Incinerator NewsIncinerator plan creates toxic waste concerns
FIFE COUNCIL has moved to quell fears that plans for a high tech waste incinerator could create toxic waste. ...Scotland Courier - Dundee,Scotland, By Claire Warrender
Doctor's health warning to residents over incinerator proposals
Hemelhempstead Today - By Jonathan Matfin.
Tring residents could be exposed to gases linked with cancer and birth defects if plans for an incinerator get the go ahead, ...Dr White, who issued his statement at a parish council meeting held in Buckland last month (July) where more than 700 people turned up, said he had based his comments on research by a Slough doctor and a study funded by the Belgian government on the health impacts of a waste incinerator in that country....
According to Dr White's sources, the dust caused from burning waste in recycling plants has been linked to chest, ear, nose and throat infections, asthma and chronic airway disease.
Pollutants from some incinerators have also been linked to higher rates of lung cancer, heart disease and birth defects including spina bifida and cleft lip and palate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"EfW is a safe, tried and tested way to deal with waste that cannot be recycled and is commonly used across Europe." Councillor Fry COSLA, Scotland (no air pollution expertise or toxicology qualification)
"There is no safe threshold for small particulates produced by incinerators, E=mc2, matter cannot be created or destroyed" Dr C. Arden Pope III, US EPA adviser
“The latest generation of incinerators, with their high temperatures in the ovens greatly contribute to the emission into the environment of very fine dust that constitutes a health risk that is much more serious than the well known PM10. These “nanoparticles” go straight through the filters of the incinerators and are not even noticed by current incinerator emission monitoring systems and they are not mentioned in the legal limits that installations need to ad here to (WID, IPPCs).
Notiziario FIMMG - Italian Federation of General Medicine May 2006 (BMC equivalent)
Every city and county has a responsibility for residual waste and to meet the Landfill Directive. But this should not mean via incineration. MBT/AD is one of the best technologies to achieve this, which has large and growing public support, rather than public opposition.
An Modern Alternative
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=9069
SRM NEWS MBT/AD facility Norfolk 150,000 Tonnes pa residual waste (no chimney, 37% front end recycling, cheaper than WRG EfW incinerator proposal)
Modern incinerators are not as clean as they are cracked up to be. They have a nasty little secret called unmonitored PM2.5s, UFPs and nanoparticles, that circumvent the Waste Incinerator Directive, stack top bag filtering and PM10 monitoring. The particles have bioaccumulative and pytotoxic effects on populations downwind (Dr van Steenis UK industrial emissions expert and toxicologist, Prof Vyvian Howard UK leading toxicologist, Prof Andre Nel of UCLA, leading US particle expert, Dr Pope US EPA air pollution adviser, Professor Paul Connett, leading international chemist and waste expert, BSEM, Dr Montanari and Dr Antonietta Gatti of Nanodiagnostics, EU particles research programme) are not covered by the HPA/Defra Nov.2005 Incinerator and Health documents. These documents do not research incinerator PM2.5> s or have specific findings on particles other than saying they have health impacts.
Here in Norfolk the public have given their huge backing to state of the art MBT/AD EfW plant that outperformed the WRG EfW incineration proposal, in terms of BPEO scorings, 65/100 to 57/ 100 respectively. Like Newhaven, St Dennis the public will not tolerate incinerators and forcing through this option by either "perception EfW brainwashing" or "organisational dissociation and indifference of public concerns" has won little support from the public. The alternative MBT/AD or autoclaving MHT have the opposite affect where the public embrace the new facility. This has been Norfolk's experience. Also the SRM MBT/AD contract has worked out 10% cheaper in PFI capital outlay and 25 year contract costs. Its gliding through planning, permitting rather than vast expended negative time and wasted energy of an incinerator process from the public, officers, politicians and media.
In my opinion the Cardiff Councillors should avoid "technology neutrality" advised by officers tat allows a few large waste companies to propose incineration; and for Cardiff Councillors and officers to demand "technology specificity" in procurement where solely MBT/AD or MHT autoclaving bids are invited, not incinerators or gasifiers. Many UK companies want to provide this such MBT as Biffa, Shanks, NEWS, Terra, Oaktech, Global Renewables, Sterecycle, EarthTech. Viridor and Covanta are open to providing MBT technology if specified. WRG, Veolia, Grundon, Cory and Sita provide only one technology, namely incineration. These companies need technology specifics, otherwise they will deliver the lowest common denominator, albiet with expensive yet flawed pollution controls.
