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
Author
Topic: Waste treatment sites revealed - they could be near you!!! (Read 15867 times)