I lived for 17 years 3 miles downwind of an old style incinerator. There is no evidence that my family or anybody in the neighbouthood suffered any ill affects from this.

More alarmist nonsense from the NIMBY brigade! Modern incinerators are clean and efficient, especially when coupled with a combined heat/power system. And as for eastern Enfield having an infant mortality twice the national average - I recall that area (very close to where I grew up and lived for 25 years) as being a deprived area, with high rates of crime, unemployment and a large immigrant population. To link the infant mortality rate directly to the Edmonton incinerator without considering any confounding variable is very poor science.

Incinerators are only as good as their built components. Combusting plastics and other toxic substances will lead to pollution. Yes I think we can expect a rise in airborne irritants. The only answer is to drastically cut down on our wasteful consumerist,over packaged lives and recycle , reduce and reuse. The only reason there will be an incinerator is because of the huge amount of waste people at the moment produce.

when i read this article I thought it was about cremations ...that i don't have a problem with...it also eliminates health problems

The highest level of infant mortality downwind of the Edmonton incinerator is in a rich ward just as Harrow from the Colnbrook incinerator. The high rates of infant mortality are identical downwind of just 15 UK incinerators ramdomly chosen similar to other PM2.5 emitting installations like cement works burning waste, oil refineries etc.Detailed studies & reports in the medical literature back up my report published today. DEFRA & the Health Protection Agency have no data or reports in peer-reviewed journals as they issue "spin" not facts.

Dr. van Steenis, as you rightly point out there are miriad sources of pollutants, with PM2.5 being one of the least understood and subject to future legislation. Having lived in the shadow of a waste incinerator myself for some years I can't say that I have noticed any adverse effects myself, although clearly I don't have the benefit of conducting longitudinal studies or source apportionment of ambient air. However, we all need energy, and waste is one viable source with established technology that is subject to some of the most stringent emission limits of any technology. Maybe if we recycled more and consumed less we wouldn't need to have incinerators in the first place. As I stated though, we need energy so I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Government's announcement today that one of the proposed sites for nuclear is... Brighton. Would you also be opposed to this installation on the grounds of air pollution?

I wonder what qualifies Dr van Steenis as an expert in this matter, it would be helpful before publishing alarmist claims such as this to submit his report to a full and detailed scientific examination. I wonder if it is any better that these same materials lie in landfill with the risk that the non-filtered pollutants get into the ground and water sources. Of course it is better that we focus on waste reduction and recycling however that is not the full answer in our consumerist society.

Peter Smith wrote:
I lived for 17 years 3 miles downwind of an old style incinerator. There is no evidence that my family or anybody in the neighbouthood suffered any ill affects from this.

Peter, just to test your theory, can you confirm whether or not you were able to spell neighbourhood correctly before you lived downwind of the incinerator?

Thanks.

A agree, since when did a retired GP become an 'expert' on pullution? I thought GP's treated people for illness...

I am the person who has analysed the ONS infant mortality data around many sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions in England & Wales and I have consistently found elevated rates of infant deaths in the electoral wards downwind of incinerators compared with upwind.

I'd like a newer car, and wonder if some of those who are so confident that there is no provable link between incinerator emissions and elevated rates of infant deaths would like to club together and wager me the price of a nice new Audi TT that they are correct and that I am wrong?

I doubt if anyone connected with the incinerator industry wishes to take up my challenge because they know that I'm right and must have been wondering ho long it would be before they were found out.

Remember that I've already got all the data by electoral ward for the whole of England & Wales.

Check out more about incinerators at www.ukhr.org and read Dr van Steenis' reports listed at the botom of the home page at www.countrydoctor.co
.uk

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,

...and as I suspected, a quick review of the wesbite is enought to convince me that this is the same old alarmist nonsense. The 'report' on the website is no such thing - it is an unreferened and unattributed 'summary'. If the report is that important and 'true' why not post the whole thing on the site?

Trust 'Michael Ryan' to 'shoot down' what some of us said...

Perhaps the government could take a few tips from Australia and stop wasting the methane gas which is released from landfill sites.

