Over three thousand objections to proposed Poolbeg incinerator in Dublin

by Dermot Lacey Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:57

Rory,

It really is a pity that you had to adopt such a sneering tone in that contribution. As far as the Labour Party is concerned you know that on the City Council myself and Kevin Humphreys have taken every possible step open to us on this issue. You also know that we have supported the activities and events organised by CRAI.

Yes we organised a seperate occasion to submit our objections.this was for two reasons and it may also apply to the other Parties:
1) We did not want o be seen as muscling in on the CRAI event. It was after all their event.
2) There were benefits for the cause in having a series of different submissions over the course of the day.

I have opposed the Poolbeg Peninsula Incinerator proposal since long before it was first mooted and long before there was any campaign of opposition. i do not need a lecture from a late comer, even if fully committed, to the campaign on my support.

by snicker - # Tue Oct 03, 2006 15:04

Yep- minister Mc Dowell, pardon me-Tanaiste and Il Duce did not have to object
too strenously, he , afterall had Cullen bumped to Transport because the Critical
Infrastructure Bill was going to include Poolbeg thus feck with his vote majority.
We cannot have the Tanaiste not returned in an election can we-

so he lobbied for the Strategic Infrastructure bill-launched 16th Feburary 06 which
does nOT include the incinerator at Poolbeg.

This is called
1. Nimbyism.
2. buying a dail seat.
3. A stay on execution- the incinerator will be built but not until after
The Tanaiste is re-elected.

meanwhile he has 4% of the National vote and is playing chess with Bertie in the Dail.

but no-one gives a fuck about anyone else cos there were less than 30 people outside the Dail
demanding the Taoiseach's resignation.

less than 3o people.
Monaghan has no hospital.
Erris is sieged.
Tara is sold off.

they will come to the door asking for a vote and people are too busy getting
pissed, laid, stoned and playing politics to THINK POLITICALLY about how
to get the fuckers out.

Mc Dowell will play the Poolbeg game , and get returned to the Dail
and when the residents of Poolbeg start bringing their kids to
the hospitals for asthma and breathing difficulties they will find
they need universal heallth insurance cos state health care is
off the right-wing agenda.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP AND REALISE THAT THERE ARE NO POLITICIANS
just suits selling your country and go on the streets?

by Andy Sat Oct 07, 2006 20:48

Excuse me, but who elected the PDs in the first place? Nobody. They have no right to be in Government on the basis of electoral support, which stands at about 2% (i.e. nonexistent). They were appointed to Government. If this were merely to "fill the numbers", they would not have been handed major ministerial portfolios.

Need this be spelled out?

Very well, then: The PDs have no mandate to be in Government. They were not elected.

by Realistic Citizen Mon Nov 20, 2006 00:44

How many times each day do you really think about how much waste YOU are responsible for? When you get out of bed each day, get in the shower, eat your breakfast, go to work - water, food, packaging, energy.....waste waste waste and more waste... We can all reduce the waste in our lives but living in this first world world comsumer society without contributing to its waste burden is IMPOSSIBLE. I am responsible for MY WASTE. YOU are responsible for YOURS. It needs to be dealt with properly in an environmentally responsible way.

We CANNOT recycle everything.

Incineration is a clean and responsible way to deal with the waste that cant be recycled or composted. It can generate heat and energy. I live less than 1km from the proposed incinerator in Poolbeg and I fully support it. For goodness sake the ESB have to import coal from Australia and Argentina to burn ON THE SAME PENINSULA to generate electricity for us - How does that make sense when our waste could be used as a resource in its place?

There are almost 2000 times more dioxins released in Ireland each year from backyard burning (thats people burning plastics and other rubbish at low temperatures in open fires) than the MAXIMUM allowable emissions from a modern incinerator.

I am not a politician. I am a realist.

We need practical, modern, efficient, solutions to deal with our waste.

I think this is one.

by Miriam Cotton Mon Nov 20, 2006 17:25

Realistic Citizen above displays a monumental ignorance of the facts about incineration. It is not safe and it is not clean. And it is not an 'alternative' to landfill either because the highly toxic ash that it produces (roughly 40% of the original volume) is disposed of guess where? Landfill!!!!! It pollutes farmland, towns and cities within a minimum radius of 50 miles. It causes death and illness and the US EPA is against it. Incinceration is a commercial solution to a civil problem. It is about making profit and not in the least about reducing waste. In fact, incinerator companies can and do influence government policy against more environmentally friendly solutions in favour of incinceration so their profit margins will not be reduced. We in Ireland will have to import toxic waste from other countries to make the proposed toxic waste incinerator in Co Cork viable. The only ultimate solution to our mounting waste problem is to tackle it at its root cause - consumerism. Not a lot of companies want you to think about that, though. They want you to go on spending until you drop dead from pollution. Incinerator companies want you to go on making as much waste as possible so their bank accounts will grow bigger and fatter. Incineration is the equivalent of fiddling while Ireland burns - literally and figuratively.

by Charles B. Mon Nov 20, 2006 18:17

I have to say that I agree, somewhat, with RC. He/she displays an ignorance of your facts about incineration. there are some studies that would show most municipal incinerators to be operationally safe. Otherwise, the residents of many European cities would be tumor ridden subhumans (or dead) if you took everything you said to be gospel. It can be done relatively safely, with the fact that RC came out with the FACT (ref. EPA publication something or other, definitely there though)about there being more dioxins released by backyard burning in Ireland than any other source. This would indicate that there a whole lot of people on this lovely little island of ours that would support incineration, by virtue of their fact that they carry out small scale uncontrolled incineration in their own backyards. But getting back to the point, I think that many people would support incineration as a reasonable way to dispose of waste in a society that has established itself upon consumerism and the promotion of unsustainable exploitation of resources. You (and I, incidently) consider this to be vulgar, unethical and completely mad, but its the will of the people that should win out at the end of the day (or so they say), and I reckon that most would support incineration, unless of course its in their own vicinity, and therefore impact their property portfolio, and ipso facto their ability to be uber consumers.
I'm all for smashing capitalism, using local produce, being energy aware etc., but this is not going to happen in the short term (barring the unforeseeable happening, which I'm banking on), therefore incineration is a solution, in the short term, for the growing crisis in relation to waste management. Its either that or keep building more landfill space.
People in general don't give a toss what happens to their waste, so long as its out of their sphere of existance. It can be in a hole in the ground, a municipal thermal treatment unit, the moon or a bog up the mountains. You have to realise that unless everyone is going to get in on the whole zero waste aspiration, then it is not going to work, and solutions are required for this scenario,.
I know, it sounds like I have no faith in my fellow man, and you'd be absolutely right to think that of me, because like it or lump it, most of us, are filthly slobs who simply don't care.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:22

'It's the will of the people that should win out at the end of the day.'

The will of the majority of German people during the 1930s was for the elimination of the Jewish race. Pointing to a majority viewpoint doesnt necessarily prove that something is right. In any case, there is no national public consensus on what we should do with our waste - there is no proven majority point of view that anyone can look to - outside of the ferocious local opposition to incineration wherever it is proposed - not just here in Ireland but in many other countries as well. 300 incinerator proposals have been defeated in the USA and it is being abandoned as a means of waste disposal there. Why? Because the US EPA has acknowledged that there is no safe level of dioxin emission - no matter how small - they are the most deadly substance on earth - and incinerators are the single greatest source of dioxin emissions. For your information, many people are indeed tumour ridden and ill in the vicinity of existing incinerators. The public are deliberatelly kept in total darkness about this issue -the only debate is between incinerator objectors wo take the trouble to inform themselves and profiteering of foreign companies like Indaver in Belgium.

As to backyard burning in Ireland - it is against the law - precisely because it is so poisonous. The reason people (a tiny minority, incidentally) do it is because of the gross incompetence and negligence of a governemnt that, in 80 years of independence, has still not managed to organise adequate waste collection and recycling facilities in a country the size of a postage stamp - despite being one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Anybody living in a rural location has to deal with the full reality of their own waste and in fact the vast majority of us recycle everything we can, compost all vegetable matter and pay for the disposal of other rubbish at waste centres, which we have to drive to. The miniscule level on which backyard burning takes place in Ireland is always wheeled out by incinerator apologists as evidence to support incineration. The logic of this escapes me. If backyard burning is deadly too (and it is) why the hell would we want to engage in mass incineration as an alternative?

Consumerism as a way of life is dying - everybody knows that we cannot continue like we are. The ONLY quesiton that remains for responsible people is how to confront the excesses that are threatening to make us extinct. A lot of people already realise this and it is only a matter of time before everyone does. Our way of life will change because it has to. Incineration, oil exploration etc and all the filth, violence and corruption that go with them will be abandoned because we need clean air to survive. It's as simple as that.

by Burning Tue Nov 21, 2006 17:07

The logic of this escapes me. If backyard burning is deadly too (and it is) why the hell would we want to engage in mass incineration as an alternative?

High temperature incineration breaks down many compounds that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. The question is whether or not the state or private contractors can be trusted to run the incinerators at the high (and expensive) temperatures necessary to do that or will they cut costs.

Of course the main solution would be to reduce packaging and waste and then incinerate what can't be recycled.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Nov 21, 2006 17:25

"Waste does not disappear when burned

This belief that if we burn things they simply go away is completely erroneous. Breaking things into fine particles has the effect of vastly increasing their surface area and therefore their ability to pollute. A single lump of waste weighing a pound would have a surface area of 44 square inches. When the same pound is broken into fine particles, its combined surface area grows to 9900 square yards (approximately two soccer fields). This fact is important for several reasons. The incinerators act as synthesizers and therefore compound the waste problem because other deadly toxic substances, not found in the original waste stream, are produced in the combustion process. At temperatures ranging from 400 to 1600 C complex organic molecules break down into basic atoms. Then combustion gas cools as it travels up the chimney stack where some atoms recombine to form new, and often more hazardous, compounds. So fine particles, with their large surface area, provide an inviting place for pollutants like dioxins and furans to attach themselves before they are released into the air. These particles can also become coated with toxic metals cadmium, arsenic, chromium and zinc. Some of these fine particles remain airborne for long periods of time and travel long distances, even hundreds of miles before they settle on land or water. So an incinerator can pollute the environment way beyond the immediate are where it is operating.

Creating dioxins and furans

Dioxins, and their closely related organochlorine cousins furans, are created when you burn, organic matter, newspapers and plastic wrapping or any kind of synthetic material. Dioxin is the collective name for numerous toxic chlorinated compounds that are undesirable by-products of the combustion process and chlorine industry. There are 75 different dioxins and 135 different furans. Some dioxins like TCDD -or 2,3,7, 8-tetracholorodibenzo-p-dioxin are particularly poisonous.

In contrast forest fires create very little few dioxins. So dioxins and furans are very a modern phenomenon. Research from core sediments found little evidence of dioxin before the 1930s. Dioxins are also produced during the manufacturing of certain pesticides and the bleaching of paper. As the ecologist Sandra Steingbrabers put it "dioxins and furans are not the natural-born children of fire. They are the unplanned, unwanted offspring of modern chlorine chemistry".

Proponents will argue that the new generation 'state of the art' operate to very high standards. Despite these claims even the modern incinerator spews dioxins into the air. They contaminate the land and subsequently the food that is grown on this land. Dioxins accumulate in the tissue of grazing animals like cows. They, in turn, pass the dioxins on to humans when we consume dioxin-contaminated milk or meat. Furthermore there is no safe levels for dioxin exposure. Recent research indicates that it can disrupt biological process at even a few parts per trillion.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the statistics used by advocates of incinerators to prove that they are not a health hazard normally relate to laboratory tests or those carried out under supervision. But in the real world things are not so neat, clean and tidy. This is what researchers from the US EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration discovered in a 1990 study. They found that the level of emissions achieved under laboratory conditions or even in a commercial incinerator being inspected by prior arrangements by a regulatory authority are likely to be far lower than those routinely emitted during normal operations. They made 62 unannounced visit to 29 incinerators around the country. 69 percent of the facilities were found to have violated of their emission's license. "

This all should scare the pants off of everybody in Ireland because, here, the EPA has announced that it is the duty of the polluter themselves both to report any breaches of their (woefully inadequate) guidelines and also to decide whether the breach is serious or not!!! Call me cynical, but isn't that the same as putting the cat in charge of the cream?

by Realistic Citizen Tue Dec 05, 2006 16:43

I dont want to assume anything about any of the contributors in this forum however I feel I should reiterate some of my points in defence of my opinion, and my right to express it.

I didnt make my contribution as any kind of an pro-capitalist polemic. Im being realistic about the options I am faced with in dealing with my waste. Like it or not, Ireland is an industrialised, wealthy country which generates lots of waste of all kinds so that we can have all the things we've come to like in our daily lives - housing, transport, food, clothes, CDs, tvs, cosmetics, bars, restaurants, this list is literally endless - just look around you! Im being responsible in taking ownership of my waste.

In taking responsibility for my part of the problem as a willing consumer I therefore resent my opinion on incineration being referred to as one of "monumental ignorance". I'm intelligent and informed and I still choose incineration as part of a balanced solution. I know how the process works and how its wastes and byproducts are dealt with afterwards. I know how the process is managed and controlled and what emmissions are allowed and at what limits.

