ࡱ>  Oh+'0 ,@ \h   LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyereChristine Eboralle hrihri Normal.dotbChristine Eboralle 9riMicrosoft Word 9.0 @q@O@1QTempl ՜.+,04 hp|  w LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment Agency TitleNormal.dotbChristine Eboralle 9riMicrosoft Word 9.0 @q@O@1QTemplMaterial downloaded from SAIN website www.sainslough.co.uk Here we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment Agency. So far the Environment Agency have not had the common courtesy to reply, let alone answer the many serious concerns of these doctors. c/o 40 Ragstone Road, Slough Berks SL1 PX Environment Agency Swift House, Frimley Business Park Frimley Camberley, Surrey GU16 7SQ 13th January 2004 Dear Sir, We would like to express our concern about the proposal to site one of the biggest incinerators in the UK at Colnbrook, together with a smaller clinical incinerator burning hazardous and radioactive waste.These incinerators will emit high volumes of particulates, especially of the PM2.5 type. International medical literature has shown a clear and unequivocal association between increasing levels of PM2.5 pollution and increasing levels of mortality. This type of pollution is known to have an especially strong association with mortality from heart disease and lung cancer. We draw your attention to the exceptionally high mortality from these two diseases in the Slough area, namely the highest mortality in the South-East from coronary heart disease and the third highest mortality in the South-East from lung cancer. We believe that locating these incinerators in this area is ill-considered and we strongly oppose any measure that leads to loss of life. We would also like to express our dismay that such a large incinerator is to be located in an area where pollution is already over government limits for particulates and nitrous oxides. These limits, due to be lowered further in 2010, are designed to protect health. It is hard to think of a more inappropriate site for an incinerator. We consider it unacceptable to allow emissions of large amounts of carcinogenic material into an area with such a high incidence of cancer. We remind you that 1) a large volume of research has shown clear links between environmental pollutants and cancer in both people and animals and 2) of the many scientific papers that have now linked incinerators with cancer. We would also draw your attention to the extreme vulnerability of the foetus and breast-fed infant to toxic chemicals and to recent research showing increased levels of birth defects and childhood cancers around incinerators. Yours sincerely Letter to Slough Councillors The 54-tonnes per hour general waste incinerator and 1-tonne per hour radioactive waste incinerator proposed by Grundon will pollute an area of 17 miles radius, affecting the lives of nearly five million people. The major implications are: A significant increase in cancers, especially childhood leukaemia Possible increase in birth defects Pollution of air, water and soil, emissions of greenhouse gasses. Radioactive pollution with unknown results Increases in asthma and heart disease With the air quality levels already below the standards if the EU and WHO, the poorest health records in the South East and the proposed site being within a densely populated area, this is a highly unsuitable location for a highly unsuitable project. The tragedy is, safer methods of waste disposal exist. We are urging the Council to scrap the proposed incinerator plans and look at safer alternatives If we can't burn our waste, what can we do with it? The SAIN alternative to incinderation! / The means to a SAIN alternative for Slough's waste The SAIN alternative to incinderation! The context: The average UK household produces around 1 tonne of waste every year, of which about 60% is biodegradable and about 20% recyclable. Of the 60% biodegradable portion, about 1/3 is paper and card which can be recycled if clean enough. Most of our waste is now landfilled in old quarries, untreated and unsorted. The mix of biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste creates problems. The biodegradable waste breaks down in the absence of oxygen, creating methan - an explosive global-warming gas - and acids which eat into the other waste, creating dangerous leachates which can poison our water supplies. The solution: The most important thing is to seperate the biodegradable waste from the non-biodegradable waste, and to start that seperation as early as possible, even at the doorstep where waste is collected. Uncontaminated recyclables can be sold for more money, higher recycling rates can be achieved,and it is often cheaper to seperate on the doorstep than in a costly sorting facility. There is a growing market for compost made from biodegradable household waste and more uses are being found for recyclable glass, plastics, metals, paper and card. And what will happen to the so-called residual waste which is too difficult or contaminated to be composted or recycled? When the biodegradable part of it is removed or "matured" in controlled conditions, it can be safely landfilles. Other communities around the world have shown that high recycling and composting rates can be achieved quickly if imaginations, political will, thorough education and community involvement are used. The costs are not prohibitive. ^^back to top The means to a SAIN alternative for Slough's waste 1) Garden & kitchen waste (about 39% of household waste) This can be collected from the kerbside, from outside the doors of high rise housing, and from CA sites, and can be composted. Open air or closed vessel composting can be used. Vertical composting units (VCU) save space and can be installed at CA sites. Even meat, fish and other raw food can be composted provided government regulations are complied with. Householders with gardens can compost at home (even meat using a "Green Cone"). and this reduces the cost to the community. 2) paper & card (about 23% of household waste) The more paper and card are seperated into different types, the higher the value to the recyclers; but even when they are so contaminated (eg with food) that they cannot be recycled, they can be composted. Food waste and cardboard make excellent compost! 3) Dry recyclables (glass 8%, metals 4%, textiles 2%) These can be source seperated on the kerbside or sorted at a MRF (Materials Reclamation Facility). 4) Residual waste This should be treated in a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MGT) facility and then landfilled. MBT facilities come in many shapes and sizes and are in widespread use in mainland Europe. Typically the MBT will include mechanical devices to seperate out and metal, glass and plastic fragments of possible value. Then the resulting debris is matured, or composted, so that it can be safely landfilled with minimal further biodegradation. Reports by independent consultants have shown that this is less damaging to the environment than incineration. It is also cheaper and more flexible. As recycling and composting performance improves, and as residual waste diminishes, the MBT can be adapted. Energy recovery If some of the biodegradable waste is fed into an Anaerobic Digestor (a closed vessel designed to produce methane by composting without oxygen_, the methan can be used to power the MBT, making the system self-sufficient in energy. The residue from the Digestor, if not contaminated with metals and plastics etc, makes good compost. In contrast.. Waste incineration generates only a fifth of the energy required to replace the materials which could have been recycled but which have been needlessly burnt. In the process, large quantities of ash are produced (up to 1/3 of the waste going in) and less than half is used for any purpose. Government departments do not agree how and whether it can be used. Most of it is landfilled, some in special sites for hazardous waste. An efficient recycling / composting / MBT system can potentially generate less waste going into a landfill than an incinerator! Truths, half truth and outright lies Truths, half truths and outright lies By Dr J Thompson Many of the statements made about incinerators, by their supporters, are not true but you will hear them time and time again. We would like to give some answers to these. Official Spin: Modern incinerators are safe. All the studies showing health effects (cancer, birth defects) relate to the old incinerators. But the truth is a little different: It is often claimed that modern incinerators are safer because they have better abatement equipment which reduce emissions of dioxins and other chemicals than older incinerators. There are good reasons to doubt this claim. The parliamentary report (DSW 56) by Public Interest Consultants noted that in spite of the efforts of incinerator promoters to make a distinction between new incinerators and those that were forced to close by European regulations in 1996, the new incinerators are not operating in compliance with their authorisations. There are several concerns about the newer incinerators:- 1) Modern incinerators are much bigger. Size itself increases the volume of emissions and hence the risk. Many modern incinerators burn 400,000 tonnes per hour. This would be nine times the size of the incinerator that devastated the community at Sint Niklaas. By analogy even with the best filters in the world 9 filter-tipped cigarettes would be more dangerous than one unfiltered cigarette. 2) There is no evidence that modern incinerators are any safer. There are no long term studies of modern incinerators. Looking at the Sint Niklaas study it is obvious that it would take a 20 year study to reveal an excess of cancer because of the long latent interval. Evidence from the Cape Cod and Long Island studies shows it would also require a study of considerable sophistication to show up increases of cancer. This means that, at the moment, incinerators are being operated in the absence of evidence that they are any safe. In effect people living nearby are being treated like guinea pigs. The simple inescapable fact is that incinerators emit carcinogens. Particulates themselves are known to be carcinogenic, many heavy metals are carcinogenic, up to 10% of the chemical pollutants are carcinogenic and there is abundant evidence that carcinogens are far more dangerous when combined than when in isolation. To allow these to be released into the environment and into our bodies is both unacceptable and irresponsible. 3) The fly ash from modern incinerators is far more toxic. It takes a large number of tankers to transport this toxic fly ash from incinerators to waste sites. Just one accident would cause an ecological and health disaster. Sooner or later it will happen. Fly ash is dumped at waste sites. Here it can enter the air and water causing further health and environmental problems. The bottom line is that it is foolish beyond belief to pour more carcinogens into the air at a time when cancer is at an all time high. Recent studies have shown we already have to cope with 65 carcinogens in food, 40 carcinogens in water and 60 carcinogens in the air we breathe. They should not be there at all. They should certainly not be increased. It is time to say enough is enough. Official Spin: Incinerators are closely monitored so health effects cannot occur. But the truth is a little different: Incinerators have an appalling safety record. The Americans stopped building municipal waste incinerators 6 years ago. In France, Belgium, Germany, Holland and Portugal no more incinerators are being built because the public wont stand for them. Two major political parties have declared there should be a moratorium on building incinerators with the Conservatives stating that local residents should receive benefits if they live near incinerators. But the Environment Agency claim they are safe. We are told that incinerators are safe but they emit hundreds of chemical pollutants and we have no knowledge of how toxicity of 90% of them. We are told that incinerators are safe but they only measure a dozen of these pollutants. They havent a clue about the levels of all the others pollutants and they havent a clue about what effect they will have on us. Highly toxic chemicals such as brominated compounds, PBDEs, carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors, doubling in breast milk every 5 years, are not even measured. There has been no attempt to measure the accumulation of poisonous chemicals in the bodies of people living in the vicinity even though we know (from studies of waste sites in the USA) that these are likely to be increased. Without that data how can anyone even begin to assume these incinerators are safe. They rely on animal tests of toxicity and yet the SGOMSEC data on lead, mercury, PCBs have shown these have underestimated toxicity by between 100 to 10,000 times. We are told that incinerators are safe and yet they know nothing at all about the dangers of combinations of these pollutants. And yet the conservative voice of Science magazine recently found a 500 to 1000 fold increase in toxicity for combinations of chemicals such as heavy metals at so-called safe doses. Professor Doull, author of the authorative text on toxicology has said that science is incapable of assessing the dangers of mixtures of pollutants. We are told that theyre safe but they are testing compounds as toxic as dioxins every 3 to 12 months when we know that a single exposure measured in parts per trillion can permanently damage the hormone system of a foetus or young child. We are told that incinerators are safe but they are unregulated. A recent report showed that pollution offences are almost routine (over 500 offences by 10 incinerators in 2 years) all criminal offences all but one un-prosecuted. These were self-reported offences but when an environmental group did its own investigation they found 6000 breaches of regulations in 2 years with the abatement equipment (filters) being switched off 18 times. In truth incinerators are inherently unsafe, they are poorly monitored and virtually unregulated. Official spin: There is no evidence that incinerators cause cancer. Pollution is only responsible for a small proportion of cancers. But the truth is a little different: Firstly cancer is linked with pollution and toxic chemicals Cancer has shown an unrelenting rise over the last century. The rise is gradual, steady and real. It has increasing by 1% per annum with an age standardized increase in mortality of 43% between 1950 and 1988 (1). Put another way the risk of cancer at the turn of the century was 1 in 13. It is now 1 in 3 with treatment a poor gamble. WHO data show that 80% of cancers are due to environmental influences (2), and evidence from migrant studies confirm that it is the environment rather than the genes that determine the cancer risk. In other words you take on the risk of the country you live in rather than having the risk of the country you were born in. (2). Many people have noted that the rise in cancer has paralleled the rise in synthetic chemicals. These chemicals have doubled in quantity every 7 to 8 years with a 100 fold increase over the last 2 generations. Many converging pieces of evidence link chemicals to the relentless rise of cancer. Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in man Several observations support this connection. 1) Cancer is commonest in industrialised countries with 50% of cases in the industrialised 20% of the world (3) and the WHO have noted cancer rises with the GNP of a country. 2) There is the same correlation within countries. The highest mortality from cancer in the US is in areas of highest industrialised activity. There is also a correlation in the USA between cancer incidence and the number of waste sites in the county (4, 5). Counties with facilities for treating toxic waste have four times as much breast cancer (6). Cancer is also commoner in counties with chemical industries (7) Public Data Access in the USA shows a close correlation between cancer mortality and environmental contamination. 3) Numerous studies have shown high cancer incidence in industrial workers and in populations living in polluted areas (8, 9). 4) One of the three most rapidly rising cancers, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, is clearly linked with exposure to certain chemicals (for instance phenoxyherbicides and chlorophenols) (10, 11). Links between exposure to pollutants and cancer in animals Perhaps most importantly three decades of studies of cancers in wildlife have shown that these cancers are intimately associated with environmental contamination. This is particularly important as animals do not smoke, drink or eat junk food and cannot be accused of living in deprived areas. This strengthens the long-suspected link between environmental pollution and cancer. In a recent study of outbreaks of liver cancer in 16 different species of fish at 25 different sites, cancers were always associated with environmental contamination (12). Dogs have been found to have higher rates of bladder cancer in industrialised counties in the USA (13). It is inconceivable that we are not affected in the same way. Furthermore cancer rates in animals rapidly decline when the pollutants are removed showing the critical importance of an uncontaminated environment to health. Large increases in cancer in fatty parts of body Some of the steepest rises in cancer have occurred in parts of the body with high fat content. This including cancers of the brain, breast, bone marrow and liver. This again points the finger at toxic chemicals which are predominantly stored in the fatty tissues. Chemicals can cause genetic mutation Many chemicals are known to attach to DNA causing genetic damage in the form of DNA adducts. The research of molecular epidemiologist Dr Frederica Perera of Columbia University has shown consistent associations between exposures to pollution and DNA adduct formation on the one hand and adduct formation and cancer risk on the other (14,15). She found two to three times the level of adducts to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in people in polluted areas and also found higher levels of adducts in people with lung cancer than in those without. Mothers exposed to pollution will also form DNA adducts but their babies have even higher adduct levels putting them at increased risk of cancer from the very day they are born (16). Cancers already demonstrated to occur with environmental pollution Several studies have already given direct evidence of a link between airborne environmental pollution and cancer. These include the Long Island Study showing a link between airborne carcinogens and breast cancer (17,18) and the Upper Cape Study showing airborne dinitrotoluenes increased both breast and lung cancer (19,20,). It is noteworthy that initial investigations were negative in both these places and it took detailed and sophisticated studies by scientists from many fields to show up the true situation. Numerous other studies have shown links between cancer and chemicals including VOCs causing increases in leukaemia in New Jersey (21), increases in lymphoma due to dieldrin in Iowa, increases in leukaemia in children due to chlorinated solvents at Woburn (22), a cancer cluster due to industrial chemicals in Bynum, North Carolina (23) and increases in non-Hodgkins lymphoma due to chlorophenols in Finland (24). 10% of chemicals are carcinogenic The frightening reality about most chemicals is that their risks are largely unknown. This is particularly true of chemicals new to the market. What we do know is that about 5 to 10% are probable carcinogens. The International agency for Cancer Research tested 1000 chemicals in 1993 and found that 110 were probable carcinogens (25) The National Toxicity Program tested 400 chemicals in 1995 and found that 5- 10% were carcinogenic (26). In spite of this only 200 of the 75,000 chemicals in existence are regulated as carcinogens. We have even less knowledge about the carcinogenic potential of combinations of toxic chemicals but what evidence we do have suggests combinations are particularly dangerous and yet these are what we are routinely exposed to. Other important points to note about toxic chemicals are:- Survival from cancer affected by pollutants Airborne pollutants not only affect ones chance of cancer but also ones chance of surviving. It has been shown that exposure to pollutants reduces survival from cancer and increases the chance of spread (27). Levels of Carcinogens in the body are already high Although the UK figures are not available we know that 2.26 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the USA in 1994. 177 million pounds of these were suspected carcinogens. But what happens to all these chemicals? The reality is thatthey end up inside us. The evidence for this is as follows:- A study of have a group of middle aged Americans were found to have 177 organochlorine residues in their bodies (28, 29). A recent study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine measured chemicals in the blood and urine of healthy volunteers and found an average of 52 carcinogens, 62 chemicals toxic to the brain and nervous system and 55 chemicals associated with birth defects (30). They point out that these were chemicals that could be measured and there were many more that could not be measured, making this a gross underestimate. A study of pollutants in amniotic fluid found detectable levels of PCBs and pesticides at levels equivalent to the foetuss own sex hormones (31). What is absolutely clear is that what we put out into the world sooner or later comes back to us, like a boomerang, and becomes part of our bodies. Our health is at risk whenever we do this. And cancer is linked with incineration Direct Links between Incinerators and Cancer With so many known links between cancer and toxic chemicals you might think that no one, in their right mind, would be foolish enough to build incinerators and deliberately discharge large amounts of pollutants into the air. Many of the substances emitted by incinerators are known carcinogens. The majority of studies investigating this link have found an association between elevated rates of cancer and living close to an incinerator. The following studies have shown a link between cancer and incinerators:- Particulates and Cancer Incinerators are a major source of particulates and particulates cause lung cancer. No one is disputing this. Several large cohort studies link particulates with lung cancer. These include the Six City study (32) and the Cancer Prevention II study (33) both of which show high rates of lung cancer in populations exposed to increased levels of particulates. Quite small increases in PM2.5 particulates in the Cancer Prevention II study (10mcg/m3) gave large 814% increases in lung cancer. Put another way each 1mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5 particulates causes an incremental increase in lung cancer of around 1%. There is simply no excuse any more for using incinerators now that we have evidence of the profound carcinogenic potential of these particulates. Other studies linking Incinerators with Cancer Elliot: found an excess of all cancers within 7.5km of incinerators with a 37% excess of liver cancers within 1km (34,35). Gustavsson : His study in 1989 found a 3.5 fold increase in lung cancer and a 2.8 fold increase in gastric cancer for incinerator workers (36). His 1993 study showed a 1.5 fold increase in oesophageal cancer in incinerator workers (37). Biggeri : found a 6.7 excess of lung cancer related to an incinerator (38). Doubs: found a 44% increased incidence of soft tissue sarcoma and a 27% increased incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in two areas close to an incinerator (39). Ohta: found a 42% increase in cancer within 1km of a Japanese incinerator and this was twice that of the surrounding area (40). Knox: Knox looked at the data from 22,458 children dying of cancer. His 1998 study showed an increase in childrens cancers around combustion sites including incinerators (41). His 2000 study showed a doubling of childhoodcancers and leukaemias within 5km of municipal incinerators. In this study he found that the cancers were more frequent at decreasing distance from the incinerator, also that this excess only occurred during the operational period of the incinerator and that hospital incinerators gave a similar excess (42). This is very damning evidence. Sint Niklaas Study : This is the only long term study of incinerators and as such is probably the most important study. It showed that childhood cancers increased after 5 years and adult cancers doubled after 13 years and continued to increase reaching a five-fold increase at 20 years. The findings of this study are extremely worrying and show how little we have learned from our mistakes (43). 1) NCI, 1991:NIH Publications No 91-2789 2) Tomatis IARC Scientific Publications 100, (Lyon, France IARC 1996)21 3) Lancet 1990; 336:474-81 4) Recent Results in Cancer Research 1989;14:196-207 5) International journal of Epidemiology 1985;14:528-37 6) Preventative Medicine 1985:14:620-35 7 Environmental Research 1975;9:196207 8) American J of Industrial Med 1993;24:753-66 9) American J Industrial Med 1994: 25:219-28 10) Epidemiology 1990;1:349-56 11) British Journal of Cancer 1981;43:169-76 12) Science of the Total Environment 1990;94:1-32 13) American Journal of Epidemiology 1981:114:229-33 14) Environmental Health Perspectives 1995;103:838-43 15) Nature 1992;360:256-58 16) Carcinogenesis 1990;11:1229-31 17) AEH 1996;51:255-65 18) The Long island Breast Cancer Study Reports 1-3 (1988-90), New York state Department of Health, department of Community and Preventative Medicine,Nassau County department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 19) Upper Cancer Incidence Study: Final report (Boston:Mass.Depts of Public Health and Environment Protection 1991.) 20) Public Health Reports 1996;111:495-507 (Silent Spring Institute, Boston, Mass.) 21) American Journal of Public Health 1990;80:1209-12 22) J of American Stat Assoc 1986:395:583-96 23) American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132 (Supp 1):87-95 24) AEH 192;47:167-75 25) IARC Monographs on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Suppl 7 (lyon, France:IARC 1987) 26) USDHHSs Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens 27) JTEH 1988;25:383-90 28) Environmental Health Perspectives 1996;104:606-10 29) Toxicology and Industrial Health 1993;9:913-59 30)Environmental Working Group: Body Burdens. www.ewg.org?reports/bodyburden/findings.php 31) J Clinic Endocrinology & Metabolism 2000;85:2954-7 32) N Eng J Med 1993;329(24) 1753-9* 33) JAMA 2002; 287(9):1132-41* 34) British J Cancer 2000;82(5):1103-6 35) British J Cancer 1998;52(11):716-26 36) Am J Ind Med 1989;15(3):245-53 37) Archives Environ Med 1993;48(4):243-5 38) Environ Health Perspect 1996;104 (7):750-4 39) Am J Epidemiology 2000;152:13-19 40) Organohalogen Compounds 1997;32:155-60 41) J Epidemiology & Community Health 1998;52(11):716-26 42) International Journal of Epidemiology 2000;29:391-7 43) www.milieugezondheid.be Official spin: It is perfectly safe to incinerate radioactive matter as it is low level waste and a several hundred times less than natural background radiation. But the truth is a little different: When discussing radioactivity we need to make a clear distinction between internal irradiation and external irradiation. External irradiation, such as from an x-ray, is often a single exposure which is spread diffusely across an area of the body. Internal irradiation is produced by radioactive matter that is taken into the body. This is an entirely different process and far more sinister. Here the body mistakes the radioactive matter for a natural substance and it is then incorporated into the body. For instance radioactive iodine is stored in the thyroid instead of normal iodine. So it becomes attached to body structures and concentrated where it will act as a source of radiation and it will continue to emit this radiation over time. This is highly dangerous because these continuing radioactive emissions will target the nearby cells and their genetic material where they can induce cancer. We already know that radioactive isotopes can become attached to the chromosomes . Recent sources suggest inhalation may be the most importantroute for internal irradiation. A major concern here is that radioactive matter will accumulate in the body over time. The study at the Hanford atomic village, in the USA found that the cumulative exposure was an important risk factor for cancer. Unfortunately, safety measures make no distinction between internal and external irradiation. They are assumed to be equal. This is extraordinary as there is no scientific work on which to base this unwarranted assumption. In reality the evidence shows that internal irradiation is far more dangerous, something that it is intuitively obvious to most people. Lets compare the dangers of internal and external irradiation. A study by Beral showed that prostate cancer is higher in nuclear workers. There was no correlation with external irradiation but a highly significant correlation with internal irradiation. At Aldermaston there was an increase in leukaemia in children under 5. This was not related to external irradiation but to contamination in the fathers suggesting internal irradiation was the cause. Sternglass and Gould have demonstrated a clear correlation between increases in breast cancer in the USA and dietary Strontium 90 and Iodine 131. The animal studies are perhaps even more striking. In one study it was found that after male mice were injected with radioactive matter the second generation (grandchildren) of these mice had enough radioactive matter inside them to cause lethal genetic damage. The amount of radioactivity here would be miniscule compared with external irradiation yet the biological effect was huge. Another study found pathological damage was caused by internal radiation in rats from Strontium 90 with doses as low as 0.01mGy, which is 200 times lower than natural background radiation. So here we can see that internal irradiation is qualitatively quitedifferent from external irradiation. Yet whenever questions about the safety of radioactivity the authorities inevitably come up with the tired old argument that the level of irradiation is hundreds of times less than natural background radiation (NBR). They may say it is less than you will get in a flight to Spain or some other silly comment. Lets look at this argument more closely. Although we cannot say natural background radiation (which includes cosmic radiation, radon gas and rocks containing radioactive matter) is completely harmless, there is little to suggest it is a major hazard. Cancer rates do not differ in areas with widely varying levels of natural background radiation. We can compare NBR with man-made radioactivity. The most obvious illustration of this is the clusters of leukaemia and cancers that are found around nearly all of the worlds nuclear facilities. Sellafield has a tenfold increase in childrens leukaemia and a threefold increase in cancers. The authorities unsurprisingly maintain that it cannot be due to the radioactivity because the amount of external irradiation is much less than NBR. At Dounreay there is a 6 fold increase in childrens leukaemia and again we are told there is no risk from the radiation as it is less than NBR. They fail to mention that Aberdeen has double the level of NBR but no increase in cancers and leukaemias. This, itself, should tell us that natural background radiation is irrelevant. To say that internal irradiation is safe because it is less than background radiation is like saying a cobra must be far less dangerous than a cow because it is so much smaller. The truth is that this is not comparing like with like. Official spin: The National Society for Clean Air state that a firework display in London gives off more dioxins than an incinerator working for a hundred years. But the truth is a little different: The name National Society for Clean Air gives the impression of some wonderful group doing charitable work and carefully monitoring our air for our benefit. This is far from the case. The truth is that this is a society funded by the polluting industries including Grundons, the very firm that wants to build these incinerators. The views of this society are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. This is the same Environment Agency that believes we should have incineration whether we consent to it or not. For the polluting industries to fund a society pretending to promote clean air is a disgrace and it is ethically repugnant to most people. The statement about fireworks has no scientific basis and has been discredited at numerous public enquiries in the past. Fireworks are in any case not made from chlorine so it is difficult to understand how they could produce dioxins. Modern incinerators do remove more dioxins than the older ones. The older incinerators were largely responsible for the high levels of dioxin in the food chain today. This has been a huge tragedy for children brought up in the last few decades. Breast-feeding babies now take in 50 times the amount of dioxin that adults take in and 17 times the safe limit. These toxic chemicals reduce IQ, cause birth defects, reduce immunity and cause developmental and behaviour problems. The Environment Agency told us these old incinerators were safe. They were not. They are now telling us the new incinerators are safe. They are not. The problem is that dioxin levels are only monitored 3 to 6 monthly so each measure is just a snap shot. In Belgium this is rightly considered inadequate and they are measured on a continuous basis. We know that regulations are often ignored. A modern incinerator in Rotterdam was found to be by-passing its filters 10% of the time so emitting large amounts of dioxins into the atmosphere. This is bound to happen here sooner or later. What is certain is that the present system greatly underestimates releases of dioxins. What this statement doesnt say is that incinerators createhuge amounts of dioxins and most of these appear in the fly ash creating a nightmare problem for future generations. This fly ash has to be transported vast distances to safe sites and any accident would be an environmental disaster. In spite of the massive health risks associated with this fly ash, regulation is abysmal. At Byker, toxic ash laden with dioxins was for six years spread over allotments, bridle paths and footpaths. No one can have any confidence in the Environment Agency when they allow such irresponsible behaviour. The statement about fireworks is misleading in another way. It is not just dioxins but numerous other toxic chemicals that are released from incinerators. For instance brominated compounds such as PBDEs are highly toxic, carcinogenic, they are endocrine disruptors and they are presently doubling in breast milk every 5 years. They are emitted by incinerators when computers and electrical goods are burned. They are unregulated. And just as the Environment Agency failed to prevent the tragedy that occurred from dioxin release they are failing to prevent another tragedy in the making from these toxic brominated compounds. They are allowing another highly toxic substance to be released without regulation with unknown and frightening consequences. Official spin: PM2.5s particulates are not important. PM2.5s are simply a fraction of PM10s and we are measuring PM10s anyway. (This is important because incinerators are a major source of PM2.5 particulates very tiny particles which cause lung cancer and heart disease). But the truth is a little different: They are not equivalent. This is why industry in the USA was so concerned about PM2.5 regulations coming into force in the USA they knew PM2.5 monitoring would cost them billions of dollars. They took the Environmental Protection Agency all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA and lost. Firstly the health effects are markedly different. A 20mcg/m3 rise in PM2.5s would give an approximately 20% increase in long-term mortality whereas a similar increase in PM10s would give a 3.5% increase in mortality. In particular PM2.5s are much better more likely to cause deaths from heart disease. In addition the composition of the particulates will be different and the heavy metals that attach to PM2.5 particulates will markedly increased the cancer risk. Secondly the range of the monitors is different - the PM10 will cut off at a much higher level than the PM2.5.Some cut off as high as 3 microns. The PM2.5 monitors will go down much further to at least 0.1 micron and it is these very small particulates which are so dangerous and therefore crucial to monitor. Thirdly if you get a reading of say 25mcg/m3 on a PM10 monitor then this could be predominately particulates of 9 microns or it could be predominately particulates of 1 micron. Same reading - very different healtheffects. The first would not be worrying (they would be filtered out by the lung) whereas the second would be very worrying (could double your risk of MI). Another way of saying this is that typically 60% of PM10s are in the PM2.5 range - but if 99% were in that range it would be a lot more dangerous. You need to know the percentage in the PM2.5 fraction - that's what your PM2.5 monitoring gives you. Predicted health effects of the Colnbrook incinerator Incinerators: The Effect on Children By Dr J Thompson The report on the Sint Niklaas incinerator states we have dedicated this report to all the deceased children who died from cancer as well as the numerous children who have numerous serious health complaints caused by the waste incinerator in Sint Niklaas. A society that does not take care of its children is less than primitive. This report, funded by the Belgian government, is the only complete study ever done on incinerators. Although the proposed incinerator at Colnbrook will have a lower dioxin output than that at Sint Niklaas, the fact that it would be nine times larger, will emit higher volumes of particulates and will foolishly be allowed to incinerate radioactive material gives little cause for comfort. Children are more vulnerable to the pollutants produced by incinerators, breathing in more air than adults relative to their size, and are likely to be the first to suffer from adverse effects. The foetus and newborn are uniquely vulnerable (see below). Cancer The report on the Sint Niklaas incinerator showed that blood and glandular cancers appeared in children about 5 years after the incinerator started operating. This preceded the increase in adult cancers by 7 years. Adults cancers showed a five-fold increase over 20 years. Knox found a doubling of childhood cancers and leukaemias within 5km of municipal incinerators (2) greatly exceeding the risk around non-combustion urban sites. Congenital Abnormalities A recent large study by Dummer over a 37 year period showed that the incidence of spina bifida was 17% higher and heart defects 12% higher near incinerators (3). Congenital defects of many kinds were found at Sint Niklass (1). Orofacial defects were found to be more than doubled near an incinerator at Zeeberg, Amsterdam (4). Dolk found a 33% higher incidence of birth defects, (86% higher neural tube defects, 50% higher incidence of cardiac septal defects) and a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities within 3 km of municipal waste sites (5). The same pattern of increased congenital defects (12%) with a higher excess of neural tube defects (54%) was found in a study of ethnic minorities near waste sites in the US (6). Chromosomal and other major anomalies (facial clefts, megacolon, renal dysplasias) were found in a study of 70 incinerators in France. Asthma and Respiratory Disorders Incinerators produce vast amounts of fine particulates. Particulate pollution has been shown to increase the incidence of asthma in children (7,8), to reduce immunity (9,10,11), to be associated with higher rates of ear, nose and throat infections (7), increased frequency of respiratory symptoms (12,13), increased duration of infections (14), loss of time from school (16) and significant permanent reduction in peak flow from fibrosis with progressive declines in respiratory function (16,17). The greatest declines have been shown to occur in those who spend more time outdoors. Similarly with asthma the greatest effect is on children who do outdoor sports who have a threefold increase (compared to no increase in unpolluted areas) (18). Other Illness The Sint Niklaas study showed an excess of autism, hyperactivity, allergies, asthma, repeated infections and congenital defects. Data from this country shows increased autism rates near incinerators: being 1 in 85 near the Edmonton incinerator and 1 in 30 in parts of Birmingham sandwiched between two incinerators (Tysley and Dudley). Average in UK 1 in 180. Effects on the Foetus Chemicals and pollutants that the mother is exposed to during her lifetime will build up in her fatty tissues and in pregnancy these will be actively transported across the placenta into the tiny body of the foetus. Foetuses have virtually no protection against toxic chemicals as they have no fat stores. They store them in the only fatty tissue they have: the brain and nervous system. During the first 12 weeks of life the foetus will be affected by miniscule amounts of chemicals, particularly oestrogenic chemicals and these can be neurotoxic and lead to behavioural disorders (19). Small amounts of PCBs and dioxins can affect neurological development, sexual development of the brain and cause altered expression of genes (20) and alter thyroid status (19,21). These chemicals can affect immunity and be associated with high incidences of middle ear infections and recurrent respiratory infections (22). Breast Feeding The situation with breast feeding is already extremely serious as it is known that 90% of samples contain about 350 chemicals. This is higher in industrialised areas showing that inhalation of toxic substances is important (23). The daily dose of toxic substances taken in from breast-feeding can be 50 times greater than that taken in by an adult (24). This has been shown to affect neurological development (25). Sadly breast-feeding is one of the few effective ways of reducing the mothers toxic load. There is no question that an incinerator would add to this already dangerous chemical load and there is no justification for this as safe technology exists for waste disposal. The Next Generation It has been clearly demonstrated in animal studies that chemicals can cause cancer in not only the exposed animals but also its offspring for several generations (26). We now know that both chemicals and heavy metals can form DNA adducts and these can be passed on to the foetus. This is very worrying scenario and demonstrates the importance of the precautionary principle and avoiding further pollution. 1) www.milieugezondheid.be 2) Int J Epidemiol 2000;29(3):391-7 3) J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57(6): 456-61 4) Chemosphere 2000;40:1263-70 5) Lancet 1998;352(9126):417 and 2002;359(9309):320-2 6) Int J Hyg Environ Health 2002;205(1-2):19-27 7) Am J Resp Critic Care 2002;166(8):1092-8 8) J Community Health 1996;50 Supp 1S59-62 9) Environ Toxicology 2002;17(3):219-31 10) Environ Res 1983;31(1):201-11 11) Lancet 1999;353 (9156):859-66 12) Environ Health Perspect 2001; 109Sup 3 381-7 13) Am Rev respire Dis 1989; 139(3)587-94 14) Am Rev Respir Dis 1992;145(1):42-7 15) Epidemiology 2001;12(1):43-54 16) Am J Respir Care 2000;162 4Pt1:1383-90 17) Am J Respir Care 2002;166(1):76-84 18) Lancet 2002;359(9304):386-91 19) Environ Health Perspect 1994;102 Sup 2:125-30 20) Evol Dev 2003; 5(1):67-75 21) Paed Res 1994;36(4):469-73 22) Environ Health Perspect 2000:108(12):1203-7 23) Chemosphere 1994;29(9-11):2327-38 24) Environ Health Perspect 1999;107(1):45-51 25) Environ Health Perspect 2003;111(10):357-76 26) Int J Cancer 1969;4:219-25 Slough Anti-Incinerator Network meet with Fiona Mactaggart MP. (released August 2004) Representatives of Slough Anti-Incinerator Network (SAIN) met with Slough MP Fiona Mactaggart at her Church Street office, last Friday, 20th August. This meeting was a first chance to discuss the issue of the proposed Colnbrook Waste Incinerators with our elected MP. Ms. Mactaggart's position seems to be one of contradiction, whereby she accepts that there are concerns and potential dangers from the mass burn incinerators, yet does not accept much of the scientific and anecdotal evidence presented to her, prefering to rely upon the recent and discredited DEFRA report. Ms. Mactaggart also argues that nothing can be done to stop the construction and operation of Grundon's plants. SAIN whole-heartedly dispute this defeatest idea, and many of the arguments used to support it. There were three main points of interest: 1. Ms Mactaggart disputed the evidence presented to her by both Dr. Jerry Thompson and many others, instead relying on the recent DEFRA report and insisting that the Royal Society endorsed the report. However, the Royal Society insisted the report had "significant limitations that restrict its usefulness to those making policy decisions". The report also contains much out of date information, and SAIN point out that new evidence is available and worrying. In addition to this, Ms. Mactaggart cited the fact that scientific evidence regarding implications of incineration is still contested by some scientists. Of course, these are exactly the same arguments we have heard time and time again to support the continuation of practices that were later 'discovered' to be harmful. From asbestos to DDT, the level of danger appears to have gone from 'safe', to 'potentially harmful' to 'dangerously toxic' over the years. This lack of caution in the first place has led to huge human tragedies and health costs we simply cannot cope with. So, SAIN would like to ask Ms. Mactaggart, how many scientist must agree, before we err on the side of caution? 2. Fionna Mactaggart MP explained her feeling that having two, much larger, new incinerators was better than one small old incinerator. SAIN accept that new technology can help to limit the harmful effects of dioxin particularly. However, this argument simply does not hold water in this case. Firstly, we know Grundon are in fact NOT using best technology. Secondly, size alone will cancel out the effects of better technology. Promises of monitering do not inspire confidence either, as hundreds of cases of incinerators exceeding limits have been seen, yet only one of those cases was prosecuted. The argument that the new incinerators will be better, surely implies that old incinerators are dangerous. Yet Ms.Mactaggert, stated that her support for the new plants was based on the 'fact' that the old incinerator couldnt be shut down. This begs an obvious question; if the old one was dangerous, yet couldnt be shut down, what confidence can we have that a new incinerator would be closed were it found that it was harmful? SAIN has pointed out that polluting industries often start by achieving a small plant, and then increase it over time, knowing that political leaders will fall for these arguments. Eventually, there must be a time when we say enough is enough, and this must be sooner than later. 3. Ms. Mactaggart has given us her assurance that she will continue to listen to any evidence presented to her, and will not try to hamper our efforts. In addition to this, Ms. Mactaggart agreed to investigate the case of a proposed incinerator in Hull, which was denied permission on the grounds that it would not be 'best available technology' and that she would talk with her House collegues John Randell MP and John McDonald MP, who are both publicly opposed to the Colnbrook incinerators and have stated their support for our campaign. Email to Ealing Councillors from Nic An incinerator at Colnbrook will pollute an area of at least 17 miles radius affecting 5 million people. This area already suffers the effects of pollution from Heathrow, so this will have disastrous consequences. Grundons has been given planning permission to build a general waste incinerator burning 54 tonnes per hour and a clinical waste incinerator burning 1-tonne per hour, making it one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. Grundons plan to take municipal, clinical and military waste from sites all around the UK, and possibly from abroad. This waste will include low- level radioactive waste. There are major health and environmental implications: Increase in cancers, especially childhood leukaemia Increases in asthma and heart diseases Possible increase in birth defects Pollution of air, water and soil Emissions of greenhouse gases. Radioactive pollution with unknown results Large-scale incineration will undermine measures to dispose of waste in safe and sustainable ways such as recycling and composting. However, the incinerator will not be built unless Grundon can obtain long-term contracts for burning large amounts of waste. Some West London councils (??Ealing) are backing plans for an incinerator in Colnbrook, near Slough. Ealing can protect the environment and the health of its citizens by saying NO. ................................... We urge Councillor Delaney, our representative on West London Waste Authority, not to cave in to pressure to agree a contract to burn our waste. Only if such contracts are signed would the incinerator be profitable and only if it is profitable would it be built. So Cllr Delaney has a major say on whether the incinerator is built and therefore a major say on health and the environment in this borough. :# ? h""Rm8Nj*DJPL6];CJCJCJ CJ;CJOJQJehr5\; *5;%,9LYowq 0  " A 2t-_Szql$]?n- ; !g"""q####%$%M&&(m*,-///s//13497)89K:Z:::4;=>)?SCCCF.G7H]H>KK#OFO=RyRRzSSTJXrXXYZZ]]W^E__4``bvdvddde;eteeee#fCfqfffg-gQgigUhhi!iXiiii?jrjjjjjPkkkkklClnllll*mcmmm"nHn#rXstwWyzR|S>N+ Fufu{ʐQ KeşТޢF]RK?߮([MlŰ_ѱѱb@ԳHڴ%qFն!g@|ȸbCԺjN+u(tRܿ"ETjln`phjl\$a$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over from outside the doors of high- PThe more :# ? h""Rm8Nj*DJPLN6];CJCJCJ CJ;CJOJQJehr5\; *=Phj8Hhjhj:Jpaper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over from outside the doors of high- PThe more paper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay )e a landfill than an incinerator! Produced by SAIN April 2004 email Mail4.sain@virgin.netJjlrhjZjj#$d%d&d'dNOPQ$a$ The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over for the details from outside the doors of high- PThe more paper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay )e a landfill than an incinerator! Produced by SAIN April 2004 email Mail4.sain@virgin.net\l i@@@ NormalxCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH F@F Heading 1$1$@&5CJOJQJh>@> Heading 2$h<@& 5>*CJ:@: Heading 3$@&5>*B@B Heading 4 $@&56CJ\aJ<`< Heading 5$$@&a$ 5CJ\2`2 Heading 6$@&5\<A@< Default Paragraph Font:@: Footnote Text CJOJQJT @T Footer! 9r 5$7$8$9DH$6CJOJQJaJ(O( Bullet  & F:O": Table title$a$ 5>*\OA2 List boxV$d%d&d'dNOPQ^`6CJ,/@B, Listh^h`66@R6 List Bullet 2  & F*B`b* Body TextCJ45[\hiSW#$]? @ o r  34Bm0000000000000000000H00000000000000X0000000Ld#CvdjѱPJj\eghijklmnopsx}f9=lv), r | ~ "*y}Christine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine Eborall4C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\Incinerator misc.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.doc'XV8 ^`OJQJo(*_`E$E i@ ^`OJQJo(E i@ ^`OJQJo(@ *56>*CJ \]$a$56>*CJ \] 5CJ \$a$5CJ \Q$$d%d&d'dNOPQa$;CJH$d%d&d'dNOPQCJ;CJg$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJkF$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJ(5>*CJ\GCJOJQJsH tH _H5\!5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H%F5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H4FCJGCJsH tH _HOJQJehr345RZ[\ghi450PTCSTc"#$]> ? @ C D o q r       tu234BMm!@!@"@"@"@ #@ #@  high- PThe more paper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay )e a landfill than an incinerator! Produced by SAIN April 2004 email Mail4.sain@virgin.net The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over for the details from outside the doors of high- PThe more paper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay )e a landfill than an incinerator! Produced by SAIN April 2004 email Mail4.sain@virgin.net\lhjl\l#$d%d&d'dNOPQ i@@@ NormalxCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH F@F Heading 1$1$@&5CJOJQJh>@> Heading 2$h<@& 5>*CJ:@: Heading 3$@&5>*B@B Heading 4 $@&56CJ\aJ<`< Heading 5$$@&a$ 5CJ\2`2 Heading 6$@&5\<A@< Default Paragraph Font:@: Footnote Text CJOJQJT @T Footer! 9r 5$7$8$9DH$6CJOJQJaJ(O( Bullet  & F:O": Table title$a$ 5>*\OA2 List boxV$d%d&d'dNOPQ^`6CJ,/@B, Listh^h`66@R6 List Bullet 2  & F*B`b* Body TextCJ45[\]ijTX%&_A B q t  56Do0000000000000000 The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over for the details from outside the doors of00000H00000000000000X0000000Pd#CvdjѱPJjeghijklmnopsx}f9=mw+. t ~ $,{Christine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine Eborall4C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\Incinerator misc.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.doc'XV8 ^`OJQJo(* i@ ^`OJQJo( i@ ^`OJQJo(@iiii *56>*CJ \]$a$56>*CJ \] 5CJ \$a$5CJ \Q$$d%d&d'dNOPQa$;CJH$d%d&d'dNOPQCJ;CJg$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJkF$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJ(5>*CJ\GCJOJQJsH tH _H5\!5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H%F5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H4FCJGCJsH tH _HOJQJehr345RZ[\]hij561QUDTUd$%&_@ A B E F q s t      vw456DOo!@!@"@"@"@ #@ #@ &@ *B'@ hj'@ '@ l'@ n*(@ (@ (*@ f*@ ,@ v-@ -@ F-@ -@Hhj.@/@/@/@F0@H0@0@J1@|4@~4@4@5@V5@^6@H7@`x7@b8@8@48@p:@4:@=@=@=@>@>@X@@Z@@v@@DD@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial"qh@ĉMĉ4d2QKHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyChristine EborallChristine Eborall2QKHere we enclose the letter that 2 The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over for the details from outside the doors o&@ (@'@ fh'@ '@ j'@ l*(@ (@ (*@ f*@ ,@ v-@ -@ D-@ -@Ffh.@/@/@/@F0@H0@0@J1@|4@~4@4@5@R5@Z6@Hf high- PThe more paper and card are sepae.g. ality). evices to sepay )e a landfill than an incinerator! Produced by SAIN April 2004 email Mail4.sain@virgin.net i@@@ NormalxCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH F@F Heading 1$1$@&5CJOJQJh>@> Heading 2$h<@& 5>*CJ:@: Heading 3$@&5>*B@B Heading 4 $@&56CJ\aJ<`< Heading 5$$@&a$ 5CJ\2`2 Heading 6$@&5\8`8 Heading 7$$@&a$6]` Heading 8R$$$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$ 5;CJ\<A@< Default Paragraph Font:@: Footnote Text CJOJQJT @T Footer! 9r 5$7$8$9DH$6CJOJQJaJ(O( Bullet  & F:O": Table title$a$ 5>*\OA2 List boxV$d%d&d'dNOPQ^`6CJ,/@B, Listh^h`66@R6 List Bullet 2  & F*B`b* Body TextCJ45[\hiSV"#\> ? n q  23Alm0000x000000x0000000h00H00000000000000X00000000Nd#CvdjѱPJj\eghijklmnopsx}f9=lv(+ q { } !)lly}Christine EborallTC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Incinerator misc.asdChristine Eborall4C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\Incinerator misc.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.docChristine Eborall>C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\If we can't burn our waste.doc'XV8 ^`OJQJo(*06$E i@ ^`OJQJo(PE i@ ^`OJQJo(@ll2&P 0p1h. A!"#$% The context e can contaminate our water supplies. tant thing is to sepaadable waste, and to start this sepa apaper and card.  ons, it can be safely landfilled.achieved quickly, if imagination Please turn over from outside the doors of high-lk *56>*CJ \]$a$56>*CJ \] 5CJ \$a$5CJ \,F5;CJ\GCJOJQJsH tH _HH$d%d&d'dNOPQCJ(5;CJ\GCJOJQJsH tH _Hg$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJkF$d%d&d'dNOPQCJGCJOJQJsH tH _HCJ(5>*CJ\GCJOJ";s 4[W-Ei5x68PQJsH tH _H5\!5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H%F5\GCJOJQJsH tH _H4FCJGCJsH tH _HOJQJehr345RZ[\ghi45/OSBRSb!"#\= > ? B C n p q       st123ALklm!@!@"@"@"@ #@ #@ &@ (@'@ fh'@ '@ j'@ l*(@ (@ (*@ f*@  ,@ v-@ -@ D-@ -@Ffh.@/@/@/@F0@H0@0@J1@|4@~4@4@5@R5@Z6@H7@\x7@^8@8@48@l:@4:@=@=@=@>@>@X@@Z@@v@@BD@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial"1h@ĉNĉ 7@\x7@^8@8@48@l:@4:@=@=@=@>@>@X@@Z@@v@@@D@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial"qh@ĉNĉ4d2QKHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyChristine EborallChristine EboralldDocumentSummaryInformation(7 bjbjUUUUUUU7|7|l******> |>+FFFFFFFF=??????$ c*FFFFFc( **FF( ( ( F*F*F=( F=( ( :c**=F: Q>t( ) =0+3 ( =( >>****Root Entry FQ1Table{WordDocumentSummaryInformation(psDocumentSummaryInformation8dCompObjjObjectPoolNAONAO0Tablem4d2QKHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyChristine EborallChristine Eborall7 bjbjUUUUUUUU7|7|l |        $                  r x: #Q  0   Root Entry F#Q1Table{WordDocumentSummaryInformation( psDocumentSummaryInformation8dCompObjjObjectPoolNAONAO0Table  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoxtquvwyz|}~  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q ՜.+,04 hp|  w LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment Agency Title Oh+'0 ,@ \h   LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyereChristine Eboralle hrihri Normal.dotbChristine Eboralle 8riMicrosoft Word 9.0 @q@O@1Q  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q ՜.+,04 hp|  w LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment Agency Title Oh+'0 ,@ \h   LHere we enclose the letter that 25 local GPs sent to the Environment AgencyereChristine Eboralle hrihri Normal.dotbChristine Eboralle 9riMicrosoft Word 9.0 @q@O@1Q  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcrfghijklmnoxtequvwy|}~