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