Someone needs to guide our governments a little better. I really do question their past education if they cannot initiate with other world governments and learn from how they are tapping into other natural sources of energy.

Methane to Markets – Landfill Gas Technical Subcommittee: Australia’s first LFG project commenced in 1986. The 120 kW facility was operated by a local government waste disposal authority in Sydney, New South Wales. There are now 402 renewable energy generators currently in operation in Australia, with a combined capacity of 9082 MW.

In 2001/2002, LFG projects contributed 416 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity generation, representing AU $17 million in sales, out of a total of 16,763 GWh of generation from renewable sources.

Dr. D. van Steenis wrote:
The highest level of infant mortality downwind of the Edmonton incinerator is in a rich ward just as Harrow from the Colnbrook incinerator. The high rates of infant mortality are identical downwind of just 15 UK incinerators ramdomly chosen similar to other PM2.5 emitting installations like cement works burning waste, oil refineries etc.Detailed studies & reports in the medical literature back up my report published today. DEFRA & the Health Protection Agency have no data or reports in peer-reviewed journals as they issue "spin" not facts.

OK then Dr van Steenis....time to 'fess up. Which of the wards are you talking about here? And then we can take a look at how 'rich' or 'deprived' that ward is. Looks to me that you're making claims without backing them up with evidence.

Michael Ryan wrote:
I am the person who has analysed the ONS infant mortality data around many sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions in England & Wales and I have consistently found elevated rates of infant deaths in the electoral wards downwind of incinerators compared with upwind. I\'d like a newer car, and wonder if some of those who are so confident that there is no provable link between incinerator emissions and elevated rates of infant deaths would like to club together and wager me the price of a nice new Audi TT that they are correct and that I am wrong? I doubt if anyone connected with the incinerator industry wishes to take up my challenge because they know that I\'m right and must have been wondering ho long it would be before they were found out. Remember that I\'ve already got all the data by electoral ward for the whole of England & Wales. Check out more about incinerators at www.ukhr.org and read Dr van Steenis\' reports listed at the botom of the home page at www.countrydoctor.co .uk Kind regards, Michael Ryan,

Ok then Mr Ryan...show us a report that shows that there is a direct causal link between the siting waste incinerators and increased infant mortality. And I'm talking about a proper statistical analysis showing the link. And, no I don't work for the industry, I'm just tired of scare mongering from so called 'professionals' who make claims then fail to back them up. And whilst I can't afford a new car for you, I'm happy to stump up a beer or three (or maybe a small donation to a nominated charity of your choice).

If their claims are so bullet proof - why dont they personally fund a legal challenge against the contractors and the government.

With the evidence they have they will win hands down.

Or is it because their evidence is not as striking as they lead us to believe.

By the way - Mr Ryan -what qualifications doe you hold to deem it appropriate that we are not able to make our own minds up? Please, as listed above provide all the details and proof for us to look at.

Secondly - the Dr appears to have gone quiet - again what qualifications do you have that supercedes other medical experts and thus allows you the opportunity to dismiss any of their claims?

No I am not for this project, no I am not anti this or anti that. I just want you to prove to me that you are qualified to make such statements.

You people that scaremonger are obviously getting a kick out of aiming these stories at vulnerable sectors of the community. Parochial papers like the Argus areas bad as back-street abortionists in that they profess to provide a much-needed service, and then **** the consequences of their actions for a taste of filthy lucre. The Argus is good at stirring up the hornets nest, only to turn it's back on the consequences. Is this the reason that local newspapers very rarely follow up their spurious news stories.

A lapsed reader

It is interesting to catch up with the comments on here since my last post and they all appear sceptical in the main. Really we have to blame The Argus for shoddy and sensationalist reporting, trouble is some will question such tosh but others will take it as red. I read somewhere the other day that Australia are planning to evacuate 11m of its people because of the drought, perhaps not the Argus but I would not put it past them!

I have sent the Argus sufficient "back-up" data to show that everything I have written is true.

If anyone has a complaint about the accuracy of anything written about the association between elevated infant mortality rates and exposure to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators or other industrial sources, they should make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

Rick H seems a bright lad, but he hasn't grasped that when Dr John Snow was telling the world that contaminated water was the means of transmission of water, the so-called "experts" all thought cholera was caused by "miasma", ie the stench of sewage.

The Environment Agency and Health Protection Agency know that what I've written is true and Primary Care Trusts will not welcome any call from a journalist on this issue.

Pity Rick H wasn't at Costessey High School on 29 Jan 2007 when Dr Dick van Steenis and I lectured on incinerators. I had a set of overheads showing wards around incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry, Edmonton and Bexley which all showed elevated rates of infant deaths in the downwind wards compared with upwind.

Sixty-nine of the 625 electoral wards in Greater London had zero infant deaths during the three-year period 2003-5. Many of these "zero death wards" were where poor, s-called deprived people live and yet none of their babies have died.

Some of the very wealthy wards have had high rates of infant deaths.

I'm the first person in the UK to examine this data and have made a detailed submission to the House of Commons committee which investigated the Environment Agency. That statement of evidence was published in May 2006 and I challenge anyone to find any factual error. You'll find my statement on pages Ev202-206 and there's a link at www.ukhr.org

I hope some of you doubters have contacted the newsdesk of the Argus so that you can be identified in future articles.

This is a big, big issue which Erin Brockovich will appreciate as she has "been there, and done that" - but maybe not on such a grand scale.

If any Civil Engineers are in Brighton, maybe theu can ask ICE why they support incineration without examining any health or mortality data.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan

Why are the pro-incinerator folk posting on here so quick to rubbish this report?
What do they have to gain from it?
Do they have a vested interest?
Are there really so many people in favour of an incinerator on our doorstep or is it the same bloke posting & using different names?

I don’t want this thing built anywhere near my home.
Even if these health risks were proved to be bogus (which I doubt) we'll still have 100's of heavy lorries thundering through the area which in its self is a risk.

If there are a few of you wanting it you’re just like a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas.
LDC would be better employed fighting this proposal rather than wasting time, money & effort trying to stop a football stadium. Its time they got their priorities right
Why did ESCC approve it? & why didn’t the Government call it in for a Public Enquiry?

I'd like to say a big Thank you to Dr Dick van Steenis & Michael Ryan for bringing these health risks to the public attention.

Dear Mr Pine,

Please look at the Green issues of the Argus forum & you will see that I put a posting in it on the PROPOSSED INCINERATOR FOR NEWHAVEN last night, quite a coincidence don't you think?

mazza wrote:
Dear Mr Pine, Please look at the Green issues of the Argus forum & you will see that I put a posting in it on the PROPOSSED INCINERATOR FOR NEWHAVEN last night, quite a coincidence don't you think?

Just realised that I've spelt proposed wrong oops!

Rick H wrote:
More alarmist nonsense from the NIMBY brigade! Modern incinerators are clean and efficient, especially when coupled with a combined heat/power system. And as for eastern Enfield having an infant mortality twice the national average - I recall that area (very close to where I grew up and lived for 25 years) as being a deprived area, with high rates of crime, unemployment and a large immigrant population. To link the infant mortality rate directly to the Edmonton incinerator without considering any confounding variable is very poor science.

You lay off Enfield - it was never that bad.

Rick H wrote:
...and as I suspected, a quick review of the wesbite is enought to
convince me that this is the same old alarmist nonsense. The 'report'
on the website is no such thing - it is an unreferened and unattributed
'summary'. If the report is that important and 'true' why not post the
whole thing on the site?

There is no space in the paper for my 338 references but Rick could begin by reading the study by Dr. Perera of Columbia University New York & the heart attack study in the 1/2/07 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Why not invite myself & Michael Ryan to debate the company & PCT??? Then lots of proof can be oresented.

A load of trival by alarmist who would rather have garbage delt with, as any where but their kneck of the woods.

