Council considers legal action against waste plant decision (From Northwich Guardian)

So TATA are proud of their long association with Northwich are they! They have only been here for a few years as this plant was originally Brunner Mond then ICI not TATA . Get your facts correct before you come here. The thing is most people in Northwich know which company had a long association with the town and it's not an India company or for that matter E-On.

'Construction traffic will be significantly lower than when the site is operational'? That says it all - the daily intrusion on all our lives once this monster is operational will be immense. Tata have consistenly refused to either commit to firm transport plans or reveal where the waste will come from and by the time the government realises they've been hood-winked it will be too late for Northwich.

We don't trust you Tata

The evasions in TATA's answers to the questions above are masterly. The spin doctors are certainly earning their corn.

Take the one about the regeneration of Northwich, for example, for example.

Note, not a single reassuring word about securing or guaranteeing the 500 jobs in chemical manufacturing in Northwich. How clever.

All support for the argument that the waste incinerator is merely a cynical stage in a lucrative get out strategy to abandon most chemical manufacture in the UK and supply the market from abroad. When the time is right, of course.

No mention either that most of the construction jobs will be taken by specialist crews from elsewhere in the UK and abroad.

The comment about a waste incinerator complementing the regeneration of Northwich is just laughable. Any doubters should take a look at the monster which is being constructed in Runcorn to see what is coming. ( It would help if the Guardian would publish a photo, please )

Only TATA could see the attractions in a football stadium sized industrial building with chimneys nearly twice the height of Nelson's Column looming over the town from behind Tesco and visible from miles around.


But then, why should they be bothered? They are not likely to be around anyway.

Still posting libellous comments Mr Byrne, very brave from someone who is in the public eye and opposing this exellent EfW plant.

Maybe TATA will seek their legal advisors about published statements online which are alleged to defame the company?

Every question forwarded to TATA / E-on has been answered in the correct manner and with numerous facts and evidence to back up their answers....something CHAIN lack when they respond to questions from individuals. Using the 'its bad for our health' etc does not wash anymore with the public, its obvious the vibe around the town is that CHAIN are starting to annoy people.

The sooner construction on the new EfW plant starts, the better for everyone...maybe CHAIN can then go and protest about something else.

Dear me, it sounds like someone is trying to stifle free speech and change the subject. A usual tactic when the pro incinerator lot are faced with embarrassing questions they want to avoid answering.

If TATA issue issue a statement that the 500 jobs they constantly mention are secured now that provisional planning permission for their waste incinerator has been granted then fair enough. At least their employees can rest easy. It is also fair that if such a statement is not forthcoming then we can draw our own conclusions.



Meanwhile, perhaps someone should advise Tesco to plant some VERY tall trees behind their store in Manchester Road and, perhaps, invest in an underground car park.

To quote the words of the planning inspector (para 16.62)

'The higher parts of the building would also be visible from parts of the town centre and retail park but this partial view would be less obtrusive than views of the whole building'

Strangely, the inspector did not mention the chimneys which are roughly twice as high as the building!


Perhaps a more apt question would be to ask about TATA's contribution to the degeneration of Northwich.

There is a big difference between free speech, and defamation!

TATA cant issue a statement saying 500 jobs will be safe. that would be ridiculous....NO company on this planet would do such a thing, unless the MD had a crystal ball!

Perhaps a more apt question would be to ask about Brunner Mond/TATA's contribution to the REGENERATION of Northwich?

Once again ladies and gentlemen you are arguing with a fool and there is no point in it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows the Incinerator will be bad news for the town, health-wise and transport-wise and any future for the proposed housing estate at Wincham is going to go up the spout because only fools like I'm Not a Scouser would buy a house with an Incinerator next door, end of, as the say.
WHS.

I'm not saying Mr Byrne is a fool!

Still resorting to name calling then eh WHS?

Do some research will you, before you chain yourself to Lostock gates?

It is you that is the fool, not L Byrne. I am resorting to name calling because you continue to ignore REAL facts like 25,000 names on a petition and then claim people are for the idea an against CHAIN. You are a fool there is no other name for you. "End of" as they say.
WHS.

25'000 people signed a petition?

Did these 25'000 people give their names, address' date of births? NO

Because anyone can sign a petition in the name of someone else, I wonder how many of these people are called John Smith. I dont know anyone that signed it, but giving the population of Northwich, you are claiming that 1 out of every 4 people in the area signed it?

Think there is only 1 fool here dont you?

and as the say.....'End of'

I, as someone heavily involved in the field of science, wouldlike to know

*why are only 50 jobs required for such a large place?
*Will the transportation of refuse will have a greater environmental impact that the burning of rubbish for energy?
. It wouldnt surprise me if it actually undid all the work of the green energy.
*What happens when emissions are breached either accidentallly?
* The environment agency sets the limits, who monotors them?
*What exactly will be in the emissions?
*Why not place this closer to where rubbish is located to make this energy cleaner still? for example, London?
* Exactly why would this benefit Northwich? Are we going to get a massive job influx? new roads? cheaper electricity? Free Bupa healthcare? new cars? Weekly rubbish collections? There must be some benefit..

I for one will not be happy until these have all been answered.

GrumpyBum wrote:
I, as someone heavily involved in the field of science, wouldlike to know

*why are only 50 jobs required for such a large place?
*Will the transportation of refuse will have a greater environmental impact that the burning of rubbish for energy?
. It wouldnt surprise me if it actually undid all the work of the green energy.
*What happens when emissions are breached either accidentallly?
* The environment agency sets the limits, who monotors them?
*What exactly will be in the emissions?
*Why not place this closer to where rubbish is located to make this energy cleaner still? for example, London?
* Exactly why would this benefit Northwich? Are we going to get a massive job influx? new roads? cheaper electricity? Free Bupa healthcare? new cars? Weekly rubbish collections? There must be some benefit..

I for one will not be happy until these have all been answered.

There was a public inquiry last year, that was your chance to put concerns/questions forward.

I am very happy to see the question and answer section in this article so TATA can be heard on this website, previously it was just another campaign outlet for CHAIN.
I'm Not A Scouser there is no point trying to form a debate and challenge the views of L Byrne and WHS, you will just be name-called and have the same CHAIN waffle that we had on the previous Northwhich Guardian article from last week.
If they wish to be ill-informed I believe we should just let them be. At the end of the day, they have the right to be heard, despite what we think. I put many valid arguments forward on the previous thread which after name-calling and other insults from L Byrne, he failed to respond. If that was his decision, that's okay with me.

I highly doubt even CHAIN believe that petition is a true reflection of the views of Northwich. If I am perfectly honest, if I was told all the exaggerations and mis-information I may have been compelled to sign myself, in particular if I was told that my children would get cancer...then again I may have also seen past their absurdity.
I think it is rather rich that those like myself who welcome the EfW plant are said to be using 'tactics' when we are merely voicing our opinion. Am I incorrect in thinking that this website was for people to debate the developments of Northwich; it is actually just a podium on which CHAIN can further hammer their propaganda?
I for one do not understand why TATA would enter into a joint venture with EON, spending large amounts of money to change to a more sustainable energy source if they are just going to 'leave'. I'm not one for numbers but I'm sure it will be a long while before either party will see any financial gain.
Just on a final note, when Brunner Mond became TATA Chemicals Europe, the buildings remained the same, they produce the same product with the same staff. A change of name does not remove the long association with Northwich.

400,000 tonnes of emissions from the giant chimneys each year for 15-20 years. Nanoparticles that can't be trapped by the filtration system employed. Farmland, schools and a bakery in the fallout area. Increased carcinogens from diesel trucks. "Sustainable" energy source, if other folk don't recycle like Cheshire.

And we shouldn't worry, because this is "excellent"?

Why am I not reassured by this triumphalism?

Obviously CHAIN had got to you first, for the facts read the inspectorates report.

Hibernian wrote:
400,000 tonnes of emissions from the giant chimneys each year for 15-20 years. Nanoparticles that can't be trapped by the filtration system employed. Farmland, schools and a bakery in the fallout area. Increased carcinogens from diesel trucks. "Sustainable" energy source, if other folk don't recycle like Cheshire.

And we shouldn't worry, because this is "excellent"?

Why am I not reassured by this triumphalism?

You are inhaling about 50 nanogrammes of nanoparticles per minute just writing your comment.

Be me more specific in your comment, thats one of the scaremongering tactics employed by the likes of CHAIN

If someone is told they will be breathing in nanoparticles, they will be worried.....tell them the truth, that worry goes away!

As usual, the TATA garbage burner apologists attempt to distract attention by changing the subject when they are embarrassed. So, let's return to where we were......

As I said..


The evasions in TATA's answers to the questions above are masterly. The spin doctors are certainly earning their corn.

Take the one about the regeneration of Northwich, for example, for example.

Note, not a single reassuring word about securing or guaranteeing the 500 jobs in chemical manufacturing in Northwich. How clever.

All support for the argument that the waste incinerator is merely a cynical stage in a lucrative get out strategy to abandon most chemical manufacture in the UK and supply the market from abroad. When the time is right, of course.

No mention either that most of the construction jobs will be taken by specialist crews from elsewhere in the UK and abroad.

The comment about a waste incinerator complementing the regeneration of Northwich is just laughable. Any doubters should take a look at the monster which is being constructed in Runcorn to see what is coming. ( It would help if the Guardian would publish a photo, please )

Only TATA could see the attractions in a football stadium sized industrial building with chimneys nearly twice the height of Nelson's Column looming over the town from behind Tesco and visible from miles around.


But then, why should they be bothered? They are not likely to be around anyway.

50 nanogrammes per minute is OK, so I shouldn't worry about 400,000 TONNES of emissions? Sorry pal, I think the onus is on Tata to prove it's safe, not on me to prove it's dangerous.

Hibernian wrote:
50 nanogrammes per minute is OK, so I shouldn't worry about 400,000 TONNES of emissions? Sorry pal, I think the onus is on Tata to prove it's safe, not on me to prove it's dangerous.

What percentage of the claimed 400'000 tonnes of emissions per year, will be dangerous nanoparticles, ie ppm quantity.

The Health Protection Agency and other organisations state that emissions would be so small it would be hard to detect and have no proven health implications.

So the onus is on yourself, the opposer, to prove that they ARE dangerous as you claim.

Instead of name-calling on the local newspaper's website, it would be more constructive to express your views to George Osborne, the M.P in whose constituency the proposed Tata/E-On incinerator site is situated, and Edward Davey, the person who gave the go-ahead for it to be built in his position as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Rt. Hon. George Osborne.
House of Commons.
London SW1A 0AA

OR
Rt. Hon. George Osborne.
Tatton Conservative Association.
Manchester Road,
Knutsford
Cheshire WA16 0LT

email address:
george.osborne.mp@pa
rliament.uk
AND
The Right Hon. Ed. Davey M.P.
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Department of Energy and Climate Change.
3, Whitehall Place.
London SW1A 2AW

email address:
edward@edwarddavey.c
o.uk.

If you have commented on this website, you might like to contact the above email addresses and express your views to the people who actually need to be made aware of what local people think about the decision. It's not worth the time and effort throwing insults backwards and forwards. It serves no purpose.
Please utilise the above contact details. You can't rely on Messrs. Osborne and Davey reading the comments on an article on the Northwich Guardian website, to know how you or I feel about living in close proximity to Tata/Eo-n's 600,000 tonne waste incinerator. You've got to contact them NOW.
Please pass this information on to friends and family and,in fact, anyone wishing to express an opinion on this issue.

