Author Topic: Location of New Incinerator  (Read 6045 times)

Offline lara.luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Female
Location of New Incinerator
« on: October 04, 2008, 09:58:18 AM »
I would like to express my concerns over the location of the proposed Energy from Waste incinerator. The incinerator will be right next door to our Ramsar accredited wetlands on the south-east coast of our island, our rocky shoreline which is home to many different ecosystems. The reason this  particularly concerns me are the results of a study that I did three years ago.

 

 

There are many biological indicators that can help show us long term effects of pollutants that affect our air quality. For my study I investigated lichen presence in Green Street Cemetery and referenced it to the air quality from the tunnel (figures from statistics website). To cut a long study short the results concluded that even though the air quality stayed within the realms of safe levels, it showed that the noxious gases have a ‘build up’ effect on the nearby area. This damage has and will be present for many years to the built up environment, natural ecosystems and human health as many of these gases are carcinogenic.

 

 

Imperative questions for the new incinerator are; what is the average mix of waste as different products emit different gases upon incineration; what type of flue cleansing system will be in use; what are the projected ground concentration levels for the various harmful pollutants. All these will have consequences to its surrounding area. When was there last an epidemiological (causes and effects of illness) study done for the areas at risk from the effects of air pollution? A better location would be on the North of the Island. As well as being significantly less densely populated, there will be more chance of a quicker dispersion rate for emissions therefore minimising ground level contamination.

 

Just for today do not anger

Offline The Rev Peter Sarkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Diocese of St Swithins
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2008, 10:55:43 AM »
I think the building looks like a large box and is completely out of keeping. They could make it look like a tellytubby home and it would look better
"That's not in the effing good book!"

Offline Sarah Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2008, 02:01:02 PM »
There is an incinerator in Austria which has been luridly decorated and is now on the tourist bus routes.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enGB247GB249&q=The+Spittelau+Incinerator%2c+Vienna%2c+Austria

Offline lara.luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Female
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2008, 02:30:35 PM »
Does decorating it make it safe then?
Just for today do not anger

Offline Pomme de terre

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2008, 02:38:45 PM »
I'm sure a Spittelau style incinerator higher than South Hill will look absolutely delightful for the thousands of islanders who have to look at the montrosity every day as they drive in from both east and west.

What next? A 2-for-1 Abomination Visitor Ticket? Roll up, roll up, see the incinerator and the steam clock all from the comfort of Terry the Train? 3% GST not included.

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • A View from the West
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2008, 06:01:20 PM »
Check out the frequency of incidents of fires at incinerators, and then ponder the intelligence of siting it next to a flammable material storage facility.

Offline Jack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
New Incinerator
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2008, 07:32:53 AM »
Recently I was made aware of the following, and thought it should be brought out into the open here for debate:

Source: http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/29595.html



Just how toxic can an incinerator be?
Sep. 24th, 2008 at 4:05 PM


I was one of three senatorial candidates who took time out of campaigning to meet Dr Van Steenis this morning. The former GP is now an independent  consultant in air pollution, not in the pay of any agency or company.

His notes are below. I'm afraid I don't have time to review any of his claims right now.  PM 2.5 means particle smaller than 2.5 microns - the ones that can pass through the lungs into the body.


SHOULD REGULATORS PASS KILLING & MAIMING IN JERSEY?
 
Should you reside or work downwind of the proposed replacement incinerator site, please read on. An incinerator is planned by the authorities, subject to agreement by the public health director and the Environment Agency. Incineration of waste causes a shortening of life-span of up to 12 years often in the prime of life by increasing a range of diseases especially heart attacks & cancers. A 20 year university led study in Belgium detailed diseases and deaths caused during years I to 5, 6 to 10 and 11 to 20, ending up with a 480% rise in cancer incidence on top of the country’s rise, yet that St. Niklaas incinerator was operating under the EC 2000 directive as is the proposal. The proposed chimney will spread the damage up to 15 miles depending on weather conditions.
 
