Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Super' incinerator risks lives of children warns former GP

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 February 2008
By ANDREW PICKEN
CHILDREN'S lives will be put at risk if a £140 million "super" incinerator is built in East Lothian, an expert warned today.
Environmental campaigner and former GP Dr Dick van Steenis has warned that some of the dangerous particulates produced during incineration would be too small to be picked up by filters at the proposed Dunbar plant.

He claims it would lead to increased rates of infant mortality as well as birth defects, respiratory diseases and cancers.

The plans put forward by waste contractor Viridor would see a plant built at Oxwellmains, near Dunbar, capable of dealing with 450,000 tonnes of waste a year – more than twice the amount produced by Edinburgh.

Dr van Steenis – who has spent over a decade researching the link between industrial pollutants and health conditions – pointed to a study of infant mortality rates in London's 625 electoral wards.

The 62 wards which recorded the highest death rates – all over nine deaths per 1000 births between 2003 and 2006 – were all subject to incinerator emissions.

Campaigners from pressure group Irate today said Dr van Steenis' support was another reason why the council should throw out the planning application.

Dr van Steenis said: "If the Dunbar incinerator is built, the infant death rate will soar in those areas receiving particulate emissions from the incinerator.

"Particulates below PM 2.5 size cannot be collected by the methods used by the incinerator and can cause infant deaths, birth defects, low birth weight babies and a wide range of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

"Anyone residing or working within the fallout range (16 miles) of the Dunbar incinerator – and that includes Haddington, East Linton and North Berwick – will be exposed to harmful emissions which will lead to these diseases."

But Viridor hit back, saying PM 2.5 particle emissions are not unique to incinerators, with traffic emissions among the other big culprits for this type of pollution.

A Viridor spokeswoman said: "We deplore scare mongering of this type. It is totally irresponsible to attempt to frighten local people. Energy from waste is one of the most strictly-regulated industrial processes in Europe."

Irate's spokesman, Philip Banks, said: "We very much welcome the support of an internationally respected expert."

• www.sepa.org.uk/viridor
• www.keepdunnysunny.com


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 February 2008 11:28 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Environment
 
1

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 20/02/2008 11:48:51
I am the researcher who examined the infant mortality rates in each of the 625 electoral wards in London for the four-year period 2003-6.

The sixty-two London wards with the highest infant mortality rates had a total of 48,123 live births and 533 infant deaths recorded by the Office for National Statistics, ie an average rate of 11.1 per 1,000 live births.

There were also forty electoral wards in London which had zero infant deaths recorded during the same 4-year period and the ONS recorded 21,215 live births in those wards in 2003-6 - but no infant deaths and these zero infant death electoral wards "just happen to be" where there is minimal or zero exposure to industrial PM2.5s from the London incinerators.

The five electoral wards immediately downwind of Coventry incinerator "just happen to be" the ones with the highest infant mortality rates where fifty infant deaths were recorded by ONS in 2003-6 while the two Coventry wards with the lowest infant death rates "just happen to be" immediately upwind where zero infant deaths were recorded.

A map must be worth a few hundred words of explanation:
http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/coventrymap.pdf

Note that there are four more wards with zero infant deaths along the line of incoming SW wind.

Don't think "Oh, that's where the poor people live", as some of the richest electoral wards in London have some of the highest infant death rates while some of the so-called "deprived" wards are among the lowest.

More information at www.ukhr.org

Dr Dick van Steenis is due to speak here in Shrewsbury on 29 February 2008 as an incinerator is proposed for Harlescott, Shrewsbury. I hold a 14-year set of ONS birth/mortality data for every electoral ward in Shropshire and Telford and I saw that Shawbury ward, in North Shropshire, which is immediately downwind of the incinerator had zero infant deaths in each of the 14 years 1993-2006. That perfect record will end.

My father would have been 90 years old today
2

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 12:22:26
Rubbish!!!

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

It certainly seems to be "moron on the loose" day today doesn't it?
3

Sarcasm,

20/02/2008 12:51:16
My father would have been 90 years old today

Well, you should have bought him a house upwind.
4

Mr Crisps,

Musselburgh 20/02/2008 12:53:21
I see this dude's lips moving, but all I hear is "Blah blah blah"
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

20/02/2008 13:28:28
#2 You are appointing yourself common-sense expert on this topic too? And your argument is simply to say "Rubbish!!!"?

