), also another major problem that it eliminates that we overlook is the huge amounts of toxic gases that are emmitted from the land fill waste exposed to the atmosphere, METHANE IS THE MOST COMMON GAS THAT IS EMMITTED AT A WASTE DUMP SITE, IT IS 20 TIMES MORE HARMFUL TO THE OZONE LAYER THAN CARBON-DIOXIDE.
WTE plants are the greatest inventions of all time.
-NO NEED TO RUIN THE ENVIRONMENT WITH LANDFILL DUMP SITES
-NO NEED TO MINE FOSSIL FUELS TO RUN IT
-AS A RESULT MUCH LESS DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
-ENERGY PRODUCED FROM INCINERATION PRODUCES THE ELECTRICITY THATS ALWAYS IN DEMAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
WTE plants solves many problems. its the only way forward.
The public need to understand the benifits rather than scared by people that live in the past with ignorence to current technology. TAKING ADVICE FROM THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
Chum Danthanarayana
The incinerator is due to open in 2010
In this section
- Jury in Hastings stalker attacks trial told car salesman "terrorised lone women"
- Learn the Brighton Carnival dance
- Sussex councils spend millions on school transport
- Man quizzed over Brighton YMCA blaze
- Sussex swine flu cases mount up
- Portslade schoolboy knocked down at death crash site
- Debt scammers target Sussex
- Paralysed Worthing teenager spends 14th birthday in hospital
- Brighton cabbies 'treated with contempt'
- Sussex disabled boy helped by kind neighbours
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Peter Smith, Saltdean says...
8:29am Thu 24 May 07