PET(4)-11-12 : Monday 2 July 2012
P-04-341 : Waste and Incineration
Paper to Note
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS
Petitions Committee
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay, CARDIFF CF99 1NA
YOUR REF P-04-341 WASTE & INCINERATION. Oral evidence
Thank you for allowing me to provide my response in brief to your oral sessions of 27 March and 1 May 2012 which I was unable to attend due to being in hospital and subsequent slow recovery.
The two sessions comprise incinerator lobbyist propaganda & serious misinformation with an occasional pertinent comment. The chief incinerator lobbyist (Mark Broomfield) was lead author of the infamous 2004 DEFRA “review”. He told me at a public meeting he had plucked his figures out of the air hence the DEFRA report relied upon by HPA, PCTs, Health Boards & Environment Agency is worthless fiction. Broomfield wrote Surrey County Council that he worked for various incinerator companies with Friends of the Earth. Hence FoE policy has ignored health data proving UK incinerators are unsafe and has promoted MBT & anaerobic digestion both of which provide an unsafe end product that must go to landfill or in the case of MBT go to an incinerator causing yet more incinerators to be built (eg Ferrybridge). These policies do not solve landfill or UK incinerator problems. The FoE speakers have no solution for business, imported or hazardous waste.
The seriousness of the corruption and lies by the HPA have led to tens of thousands of deaths pa in the UK from the junk quality UK EfW (incinerators), in other words they have been promoting mass murder without any evidence whatsoever of single or cocktail effects of these plants, refusing to map out health data as ordered by the WHO 1997 & USEPA more recently BEFORE determining public health policy. My colleague Michael Ryan has documentary proof that on or about 17 November 2005 the HPA hosted a secret meeting of polluter with the regulators, discussing how to cover up the deaths and how to suppress the facts from the public.
The Welsh current policy is breaking many laws including EC/50 (refusing to accurately measure PM2.5s in the communities so the annual 25ug/m3 limit can be broken in Newport, Cardiff etc causing needless deaths). EC/98 stipulates that the latest safest technology must be used to protect public health, meaning plasma gasification. EC/98 states the public must be involved from the outset—which is not happening, and that fuel conventionally used to heat plants is classified as hazardous.
The Human Rights Act is being ignored by needless killing, maiming & wrecking of family life. The IPPC is being broken as PM2.5s are not measured at the stack or community while companies use fake modelling to allege grounding of around an extra 0.02ug/m3 without a single measurement, while actual emissions from Wolverhampton & SELCHP must have exceeded an extra 29ug/m3 PM2.5s annually, leading to SMRs of 159 (Essington) & 161 (New Cross) respectively and 11 years off lifespan (Essington).
References to incinerators in other countries are deceptive when technology, abatement and working temperatures vary hugely between countries. The UK 850C temperature is far below the over 1000C used in USA, Finland & Sweden. Reference to Denmark as being a model for incinerators (& windfarms) is about the worst example possible with Denmark having twice the death rates of cardiovascular & respiratory diseases of the rest of Europe and having the highest cancer death rate in Europe, especially of women just as was found at St Niklaas incinerator in Flanders. The minister conveniently omits the closure of that plant which was compliant with the useless WID. Did the minister Mr Griffiths see the incinerators in Beveren in Flanders that were found to have caused northern Antwerp to have the highest death rates in NW MAINLAND Europe??
There have been many studies of incinerators outside the UK in Japan, Italy, France, Sweden, Finland, Mexico City etc. The Finnish study analysed input and output of PM1s & PM2.5s including content analysis. Emissions averaged 0.25mg/m3. The incinerators had mostly fluidised beds with extensive abatement—all missing in the junk UK ones. An analysis of PM2.5 content & source was done in Sweden. The EC BREF demands emissions of 1to 5mg/m3. The UK EA authorises 10mg/m3 (of PM10s) with peaks or continuous levels of 30mg/m3. Hence Wolverhampton incinerator is authorised at 120TIMES the levels achieved in Finland & Sweden. The false allegations in your oral sessions about the UK being best is the opposite of the truth, namely the UK is the filthiest. The Finnish report proved grate systems produced the most PM1 particulates. The UK EA in 2010 admitted 90% of PM1s escape through BAT UK bag filters and 35% of PM2.5s. This explains the astronomic UK death rates and maiming by UK EfW(incinerators). In Mexico City, analysis of PM2.5s and blood tests of children downwind by Berkeley Labs USA proved the city smog was due to the municipal incinerator and autopsies of all who died located PM1 particles in the blood cells & brains of victims downwind and not those clear of the incinerator. Tests of UK incinerators for the EA revealed all first tests done exceeded the generous EA limits revealing the junk UK incinerators are exceedingly dangerous to health.
Jasper Roberts admitted in 2011 at my WAG meeting that his false allegations about incinerators came from their lobbyists. I revealed that scrapping the inland wind farm and incinerator programs in Wales, replacing them with plasma gasification units would save the Welsh economy over £5BILLION pounds (if savings NHS bills from the proposed incinerators were included), and ideally a plasma manufacturing unit be erected. No account has been taken of the distances affected by the EfW plants eg 15 miles downwind for those at Splott (passed) and Llanwern (yet to be determined). Not has account been taken of cocktail effects of biomass & other sources of PM2.5s and PM1s. The only six PM2.5 monitors in Wales are on highways.
FoE alleged a lack of health UK studies. They could have commissioned some if really interested. In fact, Michael Ryan & I have already mapped out ONS & PCT and school data. eg Michael Ryan has mapped out 6 health parameters from ONS & NHS in London. The DATA PROVES that downwind of each London incinerator consistent with prevailing winds, for a distance consistent with published Harvard measurements such as 15 miles for standard 65m chimney height, at a rate consistent with each main incinerator the health damage & death rates are very severe, while rates upwind are repeatedly much lower irrespective of socio-economic or any other factors. Incinerator lobbyists cannot find or prove freedom from harm from UK EfW.
Death rates downwind as described are for example for men SMR has been 160 to 200% of national average downwind of SELCHP. Infant mortality increases by 8 per 1000 live births downwind of all UK EfW/incinerators. Low birth weight rates increase downwind. Heart attack death rates are increased over 200% downwind of for example Wolverhampton & SELCHP incinerators. Cancer rates are up 70% in Wolverhampton. Also increased are stroke deaths, obesity rates, diabetes type 2, ASD & ADHD in children, a drop in child IQ, clinical depression, suicide & gastroschisis. High rates of suicide & gastroschisis resulted in 2007 in Bridgend from the Crymlyn Burrows incinerator, which dropped sharply when the EA closed the plant c.2010. These conditions are expected from my 360 journal references.
The lobbyists claim energy efficiency. But plasma arc gasification produces 250% more electricity from the same waste at a fraction of the build and running costs. For WAG officials to only listen to an uninformed lobbyists reveals complete lunacy and lack of due diligence. Even the EA is still uncertain concerning bottom ash safety. If used in highways content can leach into underground water and stability is uncertain. Rate of capture of particles by filters varies with particle size. Mr Farrow makes unsubstantiated claims about 99.99% capture without quantifying size. Perhaps he has heard about Buananno’s counts of sticky nanoparticles, which can stick to form stable PM1 & PM2.5 particles, which then escape through the bag filters. The EA has stated 90% of PM1s escape through the filters and similarly 35% of PM2.5s. Note that grate EfW plants create the maximum amount of PM1 particles. Mr. Farrow quotes AEA for figures but note that Mr Broomfield has recently joined AEA. It must be noted DEFRA have no real measurements, so make wild guesses and have no PM2.5 monitors downwind of any UK EfW plant. Mr. Farrow prefers slick unsubstantiated lobbyist claims to mapping health data. In (197) Mr Farrow states dioxins which are contained in particulate emissions, to have a concentration 50 times higher than the particulates themselves!!!! The Tango report referred to by Farrow included ALL Japanese incinerators but failed to take account of chimney height or upwind versus downwind, on Tango’s own admission. Mr Farrow admits he is not a scientist. He suggests plants are open to inspection, but no health data is published regarding HOW MANY ARE MAIMED OR KILLED EACH YEAR BY THAT VERY PLANT.
Mr John Griffiths wants communities effectively informed. He is not achieving that promise as he believes anything published by the HPA who for 9 years have refused to carry out the needed research including health mapping, PM2.5 measurements with BAM instruments, analysis of content etc as has been done in Mexico, Finland, USA.
They have no evidence so have not re-evaluated their deliberate lies. So why does Mr Griffiths abide by that HPA? He should obtain accurate data and ignore lobbyists.
Wales deserves better than the lobbyist tripe.