What exactly do you know about this subject that qualifies you to give an opinion?
6

Logie Almond,

20/02/2008 14:01:38
This type of energy from waste plant is found all over Denamark, Austria, Germany, the netherlands and many other countries. The one in Vienna is right in the middle of the city. Surely if they had bad effects on health someone would have noticed it by now?
7

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 20/02/2008 16:31:13
The Belgian High Court ordered the Sint Niklaas incinerator to be closed in December 2001 after being shown the report "Misplestraat: Living under the smoke of a waste incinerator" at www.milieugezondheid.be

No UK paper reported the above. Were FoE & Greenpeace asleep?
8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 17:41:19
Duncan,

When you read such sweeping statements as:-

"The 62 wards which recorded the highest death rates – all over nine deaths per 1000 births between 2003 and 2006 – were all subject to incinerator emissions"

...closely followed by a knee-jerk reactionary comment such as:-

"If the Dunbar incinerator is built, the infant death rate will soar..."

then it is quite plain to anyone with common sense that they are reading reactionary rubbish.

Nowhere in this article are the assertions made by Dr van Steenis backed up with reasoning. We are simply told to accept their truth because he has spent "decades" researching incinerator emissions.

Well, I for one will not accept his comments as truth. These incinerators are carefully designed and constructed so that they are not a hazard to health. Are we supposed to believe, on the strength of Dr van Steenis' rantings that he is right and that the engineers who designed and built these things are fools?

Unlike Dr van Steenis, these people are actually doing something positive to solve the problem of waste disposal and non-fossil fuel energy. they should be commended. The closing paragraph is sums it all up---scaremongering.
9

11+failed,

the pans 20/02/2008 18:21:42
"immediately downwind of Coventry incinerator "just happen to be" the ones with the highest infant mortality rates" "two Coventry wards with the lowest infant death rates "just happen to be" immediately upwind where zero infant deaths were recorded"
Well, assuming the information is correct, that's OK as long as the fish swim below the surface in the North Sea and Haddington to the west is well in the clear.
10

Agent 99,

20/02/2008 19:15:44
[1] "I am the researcher..."

Yes, and the remit of the researcher is to, well..., do research. In the role of statistical data gatherer it is hardly your position to interpret the figures too. Or was that the request of your funder?

I detect a [perhaps not so] hidden agenda here. What's all this about your father? If he would have been 90 today, he clearly wasn't a participant in the child mortality statistics. Don't attempt to muddy the waters with emotional appeals; that's most unbecoming in a scientist.

I'm in Zurich at the moment, where there's an incinerator in the north of the city. The Swiss have one of, if not the, highest life expectancies in Europe, and refuse incineration is the norm rather than the exception. Although it would be dangerous to dismiss incineration out-of-hand as utterly benign, you can't help thinking that they [the Swiss], rather than some panic pressure group in Shrewsbury, would have uncovered potential problems with this technology before now.
11

Agent 99,

20/02/2008 19:17:05
Oh yeah, one more thing...

Downwind of Dunbar is the North Sea, populated by a few oil and gas production platforms. No concern of child mortality there.
12

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 21/02/2008 01:57:58
WHY DO THEY TELL YOU NOT TO BURN PRESSURE TREATED WOOD /SIMPLE IT IS POISONOUS THE FUMES ARE AWFULL YOU CANT BURN EVERYTHING AND END UP WITH PURE OXYGEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
13

Nutterwatch,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 09:02:33
Is this the same Dr Dick van steenis that was once reported as saying that the goverment was involved in a consiparacy to kill-off all the poor people in the north of england?
I'll take his 'scientific evidence' with a skip load full of salt!!!
14

Nutterwatch,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 09:12:04
Here's an article where these two guys claim that suicide rates are also linked to pollution - read on to where the statistics guy rubbishes his figures!
http://www.bigi.org.uk/2007/11/12/the-gnosall-suicides-curse-or-clustering/
15

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 21/02/2008 11:20:29
Didn't Tribune de Geneve recently report major health concerns regarding an incinerator just outside a Swiss city?

The data I've examined is published by the Office of National Statistics and shows the numbers of live births and deaths at different ages in every electoral ward in England & Wales. The data has to be purchased which shouldn't have been a drawback to one of these so-called anti-incinerator groups like Fiends of the Earth and Groanpeace.

The Scotsman article about incinerators has rattled a few cages and maybe if a smart-alec blogger can name an incinerator in England & Wales that does not have higher infant mortality rates in the downwind electoral wards I can check the data and ask The Scotsman to do a follow-up article.