.

I'm not a Souser

Er, would the Health Protection Agency you mention that states that incinerator emissions do not have proven health implications , by any chance, be the same one as I mentioned in a previous comment as follows?



'On 24 January 2012 the UK Health Protection Agency announced a new major study into the health effects of incinerators. These are the exact words quoted from the official press release:-

'A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run municipal waste incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency'

The study will be undertaken jointly by Imperial College London and Kings
College London. Preliminary results are expected in 2014


This is another quote from the press release:-

'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.

Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available.'

Yes...the same one that is to carry out more research to back up their original statement!

It is obvious that the Health Protection Agency does have some doubts otherwise they would not have called for the research.

The HPA press release said:-

'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs (municipal waste incinerators) operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.

Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available.'

I wonder if the residents of places like Knutsford, Lymm and Holmes Chapel
have been told that they would be in the 'at risk ' zone around Lostock and that there are still two years to go before even the preliminary result of the research are published.

They surely have a right to be told.

So by the time the report is finalised, the plant will almost be finished being built.

Good timing!

I am always surprised when someone says they welcome an EfW plant in their backyard. I can see that you might accept it for pragmantic reasons or as a last resort to try and save an industry facing aggressive Turkish and Chinese competition. but to 'welcome' it. What else would they welcome - a nuclear power plant, a large sewage works whose methane could provide energy, a slaughter house?
I am further surprised that someone might think that TATA/EoN might not build speculatively with the intention of ceasing production of soda ash and focusing on energy generation. As 'wealth creators' and 'risk takers' aka gamblers and speculators, they will do what is best for their profit levlels. Neither has any long term commitment to Northwich. And as the TATA answer on vehicle numbers shows they have no idea where their waste will come from or what it will be. It was described at the Inquiry as a 'merchant plant', that is, a speculatative venture.
On the health and safety of the plant, I would be more reassured if we did not have governments that see regulation as 'red tape'. HSE and the Environmental Agenct have had their funding cut by at least a third. Their occupational cancer screening has almost stopped, and their unannounced visits to plants are at farcical levels. Both gently pursue polluters and there is little evidence of enforcement from these underfunded, underresourced and understaffed agencies. Large companies with the ears of politicians ignore them eg BP has had 21 enforcements since 2006 on over 50 breaches with no prosecution. Maximum fines are in the thousands of pounds rather than millions. This is the type of regulation that brought us the banking crisis, the newspaper scandals, police corruption and unbridled greed by MPs. I doubt if TATA or Eon are quaking in their boots at the regulatory regime. Rather they will be pressurising Ministers to reduce the 'burden' of checks even more. Ministers should tell them that only dirty and dangerous businesses should fear regulation. Insted they will likely bend the knee.
This plant, in a lightly regulated environment, is likely to be a slow disaster for Northwich.

Excellent summary from J L Brown. The whole thrust of Tata's professional barrister at the inquiry was "you can't prove it's dangerous" - not "there's nothing to worry about". This is exactly the approach that was adopted by tobacco companies when challenged on lung cancer over the decades.

the below is a direct quote from Mr Osbournes website

Lostock Incinerator plans shelved
Tuesday, 8 April, 2008

“Our campaign has been a resounding success,” says George. “We have stopped the incinerator being built in Lostock Gralam. I want to thank local people, especially those involved in CHAIN who worked so hard with me to make this happen.”

“This decision brings social and environmental benefits to my constituents and will protect their quality of life. I will continue to fight to make sure the plans don’t come back.”


assuming for a moment he knows what he's talking about he obviously felt this wasnt the best thing for northwich..... or are we just to assume he was either A) talking rubbish or B) just that he no longer feels "social and environmental benefits” nor "quality of life" are important to either him or his constituents

and before I get dragged into tit for tat... I am nothing to do with chain. I will however be able to see this thing from my doorstep and cant think of much I would like to see less. I also cant think of any reason anyone... (other than those that work for tata et al) who would genuinely think this will benefit the residents of northwich in anyway shape or form!

How much less would you pay for a house with a incinerator as the scenic backdrop ??

Re Hibernian's point about cigarette smoking and cancer. I recall that a 'qualification' of one of the so called 'expert witnesses' , all of whom received hefty fees, at the public inquiry was that he had experience of defending the tobacco industry in the US!

A horror fiction writer could not make this up if he or she tried but it will happen if the Government, which includes George Osborne in a very senior position, allows it to go ahead. The sad fact is that the victims are likely to be the children of Northwich in coming decades. It could take more than ten years for some of the serious conditions to develop, the experts told us. And, of course, people like 'iansuk' above.

By then, TATA will probably have disappeared, laughing all the way to the bank in Mumbai. And Northwich will be infamous as 'the town with the waste incinerator in its centre'.

On an earlier comment of mine on this website, I gave details of contact information for Tatton M.P. George Osborne, and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey (who sanctioned the application by Tata/E-On to build and operate a 600,000 tonne waste incinerator at Lostock near Northwich).
I hope readers have taken the opportunity to contact these two politicians. THEY DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE THINK.
Please also contact the Environment Agency for a list of breaches of emisiions by incinerators. You will then be able to read for yourself what CAN and DOES come out of these towering incinerator stacks.
It is very annoying to be continually accused of scaremongering. The information that I use has been provided either by Tata/E-On or government agencies. Would anyone suggest that I question its authenticity?

I'm Not a Scouser is NOT a real resident. He/She operates on this forum in an attempt to bend the minds of the locals. I'm confident that he/she has association to TATA or is part of their P.R arm...something on those lines.

This person's comments absolutely disguist me and as for the comments about Libel, well one can only conclude that this person is rattled and threatened about the oppossition to the Incinerator, spouting this crap in an attempt to shut people up!

You are pathetic I'm Not a Scouser and you do NOT represent the views of the Northwich community.

You are sir. in a MINORITY!

As the article at the top states, CWAC Council are currently deciding whether or not to legally challenge the Minister's decision.CHAIN has looked at the documents and believes that there are several grounds to do so.

CHAIN believes that this is literally a life and death matter for Northwich and the Council must stand by the people of the town and go to law. Given the amount of council tax that it takes from the area, it is the least we should expect.

We are also asking that legal representation be of the highest quality to give us the best chance of success. Cheshire East Council used a QC to represent them in Middlewich and Northwich deserves nothing less.
We will only get one chance at this.

I have followed but refrained from being embroiled in the arguments.

There has been a public enquiry, Northwich and Cheshire residents have had ample time to voice their opinions no point moaning after the event unless you are prepared to take action - clearly some are devastated enough to be motivated into direct action.

Having read the determination and inspectors report in full the fact is there IS probably a verifiable legal case for judicial review - I have refrained from entering the debate because I am interested to see what exactly Northwich, CHAIN and the council are prepared to do. None can succeed without the support of the others. Now is the time for proactive action.

Should we pursue judicial review we will need thousands of pounds for legal fees even with legal aid unless the council take on the fight for everyone on areas outside the original issues they have fought on although I understand the issue will bring back into play some of points the decision refuted.

I hope for everyones sake the fight continues - I for one still believe the impact the facility will have on health particularly of those suseptible persons with respiratory or cardio disease or asthma. But I will not waste my time reiterating that which I have said many times over or providing references that I gave at the enquiry.

A point worth noting though is the inspectors report indicated that the health concerns of residents were understandable it just didn't form part of the enquiry and thus could be afforded little weight.

Essentially the enquiry was concerned with planning issues and under national policy was to assume the EfW would be run effectively. The enquiry was not to duplicate things that form part of the environmental permitting process.

Problem is air quality is part of the permitting process, so as health is directly related to air quality it is considered alongside the permitting process of a fashion.

Essentially the Environmental agency do not deal with health they are forced to rely on HPA who claim that health effects are likely to be small if detectable (focus per the HPA correspondence doesn't focus on suseptible people- merely the majority- the local residents however ARE suseptible people with ABOVE average rates of respiratory issues asthmas and cardio vascular disease. In fact they are a spearhead LSOA where both makes and females already have a LOWER LIFE EXPECTANCY & are more likely, due to life style choices and predisposed disease, to be adversely affected by potential health issues from both stack emissions and traffic emissions).

If everyone really doesn't want it there is such an argument to be had and much work still left to do....

rogers-t wrote:
I'm Not a Scouser is NOT a real resident. He/She operates on this forum in an attempt to bend the minds of the locals. I'm confident that he/she has association to TATA or is part of their P.R arm...something on those lines.

This person's comments absolutely disguist me and as for the comments about Libel, well one can only conclude that this person is rattled and threatened about the oppossition to the Incinerator, spouting this crap in an attempt to shut people up!

You are pathetic I'm Not a Scouser and you do NOT represent the views of the Northwich community.

You are sir. in a MINORITY!

Would you like to show me some proof that I am NOT a local resident, and that I have an association with TATA, or E-on?

Would you like to look up the definition of libel? and they when you have mastered that, come back and we can discuss some libellous comments made on here. you are a pathetic brainwashed individual.

I reiterate my point above there is a case for judicial review and much work to do - plus the permit still needs approving and has been applied for.
Health is also still an issue and won't disappear it just didn't form part of the enquiry.

Let's see who really wants this facility stopped - naturally not the previous guy who simply keeps deflecting the entire argument with trivial irrelevances! Let's keep to the point.

tracy manfredi wrote:
I reiterate my point above there is a case for judicial review and much work to do - plus the permit still needs approving and has been applied for.
Health is also still an issue and won't disappear it just didn't form part of the enquiry.

Let's see who really wants this facility stopped - naturally not the previous guy who simply keeps deflecting the entire argument with trivial irrelevances! Let's keep to the point.

If the reference of your post is to me...i'm making valid points that some people cannot argue against, because they have NO case.

Unlike some, you wont see me repeating myself over and over with incorrect facts. Then again, i'm not a scaremongerer am I?

Not sure why you think those of us who do not think burning waste is a good idea economically or environmentally are scaremongering.
You have had many responses to your provocative posts that have given the case against the EfW plant.You seem to ignore the arguments and make 3 points repeatedly:
- Mr Byrne is libellous.
- TATA should be trusted.
- those who signed the petition against the EfW didn't really oppose it.
Not the most sophisiticated defence of incineration. Let us see your arguments against some of the substantive points made above.

JL Brown wrote:
Not sure why you think those of us who do not think burning waste is a good idea economically or environmentally are scaremongering.
You have had many responses to your provocative posts that have given the case against the EfW plant.You seem to ignore the arguments and make 3 points repeatedly:
- Mr Byrne is libellous.
- TATA should be trusted.
- those who signed the petition against the EfW didn't really oppose it.
Not the most sophisiticated defence of incineration. Let us see your arguments against some of the substantive points made above.

I have not said once, TATA should be trusted, read back. I mentioned once the petition numbers. So to say i'm repeating myself on those points is lies.

If people dont want to burn waste (which is actually the way forward now) then thats their opinion which they are entitled to. I never said that was scaremongering.

What is scaremongering, is telling people their children could get cancer, the emissions will be highly toxic and bad for our health, there will be hundreds of HGV's per hour, the building will be bigger than Wembley Stadium, telling people that TATA will close production and this EfW plant is just another moneymaker, that comment is libel.....all those points are false and well documented. Worse case scenario, approx 5/6 HGV per hour. Not forgetting that 2/3 of waste will be arriving by rail!