Incineration of waste vaporises heavy metals making the particulates emitted even more lethal when you inhale them into your lungs. Emissions will consist of PM2.5 and PM1 particulates which mostly pass through the abatement equipment and which go into the deepest part of your lungs when inhaled. 90% of PM1s escape through the abatement equipment. Your health can be put at risk for 3 days just from an hour’s exposure if the wind blows the PM2.5s your way. Interaction of gasses and ultrafine particles from any other sources will form secondary PM2.5 particulates, thus increasing the propsed incinerator’s effects on health downwind. Wind direction, speed and temperature inversions are crucial factors. When you inhale PM1 and PM2.5 particulates the soluble fraction gets into the bloodstream and your cells, while the insoluble fraction is partly dealt with by macrophages and T-lymphocytes with the remnants walled off in the lungs causing COPD. The resultant inflammatory process can cause asthma, heart attacks, strokes & clinical depression. When in the cells, mutations will occur due to heavy metals, PAHs, dioxins, PCBs, any radioactivity or dioxins. Without adequate selenium in your blood to neutralise the metals, mutations from these items will lead to birth defects, and cancers and altered gene function. In USA even 12 year olds had 20% loss of lung peak-flow due to PM2.5 induced COPD. Unlike USA, where PM2.5s have been rigorously monitored & regulated since 1997, in the UK only PM1Os (PM1O down to PM4—none of which gets into your lungs) are measured using instruments that can be adjusted to minus eg Brighton duringJune 2007 where PM2.5s read fraudulent minus lO7uG/m3 Hence there is no regulation in the UK to protect the public and Jersey is stupidly following the UK. A May 2008 issue of Journal of the American Medical Assoc. proved UK PMIOs have no relevance to heart or lung disease—it is only PMIs & PM2.5s that count, & these are emitted. A MILAGRO California study of Mexico City smog particulate content published 5 September 2008 confirmed the real problem arose from municipal waste incineration (not traffic). Jersey public health data is compared with England instead of a proper unexposed control leading to bias.
 
The IPPC law was downgraded by Mr. Prescott in 2000 to more or less “anything will do”. The Environment Agency truthfully state they know nothing about health although their 2001 CLARINET report states health studies should be done comparing exposed (downwind) with unexposed (upwind). Far worse, the Health Protection Agency follow a Guy’s Hospital director who said “Air pollution does not exist” so have not done these required studies. Advisors have conflicts of interests. So without knowledge of toxicology br use of available data or relevant measurements, the PCT, HPA & Environment Agency only heed government “spin”, “reviews” and “diktat”. They lack a single peer-reviewed journal as back-up. I have 343 journal references backing up what I am telling you here. It is up to you, the reader, to challenge PCT public health directors whom the GMC say must know the subject, be up to date and listen to & protect the public. The Environment Agency cannot authorise any application unless council and PCT public health director have signed consent. The total NHS cost of this unregulated UK industrial air pollution is c.L45 billion pa plus losses to education, productivity & crime.. There will be cumulative impacts in the body and synergistic effects, for example cadmium & lead in the body will multiply the effects of mercury by 50 times, and pollutants within PM2.Ss interact with your blood fatty acids to increase risk of a heart attack.
 
The ONLY safe way of handling waste is PLASMA GASIFICATION which runs on electricity, produces vitrified gravel, hydrogen & electricity —all for sale- and has very low emissions at a nett cost
of £23 to £31 per ton compared with incinerators of c.L63 per ton plus health damage plus huge volumes of toxic ash for disposal. Who has the morals to protect the public?? Challenge the authorities to not only protect your health but to install this plasma gasification as best available technique. The EC directive 2006/12/EC on waste of 27 April 2006 insists member states use best available to protect public health. It is proposed to spend £106 million on construction cost & another £10.3 million per year running cost. Compare this with Plasco’s plasma gasification in Ottawa with zero construction cost to government and under £4 million annual cost for a slightly bigger plant, without counting health costs. Why are the regulators breaking the law? Read Popular Science, March 2007, where you will discover that Panama will be treating all waste by plasma gasification , producing 4O% of Panama’s electricity plus exports of hydrogen. Other plants are built or planned in Ottawa (2 in conjunction with the Canadian Government), France, Florida, Michigan, New York, Puerto Rico etc. Veolia are building the Michigan plant while fobbing off English residents with an inferior incinerator by comparison (which is now not BAT or BATNEEC as required by IPPC law and this April 2006 EC directive. Even DEFRA grudgingly admit in their July 2007 report that PM2.5s CAUSE illnesses and premature deaths but so far have not acted on their new-found discovery which has been legislated upon in USA since 1997.Rates of the main diseases in USA (compare with list below) dropped 6% in 2005/5. The Infant Mortality in New York City is now at an all time low. The Harvard long-term follow-up found just lug/m3 PM2.5s represented 3% of deaths of all causes.
 
