CLAIMS that cancer rates and child deformities would increase if an incinerator is built were yesterday dismissed by Guernsey’s director of public health.
Dr Stephen Bridgman (pictured) rubbished the assertions by a prominent academic as the worst scientific talk he had heard in 35 years.
He added it made him question the validity of the claims and whether there was any real science behind them.
He was criticising Dr Dick van Steenis’s talk given against the use of a mass burn incinerator.
Dr Bridgman then left the public meeting on Public Services proposals to build the facility.
Health minister Dr Hunter Adam, who was also concerned by the presentation, supported his medical officer of health.
‘I was rather concerned by the way [Dr van Steenis] presented his information, that I felt was at times biased,’ he said.
‘If you are a scientific person, we all know that you can take scientific research and present it to give a tainted point of view.’
Public Services later defended its recommendation that Guernsey needed a mass-burn incinerator to deal with its waste problem.
Senior members of the department and project managers from preferred contractor Suez Environnement were grilled at a meeting last night on its proposals to build the facility, which will include an energy-from-waste facility, material recovery area and ash treatment. About 100 people questioned PSD on subjects including cost, design, alternatives. and recycling implications.
They were also reassured that health implications of building an incinerator were very minor.
One of the major issues again raised at last night’s public meeting was the amount of waste that the planned incinerator will be built to deal with.
Many islanders believe that the projected figure of 45,000 tonnes of waste rising to 70,000 over 25 years is too high.
PSD minister Bernard Flouquet was adamant this figure had been checked by many independent consultants with the same results.
‘I’m sorry but unless that figure suits some people, including people in this room, they will always say it is incorrect,’ he told the meeting.
‘We have had three independent reviews and then the Environment Department checked it as well, and they all agreed that the figure of 45,000 tonnes is near enough correct.
‘How many more consultants must we waste taxpayers’ money on?’
Rosie Dorey, who is a member of the Guernsey Climate Action Network, received a round of applause after she suggested the plans encouraged people not to recycle – stating that there was a need to grow residual waste so that the plant could produce more electricity and therefore keep fees at the facility down.
Deputy Flouquet disagreed and said he believed PSD had made it clear that it was committed to increasing recycling.
Article posted on 8th July, 2009 - 2.30pm
51 Article Comments
Is this the same Dr Dick van Steenis who campaigned against the MMR vaccine and who claims:
“I have had to counsel mothers whose babies died from MMR and other mothers who babies developed autism from MMR”.
The anti MMR campaign has caused unneccessary suffering and death to thousands of children – and not just those from whom the vaccination was withheld but all those affected by the increase in disease in the population at large.
In his CV, Dr van Steenis claims to have been published in four peer reviewed medical journals but declines to identify the journals concerned. His claim appears to be repeated by many others without trying to acertain its veracity.
Unfortunately, many who are unfamiliar with the way scientific claims and counterclaims are dealt with in the learned journals as opposed to the popular press will be swayed by dramatic and alarming pronouncements of the kind for which Dr Steenis has acquired a reputation.
Report abuse
Ted
We’ve been here before with folks trying to discredit one of the leading UK industrial emissions experts on peer review; he has a peer reviewed article in the Lancet, 3 peer reviews in 3 US emminant environmental health journals, and has 375 references on the subject.
Dr Brigman is a sceptic beleiving outdated HPA/COMEAP dross; ignoring USEPA/WHO and US (Pope and Dochery) legallly and proven mass science on industrial PM2.5 emissions.
Dr Adam should be concerned as he is way behind on industrial emissions and its the likes of such, who is signing and permitting folks death warant. He also forgets science does carry bias; its called “ethics”.
Report abuse
Ted, my you have been doing your homework and by doing so you are nailing (sorry, HAMMERING) your colours to the Suez/PSD mast. For the record, I am against the MMR jab, does this make me a bad parent or person. I support Dr Steenis and will do all I can to ensure that there is a period of reflection so all proposals can be objectively looked into. You Ted carry on bating for the heavy mob and be ‘one of the lads’…….’Dirty tricks and all’………
Report abuse
Mass burn inceneration is the worst method of disposing of waste. The most dangerous. The most expensive. The most enviromentally ugly.
Land fill is the cheapest and best method and could be used to reclaim land from the sea, grassed over for leisure use (golf, park, building land).
The States of Guernsey is once again not laying out the true values and costs. Enviroment Deputies should resign without further ado
Report abuse
Regardless of the substance, tone or manner of the presentation by Mr Van Steenis, incinerators produce dioxins. The World Health Organisation recognises them as persistent organic pollutants. See http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html
These chemicals accumulate in the body and so long term exposure to even minute amounts can be significant. In addition, it is very difficult to monitor dioxin output, so the incinerator may drift out of specification for many weeks / months and release large amounts of dioxin before being identified and rectified.
Also worth noting that with the height of the chimney stack proposed the dioxins will be carried widely over the island by even a moderate breeze. The whole island will be polluted.
Certainly risky, you have to ask yourself why the states are willing to take on this risk – and also ask yourself if any of the states members proposing this will be around to answer for their decisions in 10 years time…
Report abuse
This is islands does amaze me…
We need to save money…
How much does it cost to dig a big hole in the golf coarse and then to use the soil / rock to reclaim land on the north coast of the Islands to create a nature reserve (or new golf coarse)
Report abuse
Johnny B, please tell me your being sarcastic? Landfill is by far the most hazardous option and has the greatest contribution to climate change with decades of health issues to deal with. You cant just turf it and call it a golf course either. Besides, your going to love the increase in your council tax bill due to the new landfill tax.
Rob, Van Steenis is a self proclaimed expert. You tell me what scientific institute has recognised him as an expert, and local tabloids don’t count.
I sat in on one of his public meetings and can happily say that although a convincing speaker, he has no epidemiological or air quality expertise and at best is an amateur researcher keeping himself busy during his twighlight years. I still shake my head with despair on his opinion that a bulldozer emits the equivalent of 900,000 Volvos.
He doesn’t have 300 odd references that strengthen his case. He has a random collection of articles that he cherry picks to scaremonger. Have a peak, there is one that references to a car magazine! My biggest concern for this guy is that he isn’t made accountable for what he says and once he spouts his unsubstantiated opinion, he moves on to the next community.
Lee, yep dioxin and all air pollution is bad for health. But these things are run to higher standards then any other industry (that includes the petro chem companies, manufacturing, power stations etc) and regulated by the Environment Agency. I remember reading somewhere that you get a higher dose of pollutants at your average BBQ then you do with sticking your head over the chimney.
And as for Cancer Risk, the Department of Health’s Committee on Carcinogenicity updated their 2000 position paper on cancer incidence in proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators in the UK this year. They still say that there is insufficient evidence to suggest a health risk from incinerators.
Now given the choice of a retired GP, or the countries leading Cancer researchers, I think I know who I would go with.
Report abuse
Mathers
So you’ll be advocating that Bernard Flouquet spends an hour or so on a Sunday afternoon, warm beer in one hand, thumb up in the other, while sticking his head down the MBI stack?
I’d pay to see that.
Report abuse
Those against- lobby your deputies- however, I know they will not always listen to us mere public. Start a petetion etc. I think there is one running already. No one wants this but that doesn’t ever seem to matter, the states will do as they please as usual. There is always insufficient evidence to suggest a health risk from incinerators but that doesn’t mean that incinerators aren’t a health risk to us. In todays world insufficient evidence is none discript and meaningless depending on which side of the fence you sit !! I will be laying on the ground infront of the diggers if this project is passed! Send our waste to Jersey as they need it to run theirs more efficiently and it is a cheaper option so I am led to believe.
Report abuse
Even if the Suez mass burn incinerator poses a negligible health risk, there can be no argument that it poses a massive economic risk to each and every one of us.
There is also no doubt at all that this monster of a plant will have a catastrophic environmental impact on our eastern seabord. We’re talking about a structure here that will be bigger, wider, higher than the Vale Castle just around the corner.
We’ve seen the (con) artist’s impression of the finished product, all green and pretty, but even if it ends up that way (a very big if) imagine the terrible bomb site of an eyesore it will be during the two year construction process. It’ll make Mont Cuet tip look like Constable’s Haywain by comparison.
Our only hope is that our elected representatives see the sense in the rational alternative that the blinkered PSD refuses to countenance. Go to the presentation at 7.30pm on July 14 at St Sampson’s High. It’s the people’s choice,
Report abuse
Martyn
Hopefully more people will thing aabout your comment “Even if the Suez mass burn incinerator poses a negligible health risk, there can be no argument that it poses a massive economic risk to each and every one of us”
I would add the rider that negligible health risk is still too much risk.
Report abuse
Dear Sir
As it stands at the moment it looks like The MASS BURNERS are going to have their day.
Wierd thought eh that Guernsey should go that way?
Abandoning its spirit of no waste eh?
If they do win It’ll be
Like
Yea we did the Occupation
Tholed the Liberation
Lets get wasted.
Report abuse
Mathers
There is nothing dangerous about landfill. Period. It is the safest method of waste disposal (returning Earths resources to the ground where it came from). The enviro corrupt propaganda about “leeching” in soils is hysterical, unproven and just that, propaganda. Very likely driven by incinerator companies trying to get their most expensive, ugly and dangerous system promoted by the corrupt EU and US administrations.
If all Americas waste was landfilled it would take less than 1% of the US’s entire land mass. That’s a nominal sum for our/any society. And the greater benefit for us here is the land could be reclaimed from the sea and is absolutely sound for leisure use thereafter. Job done. Very cheaply. The perfect solution for our island.
The fact the States of Guernsey consistently overlook this option demonstrates yet another bent consultation process for which the Deputies on Enviroment should resign immediately. They are waisting everyones time and money and are a pile of smoking rubbish.
Report abuse
Interesting comments, however we don’t need to guess and speculate how dangerous to health these things are. There is a reputable, independent, international organisation tasked with doing this for us. It’s called the World Heath Organisation (WHO). They publish all their research online, just take a look.
The WHO state very clearly “In terms of dioxin release into the environment, waste incinerators (solid waste and hospital waste) are often the worst culprits” See http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html
Mathers stated that “But these things are run to higher standards then any other industry”, which is true but misleading. Testing for dioxin levels is a lengthy process which takes weeks or (more likely in Guernsey) months due to the specialist nature of the testing. There is no guarantee the levels will be within limits on any particular day, week or month in the event of a misconfiguration / component failure.
Also Mathers, the comment on BBQ’s is interesting. The big difference between a BBQ and an incinerator is I know exactly what I’m burning on my BBQ (Sausages mainly…), but an incincerator will be burning all sorts of ‘mystery’ chemicals, plastics, etc. You need to compare like with like.
In any case, don’t listen to me (or the incinerator company…) listen to the World Health Organisation… that’s what they are there for.
Simple really. Guernsey Press – do some independent research from reputatable sources like WHO and publish please.
Report abuse
Johnny, although a lovely analogy landfill isn’t returning mother natures resources back to whenst and in the form they came. And im sorry to say that landfill gas and lechate isn’t a myth. Take a peak at the DEFRA study on the health effects of waste management. They pointed out that 27% of UK methane emissions are from landfill. So a quarter of the UKs most potent green house gas comes from landfill. They also sum up the epidemiological evidence for both landfill and incinerators, and landfills present a more significant health risk.
If only we could send all our waste the US. I think the thing your missing is that Guernsey is a lot smaller than the US, so land filling everything isn’t the solution, firstly because there isn’t enough space and secondly as that doesn’t encourage us to reduce the level of waste we make (something the US are not realy interested in becasuse they can continue to landfill). I also think your forgetting the huge landfill tax Government is slapping down to reduce waste and to cut down on the methane emissions.
Lee, thanks for the WHO reference, but they also say in the same document that:
‘Proper incineration of contaminated material is the best available method of preventing and controlling exposure to dioxins’.
Lee, you might want to check how the BBQ coal that cooks your sausages is made, I think you might be surprised, go gas BBQ If you have the option. Besides, you make dioxins when you cook anything, even your average fish fingers.
And you’re probably better off listening to the UK Health Protection Agency then the WHO, their more UK focussed (i.e. an incinerator run to UK standards).
Report abuse
Dr Bridgman should ask Dr Rosemary Geller in Jersey whether she bothered to check the infant mortality rates in any of the electoral wards in Shropshire or Staffordshire where she worked prior to her Jersey appointment.
Essington, Great Wyrley Town and Gt Wyrley Landywood wards are all downwind of the incinerator in Crown Street, Wolverhampton and have the highest infant death rates out of all electoral wards in South Staffordshire.
It’s the quality of air that you breathe that is main determinant in infant death rates and some of Shropshire’s electoral wards have had zero infant deaths recorded by Office for National Statistics in each of the 15 years 1993-2007.
The “zero” infant death wards aren’t downwind of any industrial source of PM2.5 emissions.
London has 625 electoral wards and 14 of them had zero infant deaths recorded in each of the six years 2002-2007. The location of these zero infant death wards in relation to incinerators clearly shows that not being exposed to PM2.5s from the incinerators is why they have such an excellent record.
Eleven of the 16 wards which had very high infant death rates in same 6-year period, ie 11.0 per 1,000 live births & above were either wholly or partially within 2 miles of an incinerator.
Am I the only Chartered Civil Engineer who has bothered to examine any data around incinerators to see if they are associated with adverse health outcomes?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan BSc, C Eng, MICE
Shrewsbury
Report abuse
Michael Ryan,
I assume the figures you refer to are those behind the map which you prepared here: http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/shropshirestaffordshiremapa4.pdf
There’s nothing in what your saying to justify a causal relationship between emissions from the indicated incinerators and infant mortality – industrial areas are correlated for all sorts of reasons with poor health, when there is no causal relationship. Even the causal relationship you are inferring between incinerator emissions and ‘downwind’ atmospheric pollution seems very speculative, as there are many other much more powerful causes of such pollution (e.g. road traffic).
Have your research been submitted for peer review?
Report abuse
@Mathers
With respect, I have to easily correct and deconstruct some of Mathers points.
Remember the prime health concern in 2009 (modern EfW/CHP incinerators) are particular/fine particular (UFP/nano particles)biomarkers; not dioxin/furans/cancers/dioxin health biomarkers.
1) COC report to DoH/HPA was based on Eliiotts old concentric proximity studies around older incinerators. Firstly no respect was given in the study of downwind emissions; with upwind cancers measured; so the results and any clusters downwind were nullified by these upwind studies. Secondly, the studies concentrated on Cancer/Dioxin related biomarkers, not fine particle/PM2.5>PM1/particle related biomarkers; now of more concern.
2) The HPA Nov 2005 report (4 pages)did not study/review the effect of PM2.5 emissions..so worthless as a reference. McCracken is larely discredited on his depth of expertise on industrial emissions research. He and his agency simply haven’t done the up-todate epidemiological science, only last week said the HPA would to this as a safeguard following identification of health clusters of concern. So ignore anything of epidemiological studies between 2000 and 2009.
3)Dr van Steenis was called by Parliament several times as an epidemiology/industrial expert emissions; and invited by US symposiums to present (Swchartz,Pope, Docherty, Perera attending) all world experts. Check your info. The majority of DVS references cover the salient PM2.5/PM2.5 biomarker areas. He and his concerns are supported by many other experts, Chemist/Waste expert, Dr Connect; Toxicologist Prof Vyvian Howard; European renouned nanapathologists Dr Gatti and Montanetti +15,000 Doctors signitures in EU.
Other pro incinerator emissions experts such as Dr J Bridges; Roy Harrison are not able to deconstruct his arguement/peer reviewed references/precaution; as their arguments do not have recent (post 2000)epidemiological studies, their conclusions are based on incorrect/poorly constructed estimate that mitigate a poorly researched toxic hazard/risk. Both of these experts have been well paid by waste companies to present opinion; not Pro Bono motives or up-to-date studies.
4) Open cast excavators (bulldozers are smaller but also of lesser UFP emissions concerns)are massive cutting up to 100m seams, 200x Vickers tanks in weight (5-10K Tonnes.fed on fine/ultra fine particle producing oily fuels. DVS Volvo reference makes total sense if you know of the scale of open cast excavator he is referencing. Same George Monbiot
http://www.stopffosyfran.co.uk/George_Monbiot.html
Note: Councils are very concerned of the commercial diesel emissions from HGVs, buses, deisel trains, ships emissions in UK ports, construction excavators.(Low Emissions Zones, LEZ)
5)The health epidemiological consequences refer to long term exposure to minute amounts of fine/ultra fine particles; not short term effects of standing next to a BBQ/ bonfire emissions situation. Two exposure/health consequences that are totally different and recognised epidemiologically as such. COMEAP admitted they underestimated their 6% health coefficient when gestimating PM2.5 health consequences; with 3x US coefficients being more appropriate.