Emissions are controlled and will be too small to detect.

A comment was made on a previous article from a member of CHAIN, stating we will be exposed to certain amounts of toxins, what wasnt said was....that the amount produced by the EfW, is less than what we would be exposed to in normal every day life....now that is scaremongering.

Shall we just keep burying our waste, which produces more harmful emissions and pay huge amounts of tax and fines, or do we do what some of the cleanest and environmentally concious countries in Europe do, and use the waste to produce energy?

I know what I would do, and it loks like the government and the EU agree with me.

A few points. On TATA, you seem to think they gave excellent answers to the paper. I acknowledge the space was limited but there answers were at best bland and uninformative, for example, that on where and what the waste will be.
Second, in Europe there are EfW but few of the scale we face in what you describe as an 'excellent plant. In Denmark plants meet the need of their communities and burn around 15,000 tons. In Germany the use EfW because the Green Party oppose nuclear and their votes are needed to keep other parties in power.
On scaremongering, you have been referred to information on breaches of emissions by these plants. One example, Dargravel in Dumfrieshire run by Scotgen has had 200 breaches in 2 years and wass closed in April 2011 because it had released twice the permitted level of cancer causing dioxins. It has now reopened because it promises to do better. No one was prosecuted.
It is the World Health Organisation that says that the dioxins produce cancer, cause reproductive and developmental problems and damage immune systems not chain. The same organisations has also issued a report saying HGV emissions are cancer causing. Now that doesn't mean that we will all get cancers but it does mean there will be a small, but detectable increase in the locality of these plants. You think that is a price worht paying for what you call regeneration. Others do not.
A final pont, incineration is not clean and environmentally friendly. It is old technology. If you look at DECC's website you will see their strategy for the way forward. EfW hardly features. Its use is a speculative project to sweat out the last returns from the investment in this old technology.

Look let's be frank - I'm opposed to the EfW that's clear.

However it makes great business sense to have this vertical integration in a soda ash business particularly as its so dependent on energy. Whether TATA intend to use it as a short term barrier to their UK market or as a lucrative exit strategy.

It's also irrelevant whether costs of gas prices and alternative energy production will reduce that's a business decision. Unfortunately the type of facility used to create the energy is also a business decision for planning purposes and for s36 applications.

However it is a moral and social issue if the drivers behind the proposition are to get a lucrative exit strategy or increase operating profitability by EfW if there are alternatives that are safer then EfW and still produce the energy and heat. Problem is this is not a planning consideration but one for the Environment Agency. I suggest people write and give their reasons why they oppose the plant from an environmental perspective to the EA. I certainly have.

As for landfill I don't think I've ever seen one person for or against incineration that advocates continuing to bury waste - comments like this only serve to confuse and spin the issue. From a purely waste perspective there are alternatives to both landfill and EfW that if employed will move us further towards zero waste.

I would be the first to agree that neither landfill or EfW are good for health - fact is there are alternatives that are less detrimental to health these were discussed at length at the enquiry however turns out they must be considered as to best available technology at the permitting stage - another thing objectors may want to consider writing to EA on as well as air quality points.

However this is all an aside to the clear omission in the determination that would mean that the decision can be challenged. I await with anticipation both the council and CHAINs views after they have sought legal counsel.

To all those objectors and people who did sign the petitions don't give up - there is a chance this can be taken further. I've no more to say other than time can be better fought rallying the public and raising funds for legal counsel to fight this than going over old ground and much depends on our local council too. So I would suggest you make your views known that if there is ANY verifiable point on which it can be taken to judicial review that this is the option taken and that we fight to the last.

To 'I am not a Souser'

Most of your arguments are so patently unsound ,I will stick to the vital issue of increases in HGV traffic on Griffith Road/King Street.

TATA admits that when in operation there will be an increase of an AVERAGE of 22 HGV trips per hour on that stretch of road servicing the incinerator for 12 hours every day, 7.00am till 7.00pm.(page 6-21 of their environmental report, for example).

Very different to the 5/6 per hour that you falsely claim.

On page 6 -16 of the same report, they also admit that the AVERAGE number of HGVs on that road during the morning in 2016 will 89 per hour per hour. 3 large HGVs every two minutes!

I stress that it an average so there inevitably will be periods when that will go above 100 per hour.

So please, stop trying to mislead people and trying to con them into thinking that they should not be worried.



Note to other readers.
The total traffic rate projected for King Street in 2016 is 1447 per hour (24 per minute) AM and 1548 per hour (26 per minute )PM. A vehicle every TWO SECONDS on a narrow road through a residential area!

Amazingly, the traffic guys at CWAC Council have no problem with that.


It is not too late to stop this madness.
CWAC Council has a duty of care to do all it can to protect its citizens and it therefore must legally challenge the provisional decision to grant planning permission.

L Byrne wrote:
To 'I am not a Souser'

Most of your arguments are so patently unsound ,I will stick to the vital issue of increases in HGV traffic on Griffith Road/King Street.

TATA admits that when in operation there will be an increase of an AVERAGE of 22 HGV trips per hour on that stretch of road servicing the incinerator for 12 hours every day, 7.00am till 7.00pm.(page 6-21 of their environmental report, for example).

Very different to the 5/6 per hour that you falsely claim.

On page 6 -16 of the same report, they also admit that the AVERAGE number of HGVs on that road during the morning in 2016 will 89 per hour per hour. 3 large HGVs every two minutes!

I stress that it an average so there inevitably will be periods when that will go above 100 per hour.

So please, stop trying to mislead people and trying to con them into thinking that they should not be worried.



Note to other readers.
The total traffic rate projected for King Street in 2016 is 1447 per hour (24 per minute) AM and 1548 per hour (26 per minute )PM. A vehicle every TWO SECONDS on a narrow road through a residential area!

Amazingly, the traffic guys at CWAC Council have no problem with that.


It is not too late to stop this madness.
CWAC Council has a duty of care to do all it can to protect its citizens and it therefore must legally challenge the provisional decision to grant planning permission.

Your figure of 22 HGV's per hour is the worst case scenario, approx 2/3 of the waste will be coming by rail....you seem to forget that little addition. Like you forget other things in some of your comments.

You just said that TATA have admitted to 22 HGV's per hour when in operation.....NO THEY HAVE NOT!!!

That is the worst case scenario figure, which they have to give for the councils highways engineer, to give an estimate of traffic increase if all waste came by road. Even though that will not be the case.

A traffic increase of 1.5% by 2015....thats a real increase isnt it?

TATA are expected to transport 2/3 of waste by rail, this will equate to 3 HGV per hour. Can you see how misleading your comments are?

Your next comment states that by 2016 traffic along King Street will be approx 1498 (average) per hour. Can you give a breakdown of the type of vehicle...HGV, car etc?

Are there any more topics that you would like to discuss and have torn apart for a rational debate?

I'm not a Souser

You are getting a bit emotional which, I suppose, is understandable.

First, I quoted the page no of the TATA Environmental Report which the figure of 22 per hour comes from. I suggest you take a look.

(Note, CHAIN proved at the public inquiry that the figure of 22 is an
understatement.)

Second, your belief that TATA will actually use rail transport is touching but misplaced. You can see in the answer they gave above, that they 'aim to use rail transport' Yeh, right.
Their own pet ,well rewarded, consultant admitted that at the end of the day they would use the cheapest form of transport available. Does anybody seriously believe that TATA would turn down garbage burning business because there is not a rail link? Thought not.

Third. IF, a very BIG IF, by some remote chance TATA did haul in two thirds of their garbage by rail there would still be 122 HGV movements on King Street per 12 hour day. That equates to 10.16 average per hour. (Page 6-20 Para 6.98 of the TATA environmental report.)

In plain language , the figure of '3 per hour' which you quote is unmitigated cobblers.

Fourth. The figure of 1447 vehicles per hour on King Street which I mentioned is made up of 89 HGVs and 1358 non HGVs (cars, vans etc)
It comes from TATA's environmental report, Page 6 -16 Table 6.6

You really need to do your homework.

Re your final paragraph, to use what I believe is a Scouser expression ' You're having a laugh, aren't you ?'

Note..CHAIN never proved anything at the public enquiry, they proved they cant back up claims with hard evidence, but thats another topic for another day.

Thorough road traffic assessments have been undertaken covering a number of different transport fuel delivery scenarios. One scenario involves up to two rail deliveries a day plus approximately three HGV road deliveries per hour. The total daily HGV movements including fuel deliveries, chemical deliveries and bottom ash export equates to 122 two way movements per day (61 HGV vehicles in bound and 61 HGV vehicles out bound).

The application process also required that we prepared a ‘worst case’ traffic scenario. This involved a calculation made on the assumption that all the fuel needed by the plant would be delivered by road and that no fuel at all was delivered by rail. The calculation of the worst case equates to 262 two-way HGV movements per day (131 HGV vehicles in bound and 131 HGV vehicles out bound). This would result in a daily increase of about three per cent in volumes of traffic on Griffiths Road in 2015, the year the proposed EfW would commence operation.

You see, the 3 HGV per hour is not cobblers is it.....in your mind, to put off the general public it maybe, your illusions dont wash with me i'm afraid.

So you say they wont be using a rail link. Do you know the costs involved in road transprt and rail deliveries?

They have a rail link already in place, they have their own engine, and contracting one would not be difficult if needed.

Look at the cost of transporting that waste by road, drivers wages, tax, license, time, then multiply that by the amount of HGV's. There is no cheaper way to move waste over long distances than by rail, on an existing rail line.

If you disagree, you are more delusional than I thought!

I think the person needing to do more research is yourself.

I have access to all the relevant documents, so you have no need to repeatedly post page numbers and paragraphs.

'I'm not a Souser'

I really fear that you are loosing it.

So just a few of quick comments in case you do yourself damage.

122 HGV movements every day between 7.00am and 7.00pm is an average of 10.16 HGVs per hour. Do the sums!



Your use of the words 'WE prepared etc' in the first sentence of the second paragraph is very revealing and tells us quite a bit about where you are really coming from and your desperate defence of the indefensible.

Your little slip-up has proved what we thought all along that somebody with your weird views must be an employee or associated with TATA in some way.

We all now know who was behind the implied threats to free speech and bluster about libel and defamation.

It also explains why you and those like you hide behind pseudonyms.

Pathetic



By the way, the reason I quote precise sources about the information I provide is for the benefit of other readers. Something you should think about.

I'd just like to put to bed three myths that seem to have developed a life of their own.

1. Domestic waste is NOT a renewable resource. Anyone who tells you that EfW is 'renewable' needs to re read the definition of 'renewable'

2. Without Renewable Obligation Certificate payments, this plant would NEVER pass any financial tests. It would never have been proposed if we weren't all obliged to pay for it through our massively increased gas and electric bills.

3. The plant will NOT safeguard local jobs. It won't be built by a local company employing local people and it won't prevent job losses at Tata's Soda Ash plant.

It is the product of muddled thinking, financial trickery and extreme lobbying. In years to come this will be seen as a prime example of the decline of Western Civilisation.

L Byrne wrote:
'I'm not a Souser'

I really fear that you are loosing it.

So just a few of quick comments in case you do yourself damage.

122 HGV movements every day between 7.00am and 7.00pm is an average of 10.16 HGVs per hour. Do the sums!



Your use of the words 'WE prepared etc' in the first sentence of the second paragraph is very revealing and tells us quite a bit about where you are really coming from and your desperate defence of the indefensible.

Your little slip-up has proved what we thought all along that somebody with your weird views must be an employee or associated with TATA in some way.

We all now know who was behind the implied threats to free speech and bluster about libel and defamation.

It also explains why you and those like you hide behind pseudonyms.

Pathetic



By the way, the reason I quote precise sources about the information I provide is for the benefit of other readers. Something you should think about.

The 'we prepared etc' are direct quotes from TATA traffic statement!

Not me, so as you can see....another failed accusation.

I could also quote precise text from sources....like the following:

Heath Protection Agency says: “Incinerators emit pollutants into the environment but provided they comply with modern regulatory requirements, such as the Waste Incineration Directive, they should contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air. Epidemiological studies, and risk estimates based on estimated exposures, indicate that the emissions from such incinerators have little effect on health...”

or

Health Protection Agency, “…Dioxin emissions from an energy-from-waste plant operating to the new pollution control standards will not pose a health risk to people living near the plant, irrespective of the location and size of the plant, the profile of the people concerned (such as nursing children) or the activities of the surrounding area (such as other industrial processes).”

or

German Federal Government says that “without EfW plants, there would be more pollutants in the air” in Germany. That’s because many pollutants are already in waste and, having entered EfW plants with the waste, are extracted during the emissions filtering process"

Interesting to see what you argument is against the above quotes.

I'm not a Souser

Er, would that Health Protection Agency , by any chance, be the same one as I mentioned in a previous comment as follows?



'On 24 January 2012 the UK Health Protection Agency announced a new major study into the health effects of incinerators. These are the exact words quoted from the official press release:-

'A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run municipal waste incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency'

The study will be undertaken jointly by Imperial College London and Kings
College London. Preliminary results are expected in 2014


This is another quote from the press release:-

'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.

Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available'.

It seems to me that the Health Protection Agency is not as certain about the safety of waste incinerators as you would like people to believe. They certainly have got nothing credible to say about cancers that can take ten or even more years to manifest themselves. But never mind, its the residents in the area closest to the incinerator and to the HGV traffic that are at most risk.

"A new study to further extend the evidence"

Will that be the evidence that living near to an EfW plant poses no significant health risks?

Read between the lines....they are not looking for any dangers, they are looking to backing up their original claim.

One good thing about your intervention Not a Scouser is that it enables others to review the information they collected in deciding whether an EfW plant was the way forward.
May I suggest you read the whole of the Health Protection Agency Report on incinerators. You will find it is full of qualifications since it acknowledges that we have an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms of the effects of particles on health.
I have also mentioned the WHO reports on the association found between air pollution and children's health. This is available on their website.
Some further research for you to consider:
- Epidemiology July 2003 - research detected a cluster of people with Hodgkin lynphonia arounf a French incinerator. The findings supported a hypothesis that environmental dioxins increase the risk of HL of populations in the vicinity.
- Environmental Health Journal December 2009 reported on a systematic review of epidemiological studies and concluded with a moderate level of confidence that those living 3KM from exisiting incinerators have a risk of specific cancers eg HL and soft tissue sarcoma.
- Environmental Health Journal March 2011 found exposure to incinerators was associated with cancer mortality among women, particularly stomach, colon, liver and breast.
- the BMA is concerned about multiple exposure effects when a person is exposed to many diferent chemicals each of which may have ben released at a safe concentration. They are worried that there may be a sumnation action or the components may interact, causing an enhanced effect.
Scottish Health Protection Agency in 2009 found evidence of effects on births from exisiting incinerators. It recommended that new incinerators should be sited away from population centres.
As I said above the effects are small and there are usually confounding factors. Our local HPA recommenended that TATA/EoN carry out studies over time to help increase analytical knowledge on the composition of emissions, how they disperse and evaluate their toxicity for humans and ecosystems. TATA/Eon refused.
A final point on the HPA and its review that you rely on. I would have thought the last couple of years with their exposure of the biddability of the great and the good eg see the Sunday Times on our retired military hierarchy, would have shaken your confidence in their integrity. Scientists are no different. They will pose as neutral and data driven when partial in their choice of evidence and the conclusions drawn.

Environmental Health Journal March 2011: The study area was defined as the 3.5 km radius around two incinerators located near Forlì (Italy). People who were residents in 1/1/1990, or subsequently became residents up to 31/12/2003, were enrolled in a longitudinal study (31,347 individuals).

Results: The mortality and morbidity experience of the whole cohort did not differ from the regional population. In the internal analysis, no association between pollution exposure from the incinerators and all-cause and cause-specific mortality outcomes was observed in men. No clear trend was detected for cancer incidence. No association was found for hospitalizations related to major diseases. NO2 levels, as a proxy from other pollution sources (traffic in particular), did not exert an important confounding role.

Epidemiology July 2003 - research detected a cluster of people with Hodgkin lynphonia arounf a French incinerator: CONCLUSION:

This study, in line with previous results obtained in the vicinity of the incinerator located in Besançon (France), adds further evidence to the link between NHL incidence and exposure to dioxins emitted by municipal solid waste incinerators. HOWEVER....the findings of this study cannot be extrapolated to current incinerators, which emit lower amounts of pollutants.

Not a Scouser - one of the points I made was on the issue of extrapolation. For that you need cohort studies with sufficient statistical power, with access to direct human exposure measurements and supported by data on the health effects and susceptibilty to anomalies. I believe it was for this reason the local HPA recommended the research TATA refused to support. If the incinerator goes ahead, of course, we will have a cohort study in Northwich abd Knutsford so long as we baseline the current levels of cancers and anomalies. Something to look forward to.
On new incinerators you seem satisfied that they are safer. The problem is there has been no conclusive research to show that. Waste Management journal in 2004 pointed out that use of modern sensors is limited due to the high investment cost while complying with the 850 degree C/2 rule is seen as a handicap to process control in terms of cost and flexibility. I have mentioned the lack of regulatory control and someone else gave a list of breaches of emission standards in these 'well run, modern' incinerators. For you none of this is important.
I do hope you managed to read the whole HPA report rather than just the conclusion. You will now know how many caveats are in it due to the gaps in understanding of how key processes impact on people.
Also hope you read the WHO report on HGV emissions and its categorical statement on the impact of emissions on health. The increased traffic intensity in Rudheath is likely to cause a small increase in mortality.
The evidence against may not be fully conclusive but it should add to other environmental concerns in directing waste management away from burning and landfill to reduction and reuse/recycling. Seem to me there is an abundance of information on possible adverse effects of living near an incinerator for me to oppose one in my backyard.

Well put JL Brown v succinct.

There are further studies too that highlight the reservations some of which are detailed specifically in the 2009 SEPA report. Indeed as you say the HPA report and the SEPA report are littered with caveats (HPA) and recommendations SEPA all of these were clearly represented in the public enquiry in health evidence submitted.

To I am not a scouser I highlighted earlier that the Inspectors report said public health fears were understandable it just simply did not form part of the enquiry and thus could be afforded little weight.

You dont seem to listen to others rational arguments. I on the otherhand did listen to TATAs health expert Jim Bridges, although his work was tainted by his claims that the majority of dioxins come from BBQs and back garden burning which is simply untrue. Yes these are both sources of dioxins and yes they are unregulated unlike the proposed EfW, however even the European Environment Agency highlight that the principle source of dioxins into the atmosphere come from power stations(ie the EfW), industry (ie chemical works) and traffic. These sources are continuous and not all dioxins are effectively destroyed due to the temperature of the burn being only 850.

I'm not a Souser

Your very selective summary of the Forli research in order to downplay the risks of cancer in this area is nothing less than a disgrace. However, as we now know who pulls your strings, it is not surprising.

The first, and possibly most important fact is to compare the sizes of the two incinerators in Italy where the research took place with the one your masters want to build in Northwich.

The figures are very revealing; the combined capacity of both incinerators at the time of the research was about 60,000 tonnes p/a. The capacity of a Lostock incinerator would be ten times that amount, 600,000 tonnes p/a A relevant fact, I think objective readers would agree.

Another point is your misleading extract from the research results. Residents will be much more concerned to hear about the researchers summary conclusion which was :-

'Conclusions
No increased risk of mortality and morbidity was found in the entire area. The internal analysis of the cohort based on dispersion modeling found excesses of mortality for some cancer types in the highest exposure categories, especially in women. The interpretation of the findings is limited given the pilot nature of the study.'


Very scary stuff and, worse still, a Northwich incinerator would be ten times larger producing ten times the emissions in addition to those already coming from the chemical plants on the Lostock site.

Would all this risk to our health and to our childrens' and grandchildren' lives be worth it so that Londoner's can send their garbage to Northwich for burning and large profits can be sent to Mumbai and Dusseldorf? I adamantly say 'no'.

tracy manfredi wrote:
Well put JL Brown v succinct.

There are further studies too that highlight the reservations some of which are detailed specifically in the 2009 SEPA report. Indeed as you say the HPA report and the SEPA report are littered with caveats (HPA) and recommendations SEPA all of these were clearly represented in the public enquiry in health evidence submitted.

To I am not a scouser I highlighted earlier that the Inspectors report said public health fears were understandable it just simply did not form part of the enquiry and thus could be afforded little weight.

You dont seem to listen to others rational arguments. I on the otherhand did listen to TATAs health expert Jim Bridges, although his work was tainted by his claims that the majority of dioxins come from BBQs and back garden burning which is simply untrue. Yes these are both sources of dioxins and yes they are unregulated unlike the proposed EfW, however even the European Environment Agency highlight that the principle source of dioxins into the atmosphere come from power stations(ie the EfW), industry (ie chemical works) and traffic. These sources are continuous and not all dioxins are effectively destroyed due to the temperature of the burn being only 850.

Principle source of dioxins into the atmosphere come from power stations(ie the EfW),? Incorrect

Defra has calculated that incineration of municipal solid waste accounts for less than 1% of UK emissions of dioxins.

The European Commission, according to a study in the context of the Stockholm Convention, the main sources for emissions of dioxins to air in EU-25 are:

Residential combustion (~ 30%)
Open burning of waste (backyard burning) (~15%)
Wood preservation (~15%)
Iron and steel industry (~ 8%)
Power production, non-ferrous metals, chemical industry (~ 5% each)

A study from DEFRA, June 2010: ‘The backyard burning of municipal solid waste is the single largest source of dioxins from open waste burning, likely due to plastic concentrations within the material burned.

‘It is unclear what impact improved recycling levels and understanding within the general public will have on plastic concentration in waste burned.’

World Health Organisation: Dioxins are mainly by products of industrial processes but can also result from natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires. Dioxins are unwanted by products of a wide range of manufacturing processes including smelting, chlorine bleaching of paper pulp and the manufacturing of some herbicides and pesticides.

In terms of dioxin release into the environment, UNCONTROLLED waste incinerators (solid waste and hospital waste) are often the worst culprits, due to incomplete burning. Technology is available that allows for controlled waste incineration with low emissions.

Switzerland: Illegal burning of domestic waste by individuals trying to dodge waste collection fees is the largest source of dioxin pollution in Switzerland warns the national environment agency(OFEFP).

