Why does the Argus constantly give Dr Van Deenis the credibility he does not deserve. He is not an air pollution expert, just a 'retired GP' obviously with an axe to grind. He is not a local man and has been called in by the DOVE group to bolster their flagging campaign. Much of what he says is full of wild inaccuracy.

A great deal of the cost of modern incinerators is spent on flue gas cleaning equipment. The exhaust gases are cleaner than almost any other industrial process you care to mention and are heavily regulated by the Environment Agency. It is not in the operator's interests to send heavy pollution into the atmosphere for this indicates that the burners are not operating at their optimum levels. Incinerators are operating successfully in many other parts of the UK and during a recent week's stay in Southampton I did not notice hundreds of people suffering as a result of the Marchwood Incinerator sited on the dock front (a similar location to the proposed Newhaven plant). Others such as SELCHP in London have been operating for in excess of a dozen years with no ticking health time bomb.

Dr Van Deenis does not mention other polluting activities that already affect the residents of Newhaven. The ferry service running at least twice a day will generate huge amounts of pollution, both from the ships themselves and the additional traffic generated. What about the swing bridge? Hundreds of cars waiting in a queue with engines running. Backyard bonfires? Bonfire night in Lewes? Both the last two activities will produce more unregulated pollution from single events than the Newhaven incinerator will produce in 12 months.

Let's get some perspective folks. Incinerating rubbish and converting it to energy is not environmental problem it is painted out to be. It is a sensible way of dealing with the rising tide of rubbish and will deal with all the residual elements once the recycling efforts have been exhausted.

Well said NIMBY. I lived in another part of the country within a mile of an incinerator for 13 years. I didn't have to increase my medication at all. I didn't hear of any birth defects from the local hospital or any incidents of cancer increase.
Scare mongering at it's worst.

If that's not a scare tactic then what is? If it was as dangerous as he says entire towns would be dead within days.

Well said NIMBY. Finally someone adding science to the debate rather than scaremongering.

nobody complains about bonfires.........!

Well I 'CLAIM' that it won't do any such thing and is perfectly harmless.
Go on Argus, publish that. After all, it has about as much scientific credence as the waffle spouted by a retired GP.

hahaha, I see the local councillors and PR dept for the contractors have got busy on the old PR counter-attack by making the above postings. If anyone can't see through you guys they must be living in a cloud of your toxic smoke. Tut tut tut! Nice try but shame on you all!

Adam wrote:
hahaha, I see the local councillors and PR dept for the contractors have got busy on the old PR counter-attack by making the above postings. If anyone can't see through you guys they must be living in a cloud of your toxic smoke. Tut tut tut! Nice try but shame on you all!

I have no connection with anybody involved in this project and have no axe to grind since I live in West Sussex where incineration is not under consideration.

However, I think that all the issues ought to be looked at carefully and put in the context of other industrial processes. How would you deal with rubbish then Adam? And tell me - have you ever seen this toxic smoke coming out of an incinerator chimney? It's almost invisible...

NIMBY, you obviously haven't seen Dr van Steenis's presentation and maps/ data set evidence, so your comments have little weight. You are wrong Dr Van Steenis doesn't mention other pollution sources, and sources of PM2.5, such as heavy oil producers and refineries. SEE THE PRESENTATION, similar to his in Cornwall below.

http://www.st-ig.co.

uk/vansteenis.html

Dr van Steenis has advised in Parliament 4 times on industrial emissions with peer reviewed articles in the Lancet and elsewhere, so NIMBY stop stating rubbish, are get you facts right.

You have obviously NOT seen the government ONS infant mortality and maps around waste incinerators that prove repeated 300% downwind baby deaths, and the detailed 117 comment thread, in Argus in May.

Dr van Steenis accounts for issues like passive smoking, deprivation and many potential health sources, and highlights illnesses with specific PM2.5 signatures.

Did you know Newhaven has greater than 1700 registered asthmatic out of a 10,000 population. This will not be improved by the incinerator being built and operating.

I wouldn't suggest that you work for Veolia or a stooge, but there are quite a few. The facts are whilst regulation exists, they are flawed and largely poorly for breaches.(re: Nottingham WRG incinerator breaches)

Marchwood incinerator was opened only last month if you had followed letsrecycle so NO history yet (shows you lack of detailed knowledge over Marchwood), Michael Ryan has downwing infant mortality figures for SELCHP.

Most people near incinerator proposals are not Nimbys, they just want something better, such as Autoclaving, Mechanical Biological Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion and Plasma Arc Gasifiers for converting residual waste to energy and recycle materials up front. Hampshire is well recognised as the worst model of residual waste disposal in the UK.

So if incinerators are not a health problem, where is your data, especially on PM2.5s? Because you will not find any PM2.5 research at the Health Protection Agency, Environmental Agency and Defra! Clearly yours is a hopeful opinion rather than one that has bothered to look at the knitty gritty of infant mortality data around numerous incinerators, waste burning cement works and co burning power stations as Dr van Steenis as spend 12 years doing with research colleague Michael Ryan.

Contrary to your comments Nimby, other than Landfill, Incineration is the next worst way to dispose of residual waste. In many cases many local authorities are finding the Best Performing Environmental Option (BPEO) scores, Environmenatl Impact Assessment(EIAs) and Best Value for capital costs and long term running costs do not "stack up" for incinerators over the other advanced technologies coming through (previously mentioned). In Norfolk the state of the art WRG incinerator was beaten by 8% by the SRM/NEWS MBT/AD proposal. Bradford, Liverpool have gone for Autoclaving, Durham, Lancashire, Manchester, Cumbria, Cambridgeshire, Essex varieties of MBT on similar BPEO/EIA against competing incinerator bids.

So Dick van Steenis's research is more evidential (its Government ONS data) than Veolias emissions spin and in denial and less informed comments by NIMBY.

Nice to see Dr Van D scaremongering yet again. I've challenged him and his colleagues on numerous occasions to back up their claims on this issue. All I recieved (via this noticeboard) was further unsupportable claims and a few somewhat sarcastic comments about me being 'a bright lad'. He and his supporters have consistently failed to back up their claims and yet the Argus continues to give this guy column inches. ANd for the sceptics, I am not affiated/associated with the council, contractors or their PR teams: I'm just a man of the street with some qualifications in this field who is horrified at Dr Van D's unscientific and unsupported claims.

NIMBY wrote:

Adam wrote: hahaha, I see the local councillors and PR dept for the contractors have got busy on the old PR counter-attack by making the above postings. If anyone can\'t see through you guys they must be living in a cloud of your toxic smoke. Tut tut tut! Nice try but shame on you all!

I have no connection with anybody involved in this project and have no axe to grind since I live in West Sussex where incineration is not under consideration. However, I think that all the issues ought to be looked at carefully and put in the context of other industrial processes. How would you deal with rubbish then Adam? And tell me - have you ever seen this toxic smoke coming out of an incinerator chimney? It\'s almost invisible...

NIMBY, "Emissions from Incinerators are almost invisible"

Exactly, PM2.5s/PM1s are invisible to the eye are invisible to the eye. Up to 30% passes through the stack top bag filters, more if not maintained properly. In the PM10 size, (less dangerous to people)is the larger particulate visible part. Most of the visible PM10 are captured by bag filters in the form of a soot cake.

I'm astonished that the people on this site are so ill informed and blinkered. Dr Dick Van Steenis was not invited by DOVE, he was invited by Dump the Dump. Dr Van Steenis is an air pollution expert who has taken part in 31 enquiries over the last 27 years, 26 of which he has been successful in preventing from poisoning the local populations. What is more the doctor was talking about a monitoring report provided by Brighton & Hove Council which appears to show clearly that the level of pollution at the Hollingdean waste site is up to 11 times the US safe levels for for particulate matter of the size PM2.5 and smaller. In the US it is illegal to pollute the air with more than a certain level of these particulates because they are so small they can enter the deep into lungs and cause a number of significant diseases, including cancers. This is not hearsay it is evidenced by peer reviewed reports from the US. The UK government does not measure any particulates smaller than PM4, but these are too large to enter the lungs. The report pertaining to the Hollingdean site was either completed with monitoring equipment that had been set at such a low level that it was getting negative readings, a zero reading would have been a vacuum, so a negative reading is impossible. However, an expert can get a very close understanding of the levels of pollution from this report and that is what Dr Van Steenis did. His conclusion from B&HCC's own findings was that not only were the vulnerable people living close to the site were most at risk, but that all the population will be affected within a two mile radius badly, depending on the prevailing winds. The only people who would dispute this would be officers of Veolia, a disreputable company, with a number of court cases behind them. I assume that the above blogs have been posted by them. The council in Brighton must now as a result of these findings cease work at Hollingdean and re-look at the Newhaven incinerator.

Rick from Hove, its correct to challenge and but also to dig further. Rick I had your view 2 years ago as a sceptic before looking at the Office of National Statistics data, Infant Mortality Maps around 15 UK EfW incinerators and understanding PM2.5s, and the US EPA PM2.5 experience and air pollution. Dr van Steenis is not scaremongering, he is presenting fact, government health data and asking lay people like not to be in denial, and not to buy EA/Defra incinerator emissions spin. Why have EA/HPA (people in the know) not challenged / dispoved Dr van Steenis's finding, well because embarrassingly it is Government data that is simply mapped by upwind/ downwind ward zones.

Where is the scientific proof that this plant will emit harmful pollution? I am an engineer and have been working for the past two years on an extension to an existing waste-burning to energy plant outside Amsterdam. The plant uses best practice in design and execution and utilizes an advanced flue gas treatment system, which I assume will be incorporated at the Newhaven plant! The engineers responsible only have to visit and study this plant to see how it is all done. They have a perfect working model to look at.

Dear Rob Whittle,
You have tried to paint a convincing case. However, some of your 'facts' are a bit spurious.

Marchwood incinerator has been operating for over three years so although only officially opened last month, there has now been a track record of emissions.

PM2.5s are found from all emissions produced by burning, including most notably diesel engines. Waste is routinely delivered in diesel engined lorries, whether to recycling plants, landfill sites, composting facilities or incinerators. A connection perhaps?

All of the alternative waste treatment methods that you quote, ie Autoclaving, Mechanical Biological Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion and Plasma Arc Gasifiers are no better at dealing with residual waste than incineration. Autoclaving merely sterilises the waste and removes water content without substantially altering the composition. The MBT facility in Leicester keeps breaking down. Anaerobic digestion is at least if not more expensive than incineration and plasma arc gasification is not yet a technological reality on a large scale.

Most of the posters on here are fully grown adults with their childhood firmly behind them, in some cases way, way behind them! So, why not give our kids and grandkids the chance to reach maturity too? IF this story has even the slightest grain of truth to it, then who are we to deny good health to future generations? Once again we can assume that palms will be well greased, big contracts will be involved and the common people will be the scapegoats once more! We must, for the sake of the future generations, do everything in our power to stop this thing before it's too late!

BARRY wrote:
Most of the posters on here are fully grown adults with their childhood firmly behind them, in some cases way, way behind them! So, why not give our kids and grandkids the chance to reach maturity too? IF this story has even the slightest grain of truth to it, then who are we to deny good health to future generations? Once again we can assume that palms will be well greased, big contracts will be involved and the common people will be the scapegoats once more! We must, for the sake of the future generations, do everything in our power to stop this thing before it\'s too late!

So Barry - how will you deal with the waste produced locally?

Rob Whittle wrote:
Rick from Hove, its correct to challenge and but also to dig further. Rick I had your view 2 years ago as a sceptic before looking at the Office of National Statistics data, Infant Mortality Maps around 15 UK EfW incinerators and understanding PM2.5s, and the US EPA PM2.5 experience and air pollution. Dr van Steenis is not scaremongering, he is presenting fact, government health data and asking lay people like not to be in denial, and not to buy EA/Defra incinerator emissions spin. Why have EA/HPA (people in the know) not challenged / dispoved Dr van Steenis's finding, well because embarrassingly it is Government data that is simply mapped by upwind/ downwind ward zones.

Rob, thank you for your comments. And once again I lay down the challenge to Dr Van S to provide clear references, links or quotes to the 'peer reviewed' papers and research that has been published. You may wish to note that last time I asked this, the only link posted was to another GP's (and no doubt 'peer' of Dr Van S) personal website but without any direct links to this work. As a scientist, I'm more than happy to have my views and knowledge updated by further research - but only if that research is peer reviewed and published in the accepted manner - a challenge that has yet to be met.

Roy, thanks for that. Does not Holland have an irrational view to incineration where even the Green Party have been taken in by the Dutch Government spin. Next door in Antwerp and Belgium the incinerator difference is totally different where people have died downwind of incinerators.

Even the best flue gas treatment does not prevent PM2.5/Pm1 size particles escaping the bag filter into the local downwind atmosphere. Many companies simply do not know because they are only required to monitor PM10 size and not smaller more potent PM2.5s. So I doubt Amsterdam is any better. Why go for incineration if other technologies are proving increasingly to be better, less emitting, technologically more advanced and equally bankable and proven.

Rick, that fair enough. You might watch Dr van Steenis's presentation where he refers to his ONS research, links and quotes. See

http://www.st-ig.co.

uk/vansteenis.html

LOL!! Do you think we are stupid? Silly Government PR robots. In this day and age people are becoming more and more switched on and informed. Why wopuld anyone WANT to live near an incinerator? "Asthma (complete with obligatory 'real' mis-spell) Sufferer" you seem to imply that despite your health probs you'd love tyo live near an incinerator??

Go away silly PR people. You're fooling NO-ONE.

Baco wrote:
LOL!! Do you think we are stupid? Silly Government PR robots. In this day and age people are becoming more and more switched on and informed. Why wopuld anyone WANT to live near an incinerator? \"Asthma (complete with obligatory \'real\' mis-spell) Sufferer\" you seem to imply that despite your health probs you\'d love tyo live near an incinerator?? Go away silly PR people. You\'re fooling NO-ONE.

So Baco - how would you deal with the waste produced locally?

LOL, only interested parties could ever know all the detailed stuff yuo guys have been reeling off. You are aiming to set your alternate "pro" agenda by using sites such as this. Go back to your stale old "new-labour" school of media manipulation "strategy". This is all so so stale and entirely transparent to anyone with half a brain cell. You actually think the general public are so feeble minded they can fall for this sort of thing still.

Yeah, toxic emissions from incinerators don't belch clouds of visible smoke so they can't be harmful...just like invisible lead additives in petrol, mercury vapour or carcinogen benzene vapour. All invisible and therefore good to breath in. You should take a deep breath of cyanide gas all of you : it's perfectly see-through so it can't harm you...honest! Try it, it's good for you.

Nimby, I would suggest that you are not a lay person on this matter, but a person with an interest in incinerator technology suceeding, above a natural desire to treat residual waste.

Marchwood has been operating for a short time, however, ONS data only covers the latest 2003-2005 eriod. Marchwood is complicated by the Fawley Refinery several flares and radioactive incinerator; and also large Fawley oil burning power station at Calshot Point.

My question to you is what is the difference in chemical composition between PM2.5 matter from incinerator input (plastics/paints), heavy oil and City Diesel in cars? Also Incinerators are constant point sources (7/12), whereas transport are intermittant (peaks at rush hour) and linear sources.

Plasma Gasification is a large scale reality in Florida where they have two large scale operating. Additionally one does not need large scale plasma gasifiers if they are modulised to process residue from Autoclaving MHT or MBT/RDF. Defra/EA reference the Test plant that has been running for a year at Farringdon, Oxon (Adavnced Plasma Power) that runs on RDF/SWF input and has a 60% energy efficiency compared to the 33-37% EfW Newhaven efficiency rage. Newhaven does not have a CHP element built (contract or practically feasible)in to increase its efficiency. Autoclaving residue can also be converted to Bioethanol/Ethanol via. http://www.letsrecyc

le.com/do/ecco.py/vi

ew_item?listid=37&li

stcatid=217&listitem

id=8865.

Norfolk's MBT/AD uses its near PAS 100 compost as landfill/quarry conditioner, where their is a need. Its the same material as used for restoration in the Eden Project, captures more carbon than incineration, produces 60% energy efficiency and flexible enough to change to treating / batching pure food waste in the future as residual amout recedes. Non of these are the case with an incinerator. Incinerators need toxic ash landfills and as specialist require distance haulage and disposal, and out of bid health effects.

Biffa Leicester is an old MBT facility undergoing update. Sita Kirlees incinerator explodes every so other and WRG incinerator leaks 900% dioxins like in March 2005. The recent MBT Frog Island London facilty is very reliable.

So there are better technology combinations than incinerators, and Defra reflect this in the new English waste Strategy under EfW, in contrast to youur assertion.

Last time I looked I had no connection with any of the companies involved in the project - in fact I couldn't have given you their names if you'd asked. But, I have seen incinerators work successfully in Malmo. The reactions of Swedish friends and collegues is what I am basing my views on.

Rob Whittle wrote:
Rick, that fair enough. You might watch Dr van Steenis's presentation where he refers to his ONS research, links and quotes. See http://www.st-ig.co. uk/vansteenis.html

Rob, once again, thanks for that. I note that the presentation is nearly 1 1/2 hrs long. Rather than sit through the presentation (that I note is posted on another anti-incinerator site and so could be viewed as hardly being impartial) I ask once again: Please can a link or reference be provided for the original research conducted by Dr Van S and/or his colleagues that has been (and as claimed) peer reviewed and published in a recognised journal that indicates that (and again as recently claimed) that PMs are equivalent or worse in toxicity as plutonium and Polonium 210. I shan't, as they say and if you excuse the pun, hold my breath! ;)

NIMBY wrote:

Baco wrote: LOL!! Do you think we are stupid? Silly Government PR robots. In this day and age people are becoming more and more switched on and informed. Why wopuld anyone WANT to live near an incinerator? \"Asthma (complete with obligatory \'real\' mis-spell) Sufferer\" you seem to imply that despite your health probs you\'d love tyo live near an incinerator?? Go away silly PR people. You\'re fooling NO-ONE.

So Baco - how would you deal with the waste produced locally?

Baco, you have a valid point. There is a lot if Government/ Government Quango pro incinerator spin around. It Policy, Strategy and Profit before in depth PM2.5 research and health concerns! All incinerator emissions/ PM2.5 research was effectively censored and cancelled by The Health Protection Agency after December 2005. A Fact! Where did this leave the science and funding?

Rick, I referred to the presentation as this is what Dr van Steenis said. Dr van Steenis presents his findings so its a matter of being bothered.

Alternatively, you can leave an email contact like Andrew BN2 did last month, and I can send you the information you require.

If you search the Lancet and County Doctor you will find his work, if you are interested.

Rob Whittle wrote:
Rick, I referred to the presentation as this is what Dr van Steenis said. Dr van Steenis presents his findings so its a matter of being bothered. Alternatively, you can leave an email contact like Andrew BN2 did last month, and I can send you the information you require. If you search the Lancet and County Doctor you will find his work, if you are interested.