The range of illnesses caused by inhaling PM2.5 particulates from waste burning include----
Birth defects, low birth weight babies (in direct proportion to PM2. 5 levels), stillbirths & miscarriages.
Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults. eg. London’s infant mortality in zones downwind of the
incinerators is 7 times higher than in wards upwind. (9.0 cf 1.3/1000 - ONS data 2003/5--M.Ryan)
Note that Jersey’s infant mortality is 3.1 compared with under 1.3 in upwind of UK incinerator zones.
T-lymphocyte diversion to 1ung~ with depletion causes SIDS, cot deaths, autism, MS, GBS
Attention deficit and other behaviour problems, some leading to crime.
Lower IQ & educational achievement down 2 years, worse GCSE grades (due partly to PAHs)
Asthma, COPD, viral & bacterial respiratory & other infections (especially boys)
Coronary heart disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADS. Jersey heart attack deaths are
higher that SW England though England is very high in thc world league table.
Diabetes-- Dioxins, arsenic, cadmium, lead & mercury are implicated.
Endometriosis & other hormone disruption can arise from dioxin exposure.
Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies & arthritis
ME, CFS, Hypothyroidism with low T3 level (adding to obesity)
Clinical depression & suicides, apathy, which increases the obesity problem. Jersey suicide incidence is 10 /100000 compared with England 6.
CANCERS—non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, breast, colon, lung, prostate, kidney, liver etc Breast cancer for example can be caused by faulty genes (2%), I IRT (5%) radiation, OP pesticides & herbicides, and from chimneys—cadmium, dioxins (& similar), & PAHs. Jersey’s cancer deaths are higher than SW England especially breast cancer in screening age women (78 cf 57 in England).
 
Analysis of 9 health parameters in Telford by ward in 2005 revealed increases in illnesses, SMR (64 in ward upwind & 149 ward downwind, also age adjusted mortality in 7 polluted wards compared with 24 less polluted wards (eg 542 upwind & 1341 downwind). An incinerator built in Colnbrook 1990 caused Slough SMR to worsen from 88 to 121 by 2001 meaning 11 years off lifespan. Those with internet can check www.ukhr.org and www.countrydoctor.co.uk (under pollution at bottom of main page) for more details. It is up to you to act or you will have the consequences imposed on you. The regulators normally just follow government “spin” & diktat.--Compiled 22 September 2008 & Copyright by Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS who has reports in 4 peer-reviewed medical publications and has lectured at 4 international medical conferences in addition to public inquiries. GLOSSARY-­COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease PAR- Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons CFS= Chronic Fatigue Syndrome IPPC = Integrated Pollution & Prevention Control USEPA USA Environmental Protection Agency SADS Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

Further information: http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/29918.html



As I said on my Post (Reply 19) in the "E. Coli contamination of Grouville Beach" thread: http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,929.15.html

"I feel that I must offer an apolgy, making fun of Deputy Guy De Faye in a previous post, after I thought about it, I realised that it was a cheap thing to do, so if your reading this Deputy De Faye, I'm sorry.

After much thought, I think that you have been given a "bum deal" as an elected politician by being made Transport and Technical Services Minister. I never really did understand why they chose someone with a law degree to head Transport and Technical Services, I would have thought someone with an engineering background would be a better choice, now I understand why you are assigned with the job.

If you are to be the guardian of this secret, and damage limitation is your remit, a law degree is a perfect tool for a man fronting this to have.

So again, you have my apology Deputy De Faye, I cannot imagine the strain this ministerial post places you under".


Law Degree, the perfect tools of the mind needed for a man placed in defence...

Although, in the minds of men, not everything in life is perfect...

In my humble opinion, even the tools of mind a law-degree affords will never prevent the truth, as history has shown and in truth proved, time, time and time again...

So in knowledge of all this, why have "they" (The men & women we elected to represent us in our government) not opted for the ONLY safe way of handling waste, "PLASMA GASIFICATION"?

For an overview see: http://www.recoveredenergy.com/d_plasma.html

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_gasification

and: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage

Deputy De Faye, shame on you for blindly following those who un-caring, falsely wield power within our goverment, that those who blindly voted for them and gave such lofty power for them to call the tune that we must now all dance to, the merry tune of death!

As we are all mortal, our mortality hangs in a delicate balance, a balance which our government (controlled by the self-serving few) will tip in self-serving favour against the longevity of the people who live in this Island, and for what?

Money...

Deputy De Faye, how much for a life? How much for our children, our childrens Children?

Go on, don't  be shy, name your price!

I am not religious (but will kneel at any altar which shows the true light of man, and yet follow none), the phrase:

"30 pieces of Silver" springs to mind...

I hope I am wrong about you Deputy De Faye, if not, the 30 pieces of Silver are yours; for they are the cost of the good faith which by their votes your electorate have placed in you, which unwisely (and yet again I may add) you have betrayed by the imorality of your actions ...

If you vote for Deputy Guy De Faye, then know who and what you are voting for! (It will not be your good faith of vote he will be loyal to in office, where his loyalty lies is transparently obvious!)

As for myself, Deputy De Faye, you do not deserve my vote; for I have no faith in your wisdom, morality or loyalty Deputy...

And whilst we are at it, what are you doing about all this Senator Ben Shenton... And the rest of the members who through choice or ignorance (or both) are blindly following?