Germany: Because of stringent regulations (cf. the chapters at the end of this paper), waste incineration plants are no longer significant in terms of emissions of dioxins, dust, and heavy metals. And this still applies even though waste incineration capacity has almost doubled since1985.

United Kingdom: Dioxins (polychlorinated dibenzodioxins or PCDD) and furans (polychlorinated dibenzofurans or PCDF) are a group of chemicals which can be formed in very small quantities when organic chemicals are burned in the presence of chlorine. Domestic sources such as cooking and burning coal for heating are the UK’s single largest source of dioxins, accounting for about 18% of emissions. Transport accounts for about 3% and electricity generation about 4% of the UK total . A number of other sources contribute to emissions of dioxins to a similar or greater extent: accidental vehicle fires; fireworks and bonfires.

Seems Mr Jim Bridges was pretty much on the money with his expert views, after all, he is a Health Expert.

Not read much about Energy from Waste plants being a large cause of dioxin emissions in Europe.

I'm not a Souser

You are off on one again. Trying to deflect attention when your dodgy assertions, particularly about cancer risks, are disproven.

I wonder how close you and your family would live to the Lostock waste
incinerator?

The convenient thing about concealing your name is that readers
are prevented from knowing whether you will be affected in any way by the fate you are so keen to inflict on others.

Just in case you've forgotten already here again is my response to the Forli research which you used to try to con people about cancer risks:-


'The first, and possibly most important fact is to compare the sizes of the two incinerators in Italy where the research took place with the one your masters want to build in Northwich.

The figures are very revealing; the combined capacity of both incinerators at the time of the research was about 60,000 tonnes p/a. The capacity of a Lostock incinerator would be ten times that amount, 600,000 tonnes p/a A relevant fact, I think objective readers would agree.

Another point is your misleading extract from the research results. Residents will be much more concerned to hear about the researchers summary conclusion which was :-

'Conclusions
No increased risk of mortality and morbidity was found in the entire area. The internal analysis of the cohort based on dispersion modeling found excesses of mortality for some cancer types in the highest exposure categories, especially in women. The interpretation of the findings is limited given the pilot nature of the study.'


Very scary stuff and, worse still, a Northwich incinerator would be ten times larger producing ten times the emissions in addition to those already coming from the chemical plants on the Lostock site.'

L Byrne wrote:
I'm not a Souser

You are off on one again. Trying to deflect attention when your dodgy assertions, particularly about cancer risks, are disproven.

I wonder how close you and your family would live to the Lostock waste
incinerator?

The convenient thing about concealing your name is that readers
are prevented from knowing whether you will be affected in any way by the fate you are so keen to inflict on others.

Just in case you've forgotten already here again is my response to the Forli research which you used to try to con people about cancer risks:-


'The first, and possibly most important fact is to compare the sizes of the two incinerators in Italy where the research took place with the one your masters want to build in Northwich.

The figures are very revealing; the combined capacity of both incinerators at the time of the research was about 60,000 tonnes p/a. The capacity of a Lostock incinerator would be ten times that amount, 600,000 tonnes p/a A relevant fact, I think objective readers would agree.

Another point is your misleading extract from the research results. Residents will be much more concerned to hear about the researchers summary conclusion which was :-

'Conclusions
No increased risk of mortality and morbidity was found in the entire area. The internal analysis of the cohort based on dispersion modeling found excesses of mortality for some cancer types in the highest exposure categories, especially in women. The interpretation of the findings is limited given the pilot nature of the study.'


Very scary stuff and, worse still, a Northwich incinerator would be ten times larger producing ten times the emissions in addition to those already coming from the chemical plants on the Lostock site.'

Deflect attention, so readers can see the real truth?

You keep posting the same things all the time, it was also one of your CHAIN members that introduced the cancer risk....yet i'm still waiting to see some evidence that this risk is there.

We are talking about modern EfW plants, with very tight regulations on emissions and very efficient scrubbing systems. We have also dispelled the myth that modern EfW plants emit amounts of dioxins harmful to our health. Something the EU agrees on and have studied.

You are just a spokesman for a NIMBY group, nothing more. You try to frighten local people with your so called facts....which on many occasions now, i have blew out of the water.

You also tell some readers, who maybe employees of TATA, that once this EfW plant is built (which it will be) you will be out of a job, because for some reason they will close the plant, a plant that cant make enough soda ash due to high demand!

So you attemot to scare the local people, you try to scare the employees of TATA! with rubbish claims.

What I do find strange, is you never mention Eon....the company that will build and run the plant.

I challenge you to find me some information, a study, a document that tells the people of Northwich that this new EfW waste plant will be harmful to our health, it will emit poisonous gases etc etc.

I know there is nothing out there that claims this, i think you do to...and thats why you make up such ridiculous claims!

Dear dear take a chill pill what a waste of effort.... You do seem rather rattled im not a scouser...not even worth the response really suffice to say people are moving from Northwich due to the proposal whether it be due to KitKats dismissive closing, the public enquiry and/or the determination - unlike you (assuming you live nearby) most people are concerned with health it's not scaremongering the evidence all put before the Inspector was accurate, non emotional and backed up by government papers and epidemiology. The work of Ryan & van Steenis whilst not peer reviewed has resulted in the HPA having to get Imperial college London to review health data.... Although if you are to be believed its bias at source as is set merely to prove the claims already made by the HPA that health effects will be small if dectectable.... You can have the last say far more important things to do than waste time blogging here only 5 weeks left to lodge against appeal after all!!!!

tracy manfredi wrote:
Dear dear take a chill pill what a waste of effort.... You do seem rather rattled im not a scouser...not even worth the response really suffice to say people are moving from Northwich due to the proposal whether it be due to KitKats dismissive closing, the public enquiry and/or the determination - unlike you (assuming you live nearby) most people are concerned with health it's not scaremongering the evidence all put before the Inspector was accurate, non emotional and backed up by government papers and epidemiology. The work of Ryan & van Steenis whilst not peer reviewed has resulted in the HPA having to get Imperial college London to review health data.... Although if you are to be believed its bias at source as is set merely to prove the claims already made by the HPA that health effects will be small if dectectable.... You can have the last say far more important things to do than waste time blogging here only 5 weeks left to lodge against appeal after all!!!!

I'm not rattled, far from it.

I'm not accepting false information from people to try and back up ridiculous claims.

If the evidence put before the inspector was correct, then why was consent given to build the EfW plant?

I very much doubt the council will lodge an appeal, the cost would be far too high, and the outcome would probably not be the one they want.

An appeal was given, an enquiry was set in which all relevant information from both parties was given. That was the chance to fight it.

The inspector clearly found the EfW poses no health risks. The plant has been given the go ahead and work will start in December.

If that displeases people, then people need to learn to accept it. I for one think its great news.

Keep going ' I'm not a scouser' , the majority are all following you in your quest to prove them wrong and give us the facts!! Thank you!!

I'm not a Souser

YOU are the guy who introduced the Forli research which was about links between incinerators and cancer risks.

I will just quote one particular sentence from the Results section of the research report which is :-

'Exposure to the incinerators was associated with cancer mortality among women, in particular for all cancer sites, stomach, colon, liver and breast cancer.'

That is a direct extract from the research report YOU quoted to support one of the world's largest incinerators being embedded in our community.

You may shrug off the implications of that sentence but you can be certain that it will frighten the life out of thousands who live in neighbourhoods such as Lostock, Rudheath, Kingsmead , Knutsford and Davenham, particularly females. That is if they are told about it ,of course.


Regarding evidence about emissions from so called 'modern' incinerator plants. Think about it. This question can only be answered in ten or more years time when evidence has been gathered and analysed. What we do know is that incinerator plants which were lauded as 'modern and safe' a decade or so ago certainly are linked with increased cancer occurrence despite what the experts and spin doctors said at the time. The other key point is that the average size of incinerators such as the one TATA intend to build is 2 or 3 times the size on which which previous medical research was carried out and nobody knows what the long term effects on human health of these monsters will be. But evidently, the powers that be think it is OK for Northwich to take its chances.



I will leave it there. Compared to the subject matter above, the other topics you raise are of miniscule importance.

L Byrne wrote:
I'm not a Souser

YOU are the guy who introduced the Forli research which was about links between incinerators and cancer risks.

I will just quote one particular sentence from the Results section of the research report which is :-

'Exposure to the incinerators was associated with cancer mortality among women, in particular for all cancer sites, stomach, colon, liver and breast cancer.'

That is a direct extract from the research report YOU quoted to support one of the world's largest incinerators being embedded in our community.

You may shrug off the implications of that sentence but you can be certain that it will frighten the life out of thousands who live in neighbourhoods such as Lostock, Rudheath, Kingsmead , Knutsford and Davenham, particularly females. That is if they are told about it ,of course.


Regarding evidence about emissions from so called 'modern' incinerator plants. Think about it. This question can only be answered in ten or more years time when evidence has been gathered and analysed. What we do know is that incinerator plants which were lauded as 'modern and safe' a decade or so ago certainly are linked with increased cancer occurrence despite what the experts and spin doctors said at the time. The other key point is that the average size of incinerators such as the one TATA intend to build is 2 or 3 times the size on which which previous medical research was carried out and nobody knows what the long term effects on human health of these monsters will be. But evidently, the powers that be think it is OK for Northwich to take its chances.



I will leave it there. Compared to the subject matter above, the other topics you raise are of miniscule importance.

This one will be lond winded, I hope you read it and take it on board.

You seem to have forgotten the following sentence from the comment I put and you quoted.

"No clear trend was detected for cancer incidence. No association was found for hospitalizations related to major diseases. NO2 levels, as a proxy from other pollution sources (traffic in particular), did not exert an important confounding role"

Conclusions: No increased risk of mortality and morbidity was found in the entire area. The internal analysis of the cohort based on dispersion modeling found excesses of mortality for some cancer types in the highest exposure categories, especially in women. The interpretation of the findings is limited given the pilot nature of the study.

What you seem to forget My Byrne, and you dont mention, is that both incinerators where old design, comissioned in 1991 and 1993, one of which was a clinical waste incinerator. You also forget to add that between 1994 and 1996 the incinerators emitted very high levels of dioxins, prior to the implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive.

The above will not be the case with the TATA EfW plant, it would be illegal.

In a study released Jan 2012, EfW facilities make a small contribution to environmental levels of ultrafine particles, analogous to the findings in relation to larger particles. Modern MSW incineration facilities emit much lower levels of dioxins and furans than those from incineration facilities in the past – a reduction of over 99% since 1990. This means that MSW incineration is now no longer a
significant source of emissions to air of dioxins and furans, contributing only 2.5% of UK emissions. Unlike a majority cause as quoted by Mrs Manfredi.

More significant sources include accidental fires and open burning of waste, agricultural straw burning, the iron and steel manufacturing industry, and crematoria. Similar conclusions apply to other comparable waste thermal treatment facilities, as quoted in the public enquiry by Mr Jim Bridges.

While there is always some uncertainty in the findings of health studies, it is concluded that well-designed EfW facilities as currently operated in the UK are most unlikely to have any significant or detectable effects on cancer incidence, the incidence of adverse birth outcomes
(including infant mortality), or the incidence of respiratory disease.

Emissions of particulate matter from
modern EfW facilities are limited under the provisions of the Waste Incineration Directive. The emission limit applicable to particulate matter emissions is 10 milligrams per normalised cubic metre (mg/Nm3). Most facilities are equipped with bag filters, and emissions are typically 1-2 mg/Nm3. This typically results in a slight contribution from a waste incineration facility to environmental levels of particulate matter, and this contribution would not be significant in terms of potential environmental or health effects. In a national context, the contribution from EfW facilities to levels of particulate matter is even less than in the local context, with MSW incineration giving rise to 0.042% of UK emissions of fine particles.

De Felip et al. (2008) studied levels of dioxins and furans in blood serum of people living close to two incinerators in Italy. This study found no detectable difference between dioxin and furan levels in individuals living close to the incinerators compared to those in an “unexposed” reference group living more than 5 km from an incinerator.

Reis et al. (2007a and 2007b) found no detectable effect of emissions
from an EfW facility in Portugal on levels of dioxins and furans in blood serum or human breast milk. These findings are consistent with a slight and insignificant contribution to
exposure to dioxins and furans from the incinerator facilities.

The Committee on Carcinogenicity (2000) considered in particular a detailed study carried out by Elliott et al. (1996) and concluded that: “any potential cancer risk due to residency (for periods in excess of 10 years) near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measureable by the most modern techniques.”

The Health Protection Agency (2010) drew on the COC reviews and other information, and concluded: “Modern, well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable.”

Expert reviews are consistent in finding that there is no evidence of an increased risk of cancer associated with EfW facilities operated to current UK and European standards. As well as the reviews summarised in Section 2.4.1, the Associazione Italiana di Epidemiologia (2008) concluded that “no clear evidence of risk linked to new generation incinerator plants has been highlighted so far.”

Studies of the rates of infant mortality in wards surrounding EfW facilities have been made available (e.g. UKHR, 2009). These maps are interpreted to suggest that the rates of infant mortality are higher downwind of EfW facilities and lower upwind of EfW facilities. It is then
suggested that the EfW facilities are the cause of the apparent increase in infant mortality.

In the cases which have been evaluated, there is in fact no clear pattern of higher rates in wards downwind (north-east) of the facility and lower rates upwind (southwest) of the facility. The actual pattern is more complex, and appears to be more closely aligned to aspects such as other sources of environmental pollution, or housing density. Further evaluation would be needed to draw definitive conclusions about these apparent correlations.

Similar patterns of infant mortality are observed in areas with no EfW facility.

Tango et al. (2004) identified associations between dioxin exposure and risk of infant death. As described above, this study focused on facilities emitting dioxins and furans at levels 800 times higher than would be permitted in the UK. Cordier et al (2004) found increased risks for renal dysplasia and facial cleft in France associated with MSW incinerators operating between 1988 and 1997, during which time emissions of dioxins and furans and other substances were at much higher levels than presently permitted. This finding was also
complicated by a separate association with traffic density.

It is concluded that emissions from EfW facilities would not be expected to give rise to any significant effects on health. Emissions from EfW
facilities as currently operated in the UK are substantially lower than those from facilities operating prior to the implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive.

Taking account of the uncertainty inherent in epidemiological studies of EfW facilities, it is concluded that EfW facilities as currently operated in the UK are most unlikely to have any
significant or detectable effects on cancer incidence, the incidence of adverse birth outcomes, or the incidence of respiratory disease.

As you can see My Byrne, modern EfW plants pose very little threat to health, even EfW in close proximity. Reports and studies on modern EfW plants are there to be viewed.

I wont be drawn into an argument about older incinerators, which may well have been dangerous as they where not regulated.

Modern EfW plants are safe, as will be the one built by TATA / Eon.

It would be a waste of your time to come back and argue the releveant points I have just made.

Its getting late now and I want my cup of cocoa before bed.

Ive been following this "debate" for the past week.

what a lot of hot air... your clearly never going to agree but I’m yet to understand why any of the people (person) cheering for this plant to be built think its a good idea?

Ok I get the fact that we cant continue with land fill blah blah blah but please tell me how it is ecologically sound to transport other peoples waste for hundreds of miles in diesel swigging trucks to be burnt in a residential area in Cheshire when worst of all it will not even provide power for them?!

ITS NOT EVEN GOING TO BURN OUR OWN RUBBISH OR PRODUCE POWER FOR RESIDENTS FOR GODS SAKE!!

What benefit this will possibly bring to Northwich/Cheshire residents? apart from an eyesore visible for miles, extra HGV traffic and demand for houses in the immediate vicinity plummeting.

I've counted 8 new for sale boards go up around my street in the last 2 weeks and im giving serious consideration to it myself.

I've worked in the mortgage industry for 15 years and have myself had lenders decline to lend on property within the immediate vicinity of incinerators and power plants because local surveyors have quoted "poor demand" on survey report

If you can agree on the immediate health risks or not this is a site within 50 yards of peoples houses, people with jobs family’s and mortgages.... what consideration has been given to them the effect it will have on their property values and thus futures?

I for one will be embarrassed to live in the shadow of an incinerator and will get away from it as soon as I can, I can also assure you I’ve not found a single person yet who wants this to be built……(apart from those who quite clearly have some undisclosed vested interest) quite simply because it brings ZERO benefits to Northwich other than to compound the fact that there is no Northwich regeneration... the town is dead, even the government now agrees.

I'm not a souser

I will repeat my previous contribution so the points about risks of cancer, particularly to women in this case, do not get forgotten.

Meanwhile, I would ask readers to notice that you are so confident about your case that you dare not disclose your name, where you live or what your relationship is with TATA or E-ON. They can draw their own conclusions from that.

(For what its worth, my guess is that you earn your living as a spin doctor, you live in a nice part of Surrey, or maybe Dusseldorf, and are well rewarded to try to knock back concerns by the public about the incinerator and the dangers it poses to the people who live in Northwich and the surrounding area. Nice work if you can get it)








I will just quote one particular sentence from the Results section of the research report which is :-

'Exposure to the incinerators was associated with cancer mortality among women, in particular for all cancer sites, stomach, colon, liver and breast cancer.'

That is a direct extract from the research report YOU quoted to support one of the world's largest incinerators being embedded in our community.

You may shrug off the implications of that sentence but you can be certain that it will frighten the life out of thousands who live in neighbourhoods such as Lostock, Rudheath, Kingsmead , Knutsford and Davenham, particularly females. That is if they are told about it ,of course.


Regarding evidence about emissions from so called 'modern' incinerator plants. Think about it. This question can only be answered in ten or more years time when evidence has been gathered and analysed. What we do know is that incinerator plants which were lauded as 'modern and safe' a decade or so ago certainly are linked with increased cancer occurrence despite what the experts and spin doctors said at the time. The other key point is that the average size of incinerators such as the one TATA intend to build is 2 or 3 times the size on which which previous medical research was carried out and nobody knows what the long term effects on human health of these monsters will be. But evidently, the powers that be think it is OK for Northwich to take its chances.

Not a scouser -I hope you enjoyed your cocoa. I note your points and hope you noted the research I quoted that found small levels of risk. As WHO point out ther is an abundance of suggestive evidence of possible adverse effects of living near an incinerator. They suggest 11 more will die of cancer over 10 years, 3 more congenital defects and 59 low birth newborns. And you will have seen the categorical statement on HGV emissions causing cancers. I take it you accept that.
I did also refer you to Environmental Health 2008, Environmental Health 2011 and the association of cancers in women. Could add Occupational Environmental Medicine 2010 and the link to urinary track defects, same journal 2004 and plausible links to congenital anomalies - and so on.
You do seem to have ignored the point I and others have made about the lack of regulation. I am sure this is an oversight on your part as you focus on the health debate. Now is your chance to show us that the EfWs are and will be well regulated. You know the level of cuts in staffing in the regulatory bodies, information was provided to you on breaches and the lack of prosecutions and you will know the aim of regulation is only to limit exposure to acceptable levels. This is because previous regulatory regimes failed to convince companies of the need to provide information on hazards or to enforce requirements effectively.
This change was because regulation is seen as a burden to companies, adding to cost and undermining competitive advatage. You will know the competiton TATA faces and its desire to reduce costs.
I also quoted from Waste Management Research 2004 on the limited use of sensors to detect emissions due to their cost and the and the view that burning at 850 degrees was seen as reducing flexibility.
I am sorry you welcome an incinerator. As I said at the start of this debate I can see you might accept it as the only industry that could be attracted to Northwich. But to want to have waste being brought from all over England to your town for 25 years does seem to lack ambition. If we have time before the debate closes you might want to spell out your ambition for Northwich. Is it as the waste capital of England?
Some other areas you may wish to consider are:
1. The economics of getting waste for 25 years as recycling and reduction grow and the number of EfWs increases. Remember TATA/EoN don't know where they will get the waste from - though some London boroughs seem keen to send their rubbish to the waste capital of England.
2. A point made above that TATA/Eon will receive public subsidies to build this and so underpin their profits. I hope that TATA/EoN pay theit taxes in the UK. Do you think this is the best use of public money.
3. Do you think it right that self defined socially responsible companies don't agree to take part in research to track the results of their processes on the population and ecosystem?
One final thing, there are different types of dioxins. We should not use the word as though there is only one type. What needs to be analysed is what will come out of the 300 foot chimney. Von Schayk, Professor of Preventative Medicine at Maastricht found particulates form the most serious risk to children - polyromatic hydrocarbon and heavy metals - and are released by incinerators. They damage membrames in the lungs.
He also gives figures for premature deaths in the Netherlands due to exposure. Breath lightly my friend should we have the incinerator.

I am dismayed reading all the above.

The percentages quoted by im not a scouser above re causes of dioxins are correct for national statistics, but you are short sighted if you cant comprehend that within the national statistics quoted there are pockets of higher concentration due to clusters industries, chemical plants, paper mills cement kilns, steel works, hospitals and crematoriums for that matter.

It is also misleading to imply that the dioxin contribution is not if a concern and lower than BBQs when clearly it is an additional load enforced on us over and above the rest of industry, traffic and BBQs!

Cheshire regional results for dioxins and Northwich's, Ellesmere Port and Halton are smoothed out by areas with lower concentration of Dioxins.

As for the 1% contribution to dioxins from EFW this will naturally increase the more EfW plants are brought into operation in the UK.

As for the Tango et al quote above about it being an old incinerator 800 times higher output of dioxins than modern incinerators (your words I am not a avoider not mine) is like to point out to readers that the New Modern incinerator in the Isle of white was shut down because it was measured as emitting dioxins at 800% higher than our UK permit levels so don't dismiss it or spin it as irrelevant and out of date it's clearly not.

Find it funny you have had to be brought in to fight the little people really didn't expect such a backlash in Northwich did you...as we have let historically let people spew out rubbish into our air for years and not complained. Enoughs enough people are more aware of the effect on health from the air we breathe and the load already being borne without adding to it further with EfW plants, biomass and crematoriums etc

No wonder people are being forced out they understand the implication and risk to their families.

'I'm Not A scouser'
I find your 'nom de plume' offensive - you even have capitals at the beginning of the words 'Not A' which brings even more emphasis to your very strange name. What kind of a person hides behind such a name - perhaps a bigot with pre-conceived notions? Suffice to say that I am very glad that you are not a Scouser. I suggest that you should exercise some restraint.

