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]

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.

[shapps]

Well done to Mighty Hatfield for successfully chairing last night's meeting about the incinerator.  This is my account of the meeting and others may have different recollections.

This residents meeting was held at Hilltop, Hatfield, with the purpose of providing an update and a platform for residents and local representatives to discuss where the incinerator plans are up to and the best way forward.

All the main political parties were represented.

The meeting kicked off with Mighty Hatfield setting the scene, explaining where the proposals were up to and referring to a number of previous meetings and documents.  Essentially, there is a long time scale associated with this project with an incinerator being built somewhere in Hertfordshire in 2015/16. This time table was referred to in passing:

  April 2009 to 2010 - EIA takes place

April 2009 - Waste management companies begin talks with the council

June 2009 – Waste Company bidders discuss outline solutions with the council

September 2009 – Number of bidders is narrowed down to 3 or 4

January to September 2010 – Talks with bidders continue to narrow choice to 2 for final tender stage.

September 2010 – Final tenders invited

March 2011 – Waste management contractor appointed

March 2010 to 2011 – Planning permission process

March 2012 to 2015 – Construction phase

March 2015 – Plant opens.

Next up was Mike Hobday who explained that he has 20 years of experience in fighting incinerators of all types and in different locations. He said believes that the provision of an incinerator leads to less recycling and that the entire approach was defective.

I then spoke and mentioned that I had begun working with residents on this issue back in March 2008 and that they had my full support. I said that I had written to the 6 waste management companies to point out the likely scale of objection to the New Barnfield site and (should have said) that I have invited the Managing Directors of each of the firms for a meeting with me. I am also writing to each member of the Herts CC Waste Management Committee with similar information.

There were then a number of contributions from the floor from nearby residents, expert environmental campaigners.

I will leave this thread open for others (particularly residents who were there) to fill in the detail. The Welwyn Hatfield Times were present and will provide a further write up.

The important thing about the meeting was that it demonstrated a strong degree of cross-party support for the campaign.

Grant.

P.S. If you haven't signed my Save New Barnfield petition yet then please do so here http://www.SaveNewBarnfield.com

[shapps]

Welwyn Hatfield Times report http://www.whtimes.co.uk/content/whtimes/news/story.aspx?brand=WHTOnline&category=News&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=newslatestWHT&itemid=WEED27%20Aug%202009%2008%3A49%3A30%3A690

[MikeHobday]

The important thing about the meeting was that it demonstrated a strong degree of cross-party support for the campaign.

Grant.

Let's be clear - if there was cross-party support to protect New Barnfield, then the 100% Tory County Council cabinet - including Hatfield South Tory County Councillor Stuart Pile - wouldn't have voted for incineration, and wouldn't have voted to clear the library from the New Barnfield site.

There's certainly not cross-party support against incineration. While I have opposed incineration for twenty years, and opposed incineration when I was a WGC County Councillor, Grant is quoted in today's Welwyn Hatfield Review saying that "energy from waste might be a good idea." Indeed, he's found a site for the incinerator:

A) exactly where within your own constituency do you think these suitable alternatives for a waste incinerator are?

The best location would be somewhere where there are no residents nearby and where there are excellent road or rail transport links.  I would have thought that Junction 3 of the A1M which is directly on the motorway and without nearby residents would be appropriate. There is unused land to the West of the Junction.

Still, everyone deserves a third chance . Let me repeat the offer:

Grant, I'm presenting the Action Hatfield petition against the incinerator to the County County waste panel at 2 pm on Wednesday 9 September. Want to come along?
Everyone else welcome of course.
Mike

 

[shapps]

Still, everyone deserves a third chance . Let me repeat the offer:

Grant, I'm presenting the Action Hatfield petition against the incinerator to the County County waste panel at 2 pm on Wednesday 9 September. Want to come along?
Everyone else welcome of course.
Mike

Hi Mike, several people approached me to comment that you were the only person to go political with this issue at the meeting the other night and I think I spotted that you'd also put Labour logos on your petition too (though stand to be corrected on this).  I understand that only one person can present and speak at the meeting and I'm sure you'll do a good job.  Incidentally, I had previously asked on this thread (twice) how many signatures you're presenting. Third time lucky perhaps?

Our petition now has 540 online signatures and we don't yet know the number of offline signatures, but it is growing.  We'll present this at a later stage to both County and to the waste companies who I have invited to come and meet me in order that I can explain the depth of concern.

Good luck.
Grant.

[MikeHobday]

Still, everyone deserves a third chance . Let me repeat the offer:

Grant, I'm presenting the Action Hatfield petition against the incinerator to the County County waste panel at 2 pm on Wednesday 9 September. Want to come along?
Everyone else welcome of course.
Mike

Hi Mike, several people approached me to comment that you were the only person to go political with this issue at the meeting the other night and I think I spotted that you'd also put Labour logos on your petition too (though stand to be corrected on this).  I understand that only one person can present and speak at the meeting and I'm sure you'll do a good job.  Incidentally, I had previously asked on this thread (twice) how many signatures you're presenting. Third time lucky perhaps?

There's no Labour logo on the Action Hatfield petition. I haven't counted numbers yet, but will be sure to do so before presenting the petition.

And yes, I'll continue to make political comments where appropriate - for as long as the 100% Tory County Council cabinet continues to dump on Welwyn Hatfield. And for as long as the Welwyn Hatfield Conservative Association continues to promote and support the cabinet members who treat local residents so badly.
 
If you can blame Labour for decisions made by the non political Primary Care Trust, I'll blame the Tories for decisions made by the very political county council cabinet!
 
Regards
 
Mike

[mythoughts]

Without conducting any research itself into the the possible health hazards presented to those living near waste incinertors, the Health Protection Agency has seen fit to deem them safe.
 
Actually, the HPA has always deemed them to be safe but, in my view, has now embarked upon a PR campaign to smooth the way for the implementation of WI and has simply re-released its long-held position on this to facilitate that.
 
Now, we all know there's good and there's bad science BUT the HPA has revealed that it does not even recommend undertaking any scientific research exploring the possible health risks posed by waste incinerators.
 
In my opinion, making decisions on public health without conducting scientific research is nigh on negligent. And this is the lot that's supposed to help us get through Swine Flu 2 - The Terminator.
 
Prediction: In ten years time the HPA will commission research to find out why there are higher incidences of birth deformities and specific cancers found amongst populations living within a certain proximity of waste incinerators.
 

 
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=16940&channel=0&title=Incinerators+'no+significant+threat'+to+public+health
 
 Full report:

 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1251473372218
 

[MikeHobday]

Thanks to all local residents who came with me to the County Council's waste panel this afternoon to support the presentation of our anti-incinerator petition. I've summarised my comments to the waste panel on my blog at http://mikehobday.blogspot.com/
Mike