Are all the election promises just more empty words to jump back onto the gravy train, smoke blowing in the wind, let’s truly hope these elections bring the winds of change to this island, I only hope I am not down-wind when this happens...

What do you think?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 02:11:19 PM by Jack »
No vote, no voice; no reason to speak your mind, no reason to vote... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Offline Paternoster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2008, 08:45:19 AM »
An alternative would be the UK solution.  Stop collecting bins and let the people find alternative places to dump their rubbish.

Offline Paternoster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2008, 01:49:41 PM »
Jack – totally agree that Guy has been a disaster, no just with the oversized incinerator but in most of what he has done.  However I remain to be convinced that Dr Van Steenis is not just a one track record and that all this is just school girl hysteria.  I walked through town today breathing in cigarette fumes from each doorway.  Will the new incinerator be worse than this?

Offline Xenth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Gender: Male
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2008, 01:56:18 PM »
A good place for the Incinerator would be Guy De Fayes back yard as its so bloody great!

see how he like having poisonous air to breath!
"You don't pay taxes - they take taxes."
Chris Rock

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke

Res Nullius

  • Guest
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2008, 02:06:47 PM »
A good place for the Incinerator would be Guy De Fayes back yard as its so bloody great!

see how he like having poisonous air to breath!

Nothing new to him.. ;)

Offline lara.luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Female
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2008, 03:16:50 PM »
i just thought i would like to add a bit more detail on what Ramsar designation means, I find the topic interesting! ;)


To apply to the International Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Jersey had to meet two criteria, one a detailed information sheet for each site to be accredited, and two, a map of the exact area the wetlands cover showing the boundaries.


‘Sites designated for the Ramsar List do not have already to be established as legally protected areas before designation. Listing under the Ramsar Convention elevates the sites to a higher status (recognized as places of “international importance”), focuses more attention upon them, and should contribute to their long-term conservation and wise use – whether or not Ramsar status conveys additional legal protection in-country depends upon the national and local policy and legislation concerning Ramsar sites, which varies from country to country. Human uses of wetlands are compatible with listing under Ramsar, provided that they are in line with the Ramsar concept of “wise use” and do not lead to a negative change in ecological character. Member States do not surrender sovereignty over their Ramsar sites in any way.’ This is quoted from the Ramsar website, I thought rewording it may loose its effect.   


Selection of a site to be added to the Ramsar List should be based on the wetland’s significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology, or hydrology. When Jersey joined the Convention it agreed to a general obligation for Contracting Parties to include
wetland conservation considerations in their national land-use planning. Jersey has also committed itself to formulate and implement this planning so as to promote, as far as possible, “the wise use of wetlands in their territory”
The Wise Use Guidelines, as stated in the Ramsar Convention emphasize the benefits and values of wetlands for sediment and erosion control; flood control; maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution; maintenance of surface and underground water supply; support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture; outdoor recreation and education for human society; and climatic stability.


‘Although the Ramsar Convention is not a regulatory regime and has no punitive sanctions for violations of or defaulting upon treaty commitments – nevertheless, its terms do constitute a solemn treaty and are binding in international law in that sense. The whole edifice is based upon an expectation of common and equitably shared transparent accountability. Failure to live up to that expectation could lead to political and diplomatic discomfort in high-profile international fora or the media, and would prevent any Party concerned from getting the most, more generally, out of what would otherwise be a robust and coherent system of checks and balances and mutual support frameworks. Failure to meet the treaty’s commitments may also impact upon success in other ways, for example, in efforts to secure international funding for wetland conservation. In addition, some national jurisdictions now embody international Ramsar obligations in national law and/or policy with direct effect in their own court systems.’ (Ref - www.ramsar.org)

Jersey has to report on the implementation of the Convention within its territories as part of it’s responsibilities to the Convention. I wonder just exactly how the Incinerator will be viewed as I believe it will be built at the perimeter or possibly on the area that has been mapped for Ramsar designation.

Just for today do not anger

Offline Paternoster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2008, 11:34:35 AM »
Given that this are has always been ear marked for development why was it ever given a Ramsar status. 

Offline The Rev Peter Sarkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Diocese of St Swithins
Re: Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2008, 12:57:04 PM »
Given that this are has always been ear marked for development why was it ever given a Ramsar status. 

To make it clean enough and safe enough to build an incinerator silly!
"That's not in the effing good book!"

Offline Jack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Location of New Incinerator
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2008, 01:08:19 PM »
It is good to see people talking about this, be careful that your thinking does not become compartmentalised, yes the toxic fumes are very dangerous, the real question is "what are they doing with all that toxic ash"?

See: http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,973.0.html

The ash is even more dangerous, especially dumped in porous land adjacent to the sea...

Think about it!
No vote, no voice; no reason to speak your mind, no reason to vote... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason