Dr Angela Jones should be shocked to learn that the Health Protection Agency have admitted to me, in their FoI response dated 1 May 2008, that they have not examined rates of illness or premature deaths at electoral ward level around any incinerator and compared the upwind & downwind zones.

Here in Shropshire, we have two incinerators and a power station at Ironbridge. The power station stack is 670 feet high and I've examined the infant mortality rates in all electoral wards in Shropshire and Stafford for the 5-year period 2003-7. The wards along the line of the incoming SW wind all had zero infant deaths and the non-zero wards start with Ironbridge Gorge with 23.3 per 1,000 live births.

Here are a few more downwind wards in Telford & Wrekin:

Malinslee: 11.8
Cuckoo Oak: 9.6
Muxton: 9.8
Newport East: 19.8

& these in Stafford:

Eccleshall: 11.5
Gnosall & Woodseaves: 10.5
Walton: 17.9

Some wards in Shropshire have had zero infant deaths recorded for each of the 15 years 1993-2007, such as Dothill in Telford and Shawbury in North Shropshire.

Veolia want to build an incinerator in Harlescott, Shrewsbury and Shawbury ward is downwind with SW wind.

The incinerator promoters cannot prove that there's no health damage from incineration and the HPA, the Environment Agency, the Dept of Health and Primary Care Trusts have no interest in examining this issue.

More info at http://www.ukhr.org

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Following Chris Walker's article (14 January), I would like to urge anyone who lives within a 12 mile radius of Sutton Courtenay (which includes Oxford) or Ardley (also includes Oxford) to gain further information about the further risks surrounding this proposed incinerator to have a look at the website, www.scai.co.uk and hopefully register your discontent by signing the on-line petition. It is clear from the County Council's decision to not launch an independent investigation into health risks and leave it to statutory bodies after a planning permission may be granted is breathtakingly callous and cavalier towards the residents of Oxfordshire. As we are also voters and the elections later this year will determine the future of these councillors, I hope that voters will keep this in mind when ballots are cast. I understand that one councillor didn't understand how he voted, others did crossword puzzles during the debate and made decisions along party lines rather than conscience. After over 25 years voting for one party, this important issue will certainly lead me to act differently.

I attended the meeting yesterday in Oxford and the attitude of many councillors was dismissive to say the least. One stated that too much money had already been spent to stop for a health assessement and another said that he had voted against protest requests because he did nt really understand all the complexities and thought that he had to rely on advice of the environment agency regardless of their limited resources and abilities because he had to trust someone. Another said that the committee's only concern was planning not health. One indeed spent his time doing puzzles and the sound system was so inadequate that those in the public gallery could barely hear but the councillors did not feel that it was necessary to repeat questions or responses. Party lines were clearly paramount. This is worth bearing in mind even if this issue does not affect you, remember the next issue might and these individuals are supposed to have a duty of care to us the voters.

The caopacity of this incinerator far exceeds the amount of waste that is produced in the area, and even Oxfordshire County Council, who have been hopeless at recyclng, must see that waste per head will fall in coming years. Why do they need all this capacity? Have they decided to go into the waste business, in which case can we please have a share of the profits in the form of reduced local taxes? Better still, concentrate on smaller, more local solutions, not on driving hundreds of lorry loads of rubbish from London to Oxfordshire evry day in the interests of making money. This is Oxfordshire County Council's 'dirty money'; we expect public officials to do better....

The UK has been importing waste for many years. It's big business and with inadequate monitoring of health effects of incineration and landfill sites, it's been very easy to do.

Alex Tovey of the Environment Agency blew the whistle on imports of hazardous waste - see articles in Sunday Times & Independent.

Alan Dalton, the Environment Agency Board Member appointed by Michael Meacher tried to get the matter sorted and was sidelined by the Environment Agency and sacked by Michael Meacher by fax on 19 Dec 2001. See "Burning Issues", by Paul Brown, in The Guardian of 12 Sept 2001 etc.

The organisation that could have helped Alan Dalton was FoE who stood aside - just like the Trade Union movement within the Environment Agency.

Alan Dalton died in December 2003 and Michael Meacher had the brass neck to turn up to the funeral.

So much for democracy. The whole matter appears to have been a cop out by the ruling cabinet and the former joint lib dem/conservative one that proceeded it. They agreed a 'technology neutral' policy with regards to waste , which they felt then and still feel now, allowed them to completely 'wash their hands', in political terms that is, of any 'blame on this matter. Thereby completely abdicating their responsibilities to protect the health of residents of the county. The so-called 'market place' decided the cheapest (supposedly) and most profitable (to the operators) solution - ie incineration. Its no surprise then (based on my understanding) that out of the 8 original tenders responses received - ALL were for incineration. Tender and contract law seem to be preventing real questions being asked as to the transparency of the whole process. As far as I am aware, there has not been a full county council debate on this at all. OCC should be taking a lead on this issue and following other councils around the country forgoing incineration and focussing on improving recycling and other less polluting means of waste disposal. I urge all Oxford Mail readers to go to www.scai.co.uk, register your protest against this application, write to your local county councillor with your views. This issue has certainly changed my future voting intentions!

I really fail to comprehend why OCC are not responding more to what the people are saying. We are not protesting because we have nothing else to do with our lives but for the lives of future generations.
INCINERATORS KILL. Very plain and very simple. We must not even consider going down this path. The Country as a whole must BAN them.

I really fail to comprehend why OCC are not responding more to what the people are saying. We are not protesting because we have nothing else to do with our lives but for the lives of future generations.
INCINERATORS KILL. Very plain and very simple. We must not even consider going down this path. The Country as a whole must BAN them.

I too attended the OCC debate on Tuesday and what an enlightening experience it proved to be.

The Leader of the Council claimed that the protesters were concerned about microorganisms coming out of incinerators. Perhaps he should read some of the medical literature he has been sent and then he will realise that there is a difference between an organism and a particle!

One councillor was preocuppied by a Su Doku puzzle whilst the debate was on, but it did not stop him from voting, and another one was indeed confused about what he was voting for! Another councillor insultingly compared it to the MMR debate - was he suggesting that if we do not build the incinerators we will get an outbreak of life threatening diseases? I find it alarming that the future health of Oxfordshire's citizens is in these people's hands!

Thank you Councillor Fooks and a few others for their sane well educated comments. I too will not be voting in future for the party I have supported for nearly 40 years!

Strange that the ruling conservative cabinet are not only ignoring locals views and rights, but they seem not to have heard of Caroline Spelman their party chaiman's complaints, that it is the labour government which is making "moves to strip local communities of their say over incinerators.." adding "Gordon Brown has sided with the large,bullying developer, rather than the people" (Conservative Party News, May 21, 2007). Could have fooled me judging by the content and the party determined vote result of the debate. Are the OCC Cabinet doing the government's dirty business as well as handling "dirty money".

Jan 2008...complaint by opposition councillors, that no vote was allowed on alternative methods of waste disposal. What does this mean? Our council has failed to study the alternatives and decide on the best method for waste disposal. Having no ideas of their own they trawled the market place and asked what can be done!! Surprise, surprise, profit-making organisations have submitted tenders to install and run incinerators. As this is the only proposal on the table, it was deemed best not to scrutinize the enviromental, health and other risks associated with this method. As the only method offered by profiteers we are expected to accept it along with the associated risks.
NO, I don't accept it.
Please Oxford Council and councillors have the courage to represent the people of Oxfordshire and oppose this ill-conceived waste disposal plan.

The debate on Tuesday, even though the motion was defeated, offered us a good opportunity to explain our concerns to the Council - an opportunity that we have not had, as a community, up to now. It is clear that it cannot be stated that 'incinerators are safe', as representatives of the Council have been doing up to now. We know that incinerators pose a risk: the question that the people of Oxfordshire should be asking is "How great is the risk and is the risk acceptable".?

It is vital that the local Health Protection Agency undertake a full risk assessment as part of the planning process, taking into account all the local factors such as other sources of pollution, cumulative risk of further long term exposure, proximity of water sources and flood risk and the proximity of human habitation and agricultural producers. I and my colleagues will continue press those responsible to ensure that this happens and that information regarding the full extent of the risk is made available to the public.

