DEVON ALLIANCE AGAINST INCINERATORS (DAIA).
Some notes about incinerators which might be included in a latter to Devon County Councillors.
Incinerators do not eliminate waste, but change the form of waste into hazardous air emissions and toxic ash.
At the Lee mill site, Viridor plan to burn 275,000 tonnes of waste which will produce 12,000 tonnes of toxic ash. This ash will be transported to a landfill site at Bishops Cleave near Cheltenham. Such sites contaminate air, soil and water.
Incinerators are a major source of 210 different dioxin compounds plus mercury, cadmium, nitrous oxide, hydrogen chloride, sulphuric acid, fluorides and particulate matter small enough to lodge permanently in the lungs.
Modern incinerators tend to be larger than older ones – so although emission concentrations may be lower, the total mass of pollutant emissions may be higher.
Dioxins were named as ‘known’ carcinogens by The World Health Organisation in 1997.
It is important to bear in mind that waste companies are in the business of receiving as much waste as possible. This may mean importing waste from abroad if necessary.
HEALTH HAZARDS.
A government note (Post 149) from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology says:
Dioxins may cause adverse health effects, depending on the level ,timing duration and frequency of exposure ,the particular compounds, and the susceptibility of the person exposed. Most concern is expressed over the long term exposure to dioxins and the risk of cancer. Studies have also suggested
dioxins may cause reproductive or developmental effects, eg. Abnormal physical development ,weakened immune responses, and behavioural changes.
The Health Hazards of Incineration a report by the British society for Ecological Medicine says:
There are no certainties in pinning specific health effects on incineration……..However the weight of evidence, collected within this report, is sufficient in the authors’ opinion to call for the phasing out of incineration as a way of dealing with our waste.
Extracts from the report as follows:
Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancers and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators.
Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates 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 asses the effects of emissions on long term health.
Toxic metals accumulate in the body and have been implicated in a range of emotional and behavioural problems in children including autism, dyslexia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder(ADHD), learning difficulties, and delinquency, and problems in adults including violence dementia, depression and Parkinson’s disease. Increased rates of autism and learning disabilities
have been noted to occur around sites that release mercury into the environment. Toxic metals are universally present in incinerator emissions and present in high concentrations in the fly ash.
Both cancer and asthma have increased relentlessly along with industrialisation, and cancer rates have been shown to correlate geographically with both toxic waste treatment facilities and the presence of chemical industries, pointing to an urgent need to reduce our exposure.
It has been claimed that modern abatement procedures render the emissions from incinerators safe, but this is impossible to establish and would apply only to emissions generated under standard operating conditions. Of much more concern are the non?standard operating conditions including start up and shut down when large volumes of pollutants are released within a short period of time. Two of the most hazardous emissions – fine particulates and heavy metals? are relatively resistant to removal.
Incinerators presently contravene basic human rights …………. The foetus and infant child are most at risk from incinerator emissions: their rights are therefore being ignored and violated, which is not in keeping with the concept of a just society…………..
ECONOMICS.
This is taken from a planning committee presentation in Exeter by Andrew Bell – Exeter Friends of the Earth.
One of the main rationales for the incinerator is the deeply flawed idea that residual waste in the region will rise rather than fall. Flawed because the signs are that waste cannot and will not increase, and we will actually see drastic falls in the amount of waste we generate over the next 30 years. Why?
In the next few years manufacturers and retailers will be tripping over each other to be seen as ‘going green’. Indeed this process has already begun with many cutting out their packaging altogether or redesigning it to be compostable.
In the next 5 to 15 years – the inevitable move towards ‘pay as you throw’ system for household waste, will mean that consumers will want to reap the financial rewards of reducing waste and increasing recycling and composting.
At some stage in the next 30 years – the onset of peak oil – where global demand for oil massively outstrips supply – is likely to have the greatest impact of all. The resulting doubling, tripling or even quadrupling in the price of oil will have profound effects on the way we live and revolutionise the way we make, use and treat material resources.
Also in the next 30 years, many of the predictions about the impacts of climate change will undoubtedly come about increasing pressure on governments to agree to far greater cuts in CO2 emissions. It is wholly inconsistent to have an incinerator belching out tonnes of CO2 annually, when as a region we may have to reduce our carbon emissions in the order of 80%.
If society is heading towards massive reductions in residual waste, [or even zero waste] within the next 30 years – the incinerator will become a redundant white elephant. Except of course there will be the small matter of a 30 year contract to honour. [Any] legal restriction on the on the catchment area we have to ask where will all this waste come from?
THE BARNET COUNCIL EXAMPLE – see BBC listen again: Wed 21st Oct at about 2hrs 24mins into the programme. Barnet Council are having a major re?think of how Council Tax money should be spent. One idea they came up with was to charge less council tax on households who produced less waste. So anyone who agrees to have smaller wheelybins will save the Council a lot of landfill tax, and therefore pay less Council Tax. If schemes like this are rolled out across the country, it’s not difficult to see that both household and industrial waste will rapidly reduce leaving an incinerator without sufficient fuel. What then – do we import waste as has already been suggested?
SOLUTIONS TO THE ‘WASTE’ PROBLEM
In nature there are constant feedback loops of life, death and decay, nothing is wasted. Waste and pollution occur when industrial processes ignore this fundamental fact which has taken tens of millions of years to evolve. Therefore we should learn from nature that there is no such thing as waste – only resources. Plastics, metals, paper and rotten food, if mixed together are treated as waste; if separated they become resources. In addition, we have now reached a point in history where there is no more ‘away’ to throw things
Therefore the mantra must be that well worn phrase reduce, reuse, recycle. Currently the targets for waste reduction are far too low. Targets of 70% recycling have already been met in Germany. In the UK we should aim at 70% by 2015 and 80% by 2020.
Most things can and should be economically reused and recycled. More pressure (higher VAT) needs to be put on manufacturing companies to redesign products that are toxic free, built to last, and wrapped in compostable packaging. In addition we should require companies to be responsible for their products after their useful life – this would ensure carefully designed products which could be easily broken up and recycled.
In the meantime there must be a transition period between the throwaway society , and a culture which aims at zero waste.
If the example of Barnet Council is copied there will be enormous pressure by consumers to reduce overpackaging, and household waste dramatically decline within 5 to 10 years.
Here in Devon, recycling companies are keen to expand their operations – it’s just a question of political will.
With higher targets set for recycling, BIODIGESTERS can convert organic material into energy without the problems of toxic air and ash. Indeed the residual material from a biodigester makes compost.