Below is the research that contradicts Defra / HPA health documents that incinerator emissions and health, and where HPA findings on the risks of small particles of transitional metals, ultrafine particles and nano sized particles (cocktailed Vanadium, Nickel, Cadmium, Chromium, Manganese, Mercury, Arsenic amongst other phyotoxic metals, secondary complexed particles and synergies in the atmosphere are not a problem. The growing research is starting to suggest the opposite, and says why.
Dr C. Arden Pope III Presentation, 31/4/07 (3 months ago) Utah, US. World Expert on air pollution.
"There is no safe threshold" for these particles was the salient comment he stated ( the dirty little secret of small particle pollution) ie 10ug/m3 PM2.5>levels are not safe (NEJM publication)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3665914907157343039&total=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
Dr Van Steenis MBBS Expert Toxicologist Research and Opinion
http://st-ig.co.uk/vansteenis.html (Cornwall)
Incinerators and Health Impacts http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20WMDs.htm
http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis%20-%20Killing%20&%20maiming%20in%20Cambs.htm
Michael Ryan C.Eng London Incinerator Location and Downwind Infant Mortality
London Map http://www.ukhr.org/mapa4.pdf (4 other incinerator studies attached)
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/walthamforestnews/walthamforestnews/display.var.1592749.0.concerns_over_infant_death_rates_in_chingford_green.php
Chingford Green is a leafy rich suburb of London, yet 350% the national Infant Mortality average. This contradicts the Deprivation theory for Infant Mortality. Dr van Steenis comments also on the high figures and PM2.5 cause.
- Articles by Dr. Stefano Montanari and Dr. Antonietta Gatti about the damage caused by nano particles produced by incinerators
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7395495186822276391
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7395495186822276391&q=nanopatologie
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/30/37289229.pdf
http://www.nanodiagnostics.it Main Website
http://www.nanodiagnostics.it/FontiInquinamento.aspx?ID=2
Professor Vyvyan Howard
Head of Research, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group "Incinerator health risk 'unacceptable' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4375003.stm
http://www.camair.org.uk/ukvcontent.nsf/0/34B8A20DE829A39D802570FB005461C4/$FILE/particulate%20measurements%20at%20barrington.pdf
http://www.camair.org.uk/idbuilder.nsf/b?open&parish=0004620A&ref=5A413ABD2AD356118025707D0026F5BD&member=No&s=content&selected=%5BHealth+Issues%5D
- ISDE document - Medici per l'Ambiente Italia { International Society of Doctors for the Environment }
- Report of the British Association of Medical Ecology Dr J Thompson and Dr Anthony
- Article by the Federazione Italiana Medici di Medicina Generale {Italian Federation of General Medicine}
- Research by Michael Ryan www.ukhr.org on birth defects in England caused by incinerators (1995-2002) where he explains that the damage to health from Pm2.5 emissions are recorded in an area within 20 miles (32 kilometres) from the chimneys.
- Research by Professor Annibale Biggeri of the Università di Firenze {Florence university} about mortality for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas in the Tuscan towns that have incinerators.
- Article by Professor Massimo Gulisano, a lecturer at the Università di Firenze on biological damage caused by the incinerators.
- Article about nanoparticles and incinerators by Professor. Ugo Bardi, of the Dipartimento di Chimica {Dept of Chemistry} Università di Firenze
- Article about real alternatives to incinerators: mechanical-biological treatment – edited by Professor Federico Valerio, director of the dipartimento di Chimica Ambientale dell' Istituto per la Ricerca sul Cancro di Genova {Dept of Environmental Chemistry at the Institute of Cancer Research in Genoa}
- Scientific opinion of Professor Lorenzo Tomatis former executive director of IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer, of Dr.Valerio Gennaro, Medico Epidemiologo {epidemiologist} at the Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro di Genova and of
Professor Paul Connet, of St. Lawrence University- New York, who is the leading American expert on strategies that are alternatives to incinerators and the creator of the "Rifiuti Zero" {Zero Refuse} policy.
With reference to Incinerators and Cement Works you might be interested in the below graph that shows particulate production from the furnace. This is the typical combustion particle output before abatement. Barrington is a Cement works in Cambridgeshire that incinerates RDF or SWF (Refuse Derived Fuel/ Solid Waste Fuel). ALcontrol laboraties (independent pollution company in Scotland) undertook 2 test burns for the Environment Agency (Inspector Steve Yardley) in 2002. The below particle % volume distributor graph was the result. It indicated from waste combustion processes at high temperatures PM2.2 size particles are the most prevalence, with PM2.5s also in the picture, at 50X levels (unmonitored specifically by the Waste Incinerator Directive, IPPC) compared to PM10 levels (Monitored by Companies under WID,IPPC). Particles PM2.2 to PM0.5 are also strongly in the picture, although levels of nanoparticles are uncertain as only fine particles are measured by the ALcontrol equipment here.
http://www.camair.org.uk/ukvcontent.nsf/0/34B8A20DE829A39D802570FB005461C4?open&logid=&parish=0004620A
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/decision_document_1437658.pdf see
p24 Chapter 3.1.5.3 ii Efficiency of Bag Filters to remove Fine Particles. 2006
The above IPPC is from a modern state of the art mixed waste incinerator of a 200,000 Tonne per annum capacity.
Veolia / Newhaven modern EfW Incinerator IPPC ( (legal emissions permit) states that stack top bag filter efficiency allows 30-35% of PM2.5s to escape and 70 to 95% of PM2.5> including nanoparticles into the local and downwind atmosphere. A 30m chimney with disperse these over 10km, 60m over 20km.
I hope this is helpful
Italian Federation of General Medicine, 2006
“The latest generation of incinerators, with their high temperatures in the ovens greatly contribute to the emission into the environment of very fine dust that constitutes a health risk that is much more serious than the well known PM10. The incineration of refuse, among all the techniques for getting rid of waste, is the most damaging for the environment and for human health.
The incinerators produce ash (whose weight is a third of the weight of the refuse and must be got rid of in special disposal units) and they send into the air millions of cubic metres a day of polluting fumes. These contain fairly big particles (PM10) and fine ones (PM2.5) made up of nanoparticles of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzene, and dioxin, that are extremely dangerous and persistent and can accumulate in living organisms.
These “nanoparticles” go straight through the filters of the incinerators and are not even noticed by current incinerator emission monitoring systems and they are not mentioned in the legal limits that installations need to ad here to (WID, IPPCs).
Furthermore when considering the carcinogenic emissions that have been identified for some time (dioxins, furans, heavy metals) the incinerators emit hundreds of substances whose impact on human health is unknown, just as the effect of combinations of various polluting products has not been investigated.
Every combustion process produces particles .
If it’s true that nature is a producer of these particles (volcanoes) it is also true that the particles that have a natural origin make up a minor fraction of the total that are in the atmosphere today.
Man is the great producer of particles, especially those that are the finest. The higher the temperature at which a combustion process takes place, the smaller is the dimension of the particles that are produced. They are inorganic particles, that are non-biodegradable and non biocompatible.
Combustion transforms even refuse that is innocuous, like packaging and waste food, into products that are toxic and dangerous in the form of gaseous emissions, fine particles, volatile ash and residue that requires costly systems to neutralise and store them.
For this reason, it is appropriate that there are incentives for a policy of production, differentiated waste collection, recycling and the recovery of refuse. The micro- and nano-particles produced in any way, once they get into the organism start off a whole series of reactions that can turn into illnesses.
The most common pathologies are neoplastic, but there are also foetal malformations, allergic inflammatory and even neurological illnesses.
Furthermore, the incineration of refuse is the most costly system for getting rid of refuse and all the Italians, unknown to them, pay generous incentives to support it.
Seven percent of the electricity bill that is paid is in fact put aside and used to give subsidies even to the construction of incinerators. It’s enough to take an electricity bill and read, on the back, in the part discussing various items and costs: “Component A3 – construction of installations for renewable sources”. The sum that is shown at the side is handed to the managers of refuse incinerators because Italian law puts on an equal footing the various non fossil renewable energy sources like wind and sun with energy obtained from incineration of every type of urban and industrial waste.
As well as this slice of incentives taken from the pockets of users, the managers of incinerators receive other money from the State. Thus Italy is the only European State that finances the incineration of refuse. All the other member Sates (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany) impose a tax on those who manage incinerators for each ton of refuse burned thus disincentivising the incineration of refuse.”
From Notiziario FIMMG - Italian Family Doctors' Federation, May 2006
Italian Federation of General Medicine
Post a Comment