The incinerator promoters claim that incinerators pose no harm to health and yet they haven't checked any data to back up that claim. These babies aren't dying before their first birthdays in a consistent and predictable pattern to make things look bad for incinerator promoters. They are dying because of the polluted are that they and their parents have been breathing.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan BSc, C Eng, MICE,
Shrewsbury
16

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 22/02/2008 19:01:54
Nutterwatch, of Edinburgh, might be interested to learn that a study of suicide clusters in Carolina proved that exposure to industrial PM2.5s was the cause.

The six Gnosall suicides are part of a cluster of over fifty suicides downwind of Ironbridge power station, which include that of the Assistant Deputy Coroner for Staffordshire who hanged himself in his Brocton home in Feb 2007.

The Bridgend suicides that have been featured in the press include four from close to the Kenfig Hill opencasting site and one of the other suicides had moved to Nantymoel from Much Wenlock, Shropshire, which is very close to Ironbridge Power Station and that young lady had previously attempted suicide on two occasions prior to moving to Wales.

The first stage of any health study is to map out the data and in almost every case, the cause of the problem is obvious.

Dr John Snow did that with cholera in the 1800s.

Dr Dick van Steenis did the same with asthma in 1995 and published his findings in The Lancet, 8 April 1995, which Nutterwatch will find in any medical library.

Think before you blog, Nutterwatch - or start watching yourself.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
17

Rob Whittle,

Norwich 23/02/2008 10:49:41
There are quite a few ingorant comments and discredit themselves somewhat on here from the likes of nutterwatch and agent99 who seem to know very little of mass PM2.5 fine particle risk from industrial sources by the USEPA, hundreds of research summaries in the recent report Lines that Connect, Fine particle review by Pope and Dochery, all peer reviewed, many referred to and now unquestioned in Supreme Court. Dr van Steenis is solely saying waht scientists/ air pollution expertise knows in the US. Indeed US studies have proved that H2S emissions cause depression and worse as it affect the brain chemicals.

Read DVS work at Country Doctor wesite, you will see "everything" is totally backed up with 237 peer reviewed scientific research in top US medical journals like NEJM, Lancet, Top Thoracic journals etc, and data used by MR is "Government" ONS infant mortality data mapped out. Read his Bexley report 2 years ago, standard methodolgy, data treatment.

Agent 99 MR isn't looking at the emotions, but the human ethics and consequences.

Alternative (High BS), If you have ever bothered to look through a IPPC permit for a modern incinerator it will confirm the fine particle inefficiency, and % fine particles escaping

PM10 1-5% escape monitored visual
PM2.5 30-35% escape unmonitored invisible
PM2.5> 70-90% escape unmonitored invisible

This is what incinerator companies do not hightlight. So knockers do your own detailed research before mouthing rubbish. Wafer thin knowledge and strong knocking is a little obvious in agenda.

18

Unbiased Scientist,

Norwich 24/02/2008 21:40:05
We appear to have some intellectually challenged bloggers on this site. In spite of the welter of scientific evidence available proving conclusively that the emissions from incinerators (sorry – energy form waste plants!) kill people these individuals seem blissfully unaware of the dangers of PM2.5s. There is now a huge quantity of scientific data from sources worldwide demonstrating the effects of airborne small particle pollution (PM2.5s) which incinerators produce in abundance and which no filters can currently eradicate. These particles consist of a cocktail of over 1,000 chemicals including deadly dioxins, furans, mercury, cadmium etc. They take many years to degrade and gradually build up in the soil and in our lakes, rivers and streams.
Scientific information on this particular hazard has been available only for the last 11 years or so and the European Commission is currently proposing tougher new air pollution laws. These proposals are now moving through the EU decision-making process. The Commission proposes merging the current various legal instruments for air pollution into a single legislative Act for Air Quality in Europe. But most importantly this Act introduces for the first time legislation against particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5s), with a view to reducing population exposure to these particles by 20% between 2010 and 2020. PM2.5s cause serious heart and respiratory disease and are responsible for nine out of ten of all the deaths that can be attributed to air pollution in Europe. Similar results can be shown for North America. The Commission estimates that air pollution shortens average life expectancy in Europe by more than eight months. Check the European Commission’s website to verify what I am saying:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/water_air_soil/070604_en.htm
East Lothian Council, in seeking to avoid fines for not meeting landfill targets and increased landfill tax, is running headlong into the possibility of eve
19

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 28/02/2008 12:40:08
Dr Harry Burns, of the Chief Medical Officer Directorate at St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh, has been reading the blog comments of teh Waltham Forest Guardian following the report that Chingford Green had the second-highest infant mortality rate out of the 625 electoral wards in London.

He has assumed that as Chingford Green had zero infant deaths in 2002 and five in the three years 2003-5, then it was just a blip that showed no possible association with proximity to the Edmonton incinerator.

Dr Burn's 2-page letter dated 17 January 2008, & headed "Waste incineration and human health" to a Scottish resident concerned about the prospect of an incinerator close to his house was extremely ill-advised as he wrote:

"It might also be argued that were problems caused by PM2.5 particulates (which mr Ryan pinpoints as the cause) this might affect people throughout the life course, giving rise to excess/earlier deaths from e.g. respiratory diseases or cancers."

Dr Pui-Ling Li, of Waltham Forest Primary Care Trust requested my map showing high & low infant mortality zones in London, which is at:
http://www.ukhr.org/mapa4.pdf

Dr Li's report "Health inequalities in Waltham Forest", 2003/4 states the following:

"Deaths from circulatory diseases in Waltham Forest were significantly higher than London and England and Wales. Women had the highest rate, and men the third highest rate when compared with the other 32 Boroughs. Waltham Forest women have the highest SMR (all ages) for coronary heart disease, acute myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease and hypertensive disease, and higher mortality rate for stroke than men in the borough." [page 6]

and

"Waltham Forest has significantly higher mortality rate from all cancers compared to Engand and Wales. Cancer mortality rates in Waltham Forest are not following the downward trend observed for England & Wales, in fact there are signs that the mortality rates are increasing locally. The [cancer
20

Smart-alec,

29/02/2008 15:58:01
Michael, you challenged a smart alec blogger to identify an incinerator in England & Wales that does not have higher infant mortality rates in the downwind electoral wards.

However, when the Director of Public Health at Telford & Wrekin Primary Care Trust attempted to do this you accused her 'of being responsible for more deaths than Dr Harold Shipman'.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvfru/780/780we14.htm

Now if you do that to a Director of Public Health with proven expertise and a wealth of health specialists behind her, what chance do the rest of us have.

My other concern is what is an expert? Is it someone who is qualified on the subject with proven expertise and the recognition from peers, or is it someone who posts unsubstantiated information on the internet.

If the former, then you would expect a Director of Public Health to be an expert of public health.

What is your area of expertise and how does it allow you speak with more authority than a director of public health?
21

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 29/02/2008 16:15:41
Not-so-Smartalec should check the facts.

Dr Woodward's report attempts to prove that Ironbridge power station emissions pose no harm to health and that report was published 9 May 2006.

My statement of evidence to House of Commons is an independent report that was submitted 28 Nov 2005 and published 11 May 2006, 2 days after Dr Woodward's report.

She had not seen my statement and I'd not seen her report as neither of us are time travellers.

David Wright MP tried to get my statement removed from parliamentary website but was unsuccessful.

You might recall the Shropshire man who committed suicide online in March 2007 as it was in all national papers. The other two Shropshire suicides that same week failed to make national press but they are no less dead.

Your own Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr Harry Burns, has shown himself to be clueless on matters of public health.

What Director of Public Health has ever exposed any major health matter? They are political appointees who should be disbanded as worthless.

Note that all Directors of Public Health are keeping out of the incinerator debate. If they are so confident that PM2.5 emissions from incinerators are so harmless, why can they not present the data to prove their case?

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

22

Rob Whittle,

Incinerator PM2.5s 01/03/2008 13:07:02
Well Said MR.

In Norfolk we enquired to our Norfolk PCT Director as to what he knew about municipal incinerators, emissions and health. He admitted he knew no more than the HPA Nov 2005 opinion, and would sign off permits on that basis and say so.

He was asked to attend a public meeting of 400 where he had a duty of care to fine out more, and protect us, and understand local concerns. He failed to do this, wanting to stay out of any contraversy, or presented with ONS health concerns. He sent his secetary instead.

Basically if an IPPC permit landed on his desk, it would have taken a 5 min read through of a 4 page government document , without too much thought or expert consideration; and health wouls have been signed away at a stroke of a pen.
23

Smart alec,

12/05/2008 11:36:52
Michael, my point was and remains, that you shout down anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of fact, evidence or their level of expertise. You accused a Director of Public Health of killing more people than Harold Shipman with no regard to how offensive a remark this actually is and then state how worthless you perceive such Directors to be.