I just wanted to introduce some balance into the debate and say what I think people can accept if properly informed. We cant pick and choose the technology we want and wish for an Eco-Fairy to come and take away the things we dont.

by maire Tue Dec 05, 2006 18:47

Hello informed not ignorant.
We are a democracy, we can pick and choose the technology we want - we just have to use our wallet or our vote!
We need sustainable living, alternatives to mass burn are gaining every day, the sell by date for commercial incineration has passed. - too problematic, like cigarettes.

by Charles B. Wed Dec 06, 2006 16:52

yes, just like cigarettes the reasons for mass incineration are going up in smoke. But theres just one problem with that, unless this silk cut I hold in my nicotine stained fingers is a figment of my imagination, then ciggies are still going strong, as are the arguments for incineration, or thermal treatment as I prefer to call it, far less likely to raise heckles.
Incidently, my faith in mankind has not, and never will be restored by debates such as these, but its amusing to see us argue and throw insults as we try to play God.
Ignorance may not be the will of the people (unusually constructed title), but ignorant are the people. Most people you know may not burn Miriam, but its certainly more than a tiny minority (every survey conducted in relation to unaccounted for waste would suggect the opposite) that continue to burn their waste. You obviously don't frequent the more working class (quaint description, I know) areas of the cities, or indeed most of rural Ireland, and lift your nose to take in that very distinctive odour of burning municipal refuse. Go for a drive through the countryside at dusk just after Xmas, and you may see what I mean, plastic blister packaging melting away, bubble wrap a hissing and a popping, and partially burnt wrapping paper floating away into the night.
Incineration as an alternative to backyard burning makes a lot of sense, one controlled point discharge where the waste is burned in a specialised environment vs.thousands, yes thousands of dispersed point discharges in peoples back gardens.
As for your references to the Holocaust etc. and being a incineration apologist, a wee bit over the top dear, certainly doesn't strike me as being the arguments of someone who has fact on their side.
Decadent action is the way to go......

by Jasper Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:37

I apologise if any of this has been stated already but I haven't had the chance to read through all the material.

Firstly, opponents of incineration tend to cite dioxin levels from countries/incinerators that were operational before the EU Directive on Incineration was adopted. This is misleading. An incinerator operating at the very limiits of what's allowed under the Directive would produce 0.33 grammes of dioxins for 600,000 tonnes of waste incinerated in a municipal waste incinerator.

I'd also like to cite Professor Bruce Ames, winner of the Cancer Research Foundation Prize and the Tyler Prize and one-time member of the National Cancer Advisory Board of America. He states that he amount of TCDD (dioxins) emitted from modern incinerators is a trivial pozzible hazard. The carcinogenicity of the dioxins from landfills is negligible because of the fact that the levels from MSW incinerators are ~ 0.001% of the toxic dose.

Finally, bearing the limits imposed by the directive, a Municipal Waste incinerator will contribute less than 2% of the total dioxins.

Make of that what you will.

by Seamuseen (Shame Machine) Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:52

All those concerned about the dangers connected with incinerators may wish to consider the views expressed by United States chemistry professor Dr Paul Connett's in his talk on Saturday, March 27, 1999 - which relate in part to the cancer causing dioxins from incinerators, and also to the way such pollution is directly linked with corruption:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...e.htm

by Jasper Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:04

Despite the polemic nature of Dr Connett's speech, he does make a good point about chlorine.

I didn't get through it all so I'm not sure if he mentioned the dioxins from vehicles. I'd like to think he did because it would mean all the bases are being addressed.

But he made his speech in 1999 before the incineration directive was adopted so it doesn't cover the modern incinerators that must adhere to pretty strict limits and pre-2000 the dioxin emissions would be much higher than (a) the directive would allow and (b) the current technology allows.

by jollygreenculchie Wed Jan 24, 2007 19:19

Wow! Three thousand objectors. What moral authority.

I presume that all these self-righteous NIMBYS will explain how they propose Dublin City and County intends taking responsibility for the 20,000 tons of 'difficult' wastes that are currently being generated in the Dublin area and exported for disposal in the UK, Belgium, and India?

Er......but....mumble mumble.............

Give us all a break.

There are technologies other than incineration and landfil now coming on-stream. They are very very expensive compared to the existing options. Will Dubliners pay the money for disposal of the waste from the industries which make them the wealthiest people in ireland in a more environmentally friendly way? Like hell they will. They won't even pay their existing service charges. Nah goys, lets keep sending it to the Brits, Belgians and Indians.

by M Cotton Wed Jan 24, 2007 21:10

I know how the process works and how its wastes and byproducts are dealt with afterwards. I know how the process is managed and controlled and what emmissions are allowed and at what limits.

If you actually understood that and the totality of the health, safety and environmental impacts of incineration you could not seriously be making the claims for incineration that you are making. The evidence against it is overwhelming - as any averagely sane and honest person has to acknowledge when made aware of the facts. All of which have been pointed to here on Indymedia and elsewhere repeatedly.

Protestations and claims of ipersonal 'ntelligence' and knowledge are no substitue for the facts. Your post amounts to nothing more than the 'testimonies' we see in advertisements every day of the week, in cheap magazines the world over. Those who oppose incinceration have gone yo a lot more trouble than you clearly have in order to arive at the conclusions they have. Murder is wrong. Incineration is wrong. Same difference.

Nice little letter though. But no £5 star letter awards, here, I'm afraid.

by Jasper Thu Jan 25, 2007 08:57

"If you actually understood that and the totality of the health, safety and environmental impacts of incineration you could not seriously be making the claims for incineration that you are making. The evidence against it is overwhelming - as any averagely sane and honest person has to acknowledge when made aware of the facts. All of which have been pointed to here on Indymedia and elsewhere repeatedly."

See, you're probably taking information on dioxin emissions from old data, i.e. data from before 2001. Incinerators that don't meet the standards specified in the directive have, in many cases, been closed down and some have been upgraded so that they do meet the standards. I've yet to see anyone on this site, or anywhere else, give compelling evidence on the so-called health/environmental hazards of a modern municipal waste incinerator....one that cannot emit more than 0.3 grammes of dioxin per annum for a plant incinerating 600,0000 tonnes of waste. And that 0.3 grammes is a worst case scenario...where the incinerator is operating just at the limit.

Of course, if you have new data taken from the last 5 years I'd be happy to consider it but data from any time before that doesn't and shouldn't carry any weight in a debate on incineration because it's simply not relevant to this case.

by Miriam Cotton Thu Jan 25, 2007 13:39

Hi John Jasper

This must have been on your mind over the Christmas and New Year breaks. I hope it didn't spoil things for you? When you claim that you have seen nothing on Indymedia 'to persuade' you that incinceration is as unsafe as it actually is, that's a porky pie, now isn't it? You have seen loads of proof here in fact. What you really mean to say is that you have seen nothing that you can admit to being persuaded by because that doesnt suit your purpose: to make as much profit as possible by polluting the Irish environment and inflicting death and ill health on many people.

You are here to pedal industry propaganda dressed up as an (unconvincing) attempt to 'debate' the 'possibilites'.

The USA EPA has said: Dioxins are the most deadly substance known to man
There are no safe limits
The incinerator has not been built that does not emit dioxins

There is a ton of scientific evidence behind those statements - which you know all about. When the US EPA makes such statements, and given their pro business bias, it is only a psychotic like yourself who would have the brass neck to dismiss them. You can quote your obfuscating, selective and self-serving figures at us as much as you like but this is not a stacked-hearing where vital aspects of what you are proposing to do to us are not even permitted to be discussed and where government placemen have been primed to endorse you, no matter what nonsense you are talking. This is a level playing field and all you can do here, which is what you are so monotonously doing, is trying to derail all honest discussion of what incineration actually does to people. You are straining to create doubt in the minds of people who may be less familiar with the science. Don't be taken in folks. Go to the Global Anti Incinerator Alliance website and find out just how alarmed people are the world over about what incinceration has done and is doing to our planet.

John's basic argument is that if he and a handful of others can make a vast profit out of exploiting an environmental problem, thats worth putting lots of people in the ground for. And making lots of others extremely unwell over a foreshortened lifetime too. Plus ruining farm land , destorying wild life habitats and spewing the same dioxins into the sea to do their deadly business there too.

Keep it coming - you are giving us an excellent opportunity to highlight the sham of the pro-incineration case.

by anon Thu Jan 25, 2007 13:52

The Harney/McDowell defence.

by Jasper Thu Jan 25, 2007 14:34

"Hi John Jasper

This must have been on your mind over the Christmas and New Year breaks. I hope it didn't spoil things for you? When you claim that you have seen nothing on Indymedia 'to persuade' you that incinceration is as unsafe as it actually is, that's a porky pie, now isn't it? You have seen loads of proof here in fact. What you really mean to say is that you have seen nothing that you can admit to being persuaded by because that doesnt suit your purpose: to make as much profit as possible by polluting the Irish environment and inflicting death and ill health on many people."

There's been no credible evidence to suggest that modern incinerators are the sources of dioxins that you portray them to be. You've engaged in misinformation - incinerators are responsible for 70% of dioxins and citing the Stockholm Convention which states nothing of the sort - and I'd just prefer to see some data, some fact and figures that aren't based on incinerators that cannot be built or tolerated under the Directive.

"You are here to pedal industry propaganda dressed up as an (unconvincing) attempt to 'debate' the 'possibilites'."

I'm here to peddle nothing but my opinion. If you think that there's no flip-side to the debate then why do you keep posting? You're incapable of debate if that's your stance.

"The USA EPA has said: Dioxins are the most deadly substance known to man
There are no safe limits
The incinerator has not been built that does not emit dioxins"

That's true. But ~2% of all dioxins is negligible when compared with other sources. Like home heating, like cars, like backyard burning.

"There is a ton of scientific evidence behind those statements - which you know all about. When the US EPA makes such statements, and given their pro business bias, it is only a psychotic like yourself who would have the brass neck to dismiss them. You can quote your obfuscating, selective and self-serving figures at us as much as you like but this is not a stacked-hearing where vital aspects of what you are proposing to do to us are not even permitted to be discussed and where government placemen have been primed to endorse you, no matter what nonsense you are talking. This is a level playing field and all you can do here, which is what you are so monotonously doing, is trying to derail all honest discussion of what incineration actually does to people. You are straining to create doubt in the minds of people who may be less familiar with the science. Don't be taken in folks. Go to the Global Anti Incinerator Alliance website and find out just how alarmed people are the world over about what incinceration has done and is doing to our planet. "

The US EPA makes statements that one of your cohorts dismissed and discredited in a previous debate. Yet now it's ok to cite them? Personallly, I've no problem with you citing them. But anyway, I've cited the work of Professor Bruce Ames who has won awards for cancer research who said that the effect of dioxins as carcinogens wasn't truly known because any tests were at the toxic limit as opposed to 0.01% of that which is what the output from an incinerator would be. But leaving that aside, the US EPA stated that dioxins are harmful - they didn't say that incinerators were the sole generator of them. And that's because they're not. Now if you want to cite recent data, that's fine. Do so. Don't just say "there's loads of evidence out there". Links and actual sources, if you wouldn't mind. Anything in the last five years would do.
The US EPA has also characterized modern incinerators as "producing electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity". The US EPA also said that modern incinerators are no longer significant sources of dioxins and furans. The US EPA said those things despite saying dioxins are deadly!

See, you've said dioxins are deadly and while that may be true, it doesn't mean incinerators are. You need to stop trying to make tenuous links like that.

"John's basic argument is that if he and a handful of others can make a vast profit out of exploiting an environmental problem, thats worth putting lots of people in the ground for. And making lots of others extremely unwell over a foreshortened lifetime too. Plus ruining farm land , destorying wild life habitats and spewing the same dioxins into the sea to do their deadly business there too."

Hysterical nonsense. Putting people in the ground? Cars have been around a lot longer and dioxins have been around a lot longer than incinerators. Ireland hasn't ever been dioxin free so maybe wise up a little and stop trying to make a point that incinerators, that will contribute no more than 4 g of dioxins, per annum (at total capacity), will kill 'lots of people' and basically turn Ireland into some post-nuclear holocaust place.

"Keep it coming - you are giving us an excellent opportunity to highlight the sham of the pro-incineration case."

You need to educate yourself a bit more. Look at the directives, current practices and emissions, do the maths and read up on the science.

by Jasper Thu Jan 25, 2007 15:42

Arsenic is another extremely dangerous substance when ingested. However, the North Sea, for example, contains arsenic - enough to kill every person on the planet if it were to be extracted, in fact - yet people swim in the North Sea and eat fish caught in the North Sea.

Toxicity doesn't always constitute a 'clear and present danger'. It's the concentration or the risk it adds that determines the 'danger'.

by R. Isible Thu Jan 25, 2007 15:56

Arsenic is another extremely dangerous substance when ingested. However, the North Sea, for example, contains arsenic - enough to kill every person on the planet if it were to be extracted, in fact - yet people swim in the North Sea and eat fish caught in the North Sea.