What you have done, of course, is discredit yourself and anything you have said. I, therefore, exercise my right to ignore your comments completely.

What I would say to the people who are genuinely concerned about the Tata/E-on incinerator is write to your MP, your Council Members, but particularly the Environment Authority to ask them to get involved in a Judicial Inquiry into Ed Davey's decision - they can instigate the legal process.

Apart from the fact that I think a travesty of justice has taken place in respect of the people of Lostock, Northwich and surrounding areas given the decision to refuse the incinerator in Middlewich - I also think a travesty of justice has taken place because Ed Davey's decision flies in the face of the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment. As I understand it the manifesto commitment, which they claim is the policy of the coalition government, is in favour of using waste to produce energy through anaerobic digestion, thereby removing the need to send the waste to landfill. Ed Davey is a Lib Dem MP. How then can he, in all conscience, sanction an incinerator which is not anaerobic digestion and does not negate the need for landfill?

Incinerating waste produces highly toxic by-products - almost a third of what is put into the incinerator comes out as toxic ash. In the Lostock incinerator that equates to approximately 200,000 tons per year of toxic ash. Where will it go? You've guessed it - landfill. When the waste goes in it is not toxic but when it comes out it is. Plastics are a big concern.

No matter which way I look at this - Lostock and Northwich people are being treated like second-class citizen's. This area of Northwich is already officially designated a 'Deprived Area'. These incinerator's are notoriously built in these areas.

It is wrong on all levels and is certainly not fair to the local people.

Dot Gamble wrote:
'I'm Not A scouser'
I find your 'nom de plume' offensive - you even have capitals at the beginning of the words 'Not A' which brings even more emphasis to your very strange name. What kind of a person hides behind such a name - perhaps a bigot with pre-conceived notions? Suffice to say that I am very glad that you are not a Scouser. I suggest that you should exercise some restraint.

What you have done, of course, is discredit yourself and anything you have said. I, therefore, exercise my right to ignore your comments completely.

What I would say to the people who are genuinely concerned about the Tata/E-on incinerator is write to your MP, your Council Members, but particularly the Environment Authority to ask them to get involved in a Judicial Inquiry into Ed Davey's decision - they can instigate the legal process.

Apart from the fact that I think a travesty of justice has taken place in respect of the people of Lostock, Northwich and surrounding areas given the decision to refuse the incinerator in Middlewich - I also think a travesty of justice has taken place because Ed Davey's decision flies in the face of the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment. As I understand it the manifesto commitment, which they claim is the policy of the coalition government, is in favour of using waste to produce energy through anaerobic digestion, thereby removing the need to send the waste to landfill. Ed Davey is a Lib Dem MP. How then can he, in all conscience, sanction an incinerator which is not anaerobic digestion and does not negate the need for landfill?

Incinerating waste produces highly toxic by-products - almost a third of what is put into the incinerator comes out as toxic ash. In the Lostock incinerator that equates to approximately 200,000 tons per year of toxic ash. Where will it go? You've guessed it - landfill. When the waste goes in it is not toxic but when it comes out it is. Plastics are a big concern.

No matter which way I look at this - Lostock and Northwich people are being treated like second-class citizen's. This area of Northwich is already officially designated a 'Deprived Area'. These incinerator's are notoriously built in these areas.

It is wrong on all levels and is certainly not fair to the local people.

'I'm Not A scouser' I find your 'nom de plume' offensive - you even have capitals at the beginning of the words 'Not A' which brings even more emphasis to your very strange name. What kind of a person hides behind such a name - perhaps a bigot with pre-conceived notions? Suffice to say that I am very glad that you are not a Scouser

So you no resort to name calling, and could you explain the meaning...I am very glad that you are not a Scouser?

Doesn't the saying go something like...'the truth hurts' regarding all the information I have given you, and none of you have counter argued with a credible source or factual information.

and you call me a bigot?????

I don't think this 'debate' is going anywhere apart from around in circles. It is clear that there are those for the plant and those against it. CHAIN and those who oppose the EfW plant, I am sorry but there are people like myself that welcome it. I think you need to just accept that and as they say, 'get over it'.
It is very disappointing that myself and others have been insulted due to our opinion and even ignored on multiple occasions. The insults have been coming from CHAIN members and those opposing the plant which does nothing for their argument or character. It also adds little to discussion to copy and paste previous posts apart from taking longer to scroll down to the bottom of the page!
There is ample evidence and up to date research that shows there is no health risk and information supplied by TATA show a much lower estimate of extra vehicles on the roads than previously argued by those opposing them.
I don't think either party on this forum will be able to persuade another to their way of thinking. The fact of the matter is, the decision has been made and there is very little that can change that. There was a public inquiry where representations were made by both sides. In the end the government weighed up the information provided and found in favour of TATA/EON.

Finally, it does not matter who I'm Not A Scouser is, they still have the right to post and engage in discussion. What does it matter if they in fact do work for TATA? I know L Byrne that you are a very vocal member of CHAIN, the 'opposing party'. Would it not be beneficial to have someone from TATA voice the company's views and facts on this site? Why do you think TATA workers are not allowed to voice their opinion? They may be just as biased as you are.

I agree with much of CMyers80 - we won't agree but the fight isn't over - it can go to review - there is at least one glaring omission I am just waiting to find out if the council and CHAIN decide to fight on on the issue.

Further more Dot highlights you can write to councillors, MPs and also object to the Environment Agency Permit but it needs very well documented objections if it is to persuade them not to grant permission for the permit application.

So no to those who suggest we roll over and just accept it I don't think so.... But how I fight is entirely dependant on the other objectors....

I suggest those that are upset fight, resign yourself to living in its shadow or move.... Alternatively you can do both fight and decide where you want to live if you can afford to move! No- one should be forced out of their community but it happens stand up for your rights and fight hard!

Dot;
Calm down calm down
'Im not a scouser' does not deserve that for expressing his opinion!!
I've not read anyone supporting demonstrate insulting or derogatory remarks to an individual. I think your responses have been highly charged and unnecessary.

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."

I think CMyers is right about convincing people who are taking part. That said, still amazed at anyone welcoming an incinerator/EfW in their town. As I said above, how about a nuclear power station or a rendering plant or a cement factory. I thought at best one would accept it but hope to live in the far end of town from it.
Not sure what the point of Gadbrooks nursery poem is - seems fair enough for scousers to ask why someone refers to themselves as 'not a . .'

JL Brown wrote:
I think CMyers is right about convincing people who are taking part. That said, still amazed at anyone welcoming an incinerator/EfW in their town. As I said above, how about a nuclear power station or a rendering plant or a cement factory. I thought at best one would accept it but hope to live in the far end of town from it.
Not sure what the point of Gadbrooks nursery poem is - seems fair enough for scousers to ask why someone refers to themselves as 'not a . .'

meaning?

Not a scouser - not sure what is opaque about my comment. Seems self evident what is explicit and implicit in my comment and you nom de guerre.

If it is my comment on welcoming - again seems self evident. Who would want a pollution creating plant of any kind if they had a choice?

By the by, I've just been reading the Roskill and IIHS Chemical market reports on soda ash production. There is great discussion on the implications of new capacity in Turkey and an expected rationalisation of older and less efficient plants could occur in the west of Europe. Turkish exports are putting pressure on European capacity in an increasingly global market. Also states Chinese capacity has doubled to 18.7mTons (42% of world production) and its low producton cost and and low freight costs mean it is taking markets from US producers.

JL Brown Turkey threatening the soda asmarketing in Europe put fwd in evidence at the enquiry... Who really cares if it impacts on TATAs production capacity... Certainly not the inspector she inferred it was just speculation and at any rate isn't something for the determination!

TATA and Eon don't care they will have lucrative exit route for the northwich plants should the Turkish competition make it impossible to continue in synthetic soda ash and anyway TATAs own strategic analysis indicates that Trona is where there future investment should be!

I guess apart from families who work their the only other interest party would be the HMRC (taxman) as without the business case for investment (aside from exit strategy and corporate tax planning) the tax benefit and clearance may be at risk.

Those living with constant respiratory, chest throat and sinus irritation will probably welcome the news.

JL Brown wrote:
Not a scouser - not sure what is opaque about my comment. Seems self evident what is explicit and implicit in my comment and you nom de guerre.

If it is my comment on welcoming - again seems self evident. Who would want a pollution creating plant of any kind if they had a choice?

By the by, I've just been reading the Roskill and IIHS Chemical market reports on soda ash production. There is great discussion on the implications of new capacity in Turkey and an expected rationalisation of older and less efficient plants could occur in the west of Europe. Turkish exports are putting pressure on European capacity in an increasingly global market. Also states Chinese capacity has doubled to 18.7mTons (42% of world production) and its low producton cost and and low freight costs mean it is taking markets from US producers.

Not sure why my user name seems to bother you, so what if it is nom de guerre? Does it matter?

Have you read the most recent report outlook on Soda Ash market?

Europe is very stable, global demand grew at 6%, and production capacity grew at 6% also. China have more capacity than demand hence the higher exports to South America etc, not to Europe.

Saying that, China's export was down
from January to April 2012, China totally exported 508,000 tons of soda ash, down 14.6% year-on-year and 15% year-on-year. America exported 1.93 million tons of soda ash, respectively up 14% and 26% year-on-year.

Can you see how markets change, then you have the strikes in Turkey, and the droughts effecting the Italian production.

Its pretty safe to say, that with TATA investing in both plants long term, the building of an EfW plant to supply steam to the Lostock, they are looking at long term production. Also add to that, the acquistion of British Salt, a very local company....brine perhaps?

Millions of pounds infrastructure, adapting the existing Lostock plant to the new EfW plant. yes, they will spend all that money for nothing wont they?

The reason given during the application and enquiry, to supply steam to the Lostock plant, you think that statement, the main reason....would be given if they had other ideas? Delusion if you think so.

But I admire your attempts to sway the arguments to another topic, seeing as you have not really made a strong argument for your other comments.

Sorry, but you are just going to have to accept the new EfW plant, dont worry too much though...it will be clean and safe, and it will look much nicer than the old power station they have in site at the moment.....you know, the one that everyone keeps complaining about because it is an eyesore....oh no sorry, they dont mention it do they?

Not a Scouser - cannot say your nom de guerre bothers me. Thought you might want to explain it.
Glad you employer gave you access to market reports. They are expensive for an individual to buy. Not surprising that we take different things from it. I saw western Europe as stagnating and old plants - like TATAs - coming under pressure.
I admire your confidence that wealth creators never make mistakes in their investment plans or change them as market conditions alter. Think of the Lostock Triangle. TATA/EoN as conglomerates are primarily interested in their bottom line not on soda ash
production.
We will never agree that an EfW plant is safe or clean. At best they are safer and cleaner than they used to be.I assume you accept that additional HGVs will add to health problems in Rudheath. You trust the company. I come from a mill town where from the 1930s health officials were aware of diseases suffered by textile workers from prolonged exposure to cotton dust. It was 1978 before Occupational Health regulators took action due to continuous denials by mill owners that the dust was harmful and their employment of highly paid QCs to defend their position. The consequences of me being right and you wrong about this plant will be severe for a number of people in the town.
Two final points:
1. I presume TATA has plans to deal with the other eyesores it has all over the town. Do you think they will surround us with waste plants in Winnington and Wincham. Bet you cannot wait for that.
2. Still waiting for your reasons for welcoming a waste disposal plant in the town. Up to know your focus has been on health and making categorical statements rather than acknowledge the gaps in knowledge about mortality and morbidity from exposure to chemicals.

