ࡱ> ?A>7 bjbjUU .,7|7|l  $s( '''''''$) ,( (  -( j  ' '  &' ҆Ȭ > &'C(0s(&6, ,' Slough Anti Incinerator Network & West London Stop the Incinerator Campaign Why We Oppose the Proposed Incinerator at Colnbrook Incinerators are linked to increased incidence of heart disease. Incinerators discharge large amounts of pollutants linked to cancer. Incinerators are a major source of particulates and particulates cause lung cancer. Incinerators produce vast amounts of fine particulates. Particulate pollution has been shown to increase the incidence of asthma in children, reduce immunity, to be associated with higher rates of ear, nose and throat infection. Incinerators are linked with increased birth defects. The proposed site of the new incinerator at Colnbrook is in an area around heathrow that already exceeds EU statutory limits for pollutants. Not only will this increase the amount of pollutants but it is likely they will combine and become more toxic. The proposed incinerator will be one of the largest in Europe. The increase in size will increase emissions and hence the health risks. There have been no long term studies of modern incinerators. So at best we are guinea pigs. All previous studies of incinerators have shown serious effects on health. The only long term study of the previous generation of incinerators at Sint Niklass in Belgium showed an increase in childhood cancers after 5 years. Adult cancers doubled after 13 years and continued to rise. The proposed incinerator is not state of the art as has been claimed and does not represent best practice by European standards. Incinerators have an appalling safety record. The emissions from the incinerator will affect at least 5 million people within a 17 mile radius. In France, Belgium, Germany, Holland and Portugal no more incinerators are being built because the public wont stand for them. In the US, incinerators are rejected by most local communities and continue to engender fear and suspicion since they were banned under the Clean Air Act. The incinerator will burn radioactive waste. The fact that it is low level radioactive waste does not make it safe. There will be emissions of radioactive particulates which will pass into blood stream. Internal irradiation is far more dangerous than external. The incinerator will only make a profit if it burns waste. The more waste burnt the more profit for Grundon. The incinerator will discourage Councils from increasing recycling. The incinerator will produce large amounts of toxic ash which will be transported by road to special landfill sites. The problem the incinerator is supposed to address is to reduce landfill. There is actually plenty of landfill left. The problem is of the methane gases given off which contribute to global warming and climate change .Through modern technologies, widespread in Europe, Canada and New Zealand and yet to be introduced in this country, waste could be rendered inert and therefore safe to landfill without fear of giving off dangerous methane gases. Summary of key flaws in the DEFRA report DEFRA (Department for Environment, etc) commissioned a report which purported to show that any health effects are very minor. But this report had serious shortcomings. Key omissions The huge health and environmental costs of incineration are ignored. The huge health costs of air pollution as demonstrated by the US environmental Protection Agency have been ignored. The appalling lack of regulation of modern incinerators is ignored [over 550 pollution offences in 2 years by 10 incinerators] The unknown dangers from combination of chemicals [known as the cocktail effect] are ignored. The high vulnerability of children and especially the foetus to pollutants, and the injustice of this, is ignored. The only detailed long-term study of an incinerator, namely that of the Saint Niklass incinerator never gets a mention. The complete absence of safety data on the new range of incinerators is not mentioned. The Study fails to differentiate between municipal incinerators and those burning radio-active and hazardous waste It is well established that the smallest particulates cannot be removed from incinerators and these are highly dangerous, in particular they greatly increase the mortality from heart disease and lung cancer. The report fails to acknowledge this. The fact that the ash produced by incinerators will use up half as much space as compacted waste in landfill sites. The fact that incinerators have consistently been sited in poor areas with vulnerable populations has been ignored Dubious Conclusions DEFRA suggests the risks should be assessed by modelling data even though the Environmental Agency's own data confirms it's appalling lack of accuracy. Objective ways of measuring accumulation of pollutants such as body burdens are ignored. Ten separate studies link cancer with incinerators but the report fails to state the obvious fact that increasing emissions of carcinogens will lead to cancer. This is of crucial importance when cancer rates continue to increases. The report concludes incinerators are safe when other similar reports such as the parliamentary report [DSW 56] by public interest consultants came to a very different conclusion Alternatives The tragedy is that incineration is unnecessary. There are alternatives. There is still a very low level of recycling in this country. In some countries where incineration is regarded as too hazardous gasification is used. The method of plasma gasification means that the waste is burnt in and enclosed space so there are no dangerous emissions. The residue produced by the burning process is, however, still toxic (as with incineration) Most environmentalist like would recommend Mechanical Biological treatment which is a safe form of sifting and recycling, the remains of which is rendered inert and suitable for land filling. Demands of the Campaign A moratorium on any build of the incinerator. A public inquiry into the original planning application. Grundons contributed a 100,000 towards cycle paths in Slough prior to getting planning permission from Slough council. That the West Waste authority doesnt sign a contract for waste disposal with Grundons. This contract is critical for Grundons to proceed with building the new incinerator and will be for 20/25 years. Preventing any safer methods of waste disposal being used for years. LNDF{}z|}    0 2   % ' j l pUW57#%{}\]wxABPJB*OJQJ^JphB*CJOJQJ^Jph OJQJ^J5OJQJ\^J6OJQJ]^JPLMN_`EF|}{|~    1 2   h^h^ & F$a$ & ' k l ppW7 & F^ & F & F%}]xyz{BC & F & F & Fh^h & FMN & Fh^h LN5OJQJ\^J OJQJ^J,1h. A!"#n$n%  i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH H`H Heading 1$$@&a$5CJOJQJ\^J<A@< Default Paragraph Fonte@ HTML Preformatted7 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9CJOJPJQJ^JaJZB`Z Body Text5$7$8$9DH$#5B*CJOJQJ\^JaJph,LMN_`EF|}{|~12& ' k l p p W 7%}]xyz{BCMN00000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 00 0 0 00 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000000 00 00 00 000000 00 00 00  # ,.!M_ p w {   3333333333333N# # yy$$%*77UUkABBPerrynC:\Documents and Settings\BPerry.CWTFOTEMEA\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Document1.asdBPerryAC:\BPerry\Why We Oppose the Proposed Incinerator at Colnbrook.doc User Perry<C:\bills\WhyWeOpposetheProposedIncineratoratColnbrook[1].doc User PerrysC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of WhyWeOpposetheProposedIncineratoratColnbrook[1].asd User Perry:C:\bills\WhyWeOpposetheProposedIncineratoratColnbrook2.doc Mr N FerridayUC:\My Documents\VarEnv\Incineration\WhyWeOpposetheProposedIncineratoratColnbrook2.doc Mr N Ferriday8C:\My Documents\WebSite\Rel 3\waste\incin\sainoppose.doc Mr N Ferriday8C:\My Documents\WebSite\Rel 3\waste\incin\sainoppose.doc Mr N Ferriday8C:\My Documents\WebSite\Rel 3\waste\incin\sainoppose.docrrF~<%^6UPZ ZT.c0zr>rxn'2x&h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(pp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(pp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo('2x<%Z0zrrxPZr         Dо#V\/lf4vh0Ut                                             )8 D"Tq(dDu2뜶@,, ,,@@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :ArialW& ??Arial Unicode MSTahoma?5 :Courier New;Wingdings"qh6k&3@ ,!n20`2Q3Why We Oppose the Proposed Incinerator at ColnbrookBPerry Mr N Ferriday Oh+'0 0< X d p|4Why We Oppose the Proposed Incinerator at Colnbrookhy BPerryOPerPerNormalOMr N Ferridayth6 NMicrosoft Word 9.0r@b@