Burning questions over incinerator plan
I ATTENDED the Environment Agency consultation in Ivybridge concerning plans to build a mass-burn incinerator at the New England Quarry site. This event closely resembled a public relations exercise on behalf of the incinerator company.
Environmental manager Judy Proctor's explanation as to why the Environment Agency approves permits (The Herald, October 5) and her comments promoting incineration are significant to me because they raise the question of ethics and accountability.
How can this agency, whose fundamental responsibility is the protection of the environment, serve the best interests of people, animals, plants, and the air we breathe on one hand and, on the other hand, the commercial business interests of incinerator companies? These two interests, I believe, are incompatible.
Without a permit from the Environment Agency any new incinerator project would be a non-starter, stopped – a simple solution to a highly controversial issue.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
However, despite the absence of validated evidence that incinerator emissions, particularly regarding toxic nano-particles, pose no significant risks to human health and the environment, risk assessments are used to conveniently bypass this inconvenient but important fact.
I have no doubt that an incinerator company will always meet the standards required by this Environment Agency as evidenced by its admittance it has yet to refuse one. Unfortunately, I doubt that these standards are equal to the best interests of human health and the environment.
Until this biased undemocratic process is changed, I have no doubt the Environment Agency will continue to issue permits for mass-burn incinerators – not because they are a proven safe technology but because they have the power to do so.
J EVANS
Ivybridge
Comments
by CharlieDodd
Monday, October 15 2012, 4:24AM
“Even if the emissions were completely non-toxic and harmless, the fact is that they still occupy space in the atmosphere, crowding out the pure fresh air.
This would be especially noticeable when weather conditions give rise to the so-called 'Fumigation Effect' (google 'chimney plume effects') where a layer of air traps the fumes below it like a ceiling which would then fill the space between the ground and the layer, unable to escape, and instead spread out flat over the city down to ground level.
Then, because a proportion of the air we breathe would consist of fumes that contain no oxygen, some people might find themselves short of breath, notably bronchial patients,the frail and elderly, children and babies etc
In fact one reason the planned chimney is so high is that it will hopefully 'punch through' any ceiling layer to release emissions above it, but that's never guaranteed because weather effects can be unpredictable.”
by Mark2Plym
Monday, October 15 2012, 12:40AM
“With the latest Times news on top Brass in defence selling their "skills" to get contracts for defence contractors should we not look closer to home, with the NBC working closely with Babcock and MVV to be interested stakeholders in the incinerator. How many ex-service are now holding good jobs with defence contractors, even before the two year cooling period?”
by rubydogsouth
Saturday, October 13 2012, 9:50AM
“Absolutely spot on the government agency that likes to say YES regardless of the consequences to people and the environment as long as they cover there backs they don't care!”
by b_mused
Friday, October 12 2012, 9:34PM
“While I agree with the points put forward by J Evans, he / she was fortunate to attend the EA consultation. I understand that, for the Plymouth incinerator, the EA consultation was so poorly advertised that very few of the locals affected turned up.”