Directors of public health have a great deal of responsibility, not only for the provision of appropriate and effective health services (due to changing demographic requirements and disease prevalence), but are now required to participate in the planning process and also start planning for potential changes in health need due to climate change. As such, they provide a service that is unseen but vital to maintaining and improving good health, protecting and enhancing health through planning and policy and the protection and monitoring of health through treatment and care.

How dare you accuse them of being clueless on matters of public health? What is it you do, what is your expertise, what are your responsibilities and what makes you able to criticise such individuals?

You make the statement that:

‘If they are so confident that PM2.5 emissions from incinerators are so harmless, why can they not present the data to prove their case?


How do you prove something that doesn’t happen? The risk from PM2.5 in terms of morbidity and mortality is known and quantifiable. Emissions from incineration do not produce sufficient concentrations of PM to result in a quantifiable health outcome.

And what is your view of the UK Health Protection Agency? They have already produced a position statement on the health risk from incineration and are in the process of updating it due to crackpot and completely unsubstantiated claims designed to scaremonger.

Speaking of which, what is the basis behind your claim of increased suicide due to incinerators? How does that work, what is the mechanism behind such an outcome?

You s
24

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 26/12/2008 13:31:25
I hope Smart Alec reads this.

Justin McCracken has e-mailed me a letter dated 24 December 2008 in which he admits the Health Protection Agency "gives advice on the best available peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and does not relate to HPA undertaking specific research relating to incinerators."

The HPA have ignored the 282 or so studies listed in Pub Med under search for "infant mortality, air pollution" and also the 2004 study of infant mortality rates around 63 incinerators in Japan which states the following in the 1st sentence of the conclusion:


"Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined."

J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.
Links

Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan.
Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T.
Department of Technology Assessment and Biostatistics, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Saitama, Japan.


Smart Alec might also ponder the following:

The Western Mail: Letter: Incinerator risks
Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) - Monday, December 8, 2008
Author: MICHAEL RYAN
SIR - When I read about the Williams conjoined twins last week, I checked the news archive and saw that the only other pair of conjoined twins born in the West Midlands were to the Mowatt family, who lived in Chelmsley Wood, Birmingham, in 2001.

Anti- incinerator campaigners will know that rates of "twinning" are higher around incinerators and Chelmsley Wood is just a few miles downwind of Tyesely incinerator .

The Shrewsbury Hospital incinerator is on the western, ie "upwind" side of the town, so Mr and Mrs Williams would have been exposed to PM2.5 emissions from that incinerator , which is sited less than a mile from my house.

Studies of infa
25

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 26/12/2008 13:32:35
The Western Mail: Letter: Incinerator risks
Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) - Monday, December 8, 2008
Author: MICHAEL RYAN
SIR - When I read about the Williams conjoined twins last week, I checked the news archive and saw that the only other pair of conjoined twins born in the West Midlands were to the Mowatt family, who lived in Chelmsley Wood, Birmingham, in 2001.

Anti- incinerator campaigners will know that rates of "twinning" are higher around incinerators and Chelmsley Wood is just a few miles downwind of Tyesely incinerator .

The Shrewsbury Hospital incinerator is on the western, ie "upwind" side of the town, so Mr and Mrs Williams would have been exposed to PM2.5 emissions from that incinerator , which is sited less than a mile from my house.

Studies of infant mortality rates around 63 incinerators in Japan (2004) and 27 incinerators in Italy (2007) found high rates of infant deaths in proximity to incinerators .

ONS data shows that the 2002-07 infant mortality rate in my electoral ward (Bowbrook) is 15.2 per 1,000 live births, which is higher than in any of the 625 electoral wards in London for the same six-year set of data. Fourteen of London's electoral wards had zero infant deaths in each of the six years 2002-07 and those zero wards were where there was minimal exposure to PM2.5 emissions from the ten incinerators that affect much, but not all of Greater London.

Those who say that incinerators don't harm health have not bothered to check any rates of illness or premature deaths at electoral ward level should read the first sentence of the conclusion to the Japanese study which states: "Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined.".

MICHAEL RYAN BSc, C Eng, MICE Gains Avenue, Picton, Shrewsbury

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Health

More Health >>

More Environment

More Environment >>

Features

Drink Driving - Don't Risk It Drink Driving - Don't Risk It
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.