Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[Paul Zukowskyj]

Perhaps surprisingly I can add that I wholeheartedly agree with virtually everything Mike has said in this thread over the last couple of days. Burning waste is NOT recycling in any meaning of the term I'm familiar with. The plastic content of the waste stream is derived from fossil fuels, and burning it therefore releases fossil carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. If we're serious about climate change, we should not be looking to construct plants that will release fossil carbon into the atmosphere for the next 30 years.
 
I'm also concerned that Grant is going to visit a plant to find out more. The operators of such plants are clearly biased and will select portions of scientific studies that support their arguments. Any reputable objective scientist would view their conclusions with a very great deal of skepticism. The data they produce is also very skewed. Take the argument long put forward that energy from waste has a smaller carbon footprint than alternatives. The comparison is ALWAYS with coal-fired power generation, however gas-fired power generation is around half as polluting as coal. Their method of calculation is also skewed to the worst-case scenario for alternatives and the best case scenario for energy from waste.
 
I have some concerns about the DEFRA report (mentioned earlier) being impartial too. Publications on scientific matters by government organisations can be skewed by political desires (intentionally or unintentionally), the 'dodgy dossier' being the most obvious case, but anyone who knows any details about climate change funding and support in the US under George Bush will be able to list a raft of other cases. The clearest case of this in the case of New Barnfield is the County assertion that '94% of people support energy from waste'. I saw the original survey, and the wording was so clearly biased that anyone trying to publish that result in a scientific publication as being objective would be laughed at. The structure of the survey and the wording used was clearly structured to produce a politically useful result.
 
I therefore urge Grant to look for a scientifically impartial assessment of the issues and not be swayed by commercial lobbyists looking to put across their argument in a biased way.
 
Paul Zukowskyj
Welwyn Hatfield Liberal Democrat Prospective MP

[Paul Zukowskyj]

To add to the above discussion, the following peer-reviewed paper summarises the health issues from 43 previous peer-reviewed studies of the impact of waste incineration across Europe. Not everyone will have access to this, but on request I will be happy to let you have a copy to borrow to read.
 
Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions: a review of epidemiological studies. 2004. [/]FRANCHINI M; RIAL M; BUIATTI E; BIANCHI F. Annali dell' Istituto superiore di sanità, vol. 40, n^o1, pp. 101-115
 
The conclusion of the above paper is that whilst more modern plants have less health impact than plants burning hazardous waste and older plants, there is still evidence of clusters of cancers around newer plants, particularly lung cancer clusters. The paper does allow that confounding error from other known causes (particularly smoking) may not be fully accounted for (this is incredibly complicated and difficult to get right), but the conclusion is pretty stark that having a plant nearby really does seem to increase lung cancer incidence as well as a couple of other types of cancer.
 
I hope this helps add to the debate.
 
Paul
Welwyn Hatfield Liberal Democrat Prospective MP
 

[dizzy]

I am so pleased to see such a wealth of info given to us.I am sure that the county council if they are following this site will see that the subject is being taken very seriouslyI hope paul will attend the meeting as his research is so important.The possible  clusters of lung cancer make this even more important that barnfield is written out of the  scenario.

[mythoughts]

I am so pleased to see such a wealth of info given to us.I am sure that the county council if they are following this site will see that the subject is being taken very seriouslyI hope paul will attend the meeting as his research is so important.The possible  clusters of lung cancer make this even more important that barnfield is written out of the  scenario.

I think research like this actually indicates that a wholehearted campaign should be focussed against these monstrous machines anywhere to be honest, not just New Barnfield. For example, what if the battle against NB is won...will there then be enough puff left to fight off a similar attack at any of the other reference sites?

[Mighty Hatfield]

I am so pleased to see such a wealth of info given to us.I am sure that the county council if they are following this site will see that the subject is being taken very seriouslyI hope paul will attend the meeting as his research is so important.The possible  clusters of lung cancer make this even more important that barnfield is written out of the  scenario.

I think research like this actually indicates that a wholehearted campaign should be focussed against these monstrous machines anywhere to be honest, not just New Barnfield. For example, what if the battle against NB is won...will there then be enough puff left to fight off a similar attack at any of the other reference sites?

I agree. As someone who started looking at this long ago with a very n.i.m.b.y attitude, the more ive learnt about the science of incineration, the more i am horrified that these things exist ANYWHERE.

[Paul Zukowskyj]

I agree. As someone who started looking at this long ago with a very n.i.m.b.y attitude, the more ive learnt about the science of incineration, the more i am horrified that these things exist ANYWHERE.

Whilst the paper I gave the reference to above indicates a possible link with three types of cancer clusters, you should be aware that the evidence for health impacts from proximity to landfill sites is much more concrete and clear. Birth deformities clusters around landfill sites are well documented. Our waste contributes to this. We have to dispose of our rubbish somehow, and simply saying "no incineration" without providing an alternative is an incomplete argument. Landfill is becoming a much less accessible option (not for any blithe climate change arguments that incinerator companies might send to you, but because we're running out of holes in the ground to stick the stuff in).

Whichever solution is looked at there are problems and concerns.

As far as I can see the best option is to process the waste stream to maximise recycling, whilst putting real pressure on companies that produce and sell material that ends up as waste to reduce the amount they produce. It is currently possible to recycle/reuse around 80% of the waste stream, with government commitment to financially penalise packaging that is excessive and non-recyclable, this could easily reach 98%.

In the interim, biological treatment of organic based waste makes sense. This produces compost/fertiliser and actually delays the release of biogenic carbon back into the atmosphere. The sum result is a REDUCTION in CO2 in the air. Treatment of plastics waste by either recycling or pyrolysis means fossil carbon is kept locked up (unless the carbon blocks are subsequently burnt - but they can be treated and used as soil improver, again keeping CO2 locked up). Both processes produce gases that can be burnt relatively cleanly for power generation and whilst some CO2 is released, it is MUCH less significant than landfill emissions or incinerator emissions, and the CO2 is primarily from biogenic carbon sources (ones that lock up CO2, like plants/trees).

There are numerous options for treating the waste that are more environmentally friendly, but these are not on the table, mainly because the council decided they were not 'established' enough technology to deal with all the waste we need to handle. One of the reasons we have so much of course, is the poor performance of many Herts districts in recycling. Welwyn Hatfield recycles around 44% of waste, but of course counts brown-bin garden waste in that figure. In terms of a proportion going into black bags, the number is vanishingly small. The fact that tin can recycling collections only started last year is a damning indictment of the poor commitment to recycling in this borough. I recently visited my parents in Bury. There they have separate collections for general waste, garden and kitchen waste, glass, cans, paper and even a collection for cardboard. Apparently it is considered important enough to do there, but WH can't do that as it would cost more, despite the idea that cost is relative and to not do this is selling our future short.

Unfortunately, whatever we do with our waste will need a location for processing. Having looked in some detail at the assessment of sites and considered where in WH I would find a site least offensive, I have to say that Roehyde is probably top of the list. I'd prefer not to have a site in WH at all, but I suspect because of the Borough's central location in Hertfordshire, that's probably less than likely to happen. I most certainly don't want an incinerator there, or anywhere else for that matter.

Paul Zukowskyj
Welwyn Hatfield Liberal Democrat Prospective MP

[mythoughts]

Birth deformities clusters around landfill sites are well documented

That's very frightening. Did you know that HUGE parts of Welwyn Garden City and Wheathampstead are built on old landfill sites?

I recently visited my parents in Bury. There they have separate collections for general waste, garden and kitchen waste, glass, cans, paper and even a collection for cardboard. Apparently it is considered important enough to do there, but WH can't do that as it would cost more, despite the idea that cost is relative and to not do this is selling our future short.

