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

Report abuse

Report abuse

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Standards Authority (ASA) last month adjudicated that a booklet distributed by the waste company SITA should be withdrawn on five counts.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

Report abuse

Rob, Michael, thanks for the links, i will have a surf.

Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report abuse

Report abuse

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