Dronfield incinerator proposals - all discussion in this thread

[Cuey]

If this is your tatctic then you are letting people down and giving false hope. The safty and polution route have been tried before and failed. Unless you have new evidence then you simply going to get laughed at. From a recent case similar to yours:-

 

"The Health Protection Agency has reviewed the latest scientific evidence on the health effects of modern municipal waste incinerators, concluding that while it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects completely, the potential damage from modern regulated incinerators is probably so small that it would be undetectable."

 

This is what the company will use and unless you have truely scientific and unbiased counter arguments then your simply going to come across as a NIMBY (sadly thats how you are being seen).

[Cuey]

Why not just admit that you've got it plain wrong and move on.

 

The places mentioned in your thread headline are not in the path of the prevailing wind from Sheepbridge. Neither is Barlow.

 

But they do have wealthy influential residents which i image he is hoping will add some weight to a weak argument.

[rich_b]

The science and dangers are there for all to read about.

The HPA and Environmetal Agency are toothless.

The legislation is years behind the science.

 

My aim, quite frankly, is to scare people zipless so that they get on to their elected representatives about it. Believe me, I am very concerned about the things I have read about incinerators, esp. re: nanoparticles, dioxins, furans, etc.

 

If we tried to beat Cyclamax on purely science (or even purely legal) grounds, they would simply outspend us to win their argument.

 

We need the people to unite as a community, to say NO, and to get those whose salaries we pay on our side. Because that is what we pay their salaries for, lest they and we forget.

 

If we do nothing, and this gets built, and poisons people like every other similar plant around the world, we will look back in 5 years and think "D'oh! We should have stopped this when we had a chance."

 

Matlock make a decision in 6-8 weeks. Now is the time to act.

[rich_b]

But they do have wealthy influential residents which i image he is hoping will add some weight to a weak argument.

 

Weak argument? Go and do some research before you talk to me again.

[Longcol]

Weak argument? Go and do some research before you talk to me again.

 

As your grasp of basic geography = serious fail, why should you expect anyone to believe you have a grasp of the science?

[shortcrust]

Weak argument? Go and do some research before you talk to me again.

 

You're not doing yourself or your argument any favours with that sort of attitude. You've annoyed me so much that I'm actually going to campaign in favour of the project. Every neighbourhood should have one!

 

Deadly emissions and nanoparticles indeed.... As scientific as my cat.

[rich_b]

Chris, point noted.

 

If people don't care about this, I don't understand why they would post on this thread. I am not looking for an argument. I simply want to make people aware that this proposal is on the table and will be passed unless people unite and do something about it.

 

I have a scientific background, not that that makes me any less or more qualified to be scared or not. I have read the research. I have looked into the existing regulations. I have looked into the powers that are supposed to regulate these things. I genuinely am concerned that building this (yes, in my back yard) will have serious negative consequences for the health of everyone in my back yard and beyond.

 

The science is WAY ahead of the law.

 

Until such time as the developer can show me the evidence, the real data, that these things are safe, I will not change my position.

 

They cannot show me that evidence, by the way, at the moment because they have NEVER operated an incinerator anywhere before. Doesn't that worry anyone?

 

The precautionary principle should apply - if you think there's a small chance it could be really bad for lots of people, don't do it.

 

The developer themselves state that every year people will be hospitalised with respiratory illness downwind of the site. That says it all.

[cgksheff]

...........

 

The developer themselves state that every year people will be hospitalised with respiratory illness downwind of the site. That says it all.

 

 

Really?

 

People downwind of the site will be hospitalised with respiratory illnesses even if the incinerator is never built!

[Longcol]

 

The precautionary principle should apply - if you think there's a small chance it could be really bad for lots of people, don't do it.

 

 

Humans would never have made any progress based on that principle.

 

Every year 4,000 people are killed and 2.7 million injured by accidents in their own homes - by that logic the development of housing = bad idea.

[rich_b]

Really?

 

People downwind of the site will be hospitalised with respiratory illnesses even if the incinerator is never built!

 

I read all of the following article. Here is just the abstract.

 

"Origin and Health Impacts of Emissions of Toxic By-Products and Fine Particles from Combustion and Thermal Treatment of Hazardous Wastes and Materials."

 

by Stephania A. Cormier , Slawo Lomnicki , Wayne Backes , Barry Dellinger

 

High-temperature, controlled incineration and thermal treatment of contaminated soils, sediments, and wastes at [landfill] sites are often preferred methods of remediation of contaminated sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and related legislation.

 

Although these methods may be executed safely, formation of toxic combustion or reaction by-products is still a cause of concern. Emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHCs), including polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans; and toxic metals (e.g., chromium VI) have historically been the focus of combustion and health effects research.

 

However, fine particulate matter (PM) and ultrafine PM, which have been documented to be related to cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and cancer, have more recently become the focus of research. Fine PM and ultrafine PM are effective delivery agents for PAHs, CHCs, and toxic metals.

 

In addition, it has recently been realized that brominated hydrocarbons (including brominated/chlorinated dioxins), redox-active metals, and redox-active persistent free radicals are also associated with PM emissions from combustion and thermal processes.

 

In this article, we discuss the origin of each of these classes of pollutants, the nature of their association with combustion-generated PM, and the mechanisms of their known and potential health impacts.