 
The same goes for the middle of Dartmoor!

Also, and you may know the answer to this Paul, why does Hertfordshire import so much of its waste from London??? Haven't got enough of our own to deal with?

[Paul Zukowskyj]

That's very frightening. Did you know that HUGE parts of Welwyn Garden City and Wheathampstead are built on old landfill sites?

Also, and you may know the answer to this Paul, why does Hertfordshire import so much of its waste from London??? Haven't got enough of our own to deal with?

The health issues mentioned are only associated with active landfill sites as far as I know. I have not heard or read of health issues associated with old or reclaimed landfill sites, I only mentioned this as any alternatives to incineration will have their downsides.

As for the issue of waste from London, it is simply a case of landfill site availability. Within the M25 there are virtually no available sites any more, and haven't been for a number of years, whilst the volume of waste produced keeps increasing. It has to go somewhere, so neighbouring counties generally take it. The average distance waste is being shipped has been increasing for many years, and with landfill in Kent, Essex, Herts, Beds, Surrey and others becoming increasingly scarce, this is set to continue. We need an alternative, but I don't believe incineration is a 21st century solution, more a 19th century one.

Paul Zukowskyj,
Welwyn Hatfield Lib Dem Prospective MP

[Paul Zukowskyj]

Actually, there have been health issues with old landfill, but the majority of these have been associated with houses built on landfill sites where the 'cap' was insufficient to seal the waste. This was generally associated with pre-1980's landfills (I believe), and was typically a problem where housing was built within a few years of landfill closures. Since then, capping technology is generally much improved and such issues have become much rarer. Pre-1980's landfills may not be well capped, but the health-damaging agent is likely to have dispersed well before now. It's generally thought to be associated with gases and leachate escape from organics in the waste. This falls significantly with time. I'm not aware of any landfill sites where such issues may apply in Welwyn Hatfield.
 
Paul Zukowskyj
Welwyn Hatfield Lib Dem Prospective MP

[mythoughts]

Actually, there have been health issues with old landfill, but the majority of these have been associated with houses built on landfill sites where the 'cap' was insufficient to seal the waste. This was generally associated with pre-1980's landfills (I believe), and was typically a problem where housing was built within a few years of landfill closures. Since then, capping technology is generally much improved and such issues have become much rarer. Pre-1980's landfills may not be well capped, but the health-damaging agent is likely to have dispersed well before now. It's generally thought to be associated with gases and leachate escape from organics in the waste. This falls significantly with time. I'm not aware of any landfill sites where such issues may apply in Welwyn Hatfield.
 
Paul Zukowskyj
Welwyn Hatfield Lib Dem Prospective MP

I understand Virtual Curtain Wall protection has been used to combat landfill issues on developments at the likes of Chequersfield WGC because of the risk of methane gas emanating. I'm also aware that when improvements were made along the Ayot Greenway the contractors couldn't include a planned-for horse-gallop because once they started to excavate the land it was discovered that the landfill dumped alongside the old railway line  (full of London waste) hadn't been mapped properly. If you walk, cycle or horse-ride along it now you can still see broken bottles and china etc poking out from the ground.  How "capped" was that?

Indeed, I wonder whether it's time to create a new definitive map of landfill in the area listed "capped or uncapped"!

[Paul Zukowskyj]

I'm also aware that when improvements were made along the Ayot Greenway the contractors couldn't include a planned-for horse-gallop because once they started to excavate the land it was discovered that the landfill dumped alongside the old railway line  (full of London waste) hadn't been mapped properly. If you walk, cycle or horse-ride along it now you can still see broken bottles and china etc poking out from the ground.  How "capped" was that?

Indeed, I wonder whether it's time to create a new definitive map of landfill in the area listed "capped or uncapped"!

This is getting a little specific in terms of sites, but huge numbers of landfills were improperly regulated and mapped, especially prior to the 1950's and 1960's, simply because the legal framework wasn't there to require it and the issue was not thought particularly important. As for bottles and china poking out of the ground, how old does a waste deposit need to be before it's no longer waste and becomes archaeology? Lots of historic waste sites are now scheduled archaeological sites. Most of the stuff in these sites is now utterly harmless, and is actually valued!
 
The Environment Agency, as I recall, is supposed to have the definitive maps of landfill, but as mentioned above, with older sites the plans may not match the reality. I'd be very surprised to learn that any of the post 1970 sites had not been mapped properly, and, to be honest, anything older is very unlikely to be a significant current hazard, unless the waste dumped was in some way toxic or especially hazardous.
 
Capping technology has come a very long way in the last 50 years, as has hydrogeology. Modern sites pose nothing like the risk older sites did when decommissioned, because the science of capping and water movements through soil and rock are vastly better understood than even 30 years ago.
 
Old waste sites, poorly/uncapped and leaking toxic materials can be unexpectedly useful and interesting. An example is a toxic waste dump for industrial chemical waste at Moses Gate in Bolton. Last used as a dump in the 1870's apparently, it is now protected as a Site of Special Scientific Interest as it is literally covered in orchids, found in only a few locations in the UK.
 
I'd like to reassure people living on and near old landfill that they're not living somewhere that is hazardous to their family's health. Newer capped sites are sealed and older sites have generally lost their hazardous component. There is no evidence I'm aware of that living near a closed general waste site is in any way hazardous.
 
Paul Zukowskyj
Welwyn Hatfield Lib Dem Prospective MP

[mythoughts]

 

Whilst the paper I gave the reference to above indicates a possible link with three types of cancer clusters, you should be aware that the evidence for health impacts from proximity to landfill sites is much more concrete and clear. Birth deformities clusters around landfill sites are well documented. Our waste contributes to this. We have to dispose of our rubbish somehow, and simply saying "no incineration" without providing an alternative is an incomplete argument. Landfill is becoming a much less accessible option (not for any blithe climate change arguments that incinerator companies might send to you, but because we're running out of holes in the ground to stick the stuff in).

I'd like to reassure people living on and near old landfill that they're not living somewhere that is hazardous to their family's health. Newer capped sites are sealed and older sites have generally lost their hazardous component. There is no evidence I'm aware of that living near a closed general waste site is in any way hazardous.
 

Sorry Paul, but haven't you contradicted yourself? First you say that there's concrete evidence of, for example, clusters of birth deformities around landfill sites then in a later post you offer reassurance that they are not hazardous.

[Paul Zukowskyj]

Whilst the paper I gave the reference to above indicates a possible link with three types of cancer clusters, you should be aware that the evidence for health impacts from proximity to landfill sites is much more concrete and clear. Birth deformities clusters around landfill sites are well documented. Our waste contributes to this. We have to dispose of our rubbish somehow, and simply saying "no incineration" without providing an alternative is an incomplete argument. Landfill is becoming a much less accessible option (not for any blithe climate change arguments that incinerator companies might send to you, but because we're running out of holes in the ground to stick the stuff in).

I'd like to reassure people living on and near old landfill that they're not living somewhere that is hazardous to their family's health. Newer capped sites are sealed and older sites have generally lost their hazardous component. There is no evidence I'm aware of that living near a closed general waste site is in any way hazardous.
 

The above quotes are not inconsistent, health impacts are, to my knowledge, ONLY associated with proximity to CURRENTLY ACTIVE landfill sites. There is no evidence I'm aware of that proximity to closed landfill sites has any health impacts whatsoever. I should perhaps have made that clear in my original message.

Paul

[mythoughts]

I think the jury's still out but the research links below might be of interest regarding closed sites and links with health.
 
Then again, as you said in relation to Grant visiting a waste incinerator plant, the owners could quite easily present him with research that seems to prove what they'd like it to by being selective with the portions of research they present him with - at the end of the day though, who can you trust?
 
Anyway, perhaps I'll start this as another topic but it's always been an interest since I read an article in the local paper several years ago about the possibility of radioactive waste having been dumped in Hertfordshire. Speculation was that it could have been on landfill in WGC. However, I can't find any published record of that now, perhaps understandbly. I'll keep looking though!
 
"A study of all landfill sites in England, Scotland and Wales, investigated the risk of congenital malformations, and low and very low birth weight outcomes in populations living within 2 km of a landfill site, open or closed. The study included over 9000 landfill sites. The study found that 80% of the population of Great Britain lived within 2 km of a landfill site. Statistically significant but small (<10%) increases in risk were reported around all sites combined for all congenital anomalies, neural tube defects, hypospadias, abdominal wall defects, and low birth weight. Findings for sites that were licensed to take special (hazardous) waste were generally similar to non-special sites. In this study, only 20% of the country was available as reference population and the comparability of the ‘landfill’ and ‘reference’ areas therefore raises questions. Also, if risks were associated with a particular group of ‘high-risk’ landfill sites such a finding would be lost in the overall comparison of over 9000 sites in this study."
 
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01238.pdf
 
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4120607
 
--------------------------------
"Closed landfills take up a considerable amount of space in many countries. Many locations are situated near the edge of cities and villages. In terms of efficient use of space, closed landfills can provide alternative locations for companies, offices, golf courses, city parks or ski runs, for greenhouse farming or the cultivation of forests. However, many closed landfills may also pose environmental- and public health risks. In order to protect environment and public health of negative consequences caused by former and abandoned landfills, risks should be assessed and managed."[/] 
 
http://www.endreportsufalnet.net/static/files/General_Introduction_model_strategy_.pdf
 
Background on Sufalnet:
http://www.endreportsufalnet.net/about-sulfalnet/goals-sufalnet/
 

Ultimately, whatever one thinks about the science, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to reduce unecessary purchases and recyle as much as possible - when we can! Manufacturers have a massive part to play and I've already given an example eleswhere in this forum of a supermarket shrink-wrapping brussell sprout trees and asking me if I'd like two plastic bags to carry them in!

P.S
 

As for bottles and china poking out of the ground, how old does a waste deposit need to be before it's no longer waste and becomes archaeology? Lots of historic waste sites are now scheduled archaeological sites. Most of the stuff in these sites is now utterly harmless, and is actually valued!
[/]

Well, it depends what else is under/alongside these I suppose. My point is that there appears to be areas that are uncapped that nobody knows about until they start digging there!
For example, only a couple of years ago was there a big local furore about bottle-digging on "Woodhall Open Space" - the stretch of land near 20th Mile bridge that most people actually think of as simply "Chequers". The environmental damage being done was causing serious health and safety issues whereby the bottle diggers were leaving big holes in a much used and loved open space. They may well have been valuable but what else could they have exposed? At the end of the day, nobody really knows what unofficial dumping could have taken place at such sites. As already pointed out earlier in this thread, some of the maps used to help identify "reference sites" in the waste consultation were completely out of date!
 
Perhaps these are the sorts of issues that need sorting out before we even consider being dumped on again.[/]

[Mighty Hatfield]

a reminder
  Public meeting over Hatfield incinerator 06:56 - 20 August 2009 

New Barnfield

[/t]

CONCERNED residents have called a public meeting in Hatfield to oppose the county council's plans to build a 270,000 tonne waste incinerator at New Barnfield.

Borough councillor and Hatfield resident Kieran Thorpe, who has helped organise the event, said: "This meeting has been called by local residents rather than a political party.

"Everyone is welcome to come along and hear reports on the current situation and, more importantly, to give their views on the matter."

The meeting will take place on Wednesday, August 26, at the Hilltop Hall, next to the Harrier public house in Bishops Rise.

It starts at 7.30pm.