On the 22nd of January the ENVI Committee of the European Parliament will review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulations which will effect how incinerators such as the OCC wish to build in Oxfordshire are run in the future. It is not too late to write to your MEP to let them know your views (www.writetothem.com
).

Thank you Kinetic for that point regarding the IPPC regulations. I feel another letter to the OCC councillors coming on regarding this point.

Taking together the points raised by other contributers, given the emerging risk information and upcoming legislative changes,it seems that OCC might get itself in the position of the incinerator proposals being rejected by the health and environment agencies and possibly not meeting new laws. In which case, because thay have not debated alternatives, they have no plan B. So shouldn't they get on with that speedily?

Iam most disappointed that in Britain, of all places, such an undemocratic approach can be taken by a small clique of local councillors over an issue as important as public health. Other authorities in the U.K. have listened to residents and chosen safer and cheaper technology for disposing of rubbish.

We have written to local MEPs (excluding the two anti EU MEPs) and only the UK MEPs on the ENVI Committee regarding the review of new proposed EU IPPC legislation that will take place this Thursday.

Information can be found on the EU WEB site at http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/oeil/file.
jsp?id=5578652 but is quite complex to fathom. A summary is also provided on the Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAIA) web site (http://www.no-burn.
org/article.php?id=6
20).

GAIA have suggested that individuals and organisations write to MEPs who sit on the ENVI Committee and have suggested a form letter http://www.no-burn.o
rg/downloads/Lettert
oMEPforENVIIPPCvote.
pdf

If you have the time please write to local MEPs (this can be done using www.writetothem.com) and/or MEPs on the ENVI Committee (http://www.europarl
.europa.eu/members/e
xpert/committees/sea
rch.do?committee=235
3&language=EN).

Key points to raise include:

1) The scope of the proposed directive should be preserved

2) The earliest adoption by Member States of the new regulations should be ensured

3) Monitoring of emissions should be at source and continuous for dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals and small particles (Pm2.5) with results made available in real time on-line to the public

4) Tight controls on the storage of incinerator waste ash and regular monitoring of soil and groundwater quality should be implemented

5) Best Available Techniques (BAT) should apply to waste incinerators regardless of size

6) BAT Reference documents (BREFs) must be updated regularly, effectively enforced and made to apply retrospectively as introduced to existing plant of all types including incinerators


We think that it is critically important that the EU adopts the strictest standards to the operation of incinerators in the future and we have this one chance now to influence things as some of the proposed amendments will water down the legislation to such an extent that there will be little monitoring and control as to how operators such as WRG operate incinerator plants in the future.

Many thanks

Mark and Kathy

Calling this project “energy from waste” is like the renaming of Windscale nuclear facility as Sellafield. It is twisted sematics to cloak reality.

Is this not actually a project to convert 300,000 tonnes of household waste into 10,000 tonnes of concentrated toxic waste?

I'm urgin gour council to please consider the alternatives before making a decision to CREATE this toxic waste. Of course, I am objecting as a resident of Sutton Courtenay, but I am objecting more generally as someone concerned with finding alternatives to this process. Many alternatives have been mentioned in other comments - surely the council has a duty of care to investigate those before making an ill-informed decision?

I understand that if this incinerator is built, the owners require a certain level of waste to “feed” it. If you, our council, fall short of these levels, you will incur a penalty. Isn’t this the tail wagging the dog, backwards logic etc? This feels to me like an incentive to find enough waste to “feed” the beast, so to speak – at a time when it seems more sensible to be putting incentives in place to reduce waste in the first place.

I'm shocked that our elected representatives don't care about the health and environment of the people that vote for them. This is notjust about Sutton Courtenay, but about all the people who live and workin Oxfordshire.
This is just too big a commitment to make for too long a time (25 years)? to a massive installation that will actually manufacture hazourdous waste. Our councillors must excercise their duty of care to us and not hand off the judgement to someone else. It's our councillors responsibility to consider this and the alternatives carefully.
It will be a hollow and shallow victory for us if all we can do is not re-elect them.

We are going to have part of a Power Station that has one of the worst carbon footprints in Europe replaced with an Incinerator that is going to re-intoduce Acid rain to the surrounding villages.

Bravo

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the demonstration against the proposed incinerators, that are being pushed on the Oxfordshire people. As I have read in the other blogs there does not seem to be much interest by the councillors to protect us (seems to cost too much to have this environment study done) perhaps it is the so duko player and the daydreamer that are costing us dearly.
I have to ask also what IS the rush and why IS there a rush to have this incinerator?
Why are the councillors not prepared to look at other means of disposing of this rubbish and why are manufacturers not in this equation, to have them cut down on the packaging which is causing a good part of the problem?
I understand that Europe will fine Britain for not being active in finding solutions to the waste problem but building this monstrosity here and then being told that we will be fined for not burning to the maximum capacity, for me raises enormous questions. I think as a shire we have borne enough of a burden, especially with a chimneys stacks at Sutton Courtenay and a massive landfill site. More time is due to the people of Oxfordshire for the investigation of other means of disposal of waste.

I quote from Ella Stengler, who has been the Mangaging Director of CEWEP (Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants) since July 2003. While clearly an advocate of EfW plants, quoting from a recent book article, she states, 'Transparent information to the public is necessary for the acceptance of waste-to-energy plants. Governments and investors have to inform the public thoroughly about emissions, energy production, alternative waste treatment options, etc.' If this is considered good practice on the part of a spokesperson for the industry, I invite readers to submit their scores out of ten (0 for extreme neglect...10 for extreme due diligence and care) for the good work done our OCC councillors have done to date!

The County Councillors that disgraced themselves by doing Su Doko and crossword puzzles during last Tuesday's serious debate on the threat to the local population's health posed by incinerators, should be named and shamed. Then democracy can take its course when they are voted out of their seats next May - or better still are immediately deselected by their constituency parties. How dare they treat their constituents with such barefaced contempt?

We have to ask ourselves why did the Waste Recycling Group 'forget' to include the crucial Human Health Risk Assessment Appendices in their intitial planning application, and then only produce it months later when it was called for by the support group SCAI?

I can only think of three explanations for this:

1. Carelessness.

2. A cavalier approach to human health i.e. this was not an important document in their opinion.

3. They did it deliberately.

All of the above three options fill me with fear. If WRG can think of any other explanations could they please let me know.

It is quite frankly inconceivable that a company the size of WRG could spend massive amounts of money promoting this multi million pound application, yet could not get the vitally important details of the application with regard to human health in order.

Residents in South Oxfordshire deserve to be aware of the implications of the ommision of this vital document.

We have to ask ourselves why did the Waste Recycling Group 'forget' to include the crucial Human Health Risk Assessment Appendices in their intitial planning application, and then only produce it months later when it was called for by the support group SCAI?

I can only think of three explanations for this:

1. Carelessness.

2. A cavalier approach to human health i.e. this was not an important document in their opinion.

3. They did it deliberately.

All of the above three options fill me with fear. If WRG can think of any other explanations could they please let me know.

It is quite frankly inconceivable that a company the size of WRG could spend massive amounts of money promoting this multi million pound application, yet could not get the vitally important details of the application with regard to human health in order.

Residents in South Oxfordshire deserve to be aware of the implications of the ommision of this vital document.

When WRG wanted an expert to tell the Inspector at the 2002 Hull incinerator public inquiry that emissions wouldn't harm health, they fielded Professor Jim Bridges whose evidence was trashed by Dr Dick van Steenis.

The decision to turn down the Hull incinerator was announced in May 2003.

When the Hull incinerator raised its head again some years later, the local action group forgot about Dr van Steenis & Professor Jim Bridges and have since been lumbered with an incinerator.

If Alison Draper wishes to see the FoI correspondence I've had with Health Protection Agency over the incinerator health issue, please e-mail me via the newspaper.

