12:59pm Wednesday 3rd March 2010
I AM always amazed, and in this case extremely disappointed, when a member of the public expresses a viewpoint which, to put it bluntly, contains many inaccuracies and serves no real or constructive purpose to the inhabitants of Northwich, Middlewich and surrounding areas. I refer to the letter by Kevin Grey of Warrington in the Guardian, February 17.
He states that he is a ‘reasonable man’ but has clearly not taken the trouble to attend the many public presentations given by CHAIN over the last few months. CHAIN has been trying to communicate with the general public in an attempt to prevent multi-national companies steamrolling their plans to flood Cheshire with waste burning incinerators. If CHAIN had not taken on this job, I believe the companies in question would have had little or no opposition to their plans, which we believe would not have been in the best interests of the local population.
Clearly there is not enough space here to give a full response to Mr Grey, so I will confine myself to answering the five bullet points in his letter. Incidentally, I always commence any public presentations by stating that CHAIN will not try to influence people by giving facts that cannot be backed up by record.
Where is your evidence all emissions and fly ash will be toxic?
It is a proven fact that waste burning incinerators emit toxic substances and that fly ash is toxic. During my presentations, I have given actual recorded figures of toxic substances emitted by waste burning incinerators published by the Environment Agency. If any person wishes to have detail here, please contact me via the CHAIN website. Would Mr Grey like to explain to me why all incinerators have extremely tall chimneys/stacks? Fly ash is toxic enough not to be allowed to be tipped at ordinary landfill sites. By law, it has to go to registered sites, which have a special operating license to deal with such material.
Where is your evidence it will damage health?
CHAIN has always said that there are two opposing viewpoints here. The Government has stated that incineration is safe health wise, if operated correctly. On the other side of the argument there are many eminent toxicologists, specialists and doctors who believe that waste incinerators not only produce toxic and are harmful to health substances, but that a percentage of this material escapes the gas scrubbing equipment and exits the chimney/stack into the surrounding atmosphere.
I could fill this space with references but will refer Mr Grey to a report entitled “The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators – 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine”. In this report alone are 250 quoted references on health issues!
To sum up on this issue, there are two opposing sides here and I would ask the general public to make up their own minds after reading all the information available.
One could say that sufficient doubt exists here so proceed with caution, especially bearing in mind the fact that these health issues take many years to manifest themselves, remember asbestos, thalidomide, thought perfectly safe at the time.
We do not have any research information whatsoever on the effects of clusters of waste burning incinerators within comparatively short distances of each other.
We could have four of these plants if Covanta (Middlewich) and Brunner Mond (Northwich) get the go ahead, since we already have two large waste burning incinerators sanctioned, Ince, Peel Holdings and Weston Point, INEOS Chlor.
Where is your evidence the chimneys will be massive?
Actual sizes stated, not my figures but those of Covanta and Brunner Mond. Covanta Plant: 80 metres (Covanta March 2009 leaflet) Brunner Mond Plant: 90 metres (Brunner Mond January 2010 leaflet).
Consider twice the size of Nelson’s Column, London, and nearly half the size of Blackpool Tower borders on the massive.
Where is your evidence there will be hundreds of extra lorry journeys?
Actual numbers, not my figures, for the Covanta plant, estimated figures for the Brunner Mond plant. Covanta plant: up to 300 HGVs per day. Figures from Covanta’s planning submission.
Brunner Mond plant: quote from Brunner Mond leaflet 2010, “we have modelled a worse case scenario of all waste arriving by road”. While Brunner Mond have not quoted actual figures for road transport, the worst case scenario would be in excess of 500 HGVs per day if all material came by road.
Where is your evidence about the size of either the Covanta or Brunner Mond Incinerators?
Covanta Plant, tallest building 48 metres, land take 22 acres, (Covanta leaflet March 2009). The actual dimensions are clearly stated in Covanta’s Planning Approval submission and we have kept precisely to the given figures.
Brunner Mond Plant: Brunner Mond have only issued an artist’s impression of their intended plant. CHAIN has scaled off already built and operating waste incinerators, e.g. Tyseley, Birmingham, and come up with overall dimensions.
These may not be absolutely correct but we are confident that our model would be within 10-20 per cent of the actual size bearing in mind that this plant would have a capacity of approaching twice that of the Covanta plant.
Waste Incinerators are huge structures, waste storage capacity alone, necessary to keep the plant operating continuously, of gigantic proportions.
Our photographs of actual plants and scaled-up plants have always shown either an actual white transit van or HGV at the base of the plant buildings for comparison purposes.
I hope you really are a ‘reasonable man’ Mr Grey.
You should absorb what I have sincerely quoted here and do your homework before writing any other letters to papers such as the Guardian Group of Newspapers.
BH CARTWRIGHT Chairman CHAIN
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/trade_directory/