6)Looking further into alternatives to landfill; if you see the demonstated/proven technology BAT development, incineration will be outdated/obsolete soon; having to give way to small module CHP technology such as Anaerobic Digestion/Food Waste to farmland; Plasma Gasification/Gasplasma to CHP/syngas conversion. Check Plasco, Europlasma, CHO, W2T in London, APP in Swindon, Geoplasma, InEntech..are either proven, component proven, demonstrated..its only a matter of time. Remember incinerator sponsored consultants ENVIROS pulled the plug on Vernos earlier plasma scheme.
7) Veolia (incinerator company) state and admit in their PPC permit substantial amounts of PM2.5 and large %es of PM1 fine particles (50% of all particle production by weight-20tpa from a 200Tpa EfW incinerator)pass through the baghouse and electroplate filters for modern EfW incinerators. These are only effective (98%) for larger, less concerning PM10; a monitoring requirement under WID; PM2.5 are not a WID requirement for monitoring stack top/in the community + 00s of other chemicals.
Report abuse
Impressive post Rob. Meanwhile, contrast the disgraceful attempts to discredit Dr van Steenis with the dodgy propaganda emanating from the PSD camp. This is the same States department that used emissions ‘data’ from an as yet unbuilt incinerator in Shrewsbury to back its case. This alone shows we cannot accept anything we hear or see from PSD/Suez at face value.
Report abuse
John Surcombe
2 Points to clarify
1) If you look up the world renouned research proving causality between long term, low dose PM2.5 emissions, the pathway through the body, placenta cumulatively to the infant; the research you need to access is by Perrera et al,US; also NEJM journal, also Mexico City Study. EfW/CHP are substantial exotic PM1/PM2.5 fine particle emitters. So the causal pathway between incinerator and specific health biomarker is deductively proven; their is no induction. Lawyers will soon have a field day; as ESEM microscopes can now detect “exotic” incinerator derived insoluble fine-nano particles/combinations lodged in the body and organs, in downwind populations (Nanodiagnostica Lab, Italy); such as eg Hexivalent Chromium, Cadmium, Vandanium in the brain, liver, panceas etc, and the concentration of these; the temperature of formation (850-900C) in UK EfW incinerators, like a forensic signature. Plenty of law suites flying for the next 25-30 years, I predict!
2)@Mather. DVS produced an interesting epidemiological study downwind of Milford Haven Power Station (orimulsion/oil was the fuel I beleive) and child asthmas in two distinct zones; measuring inhaler numbers in primary schools. The areas weren’t deprived, little road traffic or urban influence. The study found high child asthma clusters downwind; very low levels in a control area further to the north.
Report abuse
I don’t know what the best way is for disposing of our waste. What I think is that we should be getting the best advice from the widest and best sources available before spending the huge sums being spoken of.
It worries me when the principal expert witness for one of the disposal schemes is an avowed anti MMR vaccine campaigner. The discredited author of the original scare story, Andrew Wakefield, is now on trial before the BMA for gross misconduct and the overwhelming opinion of reputable scientists is that there is no foundation for his original claims.
Dr Steenis does still seem to be a supporter of the Wakefield hoax. If this is the case I have to suspect his opinion on any scientific issue. If his view on this has changed, he should make his position clear and I might be able to pay more respect to his views on incinerators.
Report abuse
Rob Whittle,
I take it that means the answer to my question is that Michael Ryan’s research hasn’t been peer reviewed.
Your post contains lots of sciencey-sounding pseudo-content but still no actual references. We are hearing continual puff from the ’scaremongers’ that the weight of the peer-reviewed literature supports their POV, but whenever anyone asks for journal references, we just get ambiguous and unverifiable responses, and nothing further of substance.
If the claimed literature exists, on what pages of which journals will we find it?
Report abuse
I’d love to hear a Sunday phone in with Burner Floo-k and one of these tech guys!
I can see the Last Resort Assembly (subset of the Emergency Lunch Council) scheming….
“Is Deputy Trott ready yet?”
“Yes, waiting for the release codes.”
“wait for it….wait….NOW!”
“Ahem. Lyndon, you are being d i s s e d.”
“Woof!”
Later
“And now, for the pride of Guernsey, I name these three incinerators…..”
Report abuse
Mathers,
You appear to be arguing with me without listening properly to my points! So let me repeat;
Landfill is simply returning earths resources back to Earth. Where do you think paper, food, plastics and chemicals come from originally?
There is no danger from landfill. The methane can be piped off. There is also no leeching problems, this is an (another) enviro hyper-hysterical story.
You refer to DEFRA on methane. DEFRA are corrupt, like the rest of British Govt on the junk science they peddle about climate change. The only greenhouse gas that makes any difference to earths temperature is water vapour. The miniscule amounts of CO2 and Methane in our colossal atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.
Regards there “not being enough land” on our island for landfill let me repeat. If the Yanks dumped all their rubbish in landfill, it would take less than 1% of their land mass. A trivial amount of land to ring fence for rubbish. The same trivial amount it would be for Guernsey. My second point to repeat was that Guernsey should actually reclaim land from the sea using landfill to fill it in. So Guernsey doesn’t use any land, it gains it. Then grasses the reclaimed land over for leisure use which landfilled land is safe to put to use for (parks, golf courses, housing etc).
Landfill is the cheapest, cleanest, best option for waste disposal. Incineration is an expensive joke. Not surprised our expensive jokes in the States keep peddling the wrong option is it?
Report abuse
My understanding of the Wakefield case, being investigated by the BMC, was not that a discreditation of the MMR/autism link, or the lesser effectiveness of the MMR jab over single vacinations; there are hundreds of other researchers who have concluded similarly, or undertaken similar; but that he had allegily misrepresented his findings in the Lancet, and the way he undertook his study/data collection.
So obviously it one particular study was deemed a poor study, any expert or reviewer is not going to support or further that particular article. Many other studies conclude MMR problems. Further to what you claim about most scientists; it would be fair and honest to say the jury is still out on MMR effectiveness v single shots, or MMR – autism link.
Report abuse
I look forward to seeing Johnny B, in his campaign to stop the incinerator being built, drinking a pint of leachate for the media.
Or indeed finding me the science that backs up his claim.
Maybe he could tell me where he knows that DEFRA are corrupt and that CO2 and Methane are not greenhouse gases?
Maybe you could join Big Burny in the “bluster your way out of your indefensible position” panel show Channel TV should commission.
Report abuse
“I conducted my research in an unethical way and I publically misrepresented its results but that does not invalidate the conclusions I have drawn from it.”
Have I misunderstood or is that the basis for the argument proving the link between MMR and autism?
I can’t be absolutely sure MMR does not have some relationship with autism. I can be absolutely sure that no clear evidence has been produced to persuade me. How has Dr Steenis been persuaded to believe in the Wakefield hoax? If he can be so easily convinced, I have to question his views on waste disposal.
Report abuse
I suggest that anyone who doubts the link between industrial PM2.5 air pollution and infant deaths should read page 471 of the 1944 edition of Black’s Medical Dictionary and compare what’s written with the 2003 research published by Chay & Greenstone whose 23 August 2003 University of Chicago Chronicle article “Infant mortality rates improve as air quality improves, study shows”, by William Harms starts:
“Tiny particles in the air probably have a greater impact on infant health than has previously been realized, according to new research published by a University economist, who specializes in environmental regulation, and his colleague.”
Wake up Guensey and surely one of you is rich enough to purchase a set of ONS birth/mortality data for all electoral wards in England & Wales so you can check for yourselves the infant death rates upwind and downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham, Dudley, Edmonton, SELCHP, Doncaster, Bolton, etc. and find exactly the same as me.
Check out the oil refineries too, starting in Pembrokeshire where there are two on Milford Haven waterway.
Dawn Shanafelt, of Saginaw County Dept of Health, Michigan, has plotted infant death rates by US census tracts, ie equivalent of electoral wards and found elevated rates downwind of airborne sources of toxic emissions. See Saginaw News, 27 April 2009.
Does Guernsey want more of the same?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Report abuse
Michael, have you considered any other risk factors for infant mortality? Isn’t it the case that if the environments not that nice, you tend to get less affluent people live there, as they can afford to move to a nicer area. As such, you may get an association where there is poorer health and higher infant mortality, but this is more to do with deprivation and lifestyle than it does for air quality. How have you taken this into account?
Rob, im not sure you have deconstructed my points, im going to have to check your comments in more detail.
Jonny B, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Although I appreciate your opinion, I cant say I agree with your take on a Government / International hoax on the potency of climate change gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide, or that landfills represent a sustainable approach to waste management with no risk to health.
Report abuse
Mr John Surcombe should realise that the infant mortality map he’s seen was prepared to show elevated rates downwind of Ironbridge Power Station which Dr Catherine Woodward, of Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust claims causes no harm to health. Note the four-fold differential in infant mortality rates between upwind & downwind electoral wards.
Perhaps John Surcombe can list causes for infant deaths and then wonder how an electoral ward in central London close to the M4 has the highest number of live births recorded by ONS while also haivng zero infant deaths?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Report abuse
John Surcombe
With respect; it is officially up to HPA to provide the edpidemiological studies for scrutiny. They have failed to consider this until last week, read Western Daily Article below
1)You ask where are the references I has looked at; if you read my post; it is a scrutiny of 4 government and industry references. Scrutiny of their studies. Pseudo-contents?..I guess that is the language and contents I found these government/industry studies/reports..so you are probably right about HPA /COC/ PPC having pseudo contents on health.
2)Check (Swchartz,Pope, Docherty, Perera, Montanari for PM2.5 science/peer reviews). Additionally Mike Ryan will probably bring to your notice peer reviewed work of 60 Japanese incinerators and Biomarkers, 40 Italian incinerators and biomarkers. You will have to research whether reports are peer reviewed, I know they are.
3)Ted similarly you will have to email DVS views about Wakefield. This is a different issue. He might reject Wakefields research whilst still having a huge collection of alternative references for the MMR/Autism link.
Ref:
Western Daily Press: Chemical danger testing
Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) – Wednesday, August 6, 2003
THE potential dangers of chemicals and poisons, such as those from landfill sites and incinerators , are to come under intense scrutiny, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) announced yesterday.
Working with the NHS, the HPA will investigate suspicious clusters of disease which could be linked to chemical exposure.
The pledge was made as the fledgling agency , which began work in April, launched its five-year plan setting out its aims and objectives across a raft of health protection concerns.
The plan pointed out that an estimated 600 new chemicals entered the marketplace each month, on top of the 11million already known and 70,000 in regular use.
Various studies have claimed that exposure to chemicals can have serious effects on health , including the risk of birth defects and certain chronic diseases.
The HPA plan not only highlighted public concern about chemical-related accidents, but also the possible ill health consequences of long-term exposure to chemicals, such as those emitted from landfills, incinerators and industrial sites.
