Suez plant ‘would do no more harm than bonfires’
Monday 22nd March 2010, 2:30PM GMT.
A SUEZ incinerator would be no more harmful than bonfires, according to the director of Environmental Health and Pollution Regulation.
That verdict came in response to a formal question from Deputy Mike Hadley in the run-up to the debate over the requete that is designed to bring back the Suez Environnement plant.
Deputy Hadley asked Health and Social Services minister Hunter Adam for his department’s view ‘regarding the environmental harm or benefit if the Suez proposal were to go ahead’.
Deputy Adam’s letter of response quoted director Valerie Cameron (pictured), who began by saying that all waste operations have the potential to cause environmental pollution, then clarified the level of the threat.
‘In real terms, the health of the people of Guernsey is more at risk from low level, low temperature emissions from sources such as traffic, garden bonfires and barbecues than from the emissions from this proposed development,’ she said.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Surely an incinerator would emit the equivalent of several thousand bonfires and barbecues, so the headline is a little misleading?
Report abuse
The emission health issue is not the only reason why incineration of waste is undesirable (e.g. the problem of disposal of highly toxic ash residues, the level of carbon emissions contributing to global warming etc.).
However, these comments should alert us to the dangers posed by the average Guernseyman’s obsession with bonfires. It never ceases to amaze me how many people chose to burn their own waste at every opportunity (and often at great inconvenience to their neighbours). There are always better alternative house and garden waste disposal methods…
Come on Guernsey- we’ve chucked out the incinerator, so let’s bin the bonfire as well now please!
Report abuse
Willo; An obvious conclusion to jump to, however, a Suez type industrial incinerator burns at very high temperature and also has built in equipment to scrub the emitting smoke of nasty toxins etc.
Your average garden bonfire however burns at much lower temperatures and people are inclined to throw all sorts of stuff like carpets, packaging materials etc. onto a garden bonfire which will very likely give off noxious, if not toxic fumes.
The technology built into a commercial incinerator is designed to minimise the problem in a controlled way, garden bonfires do not.
Report abuse
Hunter Adam’s all for this incinerator, bit stupid asking him. As always a biased view from the States.
Report abuse
Given the highly charged state of affairs and the upcoming debate the use of a civil servant and the willingness of the civil servant, to enter into the debate, is to be questioned.
However, the financial arguments of so many, such as Rupert Dorey (today)are far more appropriate. The terms of the proposed agreement, and more importantly the consequences, are reason to say bye bye to Suez.
Report abuse
Shocking! This lady, very recently employed from Jersey, whose job and housing licence I would imagine are dependent on the Suez project, simply compares illegal bonfires with a 24/7/365 incinerator 2 days before a commercial decision is to be made by the States. And they wonder why the Public have no trust.
Why is Deputy Flouquet as minister for PSD so quiet?mmmmmmmmmmmm….
Report abuse
The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators
4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine
Second Edition
June 2008
Executive Summary
• Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider.
• Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is the chemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential for adverse health effects.
• Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in the immediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutants bioaccumulate, enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over time and over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have been made to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.
• Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash which amount to 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), and require transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.
http://www.notinmanvers.co.uk/factsabout2.html
Report abuse
With such vigour for a “Re-Vote” coming from ‘The States ‘ surely the question’s should be … Who is likely to loose what?
Report abuse
Agree with Paul re suspect comments from a person who was passed off from Jersey onto Guernsey and probably looking for a means to appear valuable to keep employed. Personally this States member for me offers no valid reason to stay in position.
It suprises me constantly that people are so selfish and short sighted. Ultimately burning your rubbish is killing the planet for future generations, no only the crud that goes in the air/earth but the burning of valuable resources needed by future generations to make the very items in life we take for granted now.
The time people stop being so god damn lazy and realise that recycling and sustainable living is mandatory (yes it will cost) if we expect the planet to be a home for generations to come.
I would understand if all States members had no children, but this is not the case!
Report abuse
Hmmm …
Cant win the financial argument
Cant win the popular argument
Cant win the sustainable argument
Cant win the environmental argument
Cant get enough deputies to our free lunch
but we are better than an open bonfire !!
A typical internet acronym comes to mind here ….. LOL !!!!
Report abuse
This get more annoying , if they are so sure it is right put it to an island vote. They will leave us with an unwelcome legacy to out children !
To all those who didn’t vote in the last election, Cheers guys !
Report abuse
Bonfires may indeed be a significant source of dioxin to atmosphere. This simply illustrates the pollution problems created when mixed materials are burned, as they are in incinerators. The most recent study of dioxin emissions in the UK concludes that, of all industrial sources of dioxins, municipal waste incinerators contribute between a third and a half of the total.
In making claims about bonfires, the incineration industry ignores the fact that no one really knows how much dioxin is discharged into the environment every year by incinerators, as dioxin measurements are only taken twice a year. A Belgian study shows that dioxin levels, if continuously monitored, may very well be 30–50 times higher than the figure
extrapolated from semi-annual monitoring.
Whatever the real total is, the fact remains
that incinerators are highly polluting and no attempt to divert attention to bonfires,
barbecues or bush fires will change that.
We have a great opportunity to be progressive and forward thinking in how we deal with our waste, rather than this outmoded Suez incinerator. It really is time to change those Ministers and Deputies that are seemingly unable or willing to grasp any understanding of modern day waste disposal technology.
Finally, bit of a silly headline, of course a civil servant is going to support her paymaster.
Report abuse
Same Old Story that will just keep churning and churning, voting and voting not getting anywhere.
How long has this been going on now.
Farcical!
Report abuse
Fancy comparing a mass incinerator with a few bonfire! No wonder the public has no trust in our States members. Some will come up with any argument to get this incinerator.
Report abuse
laughable. as usual.
Report abuse
i dont see many people moaning about burning expensive oil to produce our power…and dont mention the french power link as that is only used now and again. we also have many other smaller mass burners around the island, and they dont seem to be mentioned often.
Report abuse
I do not know where this lady got her information, but if SUEZ goes ahead and builds an incinerator, the States will have no way of monitoring what comes out of the chimney. Its the same with the electricity board generating station; the States do not know what comes out of its chimney.
Report abuse
Data from the USA shows that “back yard” incineration of waste puts more dioxin into the environment than municipal incinerators.
Report abuse
Baphomet| March 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm
i dont see many people moaning about burning expensive oil to produce our power…
REALLY?
Have you had your head in a safe for the last 30 years?
Report abuse
Baphomet
i dont see many people moaning about burning expensive oil to produce our power.
That was a joke! right?.
Unless your from planet zog.
Report abuse