I am sure that the campaign group SCAI would be very interested in seeing Mr Ryan's correspondence with the HPA. Perhaps he would kindly send it to them via their website under general enquiries at the bottom of page: http://www.scai.co.u
k/committee.php

It's staggering that so little regard appears to have been, and continues to be, given to the impact such an incinerator would have on the health of local residents. As our elected representatives the Oxford County Councillors would appear to consider public health isn't worth worrying about. I'm disgusted to read about Councillors doing crosswords and puzzles during the meeting. That's not what we pay our taxes for.

I quote from the White Paper of 1990 - the Common Inheritance, Britain's Environmental Strategy - 'In considering whether to grant planning permission for a particular development, a local authority must consider all the effects, including potential pollution; permission should not be granted if that might expose people to danger'. Yet the Council is already contmeplating giving planning permission prior to WRG submitting for their environment permit, which the Environment Agency will then comment on stating any misgivings they may have about the proposals in relation to the site. With there being several recognised health and environmental issues with regard to the site (not least existing poor levels of air quality and a vulnerable aquifer on top of which they propose to bury toxic waste) isn't blindly jumping the gun and ignoring our best interests? We are extremely angry at the negligence of OCC in this matter.

I wonder how many in Oxfordshire have seen the following letter in today's Daily Telegraph:


http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/comment/lette
rs/4401551/Free-trad
e-and-protectionism-
as-a-response-to-the
-financial-crisis.ht
ml

Waste produces waste
SIR – Your correspondents on waste incineration (Letters, January 30) seem either to have been taken in by propaganda from the waste industry, or to be unaware of the research regarding incineration’s environmental impact.
Although superficially an attractive option, producing energy from burning waste (EfW) is actually a very inefficient way of producing electricity. Furthermore, unlike elsewhere in Europe, waste companies in Britain are being allowed to take a typically lazy approach to EfW and rarely offer local heating to the households around their plants.
There is no such thing as a “modern, clean incinerator”. Research is beginning to show that the current generation of incinerators will have serious environmental health impacts, just as the previous generations did.
As any GCSE chemistry student should be able to tell you, burning does not decrease the mass of waste; it actually increases it. The illusion of disposal is maintained because a large proportion is “aerosolled” into the air as highly reactive and toxic gases and dust.
The remaining ash goes to landfill, the very thing we are trying to avoid.
Dr A.M. Jones 
Appleford-on-Tham
es, Oxfordshire

Here's text of my letter to Shropshire resident concerned about an incinerator due to be built nearby:


The key thing to understand about incinerators is that it’s impossible for any promoter or supporter of incineration to produce any evidence showing that there’s no adverse impact on health and that’s precisely why they don’t wish to get involved in any health issues.

Many of my blog comments are deleted from Shropshire Star and I thought you might like you might like to consider asking your MP, Cllr, and Primary Care Trust how the Health Protection Agency (HPA) can give advice on the health effects of incineration if they’ve not examined any rates of illness or premature deaths at electoral ward level around any incinerator and then compared the upwind & downwind groups of wards to see if there’s any difference.

I asked the HPA the above question under Freedom of Information Act and have enclosed copies of that correspondence and also copies of the Surrey newspaper articles about the HPA’s failure to do studies as Sita also want incinerators in Capel, Surrey and in St Dennis, Cornwall.

I’m preparing a ward map for Kirklees which shows the position of Sita’s incinerator in Vine Street and the nine electoral wards with infant death rates of 8.0 per 1,000 live births & above coloured red and the two wards with infant death rates with rates less than 2.0 per 1,000 live births coloured green.

The three wards with highest infant death rates are all in single group: Birstall & Birkenshaw, Batley West, and Heckmondwike and these three wards had a total of 3,012 live births and 33 infant deaths in the 4-year period 2004-2007, ie an average infant mortality rate of 11.0 per 1,000 live births. You’ll see that these wards are clearly downwind of incinerator with SW wind.

The two wards with lowest rates of infant deaths are Holme Valley North and Holme Valley South which also form a single group which is upwind of incinerator with SW wind. These two wards had total of 1455 live births and one infant death in 2004-2007, ie an average infant mortality rate of 0.7 per 1,000 live births.

Sita might try to argue that it’s the poor people who live in the downwind wards that cause high infant death rates, but they’d come unstuck on that argument as some of the wealthiest wards in London have very high infant death rates while some of the very poor rural and urban wards in Shropshire have had zero infant deaths for each of the 15 years 1993-2007 which is my entire record of Office for National Statistics data at electoral ward level.

You might not have seen a copy of ONS birth/mortality data, so I’ve enclosed the 2003 data sheet for Telford & Wrekin’s electoral wards. Shropshire Star asked me to prepare ward map for all Shropshre’s wards showing infant mortality rates and now they refuse to print it, possibly because the data shows clearly that Ironbridge power station and the 2 existing incinerators in Shropshire are killers.
.
Professor Owen Lloyd studied twinning and cancer rates in cattle and showed that an incinerator was to blame. He was told to shut up or be shut down and he ignored threats and published his research findings and lost his academic post in UK. I’ve enclosed copy of BMJ letter from Prof Owen, which Sita might not wish to comment upon – because it details exactly what happens.

I suggest that you consider helping to organise a public meeting at Newport at which Dr Dick van Steenis can explain matters further and also take questions from the floor. Dr van Steenis is medically-qualified and is an extremely effective speaker. He spoke against incinerator at a public inquiry in Hull in 2002 & demolished Professor Jim Bridges who was speaking in favour of incinerator. Dr van Steenis lives at Sarn, near Newtown, Powys & is at 01686 670688. Note that “around 700 people attended the meeting”at which Dr van Steenis was a speaker in Chesterfield

I usually list enclosures (so that I remember to include them in letter), so these are enclosed:

1. My letter to Health Protection Agency, 31 March 2008
2. Follow-up letter to HPA, 1 May 2008
3. Letter from Justin McCracken, HPA, dated 1 May 2007 (received 7 May in envelope franked 6 May 2009. It must be very long walk from his desk to the post room unless it was backdated!) Plus my FoI letter of 2 October 2008 to HPA which is still “live”.
4. Surrey Mirror, 22 May 2008 “Chill wind over fumes risk from incinerator”
5. Dorking Advertiser, 22 May 2008, “Incinerator fury as bosses admit to no health checks”
6. Dorking Advertiser, 17 January 2008, “If it was dangerous it wouldn’t be built, say incinerator bosses”
7. Surrey Mirror, 24 January 2008, “Are incinerator health fears justified?”
8. Dorking Advertiser, 10 January 2008, “Incinerator could kill our children”
9. Sunday Express, 29 April 2007, “Incinerator fumes link to hundreds of infant deaths”
10. South London Press, 4 May 2007, “Health risk: worries of more infant deaths and heart disease found near incinerators”
11. Professor Owen Lloyd’s BMJ letter, 11 February 1995 “Living close to industry”
12. Table of ONS birth/mortality data for Telford & Wrekin’s electoral wards, 2003
13. Abstract of Japanese incinerator/infant mortality study, J Epidemiology, May 2004
14. Abstract of Italian incinerator/infant mortality study, Epidemiology, September 2007
15. Sheffield Star, 10 January 2009, “Scheme sparks health risk row”
16. Derbyshire Times, 15 January 2009, “Support grows for fight against gasification site”
17. Electoral ward map of Kirklees showing wards with infant mortality rates of 8.0 per 1,000 live births and above coloured red and those with rates less than 2.0 per 1,000 coloured green.

Can Dr Angela Jones please contact Dr Dick van Steenis.

Her electoral ward has had zero infant deaths recorded in each of the 8 years 2000-2007.

These are some stats for where incinerators already sited:

Tyesley, Birmingham, South Yardley ward, 18 infant deaths in 2004-2007, infant mortality rate (IMR) 9.5 per 1,000 live births.

Edmonton, North London, Edmonton Green ward, sixteen infant deaths in 6-year period 2002-207, IMR=8.0 per 1,000

St Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Brent, Northwiock Park ward: ten infant deaths in 2002-2007, IMR=12.0 per 1,000

Shrewsbury Hospital incinerator: Six infant deaths in 6-year period 2002-2007, IMR=15.2 per 1,000 in Bowbrook electoral ward, Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council, where I live.