I would be interested to see the evidence that shows a causal link between emissions of PM2.5 (or other fraction) from incinerators and premature death. There are so many sources of PM that it is almost impossible to ascertain which of the sources (if any) the causal one is. I am not an expert in the health impacts of pollution, but when road vehicles contribute so greatly to the total emissions of PM, I am struggling to imagine how you can, without hesitation, it seems, attribute precisely the effect of incinerators on human health.

While I understand that incinerators appear undesirable in many cases, I think that they are an essential part of the energy ecosystem we need and can aid reduce the landfill burden this part of the world faces.

Please, if you could direct me to a published source of your research I would be most interested to read it.

So lets summarise what we have so far: 3 direct questions unanswered; a request where we are able to access this 'peer reviewed' paper also unanswered; a vague attempt to patronise (always the sanctuary of so-called 'experts') by referring to me as a 'smart boy'; and the conceit to compare themselves to Dr J Snow and Erin Brockovich. Looks like what we've got here is what we all suspected - a couple of scare mongering malcontents who dress up their flights of fancy as fact with a thin veneer of pseudo-scientific respectability. I agree that energy recovery is not the best way to deal with waste (afterall, it wouldn't be near the bottom of the waste-reduction heirarchy if it was ie after 'reduce', 'reuse', 'recycle', 'reclaim' and 'landfill' - opps, being a smart boy again!!) but until a better technology happens what other solutions are there?
And there's nothing wrong with Enfield - I grew up and lived there for 25 years. I would just challenge the statement 'A rich ward to the east of Edmonton' - get real!

If Rick H has any chums in Enfield, he'll be able to get the 3-page Enfield Advertiser article of 25 April 2007 about my research and also be able to read the follow-up letters by David Sargent of London Waste and by Kenneth Hill, of Edmonton, who lives to the west of the incinerator but who is "frequently on his my (ie Mr Hill's) computer checking wind direction becuase of that ghastly incinerator".

Mr Hill also wrote: "Fortunately for me, the winds are predominantly westerlies (ie blowing easstwards); thus it is the people who live in the Chingford and surounding areas (downwind) of the incinerator that suffer the most pollution, as you (ie Henry Ellis') article pointed out."

Ponders End ward had the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate in Enfield Borough at 12.5 infant deaths pere 1,000 live births, yet I defy anyone to prove that "deprivation" was a factor in any of the deaths in that ward.

The Waltham Forest ward with the highest 2003-5 infant mortality rate was Chingford Green where the 2003-5 infant mortality rate was 17.1 per 1,000 despite it being a wealthy ward.

Chingford Green ward and Ponders End share a common boundary, and both are downwind of the Edmonton incinerator with a southwesterly wind.

Epping Forest District Council has a low average infant mortality rate for 2003-5, yet I'm sure that they wish to remain silent about the fact that one of their wards which is also downwind of Edmonton incinerator has an even higher infant mortality rate.

The London Borough of Harrow has some very wealthy wards, yet also has a ward with an infant mortality rate of 19.1 per 1,000 live births, the highest in London. If Ricky H has any chums in Harrow, he should ask for a copy of Dhruti Shah's 3-page article in the Harrow Observer of 3 May 2007, entitled "BABY KILLER?" with a picture of Colnbrook incinerator. Rick H might wonder why Harrow PCT will not give any comment on my research findings to the Harrow Observer. I suspect it's because the Harrow PCT already have access to the infant mortality rates by electoral ward and recognise that the table of infant mortality data on page 2 of the Harrow Observer undre the headline "MPs to probe worst death rate in London" is correct in every respect.

Rick, this might come as a bit of shock to you, but you are making negative comments about an issue which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.

Take a look at the articles in the two papers referred to above, and also read the South London Mercury articles by Julia Lewis, on 4th and 9th May 2007 about the SELCHP incinerator.

Anyone who has had to bury a child will be interested in this research, and they'll wonder why it's taken a Chartered Civil Engineer to "do the business" instead of a Director of Public Health, or a Department of Health employee, or some bright medical student.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury

Just a quick point, perceived risk can result in increased stress; anxiety and can even lead to changes in behaviour and actual health effects.

Alarmist, unsubstantiated and completely unbalanced articles may make good sales but are not in the interest of public health.

For those of you who want to know the facts from independent health experts qualified to discuss this topic have a look at the UK Health Protection Agencies Position Paper at the following site.

http://www.hpa.org.u


k/chemicals/ippc/inc


ineration_posn_state


ment.pdf

If still in doubt, then have a look at the HPA response to another alarmist document at the following site.

http://www.ecomed.or


g.uk/content/Inciner


atorHPA.pdf

I can appreciate that people do not want to be living close to such facilities, but its important to note that they:
· reduce the level of waste sent to landfill and associated road movements (emissions, risk of road traffic accidents etc);
· redeem significant levels of energy that would have required generation with subsequent environmental and health costs (refinement, transportation and combustion of fuels); and
· can in certain cases include district heating systems, reducing the requirement for the consumption of fuels to heat neighbourhoods.

Ultimately, it is our responsibility to reduce the level of waste we produce. However, if people would rather not redeem energy that would otherwise be lost to landfill, are still concerned with alarmist reports from individuals with no experience in air quality or waste management and believe Landfill poses no risk to environment and health, then I recommend you have a look at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review of environmental and health effects of waste management.

http://www.defra.gov


.uk/environment/wast


e/research/health/pd


f/health-summary.pdf

So to back up his claims, Michael Ryan told us to look at 'a copy of Dhruti Shah's 3-page article in the Harrow Observer of 3 May 2007, entitled "BABY KILLER?"'

Good grief! I really hope you were being ironic there and I'm just being thick thinking you really are citing sensationalist tabloid journalism as proof.

Jostein, I agree.

Repeastedly with have asked for published work relating specifically this issue and yet all we have been offered is articles in local newspapers.

In addition, on the website you have cited earlier www.ukhr.org (which, may I add, I notice is registered to one Micheal Ryan - not exactly an impartial voice on this matter then), has an article which states that rural Devon has a birth defect rate "at least 39 times higher than central London". While Bexley isn't exactly central London does this not illustrate the variable nature of causes for birth defects in the UK?

Once again, I would be interested to see the data that proves there is a causal link between PM from incinerators and infant mortality (or other condition).

Terry and Jostein

The real problem is a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. There is a causal relationship of particulate matter exposure and increases in morbidity and mortality.

Clean Air for Europe, the Committee of Medical Effects from Air Pollution and the World Health Organisation have even provided exposure response mechanisms to quantify changes in risk from such exposure.

Now here is the important part, Energy from Waste facilities are not an important source for particulate matter. And before anyone starts, yes this includes Coarse (PM10), Fine (PM2.5) and Ultra fine (PM 0.1 and lower).

Energy from Waste facilities simply do not emit particulates of a level to result in any meaningful change in health.

Road vehicles are a far greater source for such emissions.

Andrew,

Exactly what I was getting at, I couldn't have put it better myself.

While there is no doubt that incinerators lead to some emissions of PM, I cannot beleive they are the dominant source in urban areas with increasing numbers of diesel cars and the like. I wonder if anyone has analysed the links between the wards mentioned above and the number of 4x4 vehicles, or vehicle kilometres travelled per 100 of the population?

Terry

Not that I know of. The closest would be the London Low Emission Zone Health Impact Assessment. However, even here where a decrease in far more significant levels of Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide will be made, there is only a slight change in health effect.

I simply do not know what research has been applied that predicts this perceived catastrophic health risk. More likely, and this is a common mistake, the author has misunderstood the concepts of hazard and risk.

In short, hazard is the potential to cause harm (such as particulate matter), while risk is the likelihood of harm.

Ultimately, it is the level of exposure that defines the level of risk. Contrary to the ‘Danger Zone’ put forward in the Argus the potential exposure concentrations are not of a level to constitute a significant risk to health.

Have a great Bank Holiday

Michael

You have still not answered this simple question;

What qualifications do you hold that allow you to purport to be an expert in this field?

What academic research have YOU compiled and where is it located?

Who has financed this research?

The same also goes for the Doctor.

These are simple questions and require simple answers.

Please do not be tempted to patronise or belittle me just because I question you.

You have been prone to that is replies to others who question you.

Thank you

I've been reading these comments since they started and I'd like to add my experiences to this thread.

I am:

A Chartered Civil Engineer
Live in BN2
Was involved in the construction of the south coast's most recent incinerator plant which opened in 2005.

Yes older incinerators did cause a problem with emissions and were either closed down or upgraded (like I believe Edmonton was)in the mid 1990's to meet tighter European Regulations. Modern European technology (from the likes of CNIM and Lurgi) who are leaders in the field of energy from waste plants, is a world apart from the older incinerators we often associate the term with. (Before you ask, I don't work for either of these companies, or in the field of waste management.)
Have any of these 'experts' visited a modern plant? There may be one near them, Maidstone, Portsmouth, Southampton (Marchwood) and Chineham (Basingstoke)? They are all within a couple of hours drive of here. You can also see them on the web, through Vieola's web site if you want.
I have been fortunate enough to see at first hand the construction, operation and the modern technology involved that goes into such a plant. It's no bonfire. In fact about half of the buildings footprint is dedicated to gas cleaning (or scrubbing if you want to use the professional term).

Before I started the two year construction project, I was not an advocator of ERF, (if you want to call me that). But as an engineer I believe it has an important part to play in the management of non-recyclable waste and energy/ heat production. Yes we should adopt all the highly promoted Green processes such as reuse, recycling and reducing the amount of packaging on our products. Why can't an incinerator be seen as green too? It produces heat, electricity and the end ash products have a variety of uses.

As I say I'm not an expert in emissions, but is a retired GP? I've no problems with living near an incinerator, (the latest batch are also well designed by architects, (again I suggest you look on the web). People should be allowed to make their own informed decision on the subject, and not swayed by irresponsible tabloid journalism such as a scare story on the front page of the argus.

Unfortunately Brighton and its surroundings has a large population of nimby's when it comes to any new development, and often the public will jump onto the latest anti this and that bandwagon.
We need to invest in a diverse mix of energy production and waste management in this country for future generations and ERF can form a part of that.

If anyone wants to call me a nimby because i live in brighton then let me end with this. In the next few years I'll lose alot of my sea view to new developments in the marina right in front of me. Am I concerned - no, we need to move forward as a city. I'm more worried about the O2 mobile mast they want to erect opposite my flat, mainly as there are already four pointing into my lounge and look unsightly.

BBC Radio London sent a journalist to interview me at my Shrewsbury home on 12 April 2007.

My recorded statements on that day are likely to be broadcast very soon as Dr Dick van Steenis was interviewed by telephone on 25 May 2007.

I hadn't fully analysed the infant mortality rates in London electoral wards by 12 April 2007, although I did have a full set of data which I gave to the journalist, plus other documents backing up the linkage between PM2.5 emissions and infant deaths.

If you blog readers try to imagine the Greater London Authority's area, or if you look at a road map of it, try to also imagine that area divided up into 625 electoral wards.

I have grouped the electoral wards into five "high infant mortality zones" and six "low infant mortality zones.

The high zones are all very clearly associated with emissions from incinerators at Colnbrook, Hillingdon Hospital, Edmonton, SELCHP, White Rose and the sewage sludge incinerators at Crossness and Beckton.

There are 115 electoral wards in these "high" zones where there were 67,465 live births and 511 infant deaths recorded by the Office for National Statistics during the three-year period 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for all 115 wards of 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births.

I also identified six groups of electoral wards with low infant mortality rates. There were 83 electoral wards in these groups and ONS recorded 36,485 live births and sixty three infant deaths during 2003-5, ie an average infant mortality rate for these 83 wards of 1.7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

I believe that every UK citizen should be fully aware of the variations in sickness and mortality rates in the eelctoral wards where they live, or where they wish to live, or where they have family or friends.

Those sceptics who doubt the association between industrial PM2.5s from incinerators and other industrial sources should stop whingeing and start looking at data.