Well said "JL Brown".... I for one "mention" the eyesore that is the old powerstation every time I drive past it which sadly is every day..... Infact I "mention" the whole plant which at best looks a disgrace. How the council has allowed them to build in the way they have without any demands for screening or aesthetics is beyond me.

I wonder if I constructed an extension on my own property with similar design merits how long it would take for the council to ask me to take it down?

If the existing plant is anything to go by this thing will be twice as big and twice as ugly.

I also wonder how Tata/ Eon intend to compensate me for the inevitable decline in my house price. I had an independent valuation report carried out last year and I sure as hell will be having another one if this disgusting thing is built.... the bill for the difference will be in the post!

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/39779

JL Brown wrote:
Not a Scouser - cannot say your nom de guerre bothers me. Thought you might want to explain it.
Glad you employer gave you access to market reports. They are expensive for an individual to buy. Not surprising that we take different things from it. I saw western Europe as stagnating and old plants - like TATAs - coming under pressure.
I admire your confidence that wealth creators never make mistakes in their investment plans or change them as market conditions alter. Think of the Lostock Triangle. TATA/EoN as conglomerates are primarily interested in their bottom line not on soda ash
production.
We will never agree that an EfW plant is safe or clean. At best they are safer and cleaner than they used to be.I assume you accept that additional HGVs will add to health problems in Rudheath. You trust the company. I come from a mill town where from the 1930s health officials were aware of diseases suffered by textile workers from prolonged exposure to cotton dust. It was 1978 before Occupational Health regulators took action due to continuous denials by mill owners that the dust was harmful and their employment of highly paid QCs to defend their position. The consequences of me being right and you wrong about this plant will be severe for a number of people in the town.
Two final points:
1. I presume TATA has plans to deal with the other eyesores it has all over the town. Do you think they will surround us with waste plants in Winnington and Wincham. Bet you cannot wait for that.
2. Still waiting for your reasons for welcoming a waste disposal plant in the town. Up to know your focus has been on health and making categorical statements rather than acknowledge the gaps in knowledge about mortality and morbidity from exposure to chemicals.

Why would my employer give me access to market reports, that have nothing to do with my employer. The reports are available for everyone to see online.

You just have to find the correct ones, not outdated ones.

You cannot compare industry from the 30's 40's 50's etc, to industry now, which is very much regulated and backed up with scientific and medical evidence. We live in very much different times.

1. I dont think TATA will have any plans to build another waste plant, that is just a ridiculous comment i'm afraid.

2. I have given my reasons for the EfW plant in previous posts, i'm not going to repeat everything on here, it would be a waste of my time.

Yes my focus has been on health and emission issues, they are the main points raised by opposers. I gave lots of information and received no argument from any opposers that could go against what I said.

For goodness sake maybe you should read the reports I filed in the enquiry they were that current month and that quarter and that six months not years ago! Not to worry check your facts begore you complain about evidence being out of date - evidence presented was the most recent up to date that non employees and non experts probably have access to you really should read in detail the evidence submitted.... Then when you've considered it make your comments - even if we don't agree at least your comments will be credible.

We are not talking about 6 months ago, we are talking now.

And as for credible evidence, did Dr Van Steenis lose his, he seemed to be unable to produce any evidence....at a public enquiry!!!!

Not a - you do like to insult those you debate with.
The report from Roskill and IHS cost £2000+. the ones I read are from the Summer of 2012. Thyt are current. I get access via my employer though I do not usually look at those on old technologies.
It seems your approach is to ignore all inconvenient evidence and keep repeating your mantra -safe and clean.
So let me repeat myself, this is not a well regulated industry. The number of inspectors has been reduced by 30%. It is self regulation. the approach that brouhgt us the banking crisis, out of control newspapers, greedy MPs and corrupt police.
And if you think the evidence that your safe and clean mantra is based on is unassailable have a look at the book review in the national 'Guardian' today, 'Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead doctors and Harm Patients'. It points out that:
- drug companies buy the opinion of doctors
- drug trials are designes by the companies to make the drug look good and then are written up and published in referenced journals
-they don't publish results they don't like
- regulators don't have all the data on a drug's effects
- journals which publish the research are rewarded by the drug companies
- companies are supposed to publish all the results, good and bad, but no one checks that they do.
Now you may say it is different in the EfW industry and if it is it must be unique. The body that grants funds for research on energy has 11 oil and gas representatives on it and 2 renewable energy. This is reflected in what research is done and who does it.
I've been thinking, too, about your comment that TATA/EoN would not invest to then close. From memory I'm sure TATA invested in the Dutch plant in Delfzijl - a plant with a better safety record than Lostock- in 2006 -8 before closing it in 2009. I think, too, the invested in Redcar before mothballing the steel plant. And didn't EoN spend a considerable amount in scoping investment in nuclear power in the UK before abandoning the project because iit would not generate enough profit?
Some other points you have ignored include:
- the nature of the technology TATA/EoN want to use. It is not even the most efficient form of incineration.
- where they will source their waste for the next 25 years in a competitive market.
- the nature of the dioxins released by incineration.
- the carciogenic effects of HGV fumes.

I think my evidence was very credible.

Yes DR Van Steenis could have been better prepared and backed up his claims that was unfortunate at best but he was only one lesser part of my health evidence and the rest of the evidence supported his claims that PM2.5s will further adversely affect health.

Rationally I wouldn't go as far as saying solely responsible for all those deaths but based on the fact that it is a deprived area and there are higher than average asthmas cardio vascular disease and respiratory disease so even based on COMEAP 2009/2010 underestimated reports it is clear that the PM2.5s and NO2 will reduce the life expectancy of those suseptible persons my son included.

But I repeat my concerns and issues with Jim Bridges too - he is obviously respectable and eell educated, but he patronised us with his evidence on health, dismissing EEA evidence and comments on what causes the majority of dioxins and that people incorrectly think the main cause is bonfires, forest fires and bbqs. Also treating us like we are idiots and don't comprehend the statistics and statements he provided were smoothed out. I am a qualified accountant and auditor and clearly understand smoothing of results to present a better picture. I came into the enquiry with an open mind hoping to be convinced the plant would be safe there would not be leaks etc and i wouldnt need to move, yet i wasn't given the broken down detail and respect i, other objectors and public deserved. Even the comments on Asthma and causes etc were patronising re indoor v outdoor pollution re NO2 etc- had he bothered to read my evidence submissions he would have realised I had already looked at such issues and didn't have a fire, gas cooker, carpets soft furnishings that produce the irritants and harbour allergens - again he was I'll prepared and assumed I wouldn't understand the health issues in detail.

I refuse to get into a debate about detailed health evidence I have made that publically available already - you should have covered it in detail at the enquiry directly when you had the chance. I was available for cross examination after all.

Even after reading your posts I am still confident my research and evidence is more than credible after all much of it is recognised by advisors to the government, HPA and SEPA.

Please do not bother to embroil me further as I will not respond.

Tracy Manfredi....

"Much of it is recognised by advisors to the government, HPA and SEPA"

So the statement issued, and the statement the HPA abide by, says????

"well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable"

Leave it at that shall we?


JL Brown.....

Do you believe man landed on the moon, was 911 an inside job, did they capture aliens at Roswell?

Looks like you like a good conspiracy!!!!


....oh and as for name calling....i'm the one who was called a bigot etc.....dont try and twist the tale!

Read it however you like - I know what I believe equally I also have read all the full reports conclusions and caveats - I don't have to convince anyone - I only had to be convinced enough not to move and be fircedout of my community - I wasn't - I believe that my child will potentially be one of those that "may be affected and the reference to likely be small and not detectable" was qualified by the HPA in their direct response to my questioning as they said they were unable to comment on specific cases and impact of current susceptibility and adverse problems that may occur due to the presence of the nearby chemical industries".... Tell me how you would interpret that when it's your child at risk....

Provide your response Il readitbut don't expect me to respond as I am no longer trying to convince anyone elseor raise awareness - I've done that many times over and more via the enquiry. Best wishes!

Oh dear Not a, your response is not up to your usual standard.
I repeat for your consideration
- the energy and chemical industries are not well regulated. It is self regulation by companies whose primary interest is profit.
- HGV emissions cause cancer. This development will add to HGVs through Rudheath.
- it is not a conspiracy to show there is well founded evidence that pharmaceutical companies are economical with the truth in reporting the result of their research. The US Goverment has had to pass a law to try to improve reporting.
- there is institutional bias in what research is done.
- your favourite HPA report is full of qualifications on its findings and acknowledges that we do not know how many of the mechanisms of particulate diffusion effect the ecosystem or humans. Read beyond the first paragraph and you will see.
Off to Church now, hear from you soon.

JL Brown wrote:
Oh dear Not a, your response is not up to your usual standard.
I repeat for your consideration
- the energy and chemical industries are not well regulated. It is self regulation by companies whose primary interest is profit.
- HGV emissions cause cancer. This development will add to HGVs through Rudheath.
- it is not a conspiracy to show there is well founded evidence that pharmaceutical companies are economical with the truth in reporting the result of their research. The US Goverment has had to pass a law to try to improve reporting.
- there is institutional bias in what research is done.
- your favourite HPA report is full of qualifications on its findings and acknowledges that we do not know how many of the mechanisms of particulate diffusion effect the ecosystem or humans. Read beyond the first paragraph and you will see.
Off to Church now, hear from you soon.

You can believe all the reports you read, I will believe all the reports I read.

But one thing we can all believe is, the EfW is getting built.

More jobs, good for economy, etc etc.

I'm very glad!!!!

Dear Not a
- good for you. Glad you are happy. To me it is another sign of the democratic deficit in England. Both our MPs, our elected councillors and the Parish Councils all oppose to reflect the democratic will of the majority. So what happens, a planning system biased in favour of the speculator/developer finds that it should go ahead. The Inspector comes to her conclusion based on an assumption that there is a perfect market that tends towards equilibrium so no one would build a EfW without knowing where they would get the feed for it. Problem is, as the crash of financial markets and other bubbles, demonstrate the market is imperfect and specultors speculate.
Glad you no longer mention well regulated. I've just been reading the DEFRA 'Red Tape Challenge' which wants to downgrade environmental regulations on disposal of waste, land remediation and air quality. control.
You will think me a swot, but I ws also looking at epidemiological studies on the incidence of infant lukaemia near nuclear power stations. The evidence suggests that it may not be radiation that causes them but an increase in 'foreign' viruses because a new workforce is drawn from around the country. These viruses cause oncogenes to be switched on in susceptible children. There is something to ponder when considering major construction work.
On jobs and economy, would the increase in jobs and economic activity gross or net. I keep seing reports that , for example, Tesco will create 40 jobs in a location but all the small shops close and there are less jobs at the end. If this goes ahead I speculate there will be a net reduction in jobs since other employers will choose not to move to Northwich due to its image.
yours in exclamation!!!!

JLBrown
I usually agree with you entirely but don't bring nuclear into the equation and debate it's irrelevant to Northwich and the readers although v pertinent to the whole energy crisis debate - again loosely connected but largely irrelevant to TATA in planning terms and the determination.

Although I guess on the basis it's a specialist workforce probably drafted from abroad...