Pat Troop, the HPA’s chief executive, said it was crucial to study the long-term effects of chemical exposure. “We are not saying there is a problem. We are saying we are looking carefully to see if there is a problem or there isn’t a problem. The public is concerned about many of these issues.”
Report abuse
Incineration carries a risk. There is a risk that there might be serious health risks that will become evident in the future (if not already). Therefore, would it not be prudent to minimise that risk?
What is the point in spending £93 million on an over-sized, over engineered, over priced mass-burn incinerator that we do NOT need when it carries this risk? There is absolutely no point. We gain nothing but the risk…. both financially and possibly to our health.
The Rational Alternative recognises that (sadly) we will need a small element of incineration in order to buy ourselves some time. However, their small off-the-shelf micro-incinerator, has a higher burning temperature than mass-burn so are reputedly cleaner. Being a twin-stream, much smaller, and much much cheaper, the aim of the RA is to phase out the incineration element, one stream at a time, as soon as is possible.
With the Suez proposal…. we will be stuck with a large 40,000 tonnes burner that will need to burn all the time in order for it to meet its financial targets. There will be no way that we can phase it out. If more information emerges about the health implications of incineration…. we will have no-where to go…. we’ll be b***gred.
Report abuse
Morning Rob, I did some digging to see if you had actually ‘easily corrected and deconstructed’ some of my points. I stopped when I came across that the Dalton Incinerator Steering Committee (Disc) applying the research you and Michael Ryan are suggesting was slapped with a warning that Kirklees NHS will take legal action if they continued to use unsubstantiated evidence that misused infant mortality figures.
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/northyorkshire/4472398.Residents_fighting_incinerator_plans_in_North_Yorks_threatened_by_council/
The kicker is that Disc said that its not there fault, they never said the research was fact, it was the person whose information they used said it was fact. Are people not responcible for what they say, or the fear they provoke?
Have a read, its quite interesting and reinforces the fact that health issues, be it infant or adult mortality are really best left to people who know what they are talking about.
“The Kirklees figures were closely studied by the NHS and lifestyle is seen as the chief cause. “The implied suggestion that the death rate is caused by airborne contaminants from the incinerator is wholly untrue and the council has written to Disc to ask them to desist.”
Report abuse
Mathers
I believe similar reactions were given by Sellafield in relation to claims that their nuclear facility might have negative public health concerns. And indeed, by the tobacco companies when it was suggested that cigarette smoke might have negative health concerns. And do you remember the years it took for fuel companies to conceded that the lead in petrol had negative health consequences?
Personally I feel that even if there is the slightest risk that public health is to be compromised, and particularly where safer (and cheaper) alternatives exist, then the rational decision should be to accept that a mistake has been made, and investigate those alternatives.
Report abuse
I feel the comment of Belinda “Personally I feel that even if there is the slightest risk that public health is to be compromised, and particularly where safer (and cheaper) alternatives exist, then the rational decision should be to accept that a mistake has been made, and investigate those alternatives” should be taken on board by the States.
The crazy economics and lack of proper financial information must be a serious concern.
If Rosie is correct about the need for the plant to be operative day and night any shortfall in the use will further add to the gate charges as the operator will want to recover their costs.
So far as the Kirklees legal threat is concerned, it is sadly a sign of the times, where local authorities threaten legal action at the drop of the hat. If they had a sound case concerning reasons for infant mortality it would be better to rely on those data.
One concern I have is why so many deputies are hell bent on what seems reckless waste of taxpayers money on a scheme with so many worries attached to it.
The reckless use of negligible risk must be a concern. As Belinda says in her post is any known risk worth taking?
Report abuse
Just dig a new hole in the golf course and fill it up. the cheaper opion is land fill. The way to go..
Report abuse
@Mathers
Evening, I’m really glad you raised infant mortality around Kirklees; downwind on the Sita Kirklees incinerator. Its a very interesting cluster.
Suffolk Together also show the same map, as do other websites. This is what it is all about!
http://www.suffolktogether.com/Issues/198/Incinerators.html
The findings and research are not mine, as you post wrongly suggests, lets be clear; but are are Office of National Statistics ONS; added up per ward during the three year period 2002-2005.
Basically what the NHS had to explain was why there were 69 infant deaths downwind of the Kirklees incinerator compared to 5 infants deaths downwind; with a 3x higher infant mortality rate downwind. Some cluster. However, lifestyle explanations as NHS do not wash, or do not entirely, and can be easily deconstructed, not great for any legal action.
Essentially, Kirklees are concerned that Kirklees is getting a “bad name” for two truths and reasons: 1, its infant mortality rate is sky high/third world; 2, it has an incinerator; that incidentially exploded 2-3 years ago from a gas leak.
Account
“There was an explosion with fire balls shooting out of the RDF stack. One witness said that she thought the whole place was going to explode. It was like a huge roman candle firework. A fire ball caused a fire close to the public road and footpath and only yards from people’s homes. I’ve got pictures to prove it.” Coumcillor Andy D’Agorne
“SITA said that there had been no explosion or fire balls and no fire engine out side the plant.”
The Huddersfield Daily Examiner had two articles about Sita’s exploding incinerator: “Poison gas alert in incinerator blast” [23 September 2006] and “We’re still green!” [16 October 2006]
http://www.readmyday.co.uk/andydag/archive/2006/09/10/njz6o4×6vo2a.htm
Granted, some Dewsbury wards are “deprived” area with a high Pakistanii ethnicity /origin inhabiting terrace houses. However, Nelson across the Pennines in Pendle, Lancashire has the same factors. Deprived, high density housing, high %Pakistani ethicity; but without the high infant mortality figures. Pendle is about average and has no incinerator upwind. Secondly, Mirfield ward is substantially white, middle England, non deprived suburb; but with high infant mortality rates. Hardly a Lifestyle expanation given by the NHS and the Deprivation/Social Engineering School of Explanations. Are Lancastrian Pakistani mothers better mothers than Yorkshire Pakistani mothers might be a NHS cop out? A PC question the NHS/DoH might not wish to evaluate. I have to conclude ethnic Pakistani women are just as good mothers (Lancastrian or Yorkshire); as any other mothers; if not better. Additionally, upwind in Huddersfield there are deprived wards with Pakistani residents; with low infant mortalities. Erm, lifestyle explanation, very shaky.
Additionally, if one looks up the criteria for measures of deprivation; “Air Pollution” anyhow is a hidden, but noticeable factor in the deprivation “gumpf” equation. Basically PM2.5 air pollution is a sub set of deprivation indices, indeed quality of life.
Kirklees legal threat is an essentially a misdirected dumb gagging attempt of ONS government figures been totted up by ward and mapped. Any defendant might be requiring 3 things: Access to continued infant mortality figures, downwind PM2.5 monitoring of emissions and autopsy samples of perished infants for ESEM tests; all of which could backfire hugely on Kirklees Council if one thing cropped up.
Report abuse
Rob
The keypoint that i got from the Disc article, is that people are going to be made acountable for what they say. This should help clear up some of the contrasting opinion out there.
Report abuse
Mathers, the keypoint everyone else got from your post is that you found something that backs up the stattos attack on the non arguments put forward by the incinerator lovers.
Report abuse
@Mathers
And the other important point; DISC hasn’t heard anything from Kirklees NHS; and I doubt they will! It was merely a tactic to gag and bully; nothing more. Other researchers have seen off these types of stupid legal threats and profressional smears before; because they have more epidemiological science than PCT Directors.
Report abuse
Rob and Binjo
I didn’t see it as the NHS attempting a professional smear, I saw it as the NHS trying to defend themselves ‘from’ a professional smear.
The NHS was trying to point out that the research on infant mortality was flawed, as it had no grasp on the actual risk factors, and didn’t even consider what the change in exposure was (basing it entirely on wind direction). Given that the research was unsubstantiated, performed by someone with no formal air quality, health or epidemiological training, didn’t consider any other risk factors, sources or even consider the level of actual pollution, its somewhat difficult to understand how it came to the conclusion that all infant mortality (regardless of cause of death) is caused by incineration fumes.
It almost sounds like the evidence was selected/generated to attribute blame, rather than to identify a causal pathway and then come to a conclusion (so guilty until proved innocent).
Rob, you say other researchers have seen off these types of stupid legal threats and professional smears before; because they have more epidemiological science than PCT Directors.
Do you have any examples, and are these Academic Professional Researchers governed by an ethics committee and subject to peer review? I still find it funny that your saying that someone with no formal health training or expertise, is more credible to comment on infant mortality than a Director of a PCT supported by extensive training, years of actual experience, a dedicated health team (some probably specialising in infant mortality), access to the latest health data and government run (so impartial). Nope, your right, the chartered engineer sounds like a much more credible expert.
I don’t regard people having to substantiate their claims as stupid, if legal action is required to separate fact from opinion, then I am all for it.
Report abuse
Mathers
Where is the claim that “all infant mortality (regardless of cause of death) is caused by incineration fumes”?
Every infant death? That’s what all means.
Report abuse
@Mathers
With respect; the HPA is the prime UK authority for advice; to PCT. Their last epidemiological reference is Elliott 2000.
PCT is merely protecting itself from inconvenient figures and image from its puplic/other health bodies asking questions; as its lifestyle spin does not wholely explain.
Answer your question.
BSEM-UK;
Nanodiagnostic-It,
Connett-Canada;
Howard-UK/Ir/EU,
HCWHE Europe,
Bianchi, F; Minichilli, F; Pierini, A; Linzalone, N; Rial, M..It/EU;
Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T.-Japan
Sam De Coster1, Gudrun Koppen2, Marc Bracke3, Carmen Schroijen4, Elly Den Hond2, Vera
Nelen5, Els Van De Mieroop5, Liesbeth Bruckers6, Maaike Bilau7, Willy Baeyens4, Greet
Schoeters2, Nik van Larebeke1
1Study Centre for Carcinogenesis and Primary Prevention of Cancer, Department of
Radiotherapy, Nuclear Medicine, and Experimental Cancerology, Ghent University Hospital,
De Pintelaan 185 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;
2Environmental toxicology, Flemish Institute of Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang
200, 2400 Mol, Belgium
3Laboratory of Experimental Cancerology, Department of Radiotherapy, Nuclear Medicine,
and Experimental Cancerology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185 P7, 9000 Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium;
4Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Analytical and Environmental Chemistry (ANCH),
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
5 Provincial Institute of Hygiene, Kronenburgstraat 45, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
6University of Hasselt, University Campus, Building D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
7Ghent University, Department of Public Health, UZ 2 Blok A, De Pintelaan 185, 9000
Ghent, Belgium/EU
Fred De Baere and Kristine De Leeuw
Drielindenstraat 24
B 9100 Sint-Niklaas
Belgium
Anoop Kumar Sharma Keld Alstrup Jensen b, Jette Ranka, Paul A. White,
Staffan Lundstedt, Remi Gagnec, Nicklas R. Jacobsen,
Jesper Kristiansen, Ulla Vogel, H°akan Wallin,
a Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
b National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkall´e 105,
DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
c Mutagenesis Section, Safe Environments Program, Health
Mathers you are correct, PCT Directors are not expert on incinerators, rarely toxicologists..many are usually ex consultants or surgeons; so I understand your bemusement over relative expertise. All they to reference is the 4 page memo sent by the HPA; a few months bedtime reading rather than 10 years experience of mapping ONS figures. The reseacher is an expert in infant mortality and this is recognised by many PCT Directors like Dr Catherine Woodward and parliamentary committees.
You should highlight the dedicated teams credentials who haven’t studied the infant mortlities and similar 2-3x patterns around the other 20 UK’s waste incinerators; unlike the reseacher; who has studied these cumulative figues and UK significance. The map researcher didn’t conclude, and didn’t blame Kirklees PCT.
HPA base their figures on estimates/coefficents; not facts so I don’t consider their opinion would withhold legal rigour. So far all health frontmen haven’t been queueing up to scrutinise the contents of their file against that of Van Steenis and others in the concerned field.
Report abuse
If Mathers had read the Environment Agency’s 2001 report about Epidemilogy, he’d have found the “Incinerator case study” which recommends checking health and mortality data around existing incinerators.
Unfortunately, the Environment Agency fail to adopt their own recommended “best practice” and they also fail to ensure that their health professional consultees carry out any relevant studies either.
If Mathers cares to list the factors that cause infant deaths he or she will find that only two factors have had causation proven in peer-reviewed medical literature and they are congenital anomalies, ie birth defects and also low birth weight. Both these known and proven causes are known to be linked to exposure to indutrial PM2.5 emissions and so it’s not surprising that the Office for National Statistics data reveals that electoral wards where industrial PM2.5 emissions are high have high rates of infant deaths and those wards which are free from such emissions have very low rates and sometimes zero infant deaths for each of the fifteen years 1993-2007.
I suggest that Mathers contacts Geoff Bell in the legal department at Kirklees Council and ask him for a copy of his letter to the DISC member dated 2 June 2009, ref LAG/TGB/SG with heading “Opposition to incinerator in North Yorkshire” as it’s an extremely interesting letter which seeks to bully and intimidate and which also misrepresents the infant mortality research by Kirklees PCT.
Geoff Bell wrote: “There are a number of contributory factors but there is no evidence whatsoever that the higher (infant) death rate is due to air pollution of any kind.”
Geoff Bell was belly-aching about a small meeting at which an electoral ward map of Kirklees was shown on a slide and which showed ONS data. When the same map was printed in both the Dorking Advertiser and in the Surrey Mirror in January 2008, along with similar maps of infant death rates upwind & downwind of incinerators at Coventry and Edmonton, there was no outcry by Sita who knew that the data was correct.
Geoff Bell’s bullying tactic has backfired as he’d threatened legal action and been faced down.
As Mathers is so keen on the incinerator issue, perhaps he or she will tell us how to determine whether or not an incinerator is harmful to health or not.
Mathers is unaware that I studied epidemiology as an undergraduate and thought at the time, “Blimey, this is simple stuff.”….and it still is.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Report abuse
@Mathers
With respect; it might be salient for you to reference/watch mins 34 to 42 on air pollution /infants/childrens..and epidemiological science…and other obvious consequence/truths of an incinerator on Guersney.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3665914907157343039
“The is no safe threshold levels for PM2.5 levels” conclusion from the Six City Study
Gauderman,Peters,Bates
Muller et al
Woodruft et al
All experts, peer reviewed, top med journals
Also read Lines that Connect
http://www.noaca.org/pmhealtheffects.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16805397
Also videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Zm9YzhOrB9Q
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=9QqxUgEPjXg
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKwYkjUqx9I&NR=1
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XfZubL2wwY
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wzVj44kWFM
Report abuse
Stephen John, my point was that saying that all infant mortality(regardles the cause of death, be it accident, geneitic, viral, respiartory etc) is the result of incinerators doesnt hold water. Are you saying that if we didnt have incinerators, we wouldnt have infant mortality.
Rob, Michael, thanks for the links, i will have a surf.
Report abuse
Of course not all infant mortality are the consequences of incierators; but the consistent ward spikes downwind of most UK waste incinerators; “well above (2-3x)the UK 5/1000 average figure” can only be explained by incinerator emissions upwind.
Report abuse
Just out last week. Peer reviewed reference for health section//reference.
Incinerators produce many varieties of PAHs downwind over 25-30yrs continual exposure.
Prenatal Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure and Child IQ at Age 5 Years
Frederica P. Perera, Zhigang Li, Robin Whyatt, Lori Hoepner, Shuang Wang, David
Pediatrics published online Jul 20, 2009;
http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/ccceh/pdf-papers/PereraPediatrics2009.pdf
3 Days ago..Ecologist
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/291283/air_pollution_link_to_child_iq_levels.html
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46508.htm
Bacically Incinerators aren’t safe and the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) last month adjudicated that a booklet distributed by the waste company SITA should be withdrawn on five counts.
Report abuse
Just to clarify Rob. As I understand it SITA is the UK subsidiary of SUEZ. ie they are one and the same.
So what you are saying in effect is that SUEZ has been told by the ASA to withdraw its ‘information’ booklet over its (false?) safety claims?
Report abuse
The Environment Agency has admitted that current emissions standards are based on what is technically achievable rather than what is safe for human health.
Report abuse
Martino ..Sita/Suez..Correct ASA booklet withdrawal decision
Deputy Dave Jones.. Correct..Waste Incinerator Directive emissions levels are Techo-political emission standards (compromise)agreed by the EU/industry..Not health standards of safety/ thresholds.
Report abuse