Once again, thanks for your comments Rob. How about an alternative, with regard to the information - how's about you post it here in a public forum for public scrutiny? And another alternative, how's about Dr Van S posting the links to his 'peer reviewed' papers published in the Lancet? Coz I just did a search of the Lancet online using his name as a search parameter and guess what? Its a letter to the editor bold and not a peer a reviewed piece of reserach comparing the toxicity of PMs with radio-isotopes. Funny that!

Sorry Rob, I have been through the evidence. It wasn’t worth generating a response. Also I attended yesterdays meeting, I don’t know who is more deluded, Dr van Steenis for stating that 9 bulldozers emit the same level of particulate mater as 200 million Volvo S40's, (don’t forget there are approximately 65 million people in the UK) or the people that gave him a round of applause afterwards.

Come on, are we really to believe that the reason for high levels of obesity is because of incineration.

Take some responsibility and PUT THE FORK DOWN.

Rick, I'm sure Dr van Steenis will guide you in the right research direction. You seem not to be especially bothered to do your own PM2.5 referencing, so neither should I. If you were bothered to attend the Public Meeting (and I can tell you are interested) you would have chance to personally meet Dr van Steenis in Brighton (not too far from Hove) last night, with Norman Baker MP, question him, take copies of his references and maps. Michael Ryan has several original research. If this site took map form, I would post the, that why I siuggested an email, so you could receive this information. The public took their opportunity last night. You motives do not seem individual knowledge and deduction, but an attempt to put Dr van Steenis down on this thread, which seems a common arm chair activity, with respect.

Hi Andrew, do you know the different PM2.5/ toxicty output between City Diesel and Solvent thnned heavy oil? I think this was his analogy.

Where is your PM2.5 precaution in the matter rather than your scepticism, or even possible covert deluded support for incineration. I think its amounts to ESCC, Veolia and Government Quangos FALLING ON THEIR FORK! I think the biggest proof will be time itself with more research coming out on PM2.5 neglect.

Rob, I would not be concerned about Andrew BN2, he sounds like a typical dismissive scientist/ bureaucrat from one of the local government quangos rubber stamping this carbuncle very few Brighton and Newhaven residents want.

So why has Government and BHCC not contested the ward by ward mapping of disease around incinerators? Because they do not have an argument against evidence so strong.
Why do people attack the Dr? Same reason, his evidence is too strong to contest. Why are we using methods banned in the US on health grounds two decades ago? Why did the Director of Environment state categorically the schools in the locality of Hollingdean had been consulted, only for the CEO to make the humiliating climb down on that statement? And why didn't they consult the schools?
Why is there no independent monitoring of work at the Hollingdean site, what are Council so scared we might find out?
Why wont Council appoint independent reviewing of works?

Veollia, imo, are like one of these dodgy second car dealers who change their name consistently to hide their previous corporate misdeamenors. We've all seen how well they manage safety. They closed with M6 the week before last with yet another fire at a storage depot sending a huge plume of smoke up over the landscape. Previously they closed half the Capitals' rail network for a fire at the south London WTS. Only BHCC would agree to place this one next to an infant school. And no amount of spin from Veollia's 'friends' will alter the FACTS. They are a liability.

Nick, I completely hear what you are saying but, as has been the case since the very sneaky publishing of the Planning intentions which until, the community knew nothing of their plans, we simply are not being listened to as a community. The evidence is ignored, indivuals attacked such as the Dr, and we just aren't listened to or heard. Regardless, we need to halt the WTS AND the incinerator.
So what do we do next?

Rob Whittle wrote:
Rick, I'm sure Dr van Steenis will guide you in the right research direction. You seem not to be especially bothered to do your own PM2.5 referencing, so neither should I. If you were bothered to attend the Public Meeting (and I can tell you are interested) you would have chance to personally meet Dr van Steenis in Brighton (not too far from Hove) last night, with Norman Baker MP, question him, take copies of his references and maps. Michael Ryan has several original research. If this site took map form, I would post the, that why I siuggested an email, so you could receive this information. The public took their opportunity last night. You motives do not seem individual knowledge and deduction, but an attempt to put Dr van Steenis down on this thread, which seems a common arm chair activity, with respect.

Rob, a few observations, for your's and others' benefits:

1. It is not me who is making unsupportable claims in the press - it is Dr Van Steenis and his supporters - I am merely questioning both the accuracy of such claims and the research backing up such claims;
2. Had the public meeting on this matter been a little more widely publicised (including in this august publication) I may very well have attended;
3. Michael Ryan (thanks for the memory jog) was the very person, who when I asked for him to provide references for his research replied that I was 'a rather clever chap' in a very sarcastic response that didn't address the point; and
4. My motive is very clear - poor reporting on science and unsupportable claims do not deserve the ink/electrons required to print them. And for everyone's benefit: Since 1996 (when the Lancet became available online and searchable) Dr Van Steenis has had one item printed in the Lancet - issue 8954 -8th April 1995. It was a letter to the editor on this subject. THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED PAPER IN THE LANCET ON THIS SUBJECT Given that a simple peice of research has disproved one of the claims, what weight do you now wish to give to the others? This story is one cobbled together by a paper needing readership, an MP wanting to be re-elected and a quasi-scientist seeking validation of some rather dodgy research tied in with personal opinion. Now who's the sheep?

Rob, come on. 200 million Volvo S40’s emitting the same level of toxicity as 9 bulldozers. Alright, I am open to the suggestion. How did you work that out and have you shared it with the UK Health Protection Agency yet? It wouldn’t take much to switch fuels.

Rob, it wasn’t just that. There were a number of statements I had issues with. If you want I could spout them off now. But I don’t think it would do you or Dr van Steenis any favours.

My opinion is officials and Veolia ae so far down the process, that they will ignore anything. A massive abuse of power. So if incinerators raise local asthmas or baby deaths, local people are treated as figures and untractable casualties. Veolia don't care, they are set to lose £0.5bn, and the ESCC doesn't want a health spanner in their ticking of boxes to get a easte contract up and running. I hope they are all equally well insured for the future.

Andrew , with respect, I also have to say come on yourself, protect you community and vulnerable health groups in Brighton and Newhaven.

If you were there at the meeting, why didn't ask Dr van Steenis to explain his comment and maths. Like you I do not put myself up as an expert, but an informed layperson who started off a sceptic like yourself. This was your chance! Did you ask him or do you find Argus threads easier?

There are non PM2.5 / pollution issues that people disagree with Dr van Steenis. Dr van Steenis believes Iraq was wrong and man made climate change questionable, I don't. Its a free country last I heard and you can spout all you like.

His presentation (1 hr 25 mins)is on

http://www.st-ig.co.
uk/vansteenis.html

so he his very transparent and states his views, how he has come to them and that he is in nobodies pocket.

What matters is he scutinises, puts health questions and patterns that other experts/ quangos can't explain away. Appearances or reputation can speak or not; however IMO its the lack of HPA PM2.5 research / findings "in the locker" are the area for scrutiny and sceptism.

I must say that throughout any communication I had read, viewed or been involved in I have found it impossible to believe any of the claims of the Dr V Steenis's camp.

Whenever they have been asked to substantiate any of their claims they either become rude, sarcastic or dismissive.

It is not that I dont want to believe them, it is simply that they make it very very hard for me to do so.

When people ask 'you' for scientific fact on these matters PLEASE show us exactly where it is kept, who wrote it, who financed it and when it was written.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE

NIMBY wrote:

BARRY wrote: Most of the posters on here are fully grown adults with their childhood firmly behind them, in some cases way, way behind them! So, why not give our kids and grandkids the chance to reach maturity too? IF this story has even the slightest grain of truth to it, then who are we to deny good health to future generations? Once again we can assume that palms will be well greased, big contracts will be involved and the common people will be the scapegoats once more! We must, for the sake of the future generations, do everything in our power to stop this thing before it\'s too late!

So Barry - how will you deal with the waste produced locally?

Well, easily answered isn't it? you can have it if you fancy it! You are no doubt involved with the planners in some way or other, despite your claims to the contrary! People like you who stick their oar in when there's NO chance that they will have the inconvenience and very serious health implications thrust into their own 'backyard' annoy me somewhat! You are very obviously involved somewhere along the line and you fool no one with your smug attitude!

Norman Tebbit wrote:
I must say that throughout any communication I had read, viewed or been involved in I have found it impossible to believe any of the claims of the Dr V Steenis's camp. Whenever they have been asked to substantiate any of their claims they either become rude, sarcastic or dismissive. It is not that I dont want to believe them, it is simply that they make it very very hard for me to do so. When people ask 'you' for scientific fact on these matters PLEASE show us exactly where it is kept, who wrote it, who financed it and when it was written. IT IS THAT SIMPLE

Is Norman Tebbit the real Lord Norman " get on your bike" Tebbit, or a different two word pseudonym for Rick and Andrew from. they obviously are hear for the science, they are hear to rubbish dr van Steenis. They are obviously Veolia or ESCC puppets and front men, during a bit of weekend work.

Howard, tell you what how about a bit of local trivia.

Ask me a question a local might be able to answer. Just steer clear of sports.

Rob, to be honest, it wasn’t the place for a balanced discussion. I was running the risk of being tarred, feathered, and then plucked . Albeit in the most environmentally friendly way.

It’s bad enough on these threads, so far I have been accused of being a government stooge, an exonerator, have been accused of being blinkered to a government conspiracy theory and more recently been labelled a dismissive scientist/ bureaucrat (thanks Dave).

And that’s just for suggesting people go look at the World Health Organisations research or the Committee on Medical Effects for Air Pollution for an informed opinion.

Besides, after watching how the rest of the group responded to his claims, there really wasn’t any point. People will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

I satisfied my own scepticism and won’t be moving from my house off lewes Road, within the shadow of both the local crematorium, the Newhaven incinerator and within spitting distance of the proposed waste transfer site in Holingdean.

And thanks for the permission to spout off the rest of my issues with Dr van Steenis presentation:
• Could you explain why Dr van Steenis thinks car exhausts pointing down present less of a risk than truck exhausts pointing up? He is aware of the principle of pollutant dispersion right?

• Then there was his statement that the construction of the Waste Transfer Facility in Holingdean would generate over 300ugm3 of PM2.5. That would cause a health effect, you’re liable to trip on it.

• He wrongly stated that coal fired power stations do not emit particulate matter less than 5 microns in diameter, which is why no one had asthma in the old days. Apart from being wrong, surely he knows of the London Smog’s, it wasn’t asthma you had to worry about.

• He also said PM2.5 is completely man made, he’s wrong. It does occur naturally.

Oh, and don’t even get me started with his health patterns. The Michael Ryan report that he basses his entire case on comes with the Department of Health critique on the back. They state quite clearly it’s not correct, as do the Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust responding to similar claims.

Thats better, have a great weekend

Andrew

Barry wrote:

NIMBY wrote:

BARRY wrote: Most of the posters on here are fully grown adults with their childhood firmly behind them, in some cases way, way behind them! So, why not give our kids and grandkids the chance to reach maturity too? IF this story has even the slightest grain of truth to it, then who are we to deny good health to future generations? Once again we can assume that palms will be well greased, big contracts will be involved and the common people will be the scapegoats once more! We must, for the sake of the future generations, do everything in our power to stop this thing before it\'s too late!

So Barry - how will you deal with the waste produced locally?

Well, easily answered isn't it? you can have it if you fancy it! You are no doubt involved with the planners in some way or other, despite your claims to the contrary! People like you who stick their oar in when there's NO chance that they will have the inconvenience and very serious health implications thrust into their own 'backyard' annoy me somewhat! You are very obviously involved somewhere along the line and you fool no one with your smug attitude!

Barry,
namby pampy is worried that if Newhaven isn't allowed to build this monstrosity the planner may well look for other alternatives. There are areas of Wothing that seagulls fly over upside down because there's nothing worth crapping on, maybe namby pamby lives in one of these salubriuos areas and he would be worried in case that is the one the planners would choose! Just a thought folks! But now, back to really important matters, has anyone heard how the Beckhams are getting on in America?

Howard wrote:

Norman Tebbit wrote: I must say that throughout any communication I had read, viewed or been involved in I have found it impossible to believe any of the claims of the Dr V Steenis\'s camp. Whenever they have been asked to substantiate any of their claims they either become rude, sarcastic or dismissive. It is not that I dont want to believe them, it is simply that they make it very very hard for me to do so. When people ask \'you\' for scientific fact on these matters PLEASE show us exactly where it is kept, who wrote it, who financed it and when it was written. IT IS THAT SIMPLE

Is Norman Tebbit the real Lord Norman \" get on your bike\" Tebbit, or a different two word pseudonym for Rick and Andrew from. they obviously are hear for the science, they are hear to rubbish dr van Steenis. They are obviously Veolia or ESCC puppets and front men, during a bit of weekend work.

My point exactly!!!!

When the going gets tough you lot get rude.

There you all go again.

I can state without fear or favour that I have absolutely NOTHING to do with any anti campaign, the firm Veolia or any other interested party.

Just a normal bloke from Brighton who wants some answers.

Also - I am not Rick or Andrew.

Second fact COMPLETELY and utterly wrong.

You are on a role here Howard OLD BOY!!

Those who wrongly believe that industrial air pollution, from incinerators etc., plays no part in infant mortality should read the August 2001 report: "Air Quality, Infant Mortality, and the Clean Air Act of 1970" by Kenneth Chay and Michael Greenstone, which is online.

Note that the US Clean Air Act restricted PM40s until PM10s were targeted in 1987 and then PM2.5s in 1997 as that last fraction is the most deadly.

Figure 1 in the above report shows the US infant mortality rate falling from about 20 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to about 9 per 1,000 in 1990. The same graph also shows the fall in "Total Suspended Particulate Pollution" and you will be able to see that both infant mortality and TSP concentration fell over this 21-year period.

It could have all been a strange coincidence of course and that's why it's necessary to examine further infant mortality data, including in a large urban area, to see if there is any association between infant mortality rates and proximity to incinerators, power stations, or other sources of PM2.5 emissions.

The Greater London Authority is such an area, and if you check the London Health Observatory's website, you'll see that they tell you that low birthweight babies are a factor on infant mortality and they also reveal the precentages of low birthweight babies in each of the 625 electoral wards in London for years 2002-4 and 2003-5.

The London Health Observatory do not reveal the infant mortality rates for these electoral wards in three-year sets of pooled data, otherwise anyone would be able to see at a glance that sixty-nine of the 625 electoral wards had zero infant deaths in 2003-5 and that these wards are where there are no PM2.5 emissions from incinerators.

If incincerators are so safe, why is it that nobody can tell me of an incinerator in England or Wales where the rates of illness and premature deaths are lower on the downwind side of the installation?

The London Health Observatory are due to issue a briefing notice on the inequalities of infant mortality in London on 23 July 2007. They cannot say that it's caused by deprivation, or Asians marrying cousins, or any other tosh as the Office for National Statistics data shows otherwise.

It took me many weeks to analyse the London data and then to map out the high & low infant mortality zones.

The pattern of infant deaths in London and elsewhere is a result of scientific fact due to levels of exposure to PM2.5s which account for the majority of infant deaths.

The Environment Agency have no desire to examine the infant mortality maps I've prepared, otherwise they'd have to admit that they've failed to regulate industries that have the potential to harm health.

It doesn't matter how many "know-alls" try to discredit what Dr Dick van Steenis and I are trying to publicise, as the facts remain unchanged, ie if you live in the downwind zone of any source of industrial PM2.5 pollution you can "look forward to" a shortened life with the last 15 years or so in very poor health.

These babies who died before their first birthday never had any chance of a life.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Hey Mr Tebbit

There is nothing wrong with being me. I’m great.

But it does get my goat is well. Just because I don’t buy the blatant scaremongering and have expressed an opinion contrary to the rest of the pack people write you off as being in someone’s pocket.

Hey on the upside. Considering that Plutonium is apparently safer than the Newhaven plant, how about we campaign for a nuclear facility instead.

Am I the only one who thinks these claims are just ridiculous?

On the upside, I bet the Argus is making some money of the back of this. Don’t forget to recycle the Argus, better yet stop picking it up.

Here we go again.

Michael Ryan . You have said the same thing as last time this was in the Argus. No change there.

I may well read the 'August 2001' report you mention above. Will it mention who paid for the study?

You see I am very cynical towards so called experts who do not reveal the 'powers behind' such reports.

We all know of huge reports that have been financed by organisations, pressure groups or governments to show the answers or findings that THEY want to show.

Until you show such detail for all your reports (if YOU have completed any) I take all your ranting and psuedo-evidence with a pinch of salt.

Awaiting your faintly amusing and possibly rude answer as usual.

Just to re-iterate I have NO financial, employment or family interest in the outcome of this.

I just want answers so that I can take this forward and make up my own mind.

I am not a sheep, I am a clear thinking individual who wants to make his OWN mind up and not be fed soundbites by peopple purporting to be experts in their field.

Michael - what expert status do YOU have and why are you considered an expert in this field?

I think we can all agree that Dr van Steenis talks about as much sense as Norman Baker ever does and they both thoroughly deserve each other.

http://www.cieh.org/

ehn/news_focus/2005/

june/articles/someth

ing_disturbing_in_th

e_air.htm

www.ecomed.org.uk/co
ntent/IncineratorSur
reyResponse2.pdf

Keep them coming Jimbob - that's all I am asking for - EVIDENCE.

jimbob wrote:
http://www.cieh.org/ ehn/news_focus/2005/ june/articles/someth ing_disturbing_in_th e_air.htm

JimBob - bearing in mind oyu have given this as evidence may I quote from this article

Last year, Defra’s independent Review of the environmental and health effects of waste management: municipal solid waste, concluded that treatment of municipal waste has, at most, a minor effect on health. ‘Risks to human health from incineration are small in comparison with other known risks,’ it says.

A Defra spokesperson said: ‘The review found no evidence to suggest the current generation of municipal solid waste incinerators is likely to have an effect on human health. Cancer, respiratory diseases and birth defects were all considered and no evidence was found for a link between the incidence of the disease and the current generation of incinerators.

Who is right?

Dear Norman, as you seem of a role. Find me a Government research document that states specifically PM2.5 from municipal incinerators are safe, or have little health effects, or have. HPA /Defra / Royal Society/ Defra never studied PM2.5 emissions and health impacts. Question. How can one find and deduce on somehing one has not studied, do not specifically and continually monitor, have ignored PM2.5 related patterns of other and then form any conclusion on this? This is the wing and a pray science you and the threads nameless wonders seem to be relying on. This is the statutory responsibility of government quangos/PCT/Veolia to do the health mapping etc, not Dr van Steenis to safeguard completely. Just a thought Michael and co.

What happens when more studies occur into the 1700 + registered and 800 medicated asthmatics of Newhavens 9,000 population, and additional future volumes of incinerator emissions on top of the existing? Should this not be a concern? Have Veolia/ the PCT made a study of the impacts on this asthma group in Newhaven?

Its worrying to see ..with so many ££millions at stake,I can just imagine the team of PR monkeys theyve employed,sat at their computers writing some of this crap above.

Instead of building more filthy incinerators to spew out invisible poisons,the government should start taking this seriously and actually DO SOMETHING about the amount of waste and packaging being produced ! ITS TIME TO CHANGE AND SET AN EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD

Just swung in and love the topic. did you know that Bananas are not only great to eat but are also deadly. Thats right. you leave those sods lying around and some idiot will trip, normally falling down a flight of stairs and crack his head right open. oh and the cause autism.

now being a self proclaimed banana expert i must know more than anyone else and demand Asda stop selling them.

so back the ban on bendy fruit.

now i doubt there may be a few people who join up. biut most people will be able to see that its just tosh. shame thats not always the case.

Its ok guys, be as rude as you want. the Argus dosnt allow swearing. funny that considering the level of Bull **** they have printed recently. go on give it a go.

REAPWHATYOUSOW

So I am a PR Monkey then? You are a paranoid individual then!!

Just because I ask the so called experts a quesiton I get labelled a 'plant' in this thread.

Complete and utter rubbish.


I posted an extract of the link that one of the SUPPORTERS of the anti incinerator lobby posted to PROVE THEIR POINT!!!

How can I not be expected to reprt back on this thread that DEFRA do not accept what Dr Van Steenis states .

I ask for evidence - I am provide with some, but embedded within is contradictory evidence.

So there you go.

Norman

I think you are just barking up the wrong tree, if should be Defra/EA you should be asking the proof and research on PM2.5 incinerator emissions research monitoring. I have also followed up the HPA health report and a poster on here said, there is nothing on PM2.5. As other posters have rightly pointed out they Defra/EA don't have it, haven't done it. I think they should have it. There lies the problem. You look for evidence, I point out lack of evidence from the bodies people seem all too ready to trust and belief.

I accept quite a few people might be in no mans land on this, but this was the case of issues like asbestos, and smoking, indeed for some still on passive smoking.

George

Thank you for your reply.

As I said - I may well turn into the most rabid supporter of this cause BUT I will not do so unless I receive adequate evidence, NOT SOUNDBITES, into this matter.

The hunt goes on.

What I am asking for is for evidential proof that Michael Ryan and Dr Van Steenis are 'experts' in this field.

It is easy nowadays for people to state that are experts. Many so called experts have recently been 'found out' in court recently yet the system beleived them for years.

Michael, fair point, Dr van Steenas been through 27 enquiries and 26 his knowledge and expertise has won the day, and in his 70's. 4 times advising in the Houses of Parliament. I think they even dubbed him the Toxic Detective in the early 90's. I agree with you no expert is infallable. There seem many young pretenders who have ticked all the boxes on peer reviewing, and have no wider reading of their area. If you read about Dr van Steenis, he's been around since the early 1990's. If he was not an expert, I think he would have been seen off by now IMO, or challenged on his reports and testiments at enquiries. This has not been the case. He keeps coming back. Defra call him a Maverick, and thats uncomfortable for them, but they respect what he says and his level and decades of industrial emissions knowledge. Do we not need these independents who challenge the established stagnant mind set. I've done me google search, everyone should do theirs, keep an open mind as independent thinkers, a great tradition in the Brighton area.

George

Thank you. Now you have my support.

George wrote:
Michael, fair point, Dr van Steenas been through 27 enquiries and 26 his knowledge and expertise has won the day, and in his 70\'s. 4 times advising in the Houses of Parliament. I think they even dubbed him the Toxic Detective in the early 90\'s. I agree with you no expert is infallable. There seem many young pretenders who have ticked all the boxes on peer reviewing, and have no wider reading of their area. If you read about Dr van Steenis, he\'s been around since the early 1990\'s. If he was not an expert, I think he would have been seen off by now IMO, or challenged on his reports and testiments at enquiries. This has not been the case. He keeps coming back. Defra call him a Maverick, and thats uncomfortable for them, but they respect what he says and his level and decades of industrial emissions knowledge. Do we not need these independents who challenge the established stagnant mind set. I\'ve done me google search, everyone should do theirs, keep an open mind as independent thinkers, a great tradition in the Brighton area.

George, you have made some good points there. I agree that Dr Van S may have some expertise in this area based on original research. And, of course, 'nay sayers' have a place in a democratic and free society. However, what we have here is opinion dressed up as science (eg PM2.5s are as toxic as poloniuim or plutonium - there has been no study to proof this so it remains as opinion); incorrect statements made that Dr Van S has had research published in Lancet (again, not true as it was a letter to the editor) and Mr Ryan's constant refusal to provide original references for the research (and indeed, he doesn't help by resorting to condescending & dismissive comments when challenged). Dr Van S may have a point, but him & his supporters do not help their case by misleading others, posting unsupportable claims and then when challenged, resorting to behaviour that only entrenches the views of those who challenge them. And for the record, I am not affiliated with either 'camp' on this matter; I am merely a trained scientist who is paid to analyise evidence every working day.

I take your point. I think maybe Michael Ryan could have put his research and maps in the public domain (I'm sure it is there, if its ONS data and was presented at the public meeting last week), he still might, and again I understand why he might be guarded in reply on a thread where unidentified people are having a go at him and his colleague Dr van Steenis, and asking what research underware they have on. In the past I am sure they have had people acting for these waste companies, come onto these forums/threads with dirty tactics in mind, or idiots just wish to argue, for arguing sake. If I were either Michael Ryan or Dr van Steenis I would get quite tired of this behaviour, give it a cold shoulder, and be cautious of inquisators who do not identify themselves, and choose the appropriate places and people in which to present research details. I think some of the sceptics camp have commented poorly also, showing little patience. Entrenching prbably works both ways, but scientists are not meant to get entrenched, are they Norman?

My take on the Polonium / PM2.5 analogy is unsure, and the context of the reporting is unsure. The Litvinenko affair killed one man and invisibly affected a dozen addresses around London. Argus reporter might have misunderstood and thought sensational, who knows without attending the meeting. Certainly if one looks at the Environment Agency particulate map (PM10 monitors)of London the pattern and levels are horrifying and put the Litvinenko poisoning into the shade and context, in terms of scale. Were you aware than one of the incinerators at Slough burns low level radioactivity as do others, these emit radioactive particulates. So PM2.5s are as toxic as polonium if the waste includes low level radioactive input, and a licence to burn this. This is not the case in the Newhaven case, but what gets put into municipal waste by accident or neglect? Again what was the context of the lecture reported? What Dr Van Steenis and Michael Ryan are pointing out from Government data that around waste incinerators, many babies are dying downwind, and this is the core ONS data to follow up IMO.

On the substance of what Michael Ryan and Dr Van Steenis are saying is not opinion, it seems they have accessed parameters of ill health around many incinerators, mapped it and found repeated differential patterns by 300-400%. The opinion is whether this is significant or not. They say yes, HPA/ Defra say no. I think this is the stage things have arrived at IMO.

Personally I live in Newhaven so you will forgive me for not liking what ESCC have imposed and spun on our community, and for wanting something different and better , and a choice, rather than being treated poorly and dumped on, which has been the case. They say science changes and is fallable, indeed opinionated/ inductive etc, they also say "history repeats itself", which seems salient to UK industrial pollution! Also scientists are not free from opinion, and neither should they, as your comments prove.

Below was printed on the BBC NEWS website March 2005

Incinerator health risk 'unacceptable'
By Dr Vyvyan Howard
Head of Research, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group


The pressures of safe waste disposal are mounting, as illustrated by IF's latest drama-documentary. Toxico-pathologist Dr Vyvyan Howard argues that the threats to human health from toxic emissions mean incinerators are not an acceptable option.



The past 150 years have seen a significant increase in the toxicity of both domestic and industrial wastes.
The waste stream used to consist mainly of natural products, such as paper, wood and fabrics - neutral wastes which seldom caused problems.

But nowadays, many products include high levels of heavy metals and, in addition, synthetic plastics such as PVC, whose disposal has caused enormous health and environmental problems, plus a toxic legacy for future generations.


IF... THE TOXIC TIMEBOMB GOES OFF
BBC Two
Thursday, 31 March, 2005
1900 BST


Studies of the development of foetuses and young children have led to an understanding of the effects of a number of global environmental pollutants which have their maximal impact during development.

Many of these chemicals are persistent and bio-accumulative, building up in our bodies over time.

Mothers pass these chemicals to their babies, both in the womb and in breast milk.

Some disrupt the action of the hormone systems, affecting babies' development in many different ways.

A number of well-documented effects have been shown to be happening at current environmental levels of dioxins and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the best studied of the hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Vulnerable

The so-called "background" levels of dioxin-like compounds are almost totally caused by human activities, mainly through combustion of organochlorine products, such as PVC.

Levels of dioxins have been reducing in recent years, but infants still receive many times the dose currently deemed "safe".

Indeed, recent evidence indicates that there may be no safe dose.

As the effects on the foetus occur at extremely low levels, always in combination with many other manufactured chemicals, dioxin levels need to be reduced as low as possible.


There is no place for incineration in municipal waste management



The foetus is the stage of life which is the most vulnerable to damage from hormone-disrupting chemicals.
These affect the many ways in which hormones regulate development in the womb and early childhood, with effects which can last throughout life.

These effects can range from an increased likelihood of respiratory problems or allergies, to reduced IQ, less efficient kidneys, reproductive problems or a higher probability of contracting cancer.

Effects on the intelligence, immune status and hormonal status of infants have been related quantitatively to the amount of dioxin-like substance in the mother's body.

Furthermore, many effects, including altered brain function and lung function, appear to persist past the age of seven.

Neurobehavioural and immune system deficits have been shown to be correlated with the level of PCBs and dioxins that infants received from their mothers while in the womb.

Effects on brain development include altered play behaviour as well as general mental and psychomotor development. Other papers also document various reproductive problems.

There is general acceptance that male reproductive health is under threat, and dioxin-like substances have also been related to a reduction in the proportion of male to female births.

'Toxic cocktail'

It is impossible to accurately cost out the health benefits arising from dioxin reduction, as the potential developmental health effects are so diverse, and can occur in synergy with other chemicals.

It is impossible to calculate the cost to society of, for example, a reduction in IQ levels, or the reduction in quality of life due to foetal kidney growth impairment, immune system or reproductive system, developing less than optimally, causing reduced potential, occasional illness throughout life or a higher risk of cancer.

A precautionary approach would be to reduce human exposure to all chemicals which persist and bioaccumulate or are capable of hormonal disruption, down to the absolutely unavoidable level, especially as mixtures of chemicals may have synergistic effects.


THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Incineration is back on the agenda
Professor Chris Coggins


Above, I have cited scientific evidence of harm from just one group of persistent chemicals.
However, we are all exposed to a complex mixture of manufactured toxic chemicals and we have no way of testing the effects of such a cocktail.

Many of the components of this mixture come to us via our food as a secondary consequence of waste disposal.

Even the most modern incinerators still emit some dioxins and similar chemicals. These 'end of pipe' waste disposal solutions simply encourage manufacturers to continue with 'business as usual'.

There are two fundamental approaches to handling waste - either reduce the amount and toxicity of inputs to the waste stream; or attempt to deal with wastes once they have been produced.

Substitution of toxic chemicals in products, is the key to reducing health hazards.

For most of the known hormone-disrupting chemicals, there are substitutes which are less obviously problematic.

In summary, my researches have led me to the firm conclusion that there is no place for incineration in municipal waste management.

Policy should instead concentrate on maximal waste minimisation, reuse and recycling, together with substitution of toxic chemicals in products.

George - thank you for your comments - some real food for thought there with the idea that PM5s & radio-isotopes could have a synergistic effect when emitted together. Synergism is not unknown amognst air borne pollutants - smogs being a very real example. I also recall that cigarette smoke contians an isotope - polonium I think - that gets filtered out where the trachea divides and concentrates there - a similar effect may happen here; with clumps of sooty/dirty PM5 carrying the radio-isotope deeper into the lungs. How's about that as a hypothesis? And that's all it all remain until any research is published and peer-reviewed.

Rick, I agree. HPA from 2 years ago seems to have stiffled this research into PM synergism and this complex area, at least people like Dr van Steenis, who has nothing to lose but his pension says "Hang on, look at this complex can of worms and lets not ignore it, I'm 70, can someone else carry the batten, lets get the scientists to work on it in a more independent way like in the states and EPA and nail this". IMO, above a pressing current waste problem, this can only be a force for good for science and public health.

Andrew, of BN2, has referred to Telford & Wrekin PCT's dismissal of my allegation that emissions from Ironbridge Power Station have been, and are causing, elevated rates of illness and premature deaths.

Denial is to be expected in such cases, and that's Dr Dick van Steenis and I have taken so much care in gathering and evaluating the data, all of which supports my claim.

Dr Catherine Woodward, of Telford & Wrekin PCT has prepared a report which claims that the Ironbridge Power Station emissions have no adverse health impact. Anyone looking at her report will notice that she has not compared any of the Telford & Wrekin electoral wards with wards that are upwind of the power station, thereby rendering her report worthless.

In order to enhance the credibility of this useless report, Telford & Wrekin PCT paid Professor Roy Harrison four hundred and twenty pounds to review it, and he failed to notice that she had omitted any upwind zone for comparison. I obtained the cost of Prof Harrison's expert opinion by using FoI, and I suggest that Brighton Residents use the same to ask Simon Conolly, CEO of Telford & Wrekin PCT, why Dr Woodward has failed to examine any upwind wards.

The Health Protection Agency were alerted to my Ironbridge research in October 2005, and convened a meeting at which a cover-up strategy was adopted by the Environmental Health Officers from three district councils, two PCTs, the Environment Agency and the power company. As the meeting was held a few weeks before Christmas 2005, it's possible that seasonal gifts were exchanged.

I suggest that Brighton residents take heed of the cover up here in Shropshire.

When I submitted my statement of evidence to the EFRA Committee examining the Environment Agency in Nov 2005, I did not have the ONS birth/mortality data for every electoral ward in England & Wales that I now hold, and which shows that elevated rates of infant deaths occur in a consistent and predictable pattern in the groups of electoral wards that are downwind of sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions such as incinerators, power stations, oil refineries, cement works, foundries etc.

If your local PCT has spent money on, or relied upon, the expertise of Professor Roy Harrison, they should take note that he failed to spot the obvious flaw in Dr Woodward's report.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

MAZ wrote:
Below was printed on the BBC NEWS website March 2005 Incinerator health risk \'unacceptable\' By Dr Vyvyan Howard Head of Research, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group The pressures of safe waste disposal are mounting, as illustrated by IF\'s latest drama-documentary. Toxico-pathologist Dr Vyvyan Howard argues that the threats to human health from toxic emissions mean incinerators are not an acceptable option. The past 150 years have seen a significant increase in the toxicity of both domestic and industrial wastes. The waste stream used to consist mainly of natural products, such as paper, wood and fabrics - neutral wastes which seldom caused problems. But nowadays, many products include high levels of heavy metals and, in addition, synthetic plastics such as PVC, whose disposal has caused enormous health and environmental problems, plus a toxic legacy for future generations. IF... THE TOXIC TIMEBOMB GOES OFF BBC Two Thursday, 31 March, 2005 1900 BST Studies of the development of foetuses and young children have led to an understanding of the effects of a number of global environmental pollutants which have their maximal impact during development. Many of these chemicals are persistent and bio-accumulative, building up in our bodies over time. Mothers pass these chemicals to their babies, both in the womb and in breast milk. Some disrupt the action of the hormone systems, affecting babies\' development in many different ways. A number of well-documented effects have been shown to be happening at current environmental levels of dioxins and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the best studied of the hormone-disrupting chemicals. Vulnerable The so-called \"background\" levels of dioxin-like compounds are almost totally caused by human activities, mainly through combustion of organochlorine products, such as PVC. Levels of dioxins have been reducing in recent years, but infants still receive many times the dose currently deemed \"safe\". Indeed, recent evidence indicates that there may be no safe dose. As the effects on the foetus occur at extremely low levels, always in combination with many other manufactured chemicals, dioxin levels need to be reduced as low as possible. There is no place for incineration in municipal waste management The foetus is the stage of life which is the most vulnerable to damage from hormone-disrupting chemicals. These affect the many ways in which hormones regulate development in the womb and early childhood, with effects which can last throughout life. These effects can range from an increased likelihood of respiratory problems or allergies, to reduced IQ, less efficient kidneys, reproductive problems or a higher probability of contracting cancer. Effects on the intelligence, immune status and hormonal status of infants have been related quantitatively to the amount of dioxin-like substance in the mother\'s body. Furthermore, many effects, including altered brain function and lung function, appear to persist past the age of seven. Neurobehavioural and immune system deficits have been shown to be correlated with the level of PCBs and dioxins that infants received from their mothers while in the womb. Effects on brain development include altered play behaviour as well as general mental and psychomotor development. Other papers also document various reproductive problems. There is general acceptance that male reproductive health is under threat, and dioxin-like substances have also been related to a reduction in the proportion of male to female births. \'Toxic cocktail\' It is impossible to accurately cost out the health benefits arising from dioxin reduction, as the potential developmental health effects are so diverse, and can occur in synergy with other chemicals. It is impossible to calculate the cost to society of, for example, a reduction in IQ levels, or the reduction in quality of life due to foetal kidney growth impairment, immune system or reproductive system, developing less than optimally, causing reduced potential, occasional illness throughout life or a higher risk of cancer. A precautionary approach would be to reduce human exposure to all chemicals which persist and bioaccumulate or are capable of hormonal disruption, down to the absolutely unavoidable level, especially as mixtures of chemicals may have synergistic effects. THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW Incineration is back on the agenda Professor Chris Coggins Above, I have cited scientific evidence of harm from just one group of persistent chemicals. However, we are all exposed to a complex mixture of manufactured toxic chemicals and we have no way of testing the effects of such a cocktail. Many of the components of this mixture come to us via our food as a secondary consequence of waste disposal. Even the most modern incinerators still emit some dioxins and similar chemicals. These \'end of pipe\' waste disposal solutions simply encourage manufacturers to continue with \'business as usual\'. There are two fundamental approaches to handling waste - either reduce the amount and toxicity of inputs to the waste stream; or attempt to deal with wastes once they have been produced. Substitution of toxic chemicals in products, is the key to reducing health hazards. For most of the known hormone-disrupting chemicals, there are substitutes which are less obviously problematic. In summary, my researches have led me to the firm conclusion that there is no place for incineration in municipal waste management. Policy should instead concentrate on maximal waste minimisation, reuse and recycling, together with substitution of toxic chemicals in products.

More useful Information


DONT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH DUMPING THIS POISONOUS INCINERATOR IN NEWHAVEN OR ANYWHERE ELSE

THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT NOT FACING UP TO THE "REAL" PROBLEM ..TAKING THE EASY OPTION,BIG MONEY BUSINESS DEALS WITH NO REGARD TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE POOR PEOPLE THAT WILL END UP LIVING NEAR THESE THINGS

Michael Ryan wrote:
Andrew, of BN2, has referred to Telford & Wrekin PCT's dismissal of my allegation that emissions from Ironbridge Power Station have been, and are causing, elevated rates of illness and premature deaths. Denial is to be expected in such cases, and that's Dr Dick van Steenis and I have taken so much care in gathering and evaluating the data, all of which supports my claim. Dr Catherine Woodward, of Telford & Wrekin PCT has prepared a report which claims that the Ironbridge Power Station emissions have no adverse health impact. Anyone looking at her report will notice that she has not compared any of the Telford & Wrekin electoral wards with wards that are upwind of the power station, thereby rendering her report worthless. In order to enhance the credibility of this useless report, Telford & Wrekin PCT paid Professor Roy Harrison four hundred and twenty pounds to review it, and he failed to notice that she had omitted any upwind zone for comparison. I obtained the cost of Prof Harrison's expert opinion by using FoI, and I suggest that Brighton Residents use the same to ask Simon Conolly, CEO of Telford & Wrekin PCT, why Dr Woodward has failed to examine any upwind wards. The Health Protection Agency were alerted to my Ironbridge research in October 2005, and convened a meeting at which a cover-up strategy was adopted by the Environmental Health Officers from three district councils, two PCTs, the Environment Agency and the power company. As the meeting was held a few weeks before Christmas 2005, it's possible that seasonal gifts were exchanged. I suggest that Brighton residents take heed of the cover up here in Shropshire. When I submitted my statement of evidence to the EFRA Committee examining the Environment Agency in Nov 2005, I did not have the ONS birth/mortality data for every electoral ward in England & Wales that I now hold, and which shows that elevated rates of infant deaths occur in a consistent and predictable pattern in the groups of electoral wards that are downwind of sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions such as incinerators, power stations, oil refineries, cement works, foundries etc. If your local PCT has spent money on, or relied upon, the expertise of Professor Roy Harrison, they should take note that he failed to spot the obvious flaw in Dr Woodward's report. Kind regards, Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury

More useful Information


DONT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH DUMPING THIS POISONOUS INCINERATOR IN NEWHAVEN OR ANYWHERE ELSE

THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT NOT FACING UP TO THE "REAL" PROBLEM ..TAKING THE EASY OPTION,BIG MONEY BUSINESS DEALS WITH NO REGARD TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE POOR PEOPLE THAT WILL END UP LIVING NEAR THESE THINGS

WE REALLY NEED TO OPPOSE THIS !!

Baco wrote:
LOL!! Do you think we are stupid? Silly Government PR robots. In this day and age people are becoming more and more switched on and informed. Why wopuld anyone WANT to live near an incinerator? "Asthma (complete with obligatory 'real' mis-spell) Sufferer" you seem to imply that despite your health probs you'd love tyo live near an incinerator??

Go away silly PR people. You're fooling NO-ONE.

Thank you for your patronising words.
I don't work for anyone connected with the incinerator and my typo was just that - a typing mistake.

Huddersfield was the place where I lived before and yes, 3 years ago I chose to move to Newhaven knowing that the incinerator was likely to be built here.
It doesn't worry me.

The article below was printed in The Guardian May 18th 2000 but still Brighton & Hove wants to dump their incinerator here in Newhaven, we don't want it anymore than Shoreham wanted Live Exports, we will fight this to the bitter end.

Incinerator cancer threat revealed
Dioxins from waste burning and industry far more dangerous than was thought

Sarah Boseley, John Vidal and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday May 18, 2000

Guardian

Dioxins, the highly toxic chemicals produced by waste incineration and industrial processes which tests have shown to be lingering in the bodies of people all over the planet, have been identified as the cause of many cancers in a new report from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
A draft of the EPA report, leaked yesterday to the Washington Post, has taken the US by surprise and is likely to send shockwaves throughout the rest of the world, forcing an upgrade in the assessment of the hazard posed by dioxins. It had been thought that the risk was diminishing because levels of the chemicals in the environment were dropping.

The report will fuel mounting opposition in communities across Britain to a new generation of up to 160 major waste incinerators that the government is expected to encourage over the next 20 years.

Dioxins are chemical compounds unintentionally released by incinerators burning sewage sludge and household, hazardous and medical waste. They are also released in industrial processes such as steel making.

Among the most poisonous man-made chemicals, they accumulate in fat and milk and work their way up the food chain. Even low-level exposure is known to interfere with the immune, reproductive and endocrine systems. The latter is involved in the secretion of hormones. Dioxins also effect the early growth and development of humans and animals.

By far the greatest dioxin producer in Britain, according to the Environment Agency, is British Steel, whose works at Llanwern, Port Talbot, Scunthorpe and Teesside pump out almost as many dioxins as the next 15 most polluting companies.

That dioxins are already widely present in the environment and food supplies of all industrialised countries is well-known, but evidence has been slowly accumulating about how widespread and carcinogenic some are. Yesterday's EPA report is remarkably similar to a more low key report from a group of German scientists, which last year concluded that dioxins might be responsible for 12% of human cancers in industrialised countries.

The British government is gradually accepting that dioxins pose real health threats.

In 1994, the Department of Health published a report saying that "despite insufficient evidence for clear causal links", it would be prudent to regard dioxins as possible human carcinogens".

Health hazard


The proposed incineration plants will be needed, it is claimed, to handle the growing mountains of household waste that the EU is banning from landfill sites. In response to the EU directive, the government is expected to announce that by 2020 it will recycle a third of household waste and burn a third.

Some communities are already arguing that these incinerators will pose a health hazard and that money should be spent on more expensive recycling and composting schemes.

Such alternatives, say Friends of the Earth, would be popular, provide more jobs and be easy for people to understand. They say that £250m collected yearly in waste tax could be used to build new recycling centres.

Chris Pilbury, who works with a coalition of 25 community groups in north-east Wales that oppose a massive proposed incinerator and cement kiln expansion scheme near Wrexham, said: "People will not tolerate these risks. Feelings are running high and this report con firms that we are right to to be concerned."

The document, nine years in preparation, says that for those who eat large amounts of fatty meat and dairy produce the risk - on top of any others they may be exposed to - of getting cancer could be as high as one in 100.

Yesterday the EPA said that at least one scientist involved disputed the statistic and that there was a possibility it would be amended before official publication in June. But there will be no dilution of the message of acute concern about dioxins in the report, which for the first time names the most toxic of the group, TCDD (the infamous Agent Orange of Vietnam) as a human carcinogen.

In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised TCDD as a "known human carcinogen" after analysing the epidemiological evidence. In 1998, the World Health Organisation decided to slash the safe level for human exposure. Even at the new level of between one and four picograms per kilogram of body weight (a picogram is a millionth of a millionth of a gram) - they were still anxious that "subtle effects may already occur in the general population in developed countries".

Cancer is not the only worry, and other health damage from dioxins has been slightly easier to substantiate. The EPA report will link low-grade dioxin exposure to a variety of problems, including hormonal changes and developmental defects in babies. It states: "It is likely that part of the general population is at, or near, exposure levels where adverse effects can be anticipated."

Risk to babies


Rick Hind, the legislative director for Greenpeace's toxics campaign, which yesterday wrote to the EPA demanding a Dioxin emergency action plan, said: "This means that dioxin levels in the bodies of newborn babies are already at levels that put them at risk of serious illness."

There have been concerns for some time about the high levels of dioxins in human breast milk, although environmental and health groups continue to urge women that the risks do not outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding.

Experts from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) and the Cancer Research Campaign (CRC) in London yesterday agreed that dioxins were a cause of anxiety.

"We know that dioxins are in general highly toxic and can cause cancer," said Tim Key of the ICRF cancer epidemiology unit in Oxford. But more is unknown than known.

"The whole area is full of uncertainty and particularly in relation to cancer," said Lesley Walker of the CRC.

Asthma sufferer wrote:

Baco wrote: LOL!! Do you think we are stupid? Silly Government PR robots. In this day and age people are becoming more and more switched on and informed. Why wopuld anyone WANT to live near an incinerator? "Asthma (complete with obligatory 'real' mis-spell) Sufferer" you seem to imply that despite your health probs you'd love tyo live near an incinerator?? Go away silly PR people. You're fooling NO-ONE.

Thank you for your patronising words. I don't work for anyone connected with the incinerator and my typo was just that - a typing mistake. Huddersfield was the place where I lived before and yes, 3 years ago I chose to move to Newhaven knowing that the incinerator was likely to be built here. It doesn't worry me.

so your an asthma sufferer ..but your happy to have this thing in your small town ????


Its an insult that you think people are really THAT stupid !!


award winningly stupid tactics !!

Rick H wrote:

Rob Whittle wrote: Rick, I\'m sure Dr van Steenis will guide you in the right research direction. You seem not to be especially bothered to do your own PM2.5 referencing, so neither should I. If you were bothered to attend the Public Meeting (and I can tell you are interested) you would have chance to personally meet Dr van Steenis in Brighton (not too far from Hove) last night, with Norman Baker MP, question him, take copies of his references and maps. Michael Ryan has several original research. If this site took map form, I would post the, that why I siuggested an email, so you could receive this information. The public took their opportunity last night. You motives do not seem individual knowledge and deduction, but an attempt to put Dr van Steenis down on this thread, which seems a common arm chair activity, with respect.

Rob, a few observations, for your\'s and others\' benefits: 1. It is not me who is making unsupportable claims in the press - it is Dr Van Steenis and his supporters - I am merely questioning both the accuracy of such claims and the research backing up such claims; 2. Had the public meeting on this matter been a little more widely publicised (including in this august publication) I may very well have attended; 3. Michael Ryan (thanks for the memory jog) was the very person, who when I asked for him to provide references for his research replied that I was \'a rather clever chap\' in a very sarcastic response that didn\'t address the point; and 4. My motive is very clear - poor reporting on science and unsupportable claims do not deserve the ink/electrons required to print them. And for everyone\'s benefit: Since 1996 (when the Lancet became available online and searchable) Dr Van Steenis has had one item printed in the Lancet - issue 8954 -8th April 1995. It was a letter to the editor on this subject. THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED PAPER IN THE LANCET ON THIS SUBJECT Given that a simple peice of research has disproved one of the claims, what weight do you now wish to give to the others? This story is one cobbled together by a paper needing readership, an MP wanting to be re-elected and a quasi-scientist seeking validation of some rather dodgy research tied in with personal opinion. Now who\'s the sheep?

Rick

Just to correct you.

Dr Van Steenis was published in the Lancet, The editors of the Lancet were sent his data & agreed the data and he were correct. That was peer review!! He has/submitted 335 references.

Secondly,The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and American Environmental Health Foundation (AEHF) in USA both published reports of Dr van Steenis in their peer- reviewed journals . These are replicated in part on the www.countrydoctor.co

.uk website

Also 20th Annual International Symposium
http://www.aehf.com/

articles/2002symp.ht

m

http://www.countrydo

ctor.co.uk/precis/pr

ecis%20-%20Child%20v

ictimes%20of%20vacci

nation.htm

http://www.countrydo

ctor.co.uk/precis/Pr

ecis%20-%20Pollution

%20and%20childhood%2

0deaths.htm

Also presented at

International Conference: Science, Medicine and the Law

http://www.elc.org.u

k/pages/activities.h

tm

Environmental Law Centre
MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) International,

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) Conference 2002

Also refs:
http://www.elc.org.u

k/papers/2003vanStee

nis.doc

http://www.elc.org.u

k/papers/2005vanstee

nis.doc

Just so reader have the correct article and page number Peer Reviewed by Lancet Editors , Rick

Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS, "Airborne pollutants and acute health effects," LANCET Vol. 345 (April 8, 1995), pg. 923

Rob Whittle wrote:
Just so reader have the correct article and page number Peer Reviewed by Lancet Editors , Rick Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS, "Airborne pollutants and acute health effects," LANCET Vol. 345 (April 8, 1995), pg. 923

Rob - thanks for that. You may wish to note that my posting came with the caveat '...since 1996 when Lancet became searchable...'. So, thanks for providing the clarity on that matter. But I will make the observation that it pretty much like getting blood out of a stone getting those original references! Now we can considered their contents and draw our own conclusions.
And I see that once again, when those who choose to take an opposing or neutral view, they are accused of being stooges for the government, the builders or their PR firms. Doesn't really add much to the debate.
And I note that on two occasions, government agencies are accused of 'covering up' or 'stifling debate' - you must bear in mind that once again, just because someone doens't agree with your view that they then taking part in such activities - it just means that they don't agree with you and your initial evidence and have greater priorities for the resources required to conduct further research.

Rickuser of Caveats , I take your issue; talking about blood and stone, pipers or glasshouses, you don't happen to come with a medical background or connected to a government agency per chance? For many readers of this blog the identity and interest of the advanced scrutineer like yourself is not made transparent. Its not a crime to have or work for government agencies, or to have a differing scientific view. Dick van Steenis handed out his evidence and list of 335 references to a dozen or so who requested at the public meeting, so transparency here. I suggest Government record on cover ups or Spin if not lilly white! Also billions have been wasted in NHS IT database programmes that have overrun or have not been procurred properly. I don't agree with this or prioritising throwing good cash after bad.

In the USA they have saved $billions in health care by having PM2.5 monitors, EPA regulations and controls, the UK is still at the PM10 level. Why is the UK so backward on this and also building more PM2.5 emitters when Florida know incinerators have health implications, so that build 2 large plasma gasifiers instead, to deal with residual waste, and it works out cheaper/tonne.

With regards to your last comment, it means, as you say they haven't spent the cash on the necessary PM2.5 research, they have not done the Pm2.5 research; so they guess, spin and try a bit of modelling to cover. Also who pays the Piper calls the Tune! So some people can afford to differ!

The asthma sufferer who moved to Brighton from Huddersfield might still receive copies of the Yorkshire Post from her former home town. If that is so, I hope that she received the copies of 1st and 15th SEptember 2005, regarding my research into the hige variations in the rates of babies born with defects in different Primary Care Trusts, the latter article being page one news.

People without asthma tend to regard it as "no big deal", and yet an hour or two of reading the Telford coroner's register of suspicious deaths will show you that many deaths reported to him were asthma-related.

The Telford school which has one hundred percent of children in Years 3 to 6 bringing inhalers to school for asthma is a small school that is next to a brickworks and that is also downwind of the Ironbridge Power Station.

On the day that Dr Dick van Steenis and I met the coroner, 28 JUne 2005, a baby boy was born to parents who lived in the same electoral ward as the school with 100 per cent asthma inhaler incidence. That baby boy died the following Monday and there was no inquest as many infant deaths are not classified as "suspicious", although every infant death will have been investigated.

I've suggested to anti-incinerator campaigners in Yorkshire and elsewhere to do a primary school asthma inhaler survey under FoI and to see what differences there are between the zones that are upwind and downwind of the incinerators. As far as I'm aware, none have bothered, although that strategy was carried out successfully in Cambridgeshire when the Barrington cement works had a proposal for new works. Also, a campaigner against extension of opencasting in South Wales has carried out an asthma survey and proved that asthma rates are higher with proximity to the works.

In Huddersfield, the incinerator is in Vine Road, and there is a marked difference in the rates of infant mortality in the electoral wards that are downwind, compared with those upwind, according to the Office for National Statistics data I've examined. When Dr Dick van Steenis and I lectured at Norwich, I used a set of "overheads" to illustrate my talk and the ward map of Kirklees with high & low zones of infant mortality coloured red and green was one of them.

Any smart-Alec who thinks that the pattern around Kirklees was a coincidence is in for a shock as it's the same pattern all the time & not just for incinerators.

At Norwich, I spent a lot of time explaining the Ironbridge power station issue as that's where Dr van Steenis and I hold most data.

Anyone with internet access can carry out a quick check on the premature death rates around any incinerator in England & Wales and here's the method:

1. Choose incinerator and print off an electoral ward map of the Borough, plus any surrounding Borough's to give upwind & downwind zones.

2. Go to the Office for National Statistics website and enter SMRs into their search icon, SMR being standardised mortality ratio, which is found by dividing the actual numbers of deaths that have occurred by the number that would have occurred if the death rate had been the same as the average death rate in England & Wales - the resulting figure being multiplied by one hundred, in order to make it "handier" for comparison. THis means that if you live in an electoral ward with SMR=100, the death rate is the same as average for England & Wales.

3. After clicking on SMRs, you'll get a page of options and the one to go for is right at the bottom of the list, under the blue line and is for persons who died aged less than 85 years in 1999-2003.

4. You then get a shorter page of options and you should click on the third one, ie "persons" with a file size of 1.6Mb.

5. The above opens into a large spreadsheet which starts with the SMRs for London and gives City of London first, with SMR=78, and then the London Boroughs in alphabetical order with the wards listed by borough.

The SELCHP incinerator is in New Cross ward, and if you scroll down the London SMRs, you'll see that New Cross ward had the highest death rate for under 85s in London at SMR=161.

Those who think that they are dying young because they are poor should take a look at Ceredigion, in Wales, which is a very poor county and yet only two wards had SMRs greater than 100, one being SMR=101 and the other SMR=105.

If you look at the SMRs in Enfield, which is the Borough with Edmonton incinerator, you'll see that the death rates are very high, with SMRs=129 and 128 in wards around incinerator.

These people are not dying early in a particular pattern that is both consistent and predictable in order to show that Dr van Steenis is correct and that the Environment Agency are incompetent at regulating polluting industry, they are dying early because they have been breathing a chemical cocktail that is shortening their lives.

When Dr van Steenis finished his asthma survey in West Wales, it was page one news in the Western Mail on 3 March 1995, the article also showing the map with "contours" of asthma rates that matched exactly where the plume from the oil refinery & power station complex grounded.

Dr van Steenis found that 33 per cent of four to five-year-olds were chronic asthmatics in Whitland, Carmarthenshire, but only one per cent were asthmatic in Aberaeron and other locations that were upwind of the oil refinery/power station complex at Milford Haven waterway.

If you check the FoE website for "Orimulsion", you'll see that they claim the victory for stopping it being burnt at Richborough power station in Kent and also the National Power one at Milford Haven, despite the fact that Dr van Steenis played the major role in both.

One of the Shrewsbury residents told me that her husband had never been asthmatic until he was transferred to a job in Bristol at the age of 52. Bristol isn't a healthy place, hence the 1992 scandal of the baby deaths having surgery and the bigger scandal of the whistle-blowing anaesthetist who was unable to get another job in the UK.

The UK is an extremely corrupt country where silence about serious matters of public health is the norm. It's as if the people are of no account whatsoever.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Andrew wrote:
Rob, to be honest, it wasn’t the place for a balanced discussion. I was running the risk of being tarred, feathered, and then plucked . Albeit in the most environmentally friendly way. It’s bad enough on these threads, so far I have been accused of being a government stooge, an exonerator, have been accused of being blinkered to a government conspiracy theory and more recently been labelled a dismissive scientist/ bureaucrat (thanks Dave). And that’s just for suggesting people go look at the World Health Organisations research or the Committee on Medical Effects for Air Pollution for an informed opinion. Besides, after watching how the rest of the group responded to his claims, there really wasn’t any point. People will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. I satisfied my own scepticism and won’t be moving from my house off lewes Road, within the shadow of both the local crematorium, the Newhaven incinerator and within spitting distance of the proposed waste transfer site in Holingdean. And thanks for the permission to spout off the rest of my issues with Dr van Steenis presentation: • Could you explain why Dr van Steenis thinks car exhausts pointing down present less of a risk than truck exhausts pointing up? He is aware of the principle of pollutant dispersion right? • Then there was his statement that the construction of the Waste Transfer Facility in Holingdean would generate over 300ugm3 of PM2.5. That would cause a health effect, you’re liable to trip on it. • He wrongly stated that coal fired power stations do not emit particulate matter less than 5 microns in diameter, which is why no one had asthma in the old days. Apart from being wrong, surely he knows of the London Smog’s, it wasn’t asthma you had to worry about. • He also said PM2.5 is completely man made, he’s wrong. It does occur naturally. Oh, and don’t even get me started with his health patterns. The Michael Ryan report that he basses his entire case on comes with the Department of Health critique on the back. They state quite clearly it’s not correct, as do the Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust responding to similar claims. Thats better, have a great weekend Andrew

Andrew BN2 of Lewes Road,

Covering your points: and the emissions research behind these points.

* Exhaust level: Grounding of vehicle PM2.5 & PM1 emissions measured in California & published.

*Holingdean PM2.5 levels: Hollingdean emissions of PM2.5 were recorded (including minus) at over 360ug/m3 in council report measured June 2007.

* Coal Fired Power Stations, PM5s:Coal burning emissions AVERAGE PM5 NOT only PM5 Dr Van Steenis statement was correct. Sizes measured by Dr. Costa of USEPA & published in peer-reviewed journal.

*Natural PM2.5: The context was industrial PM2.5. Sea salt & agricultural soil average PM4.

*Earth Excavator/Volo P70 (petrol) PM2.5 comparison: A comparison of Opencast vehicle emissions research and road vehicles research by Which Car,

see http://www.countrydo

ctor.co.uk/precis/pr

ecis%20-%20Opencasti

ng%20coal%20and%20he

alth.htm

It was peer reviewed by professors in the States, and published in the AAEM and AEHF in USA both peer- reviewed journals, in 2002. The huge figures are down to the polluted oil/solvent mix in the Earth Moving Machinery and Open Cast Vehicle size, and the lesser particulates in petrol.

* Argus comments on Polonium 210 etc were sexed up and taken out of context and analogy quoted at the Public Meeting. He should have done a public service and published the "real" repeated Infant Mortality data/ maps around EfW incinerators, claiming to operate within WID levels.

Michael Ryan has set the record straight and true account on your Telford and Wrekin assertions in a previous comment, and explains exactly why.

Rob Whittle wrote:

Andrew wrote: Rob, to be honest, it wasn’t the place for a balanced discussion. I was running the risk of being tarred, feathered, and then plucked . Albeit in the most environmentally friendly way. It’s bad enough on these threads, so far I have been accused of being a government stooge, an exonerator, have been accused of being blinkered to a government conspiracy theory and more recently been labelled a dismissive scientist/ bureaucrat (thanks Dave). And that’s just for suggesting people go look at the World Health Organisations research or the Committee on Medical Effects for Air Pollution for an informed opinion. Besides, after watching how the rest of the group responded to his claims, there really wasn’t any point. People will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. I satisfied my own scepticism and won’t be moving from my house off lewes Road, within the shadow of both the local crematorium, the Newhaven incinerator and within spitting distance of the proposed waste transfer site in Holingdean. And thanks for the permission to spout off the rest of my issues with Dr van Steenis presentation: • Could you explain why Dr van Steenis thinks car exhausts pointing down present less of a risk than truck exhausts pointing up? He is aware of the principle of pollutant dispersion right? • Then there was his statement that the construction of the Waste Transfer Facility in Holingdean would generate over 300ugm3 of PM2.5. That would cause a health effect, you’re liable to trip on it. • He wrongly stated that coal fired power stations do not emit particulate matter less than 5 microns in diameter, which is why no one had asthma in the old days. Apart from being wrong, surely he knows of the London Smog’s, it wasn’t asthma you had to worry about. • He also said PM2.5 is completely man made, he’s wrong. It does occur naturally. Oh, and don’t even get me started with his health patterns. The Michael Ryan report that he basses his entire case on comes with the Department of Health critique on the back. They state quite clearly it’s not correct, as do the Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust responding to similar claims. Thats better, have a great weekend Andrew

Andrew BN2 of Lewes Road, Covering your points: and the emissions research behind these points. * Exhaust level: Grounding of vehicle PM2.5 & PM1 emissions measured in California & published. *Holingdean PM2.5 levels: Hollingdean emissions of PM2.5 were recorded (including minus) at over 360ug/m3 in council report measured June 2007. * Coal Fired Power Stations, PM5s:Coal burning emissions AVERAGE PM5 NOT only PM5 Dr Van Steenis statement was correct. Sizes measured by Dr. Costa of USEPA & published in peer-reviewed journal. *Natural PM2.5: The context was industrial PM2.5. Sea salt & agricultural soil average PM4. *Earth Excavator/Volo P70 (petrol) PM2.5 comparison: A comparison of Opencast vehicle emissions research and road vehicles research by Which Car, see http://www.countrydo ctor.co.uk/precis/pr ecis%20-%20Opencasti ng%20coal%20and%20he alth.htm It was peer reviewed by professors in the States, and published in the AAEM and AEHF in USA both peer- reviewed journals, in 2002. The huge figures are down to the polluted oil/solvent mix in the Earth Moving Machinery and Open Cast Vehicle size, and the lesser particulates in petrol. * Argus comments on Polonium 210 etc were sexed up and taken out of context and analogy quoted at the Public Meeting. He should have done a public service and published the \"real\" repeated Infant Mortality data/ maps around EfW incinerators, claiming to operate within WID levels. Michael Ryan has set the record straight and true account on your Telford and Wrekin assertions in a previous comment, and explains exactly why.

By "He" I refer The Argus, Reporter and Editor! They have this information from May, and had access to them at the Public Meeting, will they publish the figures and maps for local people, or will they not follow up the 1700 registed Asthma suffers in Newhaven with a population of less than 10,000, when they have stopped being worked up over Litvinenko Po210 one day headline?

"* Argus comments on Polonium 210 etc were sexed up and taken out of context and analogy quoted at the Public Meeting. He should have done a public service and published the "real" repeated Infant Mortality data/ maps 2003-2005 around EfW incinerators, claiming to operate within WID levels."

Anyone that draws an analogy between particulate emissions and plutonium or polonium or any radioactive material should be shunned for the scaremonger that he is. Using those kind of tactics shows the despiration of opponents of this technology. Stick to facts; and the facts show that there is no health risk to humans due to the operation of a modern energy-from-waste facility! All you get from Stennis and his like are weak correlations, but not causation. The primary CAUSES of asthma have been shown to be related to indoor exposures, e.g., fumes, cockroaches, etc.
But it is easier to blame asthma on industry than on people's personal habits or the fact that houses are better insulated and sealed today than they ever were, increasing exposure to indoor pollutants.
To the mis-informed Mr. Rob Whittle, regarding Florida and "incinerators", the plasma gasifiers have not been built and may never be built. However, the expansion of the Lee County waste-to-energy (incinerator) is almost complete, and the Hillborough County expansion is about to begin. Two other COunties are also planning new waste-to-energy plants. So if we are to believe your premise that Florida is aware of the health risk from incinerators, then there must not be any health risk since the State of Florida has very recently given permission from more "incinerators" to be built!
To NIMBY and others - keep up the fight against scare tactics and the lack of sound science.

Has FAF, of USA, any evidence that the US Clean Air Act of 1970 and subesquent updates for PM10s in 1987 and for PM2.5s in 1997, failed to improve health and to improve life-expectancy and also to boost the US economy to the tune of up to dollars 193 Billion?

If the White House Office of Management and Budget has missed any vital evidence that FAF has, I suggest that he sends it to them, to Professor Perera at Columbia University New York, to Professor Douglas Dockery at Harvard and also to Professor Virginia Murray here in UK at Imperial College London.

He should also send it to Eric Pianin, of the Washington Post, as he wrote the major article about the savings due to fewer hospital visits and days off work.

It's a pity that FAF wasn't at the medical conference at Hot Springs, Virgina, in November 2003, otherwise he'd have seen Dr Dick van Steenis address the American Academy of Environmental Medicine with a report that contained a series of case studies, including one on incineration which gave greater detail to the Belgian report regarding Sint Niklaas incinerator.

Professor Virginia Murray's job seems to be to persuade everyone who is dim enough to listen to her that polution is "all in the mind". After D van Steenis was interviewed live on GMB six o' clock news opposite the burning Broomfield tip on 24 April 2004, he addressed a packed public meeting at the Standish Labour Club. I know it was a packed house as there were only two speakers and I was the first, giving a short lecture on the law relating to risk assessments during whioch I urged the residents to use FoI to obtain copies of the risk assessments for workers who were excavating an old colliery waste tip which was burning underground and emitting huge amounts of PM2.5s and sending choking fumes into the nearby houses.

In May 2004, Dr Virginia Murray held a so-called public meeting at a Standish school, but it was a ticket-only affair with just one person from each household. Dr van Steenis was barred from this meeting, otherwise he could have cross-examined Dr Virgina Murray and shown the audience that what she was telling them was "claptrap".

All GPs in Standish had been barred from attending the meeting at which Dr van Steenis spoke at the Labour Club in Standish and if anyone checks the internet, they'lll find sufficient detail to show that everything written above is true.

Dr Murray's time as a "coverer-up of the truth about health effects of PM2.5s" is over and perhaps the UK public will start to look at the evidence themselves on issues of health instead of relying on "experts".

I hope that the Sunday Express readers who read about the vaccine damage coverup in the UK on 22 July 2007 will realise that it's the same old story in almost every part of public health.

Remember that your taxes help pay big bucks for the Directors of Public Health to count condoms and teenage pregnancies but overlook key issues of publc health such as the proveable harm from industrial PM2.5 emissions.

If FAF of US is so sure of the safety of incincerator emissions, perrhaps he, or she, would care to have them piped through his or her house for a week or so?

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Hi Rob

How come you refer to the Telford PCT document as an ‘assertion’. Both Michael Ryan and yourself have stated that the PCT’s have not responded out of fear of signing some form of death warrant. But when a PCT does respond you not only reject it but try and quash it by assassinating the authors investigating how much was spent on it and then make out that they have no idea what their talking about.

I would have thought a Director of Public Health, with a health background, health training, a number of health staff, with access to more local health stats than even national statistics and a review by an independent health expert would have meant that health would be reasonably covered.

The same could be said for the Department of Health’s critique of Michael Ryans research.

Thanks for the bullets responding to my other queries, they don’t really answer them but I appreciate them none the less.

* I was quite surprised when Dr van Steenis said what the Hollingdean PM2.5 levels would be. You mentioned that that report indicated that these could be over ‘360ug/m3’. Was there anything else in the report that might indicate why?

* You sent me a partial reference to coal fired power stations demonstrating average particulate matter. Many thanks but this only supports that Dr van Steenis was wrong to say that they do not generate particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter. It was therefore potentially inappropriate for him to state that asthma was lower in the past due to the absence of PM2.5 from these facilities. I still find it weird he seems to think we had better air quality and health in the recent past.

* Thanks again for correcting Dr van Steenis that PM2.5 does occur naturally.

* Thanks for pointing me to Dr van Steenis’s own work establishing the heightened risk from bulldozers. But this is not consistent with what he said at the meeting. His website said that 1 bulldozer emits an equivalent level of PM2.5 to some 900,000 Volvo V70 petrol cars. At the meeting he said 9 bulldozers were equivalent to 200-million Volvo’s. This is not a small error. In any case, if he is accurate, it would be a simple fix, tell government and the change fuel.

* I do agree that the Argus have acted unprofessionally and have simply gone for the most provocative title to boast sales. Did they offer Dr van Steenis or any of the speakers an opportunity to review the draft document or even the title prior to print? At the end of the day, you cant blame them, their the press and as such simply provided their interpretation of the Dr van Steenis public presentation.

Something else that came to mind over the weekend was Dr van Steenis comment that there is nothing in place to protect communities from such facilities in the UK. He’s categorically wrong on that one. If he was right why would there even be the debate, why would we bother with planning and the various assessments?

All my best

Andrew

Oh, and for those of you interested the previous Argus article is still going on is well. Have a peak at

www.theargus.co.uk/d


isplay.var.1421371.0


.expert_claims_incin


erator_will_cause_ba


by_deaths.php

I have been away for the weekend and have seen that there is lots added to this debate now. I took the trouble to check the Science Direct search engine for peer reviewed articles authored by Mr Ryan or Dr Van Steenis. Although they claim to have undertaken some very important scientific research, I could only find the letter published by Dr Van Steenis in the Lancet in 1995. I am curious as to why they are withholding their valuable research from the rest of us? PLEASE publish it in a scientific journal so that others can benefit from the debate that you have started.

If this is research that should be shared with others, I am wondering why it seems to only be presented to pressure groups/ worried citizens/ professional eco-warriors etc.

I have been variously accused of working for an incineration company/ vested interest etc because of the level of knowledge I have. I do not claim to be an expert and I have no axe to grind. My background is that I am an environmental scientist and my reason for engaging in this debate is that we should not always believe the pro eco people any more than big business with their various greenwash campaigns. I like to be sure that the information I am being fed is actually true and has been verified by the scientific community. If further research is needed to anylyse the problem, so be it, but let it be done in the proper arena.

NIMBY

Peer reviews: As well as the Peer reviewed article by the Lancet Editors 1995,Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS, "Airborne pollutants and acute health effects," LANCET Vol. 345 (April 8, 1995), pg. 923 as referenced in previous post, also peer reviewed articles in The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and American Environmental Health Foundation (AEHF) in USA both published reports of Dr van Steenis in their peer- reviewed journals . These are replicated in part on the www.countrydoctor.co



.uk website

"PLEASE publish it in a scientific journal so that others can benefit from the debate that you have started."

I am sure they will as they have collated this research this year, covering 15 incinerators and London's health map and incinerators.

NIMBY, what thing is important, and I'm sure you will agree, is this type of reseaerch should be mainstream EA/HPA research monitoring continually at the PM2.5 level, rather than the PM10. Why is this fringe research? Because COMEAD/HPA said "no more funded emissions research in Nov.2005". So neither you or I have detailed HPA/EA PM2.5 data, composition or health impacts around EfW facilities to be 100% or even 99%certain. If you can find this HPA PM2.5 you I'll give you an A* as an environmetal scientist, and have succeeded where I have failed.

I hear the green arguements (and there are quite a few), but I tend to come from the technology, health, business (£/tonne, costs) and advances in their areas, and 25y ears of incineration far from satisfies these areas IMO. Where does this leave other advanced technogies that convert waste to energy gases (methane, hydrogen syngas), energy and bioethanol/ethanols; rather than oxidising the contents and using the local atmosphere as a carbon and pollution dustbin? The Newhaven Incinerator proposal is very short sited IMO, and has been "forced" through and dumped on Newhaven by ESCC. These communities are not necessarily NIMBY, they just what choice, something better and different. It would seem ESCC can't oblige.

Rob Whittle wrote:
Rickuser of Caveats , I take your issue; talking about blood and stone, pipers or glasshouses, you don't happen to come with a medical background or connected to a government agency per chance? For many readers of this blog the identity and interest of the advanced scrutineer like yourself is not made transparent. Its not a crime to have or work for government agencies, or to have a differing scientific view. Dick van Steenis handed out his evidence and list of 335 references to a dozen or so who requested at the public meeting, so transparency here. I suggest Government record on cover ups or Spin if not lilly white! Also billions have been wasted in NHS IT database programmes that have overrun or have not been procurred properly. I don't agree with this or prioritising throwing good cash after bad. In the USA they have saved $billions in health care by having PM2.5 monitors, EPA regulations and controls, the UK is still at the PM10 level. Why is the UK so backward on this and also building more PM2.5 emitters when Florida know incinerators have health implications, so that build 2 large plasma gasifiers instead, to deal with residual waste, and it works out cheaper/tonne. With regards to your last comment, it means, as you say they haven't spent the cash on the necessary PM2.5 research, they have not done the Pm2.5 research; so they guess, spin and try a bit of modelling to cover. Also who pays the Piper calls the Tune! So some people can afford to differ!

Rob - thank you for further comments.
In direct response to your Qs:
1. I am not from a medical background (does A-Level Biology count?) nor am I connected to a governmental body that would be/is associated with this matter. I am a civil servant (but then again, so are 560k other people in the UK!) and this would explain my insights into governmental processes. My role is one of dealing with European regulations dealing with trade & business issues, so am about as far aware from health/environmental as you can get. I have an interest in this matter as a resident but I also have a Bachelors degree in environmental science, specialising on pollution control (got it thru the OU - so you welcome to check it out) so have more than a layman's knowledge on this matter. I can add a Masters degree (in an unrelated subject) so that's where I draw my knowledge of research techniques and how to scrutinise them. So, I would like to think that not only do I have a vested interest as someone who may be directly affected, but I am able to come to my own conclusions without having them digested and feedback to me in 'soundbite' size (a la The Argus ) or crammed into my throat by those somewhat rather more evangelical in their opposition. And now I have that information, obtained with a little struggle, I can retire from this little debate and come to my own conclusion and act accordingly. My thanks to those who chose to engage with me: winning people over to your side is as much about managing that relationship as it is presenting the evidence.

Andrew

* I was quite surprised when Dr van Steenis said what the Hollingdean PM2.5 levels would be. You mentioned that that report indicated that these could be over ‘360ug/m3’. Was there anything else in the report that might indicate why? I'm sure the council will supply you with a copy.

* You sent me a partial reference to coal fired power stations demonstrating average particulate matter. Many thanks but this only supports that Dr van Steenis was wrong to say that they do not generate particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter. It was therefore potentially inappropriate for him to state that asthma was lower in the past due to the absence of PM2.5 from these facilities. I still find it weird he seems to think we had better air quality and health in the recent past. Dr Dan Costa, EPA National Program Director for Air Research, and its known coal burning peak and average emissions are PM5 size, Dr van Steenis was correct in stating this, and that the major peak and average for PM2.5s was found with burning heavy oils and municipal waste
in incinerators; see Barrington PM distribution graph;this sounds fairly straight forward to me, and anyone who understands distribution curves.

* Thanks again for correcting Dr van Steenis that PM2.5 does occur naturally. Again peak and average of agricultural soil and sea salt is PM4. Again fairly clear to me.

* Thanks for pointing me to Dr van Steenis’s own work establishing the heightened risk from bulldozers. But this is not consistent with what he said at the meeting. His website said that 1 bulldozer emits an equivalent level of PM2.5 to some 900,000 Volvo V70 petrol cars. At the meeting he said 9 bulldozers were equivalent to 200-million Volvo’s. This is not a small error. In any case, if he is accurate, it would be a simple fix, tell government and the change fuel. I think you quibble with figures. Both are highly significant, whatever the source reference, and comparison. 900,000 Volvo V7 petrol vehicles are a massive amout whether one excavator or 9 excavators produce it. bold]

* I do agree that the Argus have acted unprofessionally and have simply gone for the most provocative title to boast sales. Did they offer Dr van Steenis or any of the speakers an opportunity to review the draft document or even the title prior to print? At the end of the day, you cant blame them, their the press and as such simply provided their interpretation of the Dr van Steenis public presentation. I agree the Reporter and Editor undertook poor journalism with the Po210 headline, I disagree about the press being the press. If you are going to print such a story, one issue raised amongst 100 in an hour, you would at least do a follow up to confirm the context and get a source reference.

Something else that came to mind over the weekend was Dr van Steenis comment that there is nothing in place to protect communities from such facilities in the UK. He’s categorically wrong on that one. If he was right why would there even be the debate, why would we bother with planning and the various assessments?
Could this be because these are flawed as well as the research, EfW policy dogma and expertise behind them? If it weren't flawed we would be all agreeing on a solution, or have a consensus. I know this from the Norwich WRG incinerator, where the SRM alternative bid has a consensus locally and Norfolk wide, Tory, Green, Labour and Lib Dems; and people are happy. With WRG there were 000's of objection, SRM I their have been zero letters objecting in the two Norfolk papers, EDP and EEN, after SRM did an excellent consultation. Does this not say something that whilst people felt in the end they got the right facility at less cost, but objected to particular aspects the system of protection, as highlighted widely in Norfolks case. Did they feel protected against the WRG proposal, NO. Did they feel ignored and poo pooed, YES.

Regards

Rob

Rick H wrote:

Rob Whittle wrote: Rickuser of Caveats , I take your issue; talking about blood and stone, pipers or glasshouses, you don\\\'t happen to come with a medical background or connected to a government agency per chance? For many readers of this blog the identity and interest of the advanced scrutineer like yourself is not made transparent. Its not a crime to have or work for government agencies, or to have a differing scientific view. Dick van Steenis handed out his evidence and list of 335 references to a dozen or so who requested at the public meeting, so transparency here. I suggest Government record on cover ups or Spin if not lilly white! Also billions have been wasted in NHS IT database programmes that have overrun or have not been procurred properly. I don\\\'t agree with this or prioritising throwing good cash after bad. In the USA they have saved $billions in health care by having PM2.5 monitors, EPA regulations and controls, the UK is still at the PM10 level. Why is the UK so backward on this and also building more PM2.5 emitters when Florida know incinerators have health implications, so that build 2 large plasma gasifiers instead, to deal with residual waste, and it works out cheaper/tonne. With regards to your last comment, it means, as you say they haven\\\'t spent the cash on the necessary PM2.5 research, they have not done the Pm2.5 research; so they guess, spin and try a bit of modelling to cover. Also who pays the Piper calls the Tune! So some people can afford to differ!

Rob - thank you for further comments. In direct response to your Qs: 1. I am not from a medical background (does A-Level Biology count?) nor am I connected to a governmental body that would be/is associated with this matter. I am a civil servant (but then again, so are 560k other people in the UK!) and this would explain my insights into governmental processes. My role is one of dealing with European regulations dealing with trade & business issues, so am about as far aware from health/environmental as you can get. I have an interest in this matter as a resident but I also have a Bachelors degree in environmental science, specialising on pollution control (got it thru the OU - so you welcome to check it out) so have more than a layman\\\'s knowledge on this matter. I can add a Masters degree (in an unrelated subject) so that\\\'s where I draw my knowledge of research techniques and how to scrutinise them. So, I would like to think that not only do I have a vested interest as someone who may be directly affected, but I am able to come to my own conclusions without having them digested and feedback to me in \\\'soundbite\\\' size (a la The Argus ) or crammed into my throat by those somewhat rather more evangelical in their opposition. And now I have that information, obtained with a little struggle, I can retire from this little debate and come to my own conclusion and act accordingly. My thanks to those who chose to engage with me: winning people over to your side is as much about managing that relationship as it is presenting the evidence.

Rick,

Many thanks this, I see where you are coming from and your candid last comment. I agree with you Argus were not responsible with the Po210 headline, although I regard Michael Ryans research and May's Argus headline as significant. I would not describe myself as being evangelically inspire, rather where the evidence is leading, and the conviction that more needs to be done around existing incinerators, PM2.5s; and like the very recent Governments wiser decisions on promoting EfWAnaerobic Digestion for Food Waste, it gives oxygen to future technologies such as Autoclaves to Biofuels, or Plasma Gasifiers to Energy Gases, with Incinerators the last choice before landfilling, instead of a "pick and mix" residual technology choices for Waste Disposal Authorities WDAs as current, to be seduced by massive waste companies like Veolia offering a one trick pony (incinerators). I think at the end of the day its an important debate to be had, more research is required, better ranking of technology types in standard BPEO scorings and bid procurement models; and people should use their mind and gut feel, to arrive at an end point. But in the end, if they en masse conclude incinerators are not for them, will they be listened to, and can things be changed. Are people adequately protected?

Andrew

repeat post, comments bold

* I was quite surprised when Dr van Steenis said what the Hollingdean PM2.5 levels would be. You mentioned that that report indicated that these could be over ‘360ug/m3’. Was there anything else in the report that might indicate why? I'm sure the council will supply you with a copy.

* You sent me a partial reference to coal fired power stations demonstrating average particulate matter. Many thanks but this only supports that Dr van Steenis was wrong to say that they do not generate particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter. It was therefore potentially inappropriate for him to state that asthma was lower in the past due to the absence of PM2.5 from these facilities. I still find it weird he seems to think we had better air quality and health in the recent past. Dr Dan Costa, EPA National Program Director for Air Research, and its known coal burning peak and average emissions are PM5 size, Dr van Steenis was correct in stating this, and that the major peak and average for PM2.5s was found with burning heavy oils and municipal waste
in incinerators; see Barrington PM distribution graph;this sounds fairly straight forward to me, and anyone who understands distribution curves.

* Thanks again for correcting Dr van Steenis that PM2.5 does occur naturally. Again peak and average of agricultural soil and sea salt is PM4. Again fairly clear to me.

* Thanks for pointing me to Dr van Steenis’s own work establishing the heightened risk from bulldozers. But this is not consistent with what he said at the meeting. His website said that 1 bulldozer emits an equivalent level of PM2.5 to some 900,000 Volvo V70 petrol cars. At the meeting he said 9 bulldozers were equivalent to 200-million Volvo’s. This is not a small error. In any case, if he is accurate, it would be a simple fix, tell government and the change fuel. I think you quibble with figures. Both are highly significant, whatever the source reference, and comparison. 900,000 Volvo V7 petrol vehicles are a massive amout whether one excavator or 9 excavators produce it. bold]

* I do agree that the Argus have acted unprofessionally and have simply gone for the most provocative title to boast sales. Did they offer Dr van Steenis or any of the speakers an opportunity to review the draft document or even the title prior to print? At the end of the day, you cant blame them, their the press and as such simply provided their interpretation of the Dr van Steenis public presentation. I agree the Reporter and Editor undertook poor journalism with the Po210 headline, I disagree about the press being the press. If you are going to print such a story, one issue raised amongst 100 in an hour, you would at least do a follow up to confirm the context and get a source reference.

Something else that came to mind over the weekend was Dr van Steenis comment that there is nothing in place to protect communities from such facilities in the UK. He’s categorically wrong on that one. If he was right why would there even be the debate, why would we bother with planning and the various assessments?
Could this be because these are flawed as well as the research, EfW policy dogma and expertise behind them? If it weren't flawed we would be all agreeing on a solution, or have a consensus. I know this from the Norwich WRG incinerator, where the SRM alternative bid has a consensus locally and Norfolk wide, Tory, Green, Labour and Lib Dems; and people are happy. With WRG there were 000's of objection, SRM I their have been zero letters objecting in the two Norfolk papers, EDP and EEN, after SRM did an excellent consultation. Does this not say something that whilst people felt in the end they got the right facility at less cost, but objected to particular aspects the system of protection, as highlighted widely in Norfolks case. Did they feel protected against the WRG proposal, NO. Did they feel ignored and poo pooed, YES.

Regards

Rob

Peer reviews: As well as the Peer reviewed article by the Lancet Editors 1995,Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS, "Airborne pollutants and acute health effects," LANCET Vol. 345 (April 8, 1995), pg. 923

This is no more peer reviewed than a letter to the Argus! It is merely a letter to the journal in response to a previously published article.

Alas I don't have access to the other articles and would like to read them in their entirety rather than the selected parts reproduced on the Country Doctor

Rob can you let me in on your theory on the second gunman on the grassy knoll and if they are hiding the flying saucers in area 51. The governments out to get me and its all a cover up with secret deals being done in the back of the council offices with big hand outs going to everyone (though so far none of the people I know in the council have been able to get new cars and haven’t even brought any more rounds down the pub to share there back hander). Get over it Rob. I feel that 200millinon Volvos vs 8.1 million is one hell of a difference and if these errors are reflected in his research I wouldn’t trust a number in the report. If your follow your logic on Bulldozers then seeing that there are more than 9 in the country, probably more like half a million at least maybe its not the incinerators that are the probable but the bulldozers. Lets rally the troops and ban all bulldozers from the UK. Good thing is once new EU legislation comes in and we have to control PM2.5 we have an easy fix, start using Volvos to move the waste. We could have thousands of Volvos per site and not have the same effect as one bulldozer so lets have all the rubbish put in the back of my mums car and driven round the site.

PS from what you wrote Rob and I quote “Could this be because these are flawed as well as the research, EfW policy dogma and expertise behind them? If it weren't flawed we would be all agreeing on a solution, or have a consensus.” Then on the fact we are on here debating would this also not suggest your research is flawed??

Hi Rob

Thanks for suggesting I contact the council to get hold of the particulate matter data, but Dr van Steenis said it was a confidential document. Is this the case?

I don’t believe I am 'quibbling with figures'. I believe Dr van Steenis is being a bit flippant with them. He said 9 bulldozers at Hollingdean would be equivalent to 200-million Volvos. But his own website says that 1 bulldozer is equivalent to only 900,000 Volvos.

Quibbling would be in the region of 10 to 20 Volvos not 14 million. Considering his claims I thought it would have been prudent to at least be accurate on his own stats.

The reason why I said you cant blame the press is because Dr van Steenis has made a number of similar claims all other the UK with titles such as ‘baby killer’.

Although the press may sex up titles, you cant tell me Dr van Steenis is not aware of this or that he objects to the heightened press. Besides, its not as if the author lied. He sat at the public meeting and took notes of what Dr van Steenis said.

http://www.nsca.org.
uk/assets/EFWEA%20fu
ll%20report.pdf

Not a Dr report but is clear that particulates from Incinerators are a hard to guess quantitatively.

On 23 July, 2007, Andrew, of BN2, wrote:
"I would have thought a Director of Public Health, with a health background, health training, a number of health staff, with access to more local health stats than even national statistics, and a review by an independent health expert would have meant that health would be reasonably covered."

Fair comment, but the reality is that the "independent health expert" has no medical qualifications, as Professor Roy Harrison, like Professor Jim Bridges, is not medically qualified. Both these "experts" are immune from disciplinary proceedings by the GMC as they aren't doctors.

The training that public health doctors get on air pollution is almost non-existent in the UK, otherwise Dr Catherine Woodward, of Telford & Wrekin PCT would not have agreed to meet with Dr van Steenis and myself in May 2005.

Perhaps if she hadn't cancelled that meeting, she wouldn't be in such a nasty mess now, as she is named in my statement of evidence to the EFRA Committee, the Chairman of which has refused to remove my statemet from the parliamentary website, she is also named in my letters to the Chief Executive of Telford & Wrekin PCT for being respnsible, through her negligence, for more deaths than Dr Harold Shipman.

I've notified MPs, the coroner, the local media on this issue and Dr van Steenis and I have even met the Telford coroner, Michael Gwynne, and shown him the prelimnary research in June 2005.

What Professor Roy Harrison and Dr Catherine Woodward cannot escape from is the fact that she has prepared a report that allegedly "proves" that Ironbridge Power Station has no adverse effect on health, and yet she has failed to examine any data from upwind of the power station.

I suspect that Dr Catherine Woodward will become even more famous than Dr Harold Shipman.

Even the London journalist who travelled to Shrewsbury on 12 April 2007 to interview me about my infant mortality research wondered why the Shropshire Star and BBC Radio Shropshire hadn't reported the Ironbridge Power Station issue. I replied that you'd better ask those bodies why they haven't, although the BBC have e-mailed me to say that my allegation is libellous, without realising that if it's true, which it is, then there is no libel. Libel is a false statement.

When the BBC South West reported Dr van Steenis' Cornwall lecture about incineration, in May 2007, the BBC headline claimed that Dr van Steenis said that incinerators caused infertility. He has never made that claim. That same BBC news report failed to mention the main part of Dr van Steenis' lecture, ie that infant mortality rates are always higher in zones that are downwind of incinerators, compared with zones that are upwind.

The data that I've examined in LOndon and elsewhere will have no greater force if included in a scientific journal than if I'd scribbled it on the wall of Harrow Primary Care Trust. The data shows beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a predictable and consistent pattern of elevated rates of infant mortality in zones that are downwind of incinerators.

Dr Bobbi Jacobson, of the London Health Observatory, knows about my research, and I hope she'll soon be explaining to the Directors of Publlic Health at the LOndon PCTs, such as Dr Pui-Ling Li at Waltham Forest PCT, and Dr Frances Haste, at Newham PCT, that she had meant to tell them all about the infant mortality rates by electoral ward, but she hadn't got round to it just yet.

Andrew should note that the DEpartment of Health have not seen my research as far as I know, and if he has any proof that they have, perhaps he'd be kind enough to give further details.

I know that Dr Michael Waring, of the Department of Health, was fully aware of the adverse heallth impacts of modern incinerators, as he kindly told me in an e-mail dated 26 March 2002. I doubt if he shared his knowlegde with any politicians, or with any of the London newspapers that have reported my research over the last three months.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

In terms of quibbling whether the problem is "huge" (900,000)or "massive" (200m). One has a`problem either way! I'm really sorry you don't like what you hear, but there again neither did Veolia, ESCC, and other Government quangos!

If 1 Earth Moving Excavator excavator produced the the equavalent PM2.5 emissions as 10-20 Volvo V70s (but proportionate to realtive weight or engine size) many readers might be using some of yours or HPAs adjectives like "less or no sinificant". But this is not the case with Earth Excavators and PM2.5s!

I disagree with out about Andy Dickensen. A paper has a responsibility and accuracy in journalism and get the context right and statement correct, rather than soundbits and editing statements. Argus did not!

The repeated ONS Infant Mortality downwind patterns around EfW incinerator does support Dr van Steenis's UK comments that incinerator PM2.5s indeed "Kill Babies", and the public do indeed need to know about this health risk.

Paddy wrote:
Rob can you let me in on your theory on the second gunman on the grassy knoll and if they are hiding the flying saucers in area 51. The governments out to get me and its all a cover up with secret deals being done in the back of the council offices with big hand outs going to everyone (though so far none of the people I know in the council have been able to get new cars and haven’t even brought any more rounds down the pub to share there back hander). Get over it Rob. I feel that 200millinon Volvos vs 8.1 million is one hell of a difference and if these errors are reflected in his research I wouldn’t trust a number in the report. If your follow your logic on Bulldozers then seeing that there are more than 9 in the country, probably more like half a million at least maybe its not the incinerators that are the probable but the bulldozers. Lets rally the troops and ban all bulldozers from the UK. Good thing is once new EU legislation comes in and we have to control PM2.5 we have an easy fix, start using Volvos to move the waste. We could have thousands of Volvos per site and not have the same effect as one bulldozer so lets have all the rubbish put in the back of my mums car and driven round the site. PS from what you wrote Rob and I quote “Could this be because these are flawed as well as the research, EfW policy dogma and expertise behind them? If it weren\'t flawed we would be all agreeing on a solution, or have a consensus.” Then on the fact we are on here debating would this also not suggest your research is flawed??

Paddy, a nice bit of wit to lighten the thred. I mow my grassy knoll at weekends, and leave other non rational notions to others.

More saliently and seriously

Rhetorical question, were we the public mislead on Iraq and WMD.(accidentially, incompetantly, willfully or otherwise)?

In the media yesterday; was the public informed by the DoH that certain brands of MMR vaccines caused child deaths and brain damage, and was quitely removed from use. Ref: "The Truth about Vaccines" by Dr Richard Halvorsen, ans the climate of professional fear for criticism or exposing this? Sunday Express exclusive, 22/7/07, p39.

Excavator PM2.5 amounts: Same as Andrew. Dr van sttenis simply compares two research documents (Others research on opencast mining emissions sources and road vehicle research by Which Car). All Dr van Steenis does is calulate the ratio of the two comparative amounts concluded by others credible research.

Well HPA does has no incinerator PM2.5 research, so its findings on health are scientifically flawed. How can you conclude on something not studied? Dr van Stennis and Michael Ryan have done salient research in ward health data and parameters, incinerator location and PM2.5s, so are quite a few steps on from the HPA.

Debate is a healthy thing. But Veolia and to an extent ESCC do not want debate, they announce scripted spin, Veolia avoid public meetings, especially with Dr van Steenis present, who was able to give a thorough scrutiny of these companies proposals. WRG tried in Hull and lost badly, having to withdraw there site proposal at the time, and as a consequence.

NIMBY wrote:
Peer reviews: As well as the Peer reviewed article by the Lancet Editors 1995,Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS, "Airborne pollutants and acute health effects," LANCET Vol. 345 (April 8, 1995), pg. 923 This is no more peer reviewed than a letter to the Argus! It is merely a letter to the journal in response to a previously published article. Alas I don't have access to the other articles and would like to read them in their entirety rather than the selected parts reproduced on the Country Doctor

NIMBY you appear to raise Argus Editor to the status of Medical Expert, and Lancet Editors/Process to the level of Story hunters.

I refer you to the following article/ report treatment by The Lancet, which were met by Dr van Steenis, as were his data and references..

http://www.thelancet
.com/authors/lancet/
authorinfo#handles

The peer reviewed articles in the AEHF/ AAEM and CountryDoctor Pollution Section are virtually the same, other than the webpage colour, your preference. I've even left links AEHF in above posted as well as conference lectures DVS has given on the same peer reviewed research.

It is a shame that people do not post their real identities then of course it would be obvious whether or not they are interested parties. I declare my interest as the former chairman of DOVE.

Health effects of incineration? My approach is straightforward: if incineration is not good enough for the residents of Brighton then it’s not good enough for the residents of Newhaven or anywhere else.

The National Society for Clean Air maintains incineration is safe. This organisation’s Headquarters are in Brighton. Yet, from memory, in 1999 Lord Bassam assured the residents of Brighton that they would never have an incinerator.

Why was that? What did Lord Bassam know that we didn’t?

So far as I am aware, Brighton & Hove still do not want an incinerator; rightly so.

The argument ‘online’ so far has been that Michael Ryan’s and Dr. van Steenis’ health evidence is biased.

On that basis, maybe we should look at East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove’s own expert; Professor Roy Harrison. Presumably, we can believe what he says as to the health effects.

Professor Roy Harrison’s written evidence to the 2003 Public Inquiry stated that deaths result from incinerators of the type proposed for Newhaven. Not only did I read that evidence I was at the Public Inquiry throughout and also heard his oral evidence in October 2003. He confirmed that mixed waste incinerators are a risk to human health.

If ESCC and B&H own health expert says there is a risk to human health then who are we to doubt it?

Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren

Joëlle

I totally agree, and this was Graham Ennis's comment.

It is a shame that people do not post their real identities then of course it would be obvious whether or not they are interested parties. I declare my interest as the former chairman of DOVE.

As I have with NAIL2. Perhaps like Rick H (I respect him for identifying his professional interest), anyone else on here might be a little more candid. Andrew BN2 a claimed scientist using GIS's on Lewes Road, a stones throw from an establishment with these tools.

I have no personal or professional connection with this issue. I do not work for any of the interested parties and do not live in the area where it is to be constructed. I have merely questioned the so-called expertise of those who profess to have knowledge. So why is my identity or expertise relevant?

I don't need character assassination from the likes of Dr VS, Michael Ryan or Rob Whittle. None of those people are locals either - they are 'professional' campaigners who have set themselves up to be 'experts'. It is right and proper therefore that people should scrutinise their credentials.

Despite all the bluster from these individuals and others who have supported there standpoint, I am still not convinced by any of their arguments and am still puzzled as to how letters to editors of journals are considered to be peer reviewed journal articles. They aren't, at least not in the form that I am used to reading peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals.

I think that those who live in the fallout zone of the proposed Newhaven incinerator should take a look at the website of the East London and West Essex Guardian, particularly at the report of 19 March 2004: "Incinerator may be the cause of borough's high stroke rate", which starts: "Fears have been raised that pollution from yhe Edmonton incinerator may have contributed to some of the highest stroke rates in the country. Waltham Forest is ranked second highest in London for premature death from stroke according to the borough's primary care trust (PCT).

Councillor Kathy Gosling was named in the above report, and she is also named in the article "E4 is bad for your health", on 21 July 2004, which starts: "Chingfored Green and Highams Park have a high level of people suffering long-term illness, low teenage conception rates and lower mortality rates compared with other parts of the borough."

It's unfortunate that The Guardian was unaware that Chingford Green's infant mortality rate was going to be the 2nd highest out of the 625 electoral wards in London for the three years 2003-5, at 17.1 per 1,000, ie nearly three and a half times higher than the average rate for England & Wales for 2003-5 which was 5.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Waltham Forest Borough Council's website has many items listed if "incinerator" is entered into their search icon, including the following from a resident at the South Chingford & Highams Park Community Centre, 12 July 2004:
"The Edmonton incinerator must be the cause of the high numbers of circulatpry disease in this borough. Have the causes of the high incidences of this illness been looked into?"

The reply from M Osei-Asibey, of Waltham Forest PCT, was "This is the next piece of work we are looking into. We will be trying to establish the causes of the illnesses and this will include investigating the Edmonton site."

Further down page 5 of the above minutes is a mention of Cllr K Gosling as follows: "I attended the launch of the health inequalities in Waltham Forest report and it was interesting to hear that women in Waltham Forest have the highest rate of bladder cancer." and she continued: "I also think any possible links with the Edmonton incinerator should be investigated."

The Guardian of 23 February 2004 article "Teenage asthma mystery" started: "Air pollution and damp housing could be contributing to high asthma rates among Waltham Forest's yound people, according to the local primary care trust (PCT)." and continues later with a quote from Dr Ken Aswani, lead GP for Waltham Forest, and chairman of yhe professional executive committee, as follows: "The cause of asthma is not clear, but according to Dr Aswani, contributory factors could include damp housing and polluted atmospheres."

It's a pity that Waltham Forest PCT have not bothered to obtain the rates of asthma, stroke, cancers, infant mortality, CHD, COPD, by electoral ward in their area and also in the PCTs of Enfield, Haringey, and of Barnet so that they could see that if you live in a ward that is downwind of Edmonton incinerator, then you get worse health and shorter lives than if you live upwind.

I tried to contact Kathy Gosling, but she has moved away from Waltham Forest. I have been in contact with Dr Pui-Ling Li, the Director of Public Health at Waltham Forest PCT as she was smart enough to notice that there was no correlation between chioldhood obesity levels and deprivation in Waltham Forest and I assumed that she'd realise that the "deprivation equals ill-health" line that has been spun so successfully during the last decade is false and can be proved to be so.

I've suggested that she looks at the infant mortality rates in electoral wards around Edmonton incinerator and to note how they fall into a pattern that is consistent with exposure to PM2.5s from Edmonton incinerator. She wants a copy of my infant mortality map, but Ken Livingstone, the man responsible for the well-being of 7.8 million Londoners does not. Ken Livingstone wants me to publish in a relevant, reputable scientific journal and I've no idea why unless it's to waste time.

The data is so simple to understand, all you need is the map.

Please note that FoE and Greenpeace failed to make use of any of the above reports about Waltham Forest when "fighting" anti-incinerator campaigns around the UK. Why was that?

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury

NIMBY wrote:
I have no personal or professional connection with this issue. I do not work for any of the interested parties and do not live in the area where it is to be constructed. I have merely questioned the so-called expertise of those who profess to have knowledge. So why is my identity or expertise relevant? I don't need character assassination from the likes of Dr VS, Michael Ryan or Rob Whittle. None of those people are locals either - they are 'professional' campaigners who have set themselves up to be 'experts'. It is right and proper therefore that people should scrutinise their credentials. Despite all the bluster from these individuals and others who have supported there standpoint, I am still not convinced by any of their arguments and am still puzzled as to how letters to editors of journals are considered to be peer reviewed journal articles. They aren't, at least not in the form that I am used to reading peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals.

My guess is that during his 28 years in medicine and added 12 years in toxicology and industrial emissions Dr van Steenis might have read the Lancet quite a few times to know the precedure and whether he's peer reviewed on not, I'd suggest. With a name like NIMBY who is to know, it obviously suggests a pre disposed position and prejudice, without identification. Also Experts should be scrutised for their specialism, commercial connections and pay checks. eg Professor Roy Harrison and WRG and then the EA in Cambridgeshire Cemex prosecution case last week. It sounds a case of running with The Hounds and the Fox, with Roy.

Asthma sufferer, Newhaven wrote on 20th and 21st July that he/she is not worried at all by an incinerator.

That’s fine; it’s his/her right to take whatever risks he/she wishes (except of course for passive smoking – now banned in public places to protect the non-participants).

However, from memory, during the first deposit of the Waste Local Plan more than 80% of Newhaven residents objected to incineration. The objections have continued for a period which covers 8 years on 17th November this year. It should be noted that all contributors to public consultation processes have to supply identity details.

Clearly, these people are unwilling to accept the same risks as “Asthma sufferer, Newhaven”.

And why should they?

Health effects of incineration? My approach has always been perfectly straightforward: if incineration is not good enough for the residents of Brighton then it’s not good enough for the residents of Newhaven or anywhere else.

The National Society for Clean Air maintains incineration is safe. This organisation’s Headquarters are in Brighton. Yet, from memory, in 1999 Lord Bassam assured the residents of Brighton that they would never have an incinerator.

Why was that? What did Lord Bassam know that we didn’t?

So far as I am aware, Brighton & Hove still do not want an incinerator; rightly so.

Whether the risk is perceived or actual is unimportant. The point is; significant numbers of people in both Brighton and Newhaven do not want that risk imposed upon them.

Who can argue with that?

Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren

Copies of the July 2007 report "The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" have been sent to Dr van Steenis and myself from the House of Commons and our comments requested.

There are two parts to the document, Vol 2 being a CD-ROM which I've not yet looked at.

Page 16 of Vol 1 is in the "Details of pollutants and objectives" section and the following is written at the beginning of the sub-section on particulate matter, ie PM10 and PM2.5, under the heading "Potential effects on health/environment":


Both short-term and long-term exposure to ambient levels of PM (ie particulate matter) are consistently associated with respiratory and cardiovascular illness and mortality as well as other ill-health effects. The associations are believed to be causal. It is not currently possible to discern a threshold concentration below which there are no effects on the whole population's health."

The report is priced at forty pounds, so the government don't want it too widely read.

If Dr van Steenis had had his copy at the public meeting on 18 July 2007, I'm sure he'd have let Andrew of BN2 have a look.

Note the use of the word "causal" above.

I've just opened page 41 at random and seen the following in section 115: "The Government published a research report in 2006 into links between "Air Quality and Social Deprivation in the UK: an environmental inequalities analysis" which found that, in a number of urban areas, the least affluent members of society tended to be exposed to the highest levels of air pollution."

I hope that the Environment Agency are hanging their heads in shame over this as they have deliberately colluded in a strategy to site polluting industries in poorer areas, presumably as the poor are "dispensable".

Howard Davidson is the Director in charge of the Southern Region of the Environment Agency and perhaps he'll be prepared to comment on this issue as he knows me personally.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

The strange thing I find that whilst Andrew BN2 et al near the Uni are quibbling, rationalising the Newhaven incinerator proposal nugget from all health critique; East Sussex could have had a facility like this http://www.letsrecyc
le.com/do/ecco.py/vi
ew_item?listid=37&li
stcatid=217&listitem
id=8999

announced today, Australian ArrowBio wet MBT/AD (one of the most advanced residual sytems), without the burning public conerns doing the same job. ready by 2009, and adaptable and flexible to future change. There are other technology combinations, as well, much better than the Veolia standard Incinerator.

The truth is ESCC are so far down the process they won't or can't change the technology in the proposal, like the Napoli container ship. A flaw of the process IMO.

NIMBY I have family in Lewes, so don't put your locals cap on too soon!

Dear NIMBY, Worthing,

I was a concerned parent and involved in DOVE until June 2004. I am still concerned – my children and I have friends and relatives living in Newhaven and Brighton. Can I ask – what is your interest?

Nonetheless, it makes no difference where any one of us lives. Unless this country as a whole adopts better methods our children will stand a good chance of marrying someone who has grown up suffering the harmful effects and profligacy of incineration.

Just to demonstrate.

Unless ESCC and B&H’s strategy has altered, the highly toxic fly ash from Newhaven will go to landfill in Bishop’s Cleeve (currently under several feet of water) so will have an environmental impact there. People in Bishop’s Cleeve have indicated they don’t want the fly ash.

The dioxin laden activated lime (from the chimney scrubbing) is sold on for plasterboard manufacture and ends up in homes, offices and other buildings everywhere.

Incineration creates other problems:

1) keeping wet waste burning using substantial quantities of propane gas (which negatives the notion of ‘energy from waste’),
2) disposing of contaminated cooling and cleaning water (in quantities that beg belief considering frequent droughts in the south east), and
3) disposing of contaminated activated carbon filter cake (from the chimney scrubbing).

I could continue but that wouldn’t be nearly so interesting for you. You might want to know the quantities of propane, activated lime and carbon filter cake, how far they travel and how they are transported (do not assume rail transport!). Who treats the polluted water? What happens to the used carbon filter cake? If you look at all these in detail, NIMBY, you might be surprised.

In any case, calling what we discard ‘waste’ is a misnomer. At least 45% of what we discard is perfectly re-usable. Pray tell, what are antiques if not posh recycling?

To return to health - various peer reviewed epidemiological studies show that the products of incineration disrupt hormones. Hormone disruption will impinge upon the health and quality of life of future generations. I do not wish my generation to go down in history as one who imposed that legacy upon them. Unlike, the Victorians, modern Elizabethans begin to understand our impact upon the environment.

People like me did not just object: we proposed proven safer and more financially beneficial alternatives.

These alternatives are detailed in “Getting to Zero Waste: A Citizens’ Resource Recovery Strategy for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove” which 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 Inspector’s Report on the 2003 Public Inquiry recommended alterations to the Waste Local Plan in accordance with that strategy. Had ESCC and B&H accepted those recommendations they would now be on track for a much better strategy.

This is a shame because many of those solutions are being implemented elsewhere in the UK. Clearly, other authorities are finding them viable and I hope that West Sussex CC will for you too NIMBY.

Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren

P.S. I still have an electronic copy of the citizens’ resource recovery strategy and can email it to you if you wish.

The one issue that I am ready to accept from all the anti people (ie MR, Dr VS, RW etc) is that more research is needed into this area. However, I am puzzled by MR's suggestion that to do so would be to 'waste time'. You people are banging on about how much evidence you have. Great - let's all look at it objectively, constructing a proper methodology that proves the source-path-receptor issues relating to pollutants coming from incinerators. Then compare incinerator fumes with other industrial, domestic and transport sources.

MR - I am not interested in reading sensationalist newspaper articles from other local newspapers around the country. These are written by journalists with no technical knowledge, who try to make sense of the science they are presented with. Often facts are misrepresented, exaggerated, biased or just wrongly reported. That's why I have been asking for proper scientifically researched articles regarding PM2.5 from incinerators. Not coal-fired power stations, orimulsion plants etc.

Your evidence that you keep presenting is potentially interesting and some could find it very persuasive but appears to be incomplete and not properly peer reviewed. The presence of PM2.5 is not evidence of health issues in itself. Toxicology tries to explain HOW the pollution interacts with the biosphere. I have not seen this from the literature.

Joelle, I am aware of the problems associated with fly-ash and am familiar with Bishop's Cleeve. I do not pretend that this is an ideal solution, but where are the alternatives at the current time? Landfill space is running out, with local campaigns up and down the country preventing councils from building new ones. Other technologies are not sufficiently bankable for local authorities to pin their hopes on them and the whole of the local government sector is being squeezed for cash. I don't especially like incineration but I can see why many waste disposal authorities are persuaded to use that route. It's bankable technology that appears to be the best solution on the table at the moment.

Other technologies are not sufficiently bankable for local authorities to pin their hopes on them and the whole of the local government sector is being squeezed for cash.

NIMBY. I'd like to approach the "Bankability" factor head on, lets work this through. This might have been a big factor 2 years ago but not now, actually its a Waste Strategy 2000 arguement. I will direct you Norfolk's comparison of MBT/AD with Incineration. Bankability was eqaul. Lloyds Bank(not a small bank) and Innesfree (not a small equity company) banked the SRM MBT/AD see Powerpoint link from the 29/1/07 public meeting webpage. The Alternatives should be of interest to readers here. Joel Hull, the Norfolk residual waste project officer had this Road to Damascus conversion last year, and there has been huge public support since.

http://www.norfolk.g

ov.uk/consumption/id

cplg?IdcService=SS_G

ET_PAGE&ssDocName=NC

C049965&ssSourceNode

Id=&ssTargetNodeId=3

517

SRM MBT/AD won on BPEO point scoring 65/100 to WRGs 55/100, bankability being equivalent. SRM also came out 10% cheaper both on the initial capital construction costa nd the 25 year operational costs, giving the Norfolk public better value for money, and better environmentally friendly solution, carbon capture and better on climate change CO2 emissions. This is why the Alternative MBT/AD beat the Incinerator proposal. Bradford have found Autoclaving or MHT, another alternative equally bankable. So the historic bankability issue is no longer really stacking up, and is deminishing for incineration. An extra thought, look to the future, how bankable will incinerators be in 2 more years time as equity investment (Big banks and London Ivestment companies) pile into the alternatives? Its happening as we speak!

On the table ESCC has Veolia's incineration, but its not the bankability thats the problem, its the flawed procurement process and the lack of flexibility to alter the technology type, within the bid, down the road, even at the end stages ESCC finds itself in.

I agree with you that more "mainstream" PM2.5 health parameter research needs to occur around EfW incinerators, proper EA PM2.5 monitoring, and a hold on existing new incinerator proposals until this mainstream research has been done. HPA hasn't come up with anything on the issue for 2 years.

Surely, if we are both not particularly happy with the Incinerator part of the Veolia bid, for the sake of a 6-12 months, we should be asking ESCC to review and press Veolia to procure MBT/AD, MHT or other alternative technologies within the bid. Surely a Win Win for all.

NIMBY should realise that "peer review" is a mechanism that can be, and is being used in some countries, to suppress the truth.

The UK is an extremely corrupt country with regard to admitting the truth about matters of public health.

No liability was ever admitted for the Thalidomide scandal.

The Camelford water contamination cover-up is still going on nearly twenty years later.

The true numbers of deaths from the 1952 London smog was reduced.

The UK vaccine scandal is still not fully explained, and will remain so until people understand that the mercury-containing DTP is the key factor with MMR being the "last staw".

There are plenty of peer-reviewed journal articles about MMR, but none that are of significant value.

Our former leader, Tony Blair, lied about higher rates of deaths from measles in Japan, after they abandoned MMR. The Japanese government objected to that lie and smiley Tony, he of "I'm a regular sort of guy" fame, was forced to apologise and that apology is tucked away on the BBC Asia-Pacific website.

Dr van Steenis and Tony Blair were both in Adelaide when the Maralinga atomic test took place in October 1956. Tony Blair's mother, who died of thyroid cancer in 1975, would have been one of hundreds who died of that cancer, and who could have all been counted if the UK governmet had not told the Australians to destroy all the cancer records for 22 years. If any of you have any Australian friends, ask them if they kept a copy of "The Bulletin", a monthly Australian Journal that had a four-page article about the Maralinga cover-up in the issue of September 2004. There was a nice picture of Tony Blair at about 18 months of age, mooching about on a little trike and also a nice picture of the Blairs, Leo & Hazel, with children Leo, Tony and Sarah.

The adverse health effects of PM2.5s have been known for over 60 years, as it was General Groves who advocated grinding plutonium to PM1 and "fogging" the battlefield with it as the most effective weapon - ie a weapon that the enemy has no idea of it being deployed.

Perhaps NIMBY will list some of the peer-reviewed journals he or she has read in recent years, ie post-1996 when it had been proved beyond any doubt that PM2.5s were the size that was causing the damage.

I think that the only thing that will shake PCTs out of their complacency is the investigation, by police, of their failure to protect public health.

NIMBY seems to be someone who doesn't mind the incinerator in his or her backyard, but doesn't want to know the truth about the emissions and the adverse health effects that are caused by them, and which are now admitted in the July 2007 DEFRA report which must supercede that useless piece of junk they produced in 2004 which claimed "no problemo" for incinerator emissions.

The items being burnt in the incinerators are a lot more toxic than tobacco.

Please also remember that Dr John Snow's published reports about the cause of cholera were not peer-reviewed, but that did not make them incorrect in any way.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

RW - good for Norfolk. Bucks CC came to the opposite conclusion.

MR - interesting angle on peer-reviewing.

My view on incineration is that it should be put in the context of other pollution sources as I have previously stated. In Newhaven you have cross-channel ferries, the effective point source of a swing bridge where there are queuing cars, scrap metal operations, back yard bonfires. I don't doubt that PM2.5s are an issue, I just doubt that against the backdrop of all the other sources, the incinerator is proven to be much worse.

I also question what alternatives there are? I have not seen any compelling evidence that answers either of these questions

Just to add, that Dr Nel of the University of California this week published his peer reviewed journal Gerome Biology finding that not just PM2.5 "cause" clogged arteries and increase the risk and increase of strokes, but the synergy of different PM2.5s have a multiplier consequence, rather than a simple proportional/linear effect. ie not 1+1=2 for similar PM2.5s, but 1+1=3+ for different PM2.5s. These were laboratory tests of different PM2.5s on human cholestrol tissue. It reinforces the PM2.5 cause of "signature illnesses" eg Asthmas, Infant Mortalities and what Dr Van Steenis covered in his lecture, and many other EPA research, adding to what MR rightly states. So what is the localised synergy effects of incinerator PM2.5s and Vehicle PM2.5s? Peer reviews on a post card please.

Ref: Daily Mail Deadly Diesel fumes, David Derbyshire, Envt Editor, P25 26 July 2007.

So will putting up a burner help?

RW - good for Norfolk. Bucks CC came to the opposite conclusion.

Defra stay Norfolks technology is a stand up and be counted technology and overall, with is NIMBY so dismissive, does he want to be led to the water trough, only to poo poo, it would seem so. Would could be pursuaded you aren't interested in an alternative.

And Lancashire, Durham, Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Manchester, Essex and many more came to the opposite BPEO result of Bucks and other counties like Hants and ES.

Alternatives: A good read of Letsrecycle will answer this for you. I've not heard a compelling answer that Incineration is the only solution to residual waste, in fact the opposite reading Jupiters reports on residual technologies!

I becomes a circular and pointless debate IMO.

Rob, there’s being passionate and resolute, and then there’s being downright condescending.

You don’t have to attack people just because they don’t buy your evidence. I’m also in the same boat with NIMBY, although chances are you probably think were the same person. God forbid there be two people who don’t agree with you.

I would rather see your evidence peer reviewed. It’s not a stalling tactic and if anything would add weight to your case. It just means someone qualified on the topic has read through your work and come to a conclusion on its accuracy and robustness.

To be honest, it will probably be much easier than to have to address my apparent quibbling.

I do not disagree that pollution is bad for health or that we should be reducing waste, its just that what your stating fly’s in the face of international exposure response research.

Also, have you actually looked at what levels of PM2.5 come out of these facilities. That’s not me being sarcastic, I actually want to know what annual levels come out from the top of the chimney before they become dispersed. If you know this you can quantify a worst case exposure response applying internationally recognised risk ratios.

It would also be good for you to compare it with other sources.

By the way, you do realise that anaerobic digestion burns the methane it generates with subsequent particulate matter, nitrogen oxides etc. So why is this ok?

Tell you what, don’t worry about a response, I have spent far too much time on this, most of it simply responding to people being rude.

Final note.

Its ultimately up to us to reduce the level of waste we generate.

Please Rob, Michael and Dick. Don’t respond, I have not said anything else contrary to your beliefs and it will just drag me back in.

I’m also in the same boat with NIMBY

One taking in a little water perhaps? My views are being candid, and I say who I am, forgive my coments to those that who do not identify themselves, and do not allow an equal debate or discussion. It would also be equal if they responded with evidence themselves, and in seemingly victim mode withdraw from the discussion. On projected condescension, perhaps a feeling to hold for a whilst; perhaps its valuable to put yourself in the shoes of people who live in Newhaven, or Costessey,or St Dennis, and know and feel how they have been treated by county officers and councillors who dump these monstrosity on them and then spin minimal impacts. Perhaps some might argue Brighton University BN2 would make a more accepted location as they are some like you Andrew are less concerns about the emissions . I personally would not an incinerator on anyones neighbourhood!

I do not disagree that pollution is bad for health or that we should be reducing waste, its just that what your stating fly’s in the face of international exposure response research.

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.

By the way, you do realise that anaerobic digestion burns the methane it generates with subsequent particulate matter, nitrogen oxides etc. So why is this ok?

I found this a useful question. Its important to bear in mind Defra are now promoting Anaerobic Digestion for providing Energy from Waste, in last months English Waste Strategy. Incineration is now relegated to one of four option below it, which seems to reflects Defra getting cold feet on new burners.

Ref: http://www.arrowbio.
com/

Go to comparison of other technologies.

In answer this link provided so valuable comparisons on pollution summary between EfW Incineration, Landfil, ArrowBio MBT/AD, pure AD, Composting and Pyrolsis (burning without air). Incineration had the 2nd highest overall pollution after landfill, pyrolysis and composting equal 3rd/4th, AD next and ArroBio 10% pollution of incineration, presumably less PM2.5 due to methane cleaning. Pure AD had half the pollution as Incineration. On the Products side, ArrowBio has 27% more products than EfW incineration and Overall costs 40% less.

I know what choices I'd go for (AD/ ArrowBio and Composting), not just my opinion, but factually based!

You just keep dragging me back in.

Just how have I not provided an equal debate? I have stated that pollution is bad and that we should do our best to reduce it. This is in keeping with credible research by credible experts who are impartial and don’t seem to thrive on scaremongering. What I have pointed out is the shoddiness of your unsubstantiated claims, your tactics of ganging up on people, your attempts to discredit people for not falling into your line of thought and the fact that you’re key player, Dr van Steenis can’t seem to get his own stats right, let alone anything else’s.

I have even offered you some suggestions, I am not being funny, but you really do need to get this work published. If you do, you have more credibility and people will take you more seriously. At the moment, a mixture of your questionable expertise coupled with your aggressive approach makes people recoil. And some perceive you no more credible than the guy with the sandwich board claiming the end of the world.

Just why do you take the fact that I have other priorities and cant waste my time responding to your cut and paste responses from a number of similar web forums as an admission of defeat? It seems you guys take a lot more credit than where its due.

The lack of response from PCT, Government etc is not because they have something to hide, but because they have nothing else to say. Why should they waste any more time responding to your claims when you didn’t take on board what they said the first time.

A while back you also gave credit for a failed incinerator application to Dr van Steenis. But wasn’t it in reality down to something else, flooding risk, ecology? Again, don’t you think it safer just sticking to the facts, its smacks of desperation when you try and steal glory.

And please, the BSEM document was discredited by the UK Health Protection Agency for being naff.

I believe their key comment reflected that the BSEM document couldn’t tell the difference between hazard or risk. Yes particulate matter is a risk if you are exposed to it in sufficient concentrations. The same could be said about oxygen, water, birthday cake, the mother in-law.

What they failed to consider was emission concentration and exposure, something you guys keep doing is well.

Go take a peak at the Committee for Medical Effects from Air Pollution. They establish that PM of various sizes are hazardous end even provide risk ratios that help you calculate what that risk would be. Their findings even tally with the World Health Organisation. This is credible research developed by globally recognised experts.

You said you would prefer anaerobic digestion and stated that it produces about half as much particulate matter as an incinerator. Aren’t you being contradictory, I thought you claimed particulate matter to be the root of all evil and the cause for every modern illness. Applying this line of thought, great news Brighton, we can now save half of you from the catastrophic health impact foretold by Dr van Steenis.

You still don’t get it do you. There is more particulate exposure from cars than any other source in the UK and waste incineration is more tightly regulated than any other industry.

In fact you should do a study on people who drive for a living. These people sit in the highest level of vehicle emissions and the levels can be concentrated when car fans pump exhaust from the car in front straight into the cab.

Tell you what would really stir up the local community, why don’t you claim that the children stuck in cars during the school run is the cause for all autism. You could even get Dr van Steenis to claim that this is the reason why we didn’t have so much of it in the past.

Ok I’m quibbling, but I still cant believe van Steenis thinks we had better air quality and health in the resent past. He must remember the smogs?

Well I guess I am back then. Someone has to respond to your claims, might as well be me. I needed a new hobby anyway.

Oh in terms of impartiality, what would I have to gain for debating on an incinerator that has already been consented?

Im sure not doing it for the attention. Can the same be said for you?

At the risk of being accused of attention seeking the following are my last postings. Lots of love to all my friends and relatives in your neck of the woods. **** to all

Dear NIMBY, Worthing,

You question the Michael Ryan and Dr. van Steenis PM2.5 evidence so, if I haven’t already done so, I point you to Dr. Vyvian Howard (his findings are peer reviewed in a way that is acceptable to the US and UK governments). Rob Whittle has already pointed you to the Ecomed report.

Once again, you question the availability of alternatives so to reiterate; the “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. I suggest you read it.

Once again, I can email it to you if you wish.

In brushing aside the question of highly toxic fly ash going to Bishop’s Cleeve, currently flooded, you seemingly dismiss the concerns of people there. Also brushed aside is the dispersal of dioxin laden activated lime in buildings across the land.

Just a rhetorical question: what of concern for your fellow human beings?

Of course other rhetorical questions come to mind; sustainability? proximity principle? polluter pays principle?

Ah yes, ‘bankable’. Upon first reading ‘bankable’ the Nottingham incinerator and financial debacle sprang to mind – then, naturally, poor Crymlyn Burrows followed.

Again rhetorically, I wonder if Crymlyn Burrows’ council, Neath and Port Talbot, now consider that ‘bankable’ is a re-definition of ‘bankruptcy’?

Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren

Andrew BN2 wrote, “…have you actually looked at what levels of PM2.5 come out of these facilities…?”

Onyx supplied these figures to Dr. Vyvian Howard – you will find Onyx’s figures in the DOVE evidence to the 2003 Public Inquiry.

Andrew BN2 wrote, “…My view on incineration is that it should be put in the context of other pollution sources … I don't doubt that PM2.5s are an issue, I just doubt that against the backdrop of all the other sources, the incinerator is proven to be much worse.”

I agree with Andrew- we should put incineration into context. For me, there are three aspects to this:

first, incinerators are generally sited in already polluted areas because of extant industries in the area (e.g. Fawsley, Rouen – I could continue) not to mention airports (Slough). I contend that siting incinerators thus makes it impossible to untangle the pollution,

second, we already have a burden of toxicity in our surroundings that is too great (cast your minds back to the fairly recent advice over restricting salmon intake – there are more but memory fails). So, why do authorities propose to increase that burden needlessly? and

third, global impacts – burning every tonne of processed products compounds the 10 tonnes already wasted in their manufacture. 10 tonnes worth of CO2 has already been produced and yet more will be produced to replace these products. Recycling products reduces this therefore will help to reduce climate change.

I agree Andrew, it’s time that, as a society and for the sake of our children, we embrace the bigger picture and stop indulging in this orgy of consumerism, wastefulness, pollution, destruction and delusion.

Yours,
Joëlle van Tinteren

Oh my goodness! The "**** to all" was supposed to be - kisses to all.
Keep going folks - methinks they are on the backfoot.
Joëlle

Andrew

As a fellow human being I'm sorry that your are nattered and feel some sort of victim. I'm glad you reveal you ample supply of tar and feathers. You raise me to the level of expert, writing research papers, attention seeking and even say I was talking about "particulate" levels from AD; when the facts are I stated "pollution" from AD and have never claimed expertise, or writing Michael Ryans research. So you are wholely inaccurate and projecting in this regard. I have looked at this area for two years, read the same docs, seen the way officials operate and have come to the 180 degree direction from the boat both NIMBY and yourself coexist in. I just think you are wrong and its up to individuals to form their own view.

On equality, have you debated with people who do not identify themselves and metaphorically wear dark glasses. For all people here might know you might be a scientist in Brighton University sponsored by a government agency, who knows. This is not transparent or equal. Readers can make their own minds up over this identity issue.

This is only the scientific debate. Noone with the exception of Joëlle has covered the ethical and moral debate of locating an incinerator (confirmed past killer) next to schools, hospitals or a known asthma population in Newhave. what of the Stockholm Convention.

I can see your expertise is in risk and hazard, but start from a false premise. One has to understand the nature of the hazard before one concludes on risk. Incinerator derived PM2.5 are known to be many more times toxic than other particulate, the resultant secondary particle formation is not fully understood with other pollution sources and this prolonged synergy on the human body and particular body organs and systems is not largely understood. No PM2.5 monitoring exists. What is understood by experts is incinerator PM2.5 emissions are not benign and the PM2.5 research incomplete. Many doctors disagree with COMEAD and BSEM critique of HPA is relevant.

So currently risk analysis of incineration emissions is like gambling. You seem to place a lot of faith in Veolia to get it right over 25 years, 25,000 + who signed a petition don't.

The London Health Observatory have added their four-pennorth to the infant mortality debate for London and they have not considered pollution as a possible cause of infant deaths.

I don't like to dismiss a 53-page report as total junk, but if you read it, you might wonder why they have a nice electoral ward map of London which highlights, or should it be lowlights?, so-called deprived wards, when they could so easily have included one showing the infant mortality rates for 2003-5 in various coloured bands.

Chingford Green is not a "deprived" ward, except in the matter of clean air, hence the very high infant mortality rate.

Andrew of BN2 & others should read the testimony to Congress by Professor Joel Schwartz, as that testimony sets it all out and helped persuade the US to restrict industrial PM2.5 emissions, thereby saving up to 193 Billion Dollars.

Those of you in FoE and Greenpeace might ask why those organisations failed to highlight the Washington Post article of 27 September 2003 about the above huge saving, which had been determined by the White House Office of Management & Budget, and was based on the reduction in PM2.5s resulting in fewer hospital admissions and less days off work.

Jonathan Shaw, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for the South East, has written a foreword in the July 2007 DEFRA et al Air Quality Strategy report, which starts with the lie: "The quality of oir air in the United Kingdom has improved consierably over the last decade."

The levels of industrial PM2.5 emissions in the UK are higher than ever, and yet the UK government has failed to copy the successful US strategy and reduce PM2.5s.

Dr Bobbie Jacobson, Director of the London Health Observatory has a nasty job ahead of her, as she's having to explain how the London Health Observatory and the BBC agreed to supress my research into the variations in infant mortality rates around London's incinerators.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Dear RW,
No PM2.5 monitoring exists. So how do you know that the main problem is likely to come from the incinerator chimney or the vehicles delivering the waste. Remembering of course that emission standards from diesel engined road vehicles have a lot less emission standards than incinerators. Has anyone measured the black smoke belching out from the cross channel ferries? I bet during their short stay in port that they will contribute more pollution than the incinerator. What about all those people having backyard bonfires (completely unregulated remember and commonplace in all towns)? Lewes bonfire night probably causes more pollution in a single night than all of these sources. Measuring regime for this? NONE

My point is that the incinerator is a convenient thing to attack, but without sound science to back up these claims either way we'll never know for sure. All the anti people are keen to shout me down. I have no strong feelings about the incinerator, I merely want to put the perceived problems into context and would like to see a properly investigated case, using your epidemiological evidence if it warrants further review. However, without peer reviewed articles from independent scientists, I am not prepared to swallow your evidence without questioning its validity.

After all, crime perception surveys after crime perception surveys all tell us that the fear of crime continues to increase while the crime rate falls. Is fear of crime compelling evidence that crime is increasing? No - it's a perception thing.

People are afraid of flying, but think nothing of the risk involved in getting to the airport. This doesn't add up either.

The evidence of risk associated with incinerators is still pretty small and should be put in context.

Fred West's house is in Bishop's Cleeve landfill. I bet that was full of hazardous waste!

Going through the docs again I was draw to the EA commissioned work (EA inspector Steve Yardley) in ALcontrol Laboratories of waste burning in incineration in 2002, where 2 runs were carried out, each identical. The result were that PM10 (The PM monitored by Veolia under the IPPC) has a frequency % volume of 0.2%, PM9s=1.2%. PM2.5s where 10%, and PM2.2s where 11% (Unmonitored by Veolia). So 1:50 ratio PM10:PM2.2 by frequency % volume. Unless Veolia have changed the laws of combustion at 800-1000C this ratio holds true. In the Veolia IPPC, it is stated than 65-70% of PM2.5s are captures, thats 30-35% of PM2.5s that escape the stack top bag filtering process, into the local Newhaven atmosphere. Again in the IPPC Veolia state that uncontrolled Particulate emissions (start up/ shut downs/ filter bypassses are 525% standard levels within WID. My point is the magnitude of what is monitored and unmonitoed is large, and become huge when not under standard operation.

When a car runs into a person an kills that person the death is registered as 1. Every life and quality of life is precious IMO! The cause was the vehicle and the causuaty was the person. A UK figure of about 5000 deaths/ year was the pretty much black and white figure to work in terms of road risk, speed etc.

I was reading a gargage document by Chen and Caption Symonds that qualitatively tries to compare road deaths to incinerator deaths, concluding half people exist (0.5), and without understanding the complexity of industrial emissions, cocktailing, synergies and existing medical conditions. This is not proper science. Lets look for half people in Newhaven and Brighton.

Today, Philip Gibby NAO Director, Environment, Food and Rural (value for money) affairs writes. "We are now undertaking further work on the points you have raised, looking in particular at whether inspections by the Environment Agency cover PM 2.5 emissions; and the results of recent inspections of the facilities that are situated within the areas you have raised "

How much PM2.5 monitoring at incinerators will they (NAO) find, and the quality of EA inspecti