Anyone looking at a London map which shows the above high & low infant mortality zones together with the incinerators will, like me, immediately see that the high zones are all where there is exposure to incinerator emissions and the low zones are free from such emissions.

The Argus article of 25 May 2007, "Burner fear for children" mentions Veolia Environmental Services, who claim that my comments "are at odds with the findings of the Health Protection Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".

DEFRA have not examined any health or mortality data around incinerators or any other industrial sources of PM2.5s.

The Health Protection Agency will be able to confirm that all my statements are correct as they have been involved with the Ironbridge Power Station issue here in Shropshire.

Remember that Harriet Grant of BBC Radio London interviewed me on the infant mortality issue on 12 April 2007, ie over six weeks ago. We mugs are all paying for the BBC which is never first with any news as far as I'm aware.

One of the "low" infant mortality zones in the Greater London Area is a group of wards in Havering and Barking & Dagenham. When Belvedere incinerator becomes operational, the infant mortality rate in this zone will soar.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan

Ah yes the NIMBY argument. Perhaps people who use this should actually do some research themsleves. Theres plenty out there. Just in case anyone thinks that Newhaven is being NIMBY, we did our research and proposed alternatives. Incineration is not just about whose back yard its not in, but on the medical evidence about what it does. Veolia themselves in their planning application said there is "...almost no risk to health". ALMOST. I don't think thats good enough. Neither does Newhaven.

While I think on it, engineering: Rouen boasts a modern incinerator plant. It arn for probably 7 years outside of the regulations which was why the french government were taken to the EU court in 2002. So much for modern engineering. Why should we trust people to run these plants within the regs when history shows they can't, or worse, won't do it.

Particulates: Yes, they are produced by vehicles. So if this plant goes ahead we'll have another 250 heavy trucks a day coming into and going out of Newhaven from all over the county. So even if the incinerator wasn't a cause for concern, all these extra trucks would be and are.

How come everybody always says its other people who are NIMBY but never volunteer facilities in their own locale? In this day and age, why aren't people responsible locally for their waste? Why, when you have a public enquiry are Councils allowed to ignore 90% of the recommended changes? Why is it incinerators are always located in areas of Social deprivation?

Burying a 12 storey building in the middle of a 10 mile industrial area like Roune's rive gauche is one thing - having a similar building dominate the skyline next to an AONB is quite another.

This plant is wrong on just about every level bar one. Its a no-brain answer to a problem promoted by people with similar levels of intellect.

I feel it should be pointed out that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate and monitor discharges from incinerators and do shut them down if there not up to scratch, (I spent 3-4 months helping finish the case to restart one in a remote location last financial year).

So analysing the discharge limits (and how often there broken) against the health factors your measuring, from the incinerators your looking at, would be worthwhile as it will provide more detail to the study (you should be able to get the data from the EA).

I’ll keep my ‘industry brainwash’ options to the fact I know a Chemical Engineering lecture who stated,
“I wouldn’t care if there was a incinerator or a nuclear power station near my home, I’d be more worried about the quality of the schools”

Ian wrote:
I feel it should be pointed out that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate and monitor discharges from incinerators and do shut them down if there not up to scratch, (I spent 3-4 months helping finish the case to restart one in a remote location last financial year). So analysing the discharge limits (and how often there broken) against the health factors your measuring, from the incinerators your looking at, would be worthwhile as it will provide more detail to the study (you should be able to get the data from the EA). I’ll keep my ‘industry brainwash’ options to the fact I know a Chemical Engineering lecture who stated, “I wouldn’t care if there was a incinerator or a nuclear power station near my home, I’d be more worried about the quality of the schools”

Then I'm quite sure that the residents of Newhaven would be more than happy for that lecturer and any others who are more worried about the qualities of the schools to have the Incinerator built on their doorstep and NOT OURS.
I have a school behind my house which I have no problem with at all, but I most certainly do not want to have the incinerator blocking my country views and all of the lorries that it will create, also it's quite clear that the only reason that Brighton wants to build the incinerator here is because of the port, to make it pay for itself it would need waste brought by ship here from Europe!!!