Insight into how a new burner may harm areas
A MEDICAL expert has been called in to give compelling evidence in the ongoing incinerator row.
Dr Dick Van Steenis is to give a talk tomorrow on the harmful effects of them and how residents in Quedgeley, Hardwicke and Kingsway could be hit if one were built at Javelin Park.
Retired GP Dr Steenis has campaigned against incinerators for decades and claims his research has stopped at least 27 being built across the UK.
He will speak at 7.30pm at the offices of Hardwicke Village Hall to members of the campaign group Glosvain, and parish councillors from Quedgeley and Hardwicke.
Get 10% off your GAP insurance with ALA.co.uk using the promotional code LW10
Contact: 01653 916304
Valid until: Wednesday, June 18 2014
Dr Van Steenis has carried out a study of figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which he says shows death rates and health problems are far more prevalent downwind of incinerators.
He believes particles known as PM1s and PM2.5s, which are not monitored by the Health Protection Agency and Environment Agency, are responsible for the health problems because they are inhaled.
Anna Mozul, chairman of Quedgeley Parish Council, said: "We are delighted that Dr Van Steenis is coming to address us because we believe he has a message we all need to hear. He has been campaigning against incinerators a long time now and has successfully fought off 27 proposals over the years.
"Quedgeley, Hardwicke and Kingsway will all be affected by the incinerator because we are so close to the proposed site and it is time people saw it for what it is.
"There are far better alternatives available today and Dr Van Steenis will outline those at the meeting.
"When the county council came up with the idea of an incinerator in 2007 it was the technology of th time, but technology has moved on and incinerators are old hat.
"We just want the county council to look into it and be open to changing their minds."
In January, the HPA launched a study into the affects of incinerators, saying it recognised the concern of members of the public.




Comments
by TracyManfredi
Sunday, September 16 2012, 11:36PM
“Hi to the skeptics - I have not charged anything for my services as for twitter I have only put on a call for a moratorium on incineration is this what you are referring to due to concerns re health and air quality. My son has asthma and due to his prexisting condition he will probably be affected by even short term fugitive emissions of NO2 even if they are within standard limits. So yes I care passionately not just about my Son, my community but also about everyone else who maybe affected by such a proposal. Hope this clarifies my interest and call for moratorium. If it were just linked to the study by imperial college London there may be a floodgate of EfWs dependant on results of Infant mortality rates, however if a full study is done and heart attacks, respiratory disorders and asthma and SMRs are considered plus child cancers and sarcomas as well as the birth defects and IMRs we the public would get a full and true picture of the health impact of the proposal. If it seems naive it's because I am just an ordinary member of the public who's done a heck of a lot of research in a lot of detail in a number of areas!”
by Ysedra
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 1:53PM
“That's a little on the nose, Bonkim2003. Tracy may be doing it for the love of clean air alone, though she makes some of the strangest Twitter posts...”
by Bonkim2003
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 1:38PM
“TracyManfredi - who is paying your fees for the campaign Manfredi?”
by TracyManfredi
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 12:30PM
“The Northwich one is still outstanding the decision was scheduled mid July.
The Middlewich one was refused and we heard direct from covanta no appeal has or will be lodged and the time limit has passed (although my involvement with Middlewich was limited only re health). I presented evidence on all areas for northwich - hope its refused - Fingers crossed.”
by Ysedra
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 10:47AM
“Thanks for all the helpful cut and pastes, Tracy. How did your campaign go, by the way?”
by Pebbles23
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 9:47AM
“zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”
by photogirl
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 9:46AM
“Whose buddy would get the contract to build it?”
by TracyManfredi
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 9:32AM
“If the group and Council are serious about stopping the facility then you need to attack on all fronts :
Health
Air Quality
Traffic
Dumping Ground
Visual and Landscape
Effect on ecology and environment
Alternatives to Incineration pros & cons of each & whether they can deliver the desired end result for the business ie level and pressure of steam required calorific value of waste
Existing pollution and illnesses in the surrounding wards
Human Rights.
Ideally such evidence should be collected and documented from the outset of the campaign as waiting until it gets called in by the Secretary of State or goes to appeal is too late as you only get 4-6 weeks to gather, cross reference and submit the reports.
I can't stress enough the need to do the research now and look at the citations and reports quoted below - the 6 city study and update pope let Al is useful too as is Ostra's peer review of the COMEAP 2009 report as it shows even our government understate the impact of PM2.5s on health.
From a human rights perspective you should look at Articles 2,8 and in conjunction to Article 14 also look at the rights of children to an education as pollution increases sickness time. Again case law needs reviewing in detail to strengthen the case in opposition.
Many organisations and groups profess that health and human rights will not win the argument, however headway was made on health in covanta and if the case is organised and put together correctly it can be extremely persuasive and difficult to argue against.
Bob Maynard from the HPA gave a talk at the CHP energy conference highlighting the lack of research on health and issues that are developing. People are starting to listen to the likes of Dr Van Steenis, Ryan and the general public. Fear itself from a health perspective is a material factor as well don't forget! What must not happen is that the campaign group are seen to scaremonger the public they must remain impassive tell both sides of the health debate and point to areas of research so the public can go do the research themselves and come to their own conclusions.”
by TracyManfredi
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 7:55AM
“If the group and council are serious about stopping the facility they will listen to Van Steenis read the research quoted together with Pope and Al and the update to the Six cities study and study it critically. A superficial mention of the issues will not be in the best interests of the public, detailed and time consuming research and evidence gathering will determine whether you succeed or not. The sooner you do the research and compile your papers and supporting evidence the better given you only have 4-6 weeks to prepare write and document evidence, cross ref tge appendices and write a summary,once it goes to appeal or gets called in by the secretary of State. The devil is in the detail.
Ostra's peer review of COMEAP 2009 is also good as it shows that even Gov advisors understate the implications of PM2.5s.”
by TracyManfredi
Wednesday, September 05 2012, 7:39AM
“I suggest for those who may be skeptical about Dr Van Steenis' claims look at the COMEAP 2009 report which essentially states that the PM2.5s are directly attributable to the increase in standard mortality rates - this means that exposure to PM2.5s and below increases the risk of dying earlier generally and from cardio vascular disease and to a lesser extent cancer. COMEAP advise the government on the health effects of air pollution namely PM2.5s. Dr Van Steenis claims are valid and supported on this area even by advisers to government. In the US they have been monitoring PM2.5s for tears and death rates are falling due to the limits imposed.
We have not been monitoring them in the UK. Why not? Limits have now been imposed by the EC Directives - essentially the uk will try and move towards these limits from 2015 and stricter targets for 2020.
However limits for 2015/20 are not as stringent as the USEPA require nor are they as prudent as is being advocated and imposed in Scotland under SEPA.
Worthy of note is that SEPA are so concerned about the publics exposure to PM2.5s etc that they are rightly limiting the number of facilities in a given area.
If the public want to ensure the facility is not approved and built take my advice do the research and if in doubt please call me 07590409821 and I will be more than happy to help with the research.”