And that's the crux of the matter ... will incineration release dioxins in a manner which allows them to be concentrated to sufficiently high levels that they'll cause health problems to e.g. the local residents? As I'm sure you're aware there's lots of mercury in some seas and we can swim just fine in them, but it's not a good idea to eat the fish if you're pregnant. Are the people living in Ringsend going to receive all of the 4g dioxins or will it magically be dispersed like pixie dust into the atmosphere? Will there be a plume of dioxin-concentrated smoke blowing inland? What concentrations and exposure levels are safe for air-borne dioxin exposure?

A related issue is that the presence of incineration capability may actually decrease the reduce, reuse components of waste-strategies because it's a lot simpler to just burn it. (Will centralised city located incinerators remove the problem of people burning their waste in the country? Probably not if we're charged a per-unit-use fee for waste, in which case it's cheaper to burn it out the back, or in the Jotul and hope that you don't get inspected.)

I'd agree on the need for clarity on what specific types of incinerators we're talking about though and for sticking with facts rather than diverging into personal insults.

by Jasper Thu Jan 25, 2007 16:09

"And that's the crux of the matter ... will incineration release dioxins in a manner which allows them to be concentrated to sufficiently high levels that they'll cause health problems to e.g. the local residents? As I'm sure you're aware there's lots of mercury in some seas and we can swim just fine in them, but it's not a good idea to eat the fish if you're pregnant. Are the people living in Ringsend going to receive all of the 4g dioxins or will it magically be dispersed like pixie dust into the atmosphere? Will there be a plume of dioxin-concentrated smoke blowing inland? What concentrations and exposure levels are safe for air-borne dioxin exposure?"

Firstly, it's 0.4 g and that is the worst case scenario but most modern incinerators won't produce more than 10-15% of these limits.

There will naturally be dispersion since that 0.4 g is over a full year.

The Directive thresholds are based on consultation with the World Health Organisation so they're already taking into accound exposure limits.

"A related issue is that the presence of incineration capability may actually decrease the reduce, reuse components of waste-strategies because it's a lot simpler to just burn it. (Will centralised city located incinerators remove the problem of people burning their waste in the country? Probably not if we're charged a per-unit-use fee for waste, in which case it's cheaper to burn it out the back, or in the Jotul and hope that you don't get inspected.)"

The incineration targets, as far as I'm aware, are based on exhausting the present and likely recycling capabilities. There probably aren't enough quantities of the different materials being generated for a recycling market to be set up indigenously and besides, the waste that cannot be recycled now is being landfilled or exported for landfill and/or incineration. It won't mean that everything will just be lobbed into the incinerator. Other countries around Europe have incineration as part of an integrated waste management system that achieves high recycling levels as well. Forfas published a report on it a few months back if anyone's interested in looking at that.

"I'd agree on the need for clarity on what specific types of incinerators we're talking about though and for sticking with facts rather than diverging into personal insults."

Seconded.

Also, I don't have a vested or professional interest in this. I just happen to be interested in it because I come from a scientific background. And I'm not strictly pro-incineration since I'm on the record as disagreeing with the incinerator in Meath and the one in Ringaskiddy. So, I'd prefer a little of the hysteria and acccusations about being pro-incineration and what-not and just addressed as someone who happens to have a differing opinion.

by maire Thu Jan 25, 2007 17:16

Far safer alternative methods are now available including recycling, mechanical biological treatment and plasma gasification, a combination of these would be safer, would produce more energy, and would be cheaper than incineration in the long run, much cheaper when the health costs were taken into account. These more up-to-date methods should be employed.
Health costs should be routinely taken into account when deciding on waste disposal strategies.
Besides dioxins, serious health consequences of fine particulate pollution from incineration have become apparent in the last ten years, making incineration the least preferred option for getting rid of waste.
For the incinerators in Cork Harbour, which are all inhouse, except the crematorium, there is no routine monitoring the body burdens of some key pollutants in local inhabitants, no periodic monitoring of the content of dust in homes in the locality, no funds to routinely monitor the health of our school children or even do a base study. Don't wish our concerns on any community be it Ringsend or the other areas in the country earmarked for incinerators to burn our resources.

by M Cotton Thu Jan 25, 2007 19:53

Every single one of the 'arguments' that Jasper has raised in his post above has already been annihilated on this and on other threads. The science and the evidence has been posted in response to him over and over again. The campaign of misinformation is from John, in fact. He keeps going round and round and round the same points hoping that each time there is a different audience for his distortions and hoping to wear us down by constantly making us post the same information over and over again. It is a war of attrition and it is a very determined one. Indymedia is just about the only place that comprehensive information is being published in Ireland about the effects of incineration. It has to be neutrealised.

John/Jasper cannot deny the US EPA have said there is no safe limit for dioxins and yet he goes on to argue that the amounts the 'new improved incinerators' emit are safe. They are not - they can never be as has been shown again and again - and the finer particulates from these oh-so-safe incinerators are MORE dangerous than before.

Add into that pot the fact that virtually every incinerator in the world frequently exceeds the limits set them - sometimes by horrific amounts. The record in the UK is shocking. And the monitoring record of our EPA on these sorts of issues is atrocious. Not least because they have stipulated it is the polluter who decides whether they have breahed limits and whether or not those breaches are serious. The polluter reports themselves. It's their decision!!!! And how likely is that?

Also the arrangements that are now in place for 'on the spot' inspections are appalling. There is virtually no such thing. We had a situaiton in Cork Harbour where 260 tonnes of cuastic soda was leaked into Monkstown Bay. A few days later 100 children started a sailing course in the same water. Yet it was only seven weeks later that the spill was made public. God knows what damage was done to the marine environment and what may yet turn out to be the case for some of those children, but our EPA has valiantly defended this state of affairs. Consider also the degeree of influence the incineration industry has on government policy and the fact that IBEC is behind it as an economic essential for businesses who might otherwise have to care about the damage they are doing and pay for more costly forms of disposal. But even where businesses have found LESS costly alternatives, the incineration industry has scuppered it because the effect on their own profit margins. Its poisonous in every single way. Incineration is a business - it is about profit - waste will have to be imported. We dont need them. It is a gigantic and deadly con.

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 08:49

Well done. My arguments have never been annnihilated on a scientific or any other level. You pick and choose the US EPA statements you want to...carefully dismissing the ones that state that incinerators pose no health risk.

2% of total dioxins.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

I've quoted and given sources. You've yet to do anything of the sort. But yet you consistently engage in vacuous attempts to discredit what I say because it doesn't suit you to concede anything. Your hyperbole does you no favours in your cause.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Jan 26, 2007 09:54

Here is just one of hundreds of disgusting outcomes that John is anxious to associate himself with:

Incinerator Emissions and Shrinking Genitals

Poisonous emissions from incinerators could be seriously hindering the sexual development of children, a medical research has confirmed.The research, published in The Lancet and released in May this year, found that teenagers living near incinerators had smaller sexual organs than those in non-incinerator areas.

The teenagers' bodies, insist the findings, contain high levels of toxic chemicals that not only retard and diminish sexual development, but are also linked to cancer, heart disease, allergies and breathing illnesses.

The study looked specifically at heavy metals, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls, all of which are key contaminants in incinerator emissions. The study compared the levels and effects of environmental pollutants in the bodies of children living near two waste incinerators in Belgium with those of adolescents living in rural Belgium away from incinerators.

Boys living near the incinerators were found to have smaller testicles which could be due to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals from the emissions of the incinerators and a nearby lead smelter during fetal, neo-natal (immediately after birth) and prepubertal periods of their lives.

While girls adversely suffer from breast retardation as a result of high concentrations of dioxin-like compounds, boys are said to suffer mainly due to high consumption of PCBs. The release of report coincides with a worldwide awareness campaign on the negative effects of incinerators in the environment.

The Lancet is a highly respected professional medical journal. For the complete report, please issue 357,2001 (www.lancet.com) or cntact
Dr.Jan Staessen of the Environmental Health Study Group e- mail :jan.staessen@med,kuleuven.ac.be, www.lancet.org

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:09

The study was carried out on teenagers. That's the key. They were near incinerators at a time when they were unregulated and the emissions were way above what they should be.

The modern incinerators and the ones allowed under the EU Directive, ie ones that have only come online in the last 5 years or so are subject to limits approved by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION.

Next.

by Charles B. Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:12

from the Irish EPA website, press release 22/07/2005

“From the outset, it was clear that there was no risk to human health and the impact on marine life was minimal and localised.

“The EPA’s priority is to protect the environment and human health. It was clear, as soon as we were advised of the incident that there was no risk to human health and therefore a public action plan was not required. The company, ADM, commenced an internal investigation. We in the EPA have initiated our own separate investigation.

“Caustic soda is a non-toxic material used in the process of making soft drinks. Nonetheless, the EPA considers the spillage to be significant demonstrating a serious breakdown of systems at ADM, Ringaskiddy. All enforcement options remain open to the EPA and appropriate enforcement action will follow."

So there you go Miriam, just in case you were worried about the children who went sailing, the caustic spill won't cause their reproductive organs to fall off or anything like that. And if you're going to link well known journals, at least allow them the courtesy of getting their website address correct: www.thelancet.com

Also, putting your comments in bold print doesn't make you seem any more authoritive you know, just pushy, and annoying.....

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:58

By the by, I just noticed why you were calling me 'John'....I hadn't realised who John Ahern was. I take it you don't read what I type then since you haven't noticed my stated objections to the planned incinerators in Meath and Cork. Which wouldn't be the Indaver party-line. They don't have any vested interest in the Ringsend plant so it would be very strange for someone from Indaver to be against the incinerator they hoped to build but be for one that they had no interest in.

I hope there's no too much logic there for you to get your head around.

by M Cotton Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:04

The purpose of putting the article quoted in bold was to emphasise it as a quote - i.e. an independent submission. Nothing at all to do with asserting my own 'authroity'. So calm down.

You provide us with the EPA's defence of itself in the matter of the caustic soda spill. What a joke. This is the same agency that took itslef seven weeks even to acknowledge that there had been a problem. Caustic soda is not harmless. The history of what happened with that is a matter of record, the incompetence and delay. The fact of their being no personnel to answer the phone when it was reported days after it happened. The fact that no attempt was made to assess the damage, I could go on and on. All that evidence has been linked to from several stroy threads on this newswire - the evidence gone over in mainstream newspapers and about a million other places.

Links and information to many articles, research projects and websites have been provided for you and John Jasper on about a hundred occasions. If you choose to keep yourself in the dark, or not to read the articles and data included on Indymedia already, that is a matter for you. Im under no obligation to make up for your own disinclination to research this issue properly or to read what has already been handed to you on a plate by me and many other anti-incinerator campaigners. Do your own homework.

You are also being devious. I did not make the least attempt to associate the caustic soda spill with the pheonomenon of shrinking genitalia in children. The cause of that is incineration. You are trying to elide two entirely separate posts in order to undermine the shocking evidence which I just presented. It's not working.

Now to get back to the real discussion. Here is another item of interest to any honest people reading this thread. A significant victory in the campaign by local communities around the world against this deadly industry. In bold for ease of reading and to help emphasise its message:

MEPs Reject Proposal to Rebrand Incineration as Energy Recovery

Brussels, 28 November, 2006. Today, the European Parliament's Environment Committee committee voted against a controversial proposal to rebrand and effectively promote the incineration of waste.

The coalitions Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) and Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) welcomed the decision.

The European Commission had proposed reclassifying incineration as a "recovery" rather than a "disposal" option, based on an energy efficiency threshold.

Dr. Cestmir Hrdinka, Executive Director of HCWH Europe, said, "HCWH and GAIA approached MEPs and warned them about accepting this proposal, because it would prevent reuse and recycling by making incineration the preferable option for dealing with waste.

"We welcome this result because, as the European Court of Justice has stated, the primary purpose of an incinerator is to dispose of waste, not to produce energy."

HCWH and GAIA have pointed out that the European Comission proposal to classify incinerators and disposal options is in contradiction with the European Court of Justice ruling (case C-458/00). This decision classifies dedicated municipal waste incinerators according to primary purpose, not energy efficiency, and therefore classifies incinerators as disposal operations.

"We hope that all MEPs will vote against the proposal to rebrand incinerators when the full plenary of the European Parliament takes place," added Hrdinka

For more information, please contact:
Dr. Cestmir Hrdinka
Mobile: +420 732 223 404

We need urgently to get behind this initiative - right across Europe.

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:40

Just in relation to your assertion that you've cited hundreds of articles.

Also, you haven't acknowledged the fact that the physiological effects in that article were due to older incinerators that emitted dioxins with no limits being imposed. It has been accepted that that was a heallth hazard which is why there is a directive that specifies limits that are determined by the WHO. Or does it not suit you do accept that fact?

Also, as has been stated many times and has been stated in the Dublin waste Management Plan, recycling is the greater priority and ambitious targets have been set for recycling.

Finally, the Waste Management Hierarchy states that incineration is only a rung up the ladder above disposal. No one has disputed that. Energy is recovered which actually reduces air emisssions also, by the way. But that's a moot point since the dioxins emitted are so low compared to the total dioxins.

You need to be less rabid and just put forward your points as opposed to trying to be facetious and/or snide.

by Recycler Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:12

There has been much written recently about the NDP and how the last round didn't deliver all it promised.

The same goes for the Waste Plan. It's all about the implementation. If Recycling is such a priority where are the initiatives, as in the Netherlands, where people are paid to return all plastic bottles. Even in Marks and Sparks in the Hague one can return their empty plastic bottles and get a small stipend for doing so. Irish policy is to get consumers to pay, not to look at how society can best manage what we use and what industry produces.
Where is the big public conversation that the council and government is having with us.

Dublin Waste management is about streamlining for privatisation and individualising responsibility.

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 13:10

"There has been much written recently about the NDP and how the last round didn't deliver all it promised.

The same goes for the Waste Plan. It's all about the implementation. If Recycling is such a priority where are the initiatives, as in the Netherlands, where people are paid to return all plastic bottles. Even in Marks and Sparks in the Hague one can return their empty plastic bottles and get a small stipend for doing so. Irish policy is to get consumers to pay, not to look at how society can best manage what we use and what industry produces.
Where is the big public conversation that the council and government is having with us.

Dublin Waste management is about streamlining for privatisation and individualising responsibility."

I agree to a certain extent, though I wouldn't say that the motives are necessarily the same.

Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's for other reasons.

For example, how come the green bins in DCC area don't collect plastics? Why is it just paper, cardboard and tin cans? I wrote to my local councillor to ask him why. He got onto the local authority and they said it was a money issue with the collection companies...they wanted more money.

Maybe we should be paid for our bottles though I don't see why we should need a financial incentive to bring plastic bottles to somewhere for them to be recycled.

Some aspects of the plan have been implemennted though I can only comment on what I've seen myself and anecdotal evidence...there are more bottle banks for me to use - where I go, there are now 5 but there were only 3 up to a year or so ago.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'individualising responsibility'. Do you mean that we shouldn't be responsible for our own waste generation...that we should just fire ahead and then have a financial incintive to recycle but not if there isn't? I'd be disappointed if you did mean something like that.

I don't think we, as a nation, do nearly enough to help recycle or even reduce. I don't think anyone could sugggest that we do. For every conscientious person that recycles as much as they can, there are 10 that dump bags of rubbish over a wall or throw all sorts into the bottom of the green bins.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Jan 26, 2007 13:59

From the CHAIN website - Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network. The quote a Greenpeace Report into the effects of incineration:

"3.5 fold increase probability of mortality from lung cancer (incinerator workers)

1.5 fold increase probability of mortality from oesophageal cancer (incinerator workers)

2.79 fold increase in mortality from gastric cancer (incin. Workers)
44% increase in soft tissure sarcoma (residents living close to an incinerator in France)

27% increase increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (residents living close to an incinerator in France)

37% excess mortality due to liver cancer for people living close to incinerators (study of 14 million people in the UK)

2 fold increased probability of cancer mortality in children (studies on 70 waste incinerators and 307 hospital waste incinerators in the UK)

Increased congenital abnormalities inchildren including spina bifida, cleft palate, eye malformations, lower thyroid function and hypospadias (genital defect) all in infants born close to incinerators.

Studies also show that cows grazing close to incinerators have elevated dioxin levels in their milk. Theis phenomenon has been seen in Holland, England, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and France. Some herds had to be destroyed."

And

‘Supporters of incineration today will tell you that modern plants all meet these new stringent emission levels but omit to tell you that the Environment Agency could not find an incinerator in England and Wales that hasn’t breached its emission level targets. The Environment Agency has also admitted to Parliament that it does not know how dangerous modern incinerators are to human health.’

And again, there no safe limits of dioxins. There are only achievable limits of dioxin emissions - its impossible to eliminate them from the process. 2% of something that is deadly is still deadly. And remember too that by the time all of the proposed incinerators are built that percentage will be drastically increased. The industry is mounting ferocious pressure on the Irish governement - always susceptible to foreign corporate pressure.

In 2000 John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK said ‘we should not loose site of the fact that it is the poor who suffer most from pollution’.

Official knowledge of that fact appears to have been cynically exploited because in government reports on increased incidences of cancers and other health problems near incinerators, they have attributed them to lower socio economic factors rather than to the incinerators. And to nail the point home, in the UK, they are targeting poorer areas in which to site them. Nice.

by SlaineMacRoth Fri Jan 26, 2007 14:01

You might want to look at the BBC article by By Dr Vyvyan Howard - Head of Research at the Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group - and the ancillary programme below*,

(oh and I would be most wary about trusting the WHO in totality in this area as they are very much a political organization, not like, say, a peer-reviewed journal. It was only by a pure fluke (as in it was everyone agin the US) that they did not back down on the daily minimum level of sugar a few years ago)

*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4375003.stm

"The pressures of safe waste disposal are mounting, as illustrated by IF's latest drama-documentary. Toxico-pathologist Dr Vyvyan Howard argues that the threats to human health from toxic emissions mean incinerators are not an acceptable option. "
[…]
"The foetus is the stage of life which is the most vulnerable to damage from hormone-disrupting chemicals.

These affect the many ways in which hormones regulate development in the womb and early childhood, with effects which can last throughout life.

These effects can range from an increased likelihood of respiratory problems or allergies, to reduced IQ, less efficient kidneys, reproductive problems or a higher probability of contracting cancer.

Effects on the intelligence, immune status and hormonal status of infants have been related quantitatively to the amount of dioxin-like substance in the mother's body.

Furthermore, many effects, including altered brain function and lung function, appear to persist past the age of seven.

Neurobehavioural and immune system deficits have been shown to be correlated with the level of PCBs and dioxins that infants received from their mothers while in the womb.

Effects on brain development include altered play behaviour as well as general mental and psychomotor development. Other papers also document various reproductive problems.

There is general acceptance that male reproductive health is under threat, and dioxin-like substances have also been related to a reduction in the proportion of male to female births."
[….].

"In summary, my researches have led me to the firm conclusion that there is no place for incineration in municipal waste management.

Policy should instead concentrate on maximal waste minimisation, reuse and recycling, together with substitution of toxic chemicals in products."

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 14:46

Miriam, firstly (again) you can't really use studies that have shown adverse affects in the past. It doesn't hold any sway in the context of the argument. I do however, take on board the statement that the plants are breaching the targets. Though I would be interested to see how other plants are doing in terms of meeting the targets.

Also, I'd be wary of quoting lobby groups, primarily because they tend to twist things as I've seen before.

I've encountered the argument that "Incinerators = dioxins = cancer and therefore incinerators are the cause of cancer"

I'm not suggesting that dioxins aren't dangerous though a Prof Bruce Ames did suggest that the carcinogenic effects of incinerator emissions aren't known since the tests on dioxins are only carried out at the toxic threshold rather than the less-than-one-percent of the toxic threshold that they probably would emit.

My point is that, while I accept that 2% is bigger than 0%, are there obviously not more worrying sources of dioxins that should be tackled?

Slainte...that's fair enough to link that and at least it's somewhat independent.

My point of view in all this is that, while it's not a panacea nor the solution to waste management, at this point in time, we either have to incinerate or landfill or export for the purposes of either of those 2. There is a large fraction of the waste stream that is residual, i.e. cannot be recovered, reused or recycled.

If people don't put the same vim and vigour into objecting about it being incinerated abroad, then do they really have the right to object when it's here? I just wonder how much of the NIMBY aspect comes into all this.

I mean, it's fair enough if you don't want it in your backyard...but just say that's why you don't. But I just have a problem with people dressing it up as much more than that when there seems to be very little consideration for the people of Germany, Finland etc etc where our waste is being incinerated at present, if the concern about the pohysiological effects are as grave as they let on.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Jan 26, 2007 17:07

So, lobby groups - i.e. unpaid private individuals give up days, weeks, months and even years of their lives to opposing incinerators because they're just interested in twisting facts about incineration? They'd rather have all that grief than their spare time to themselves? I'm thinking of all the people I know who are involved, from all walks of life - builders, publicans, farmers, office and trades people, doctors, scientists - all intelligent people capable of understanding a pack of lies when they see them and of following a scientific argument. Stop being so patronising. You are in no position to dismiss the acumulated knowledge of lobby groups - which is based on the science. The opposing lobby group websites are full of information gathered from independent scientific sources - links to many institutes and organisations who are studying this issue without any vested interest in doing so other than to see whether or not they are safe.

Whereas, the incineration industry, with its appalling track record on emissions, sickness and death, and which makes vast profits out of it all has no interest whatsoever in twisting the facts? The business case for incineration is based on nothing more than the bottom line of the incineration industry - health and safety is a nuisance - it has to disguised and denied. That's where the twisting of facts occurs. Why were CHASE actually prevented from arguing the health impacts as part of their representation to approvals process? If Indaver Ireland are so keen to be open, why did it consent to a biased process like that?

It is a matter of stated fact that safety levels of dioxin emissions have been set, not at what is safe, but what is merely achievable. The industry has had no choice but to admit that. They have exaggerated the claims they are making for how reliably they can operate even at these levels. In other words, their claims for the 'new improved' incinerators are bogus.

"Fallout on your family

Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from many sources, from the Government of the day, incinerator manufacturers, lobby groups and even some local councillors. However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.

*Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politican living in the shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s safe.
*The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furnas and they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
*In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences of incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all through public protest.
*No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for humans, except that in excess they can be lethal. (At odds with US EPA which states there are no safe levels.)

In May 2001 Greenpeace produced a report
[http:www.greenpeace.org.uk?MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/3766.PDF]
which showed the following breaches by incinerators across the UK

1. Sheffield 156 self reported breaches
2. 2Coventry 90 self reported breaches
3. Dudley 80 self reported breaches
4. Wolverhampton 68 self reported breaches
5. Nottingham 53 self-reported breaches
6. Stoke 40 self-reported breaches
7. Edmonton 19 self-reported breaches
8. Tyseley 15 self reported breaches
9. Cleveland 11 self-reported breaches
10. Lewisham 8 self-reported breaches

How many breaches went unreported. "

[ And this is in just one part of the UK. NB the 2% which John Jasper is so fond of quoting represents the amount of dioxins incinerators contribute to world totals if they were operating at permitted levels - which they never, ever do reliably. It takes NO ACCOUNT of the millions of breaches that are occurring all over the globe.]

"The checking that is done is by limited sample taken at a pre agreed time and notified weeks in advance! It’s a bit like telling a child you will inspect their bedroom the day after next and if it’s tidy they will get their pocket money! Miracle of miracles the room is suddenly immaculate! It never fails.

Greenpeace:

“Allowable limits for emissions of about a dozen pollutants from incinerators are specified by the EA. They have confirmed that these limits are based on what is technically achievable, not what is safe for human health. It is widely accepted that the health effects of incinerators are poorly understood, and th elimited amount of studies on workers at incinerator plants and populations living near to incinerators have identified a wide range of associated health impacts.

So there is evidence to show tha tliving and working near an incinerator is not safe. There is evidence to show that no matter how modern the plant it will breach its emissions limits. There is evidence to show that dioxins are carcinogenic."

On top of all of the above our EPA has had its remit arranged so that it has a minimal role maintaining the safety of incinerators. And given the public opposition to incinerators which is virtually totoal, are our EPA going to me more rather than less likely to cover up breaches? The incineration industry is selling a product which none of us want to buy.

by Jasper Fri Jan 26, 2007 17:25

You tell me I'm dismissing the opinions of lobby groups despite the fact they've accummulated a wealth of information that opposes incineration yet you dismiss the scientific evidemce that suggests there is no hazard....from professors that have won awards in Cancer Research?

Catch yourself on.

by maire Fri Jan 26, 2007 22:16

Jasper,
In case you burn yourself up with "emissions" please tell me the reasons you are not in favour of the incinerators planned for Cork and Meath, but you think Ringsend deserves a huge perpetual bon fire.
Where exactly will the ash be buried? - "You don't care" neither do the EPA .
That really is the problem, A consultation process where nothing is discussed with the public only with the vested interests.( Sounds like Shell to SEA) Where seminars are held on subjects such as energy, sustainability , the environment, which directly involve the public, get supported by the government and then ignores the public by pricing these information days out of reach of ordinary NGOs. 300 to 500 euros a go. Vested interests get to direct waste policy, honestly!!

The EC have had to intervene and point out breaches of environmental law on numerous occasions - the failure to submit a plan to limit certain air pollutants, - the failure of the State to properly implement the EU Directive on the use of Environmental Impact Assessments, and - the failure to submit reports on the use of certain ozone depleting substances.
The groups you diminish have watched the games the Planning Dept and the EPA play - pass the parcel - just get it away from me before I have to take responsibility for the health and wellbeing of anyone living beside an incinerator, or a landfill. These problems are in the future they don't concern to-day. The nod and the wink will win out and appointments will be made to outwit the common man assessing what is Now in My Back Yard.
Five years ago you could have argued that incineration might be looked at to deal with a waste problem at that time. Not now, when the CO2 footprint is so heavy we have to put away money to deal with it for 20 to 30 years. Experts are telling us how unsafe it is now that they know more about the health aspects. We know what to expect if our body is burdened with respiratory problems,or cancer,- waiting, waiting, waiting, and probably ending up with MRSA. Factor in these costs and the cost of burning our resources which are becoming so scarce, and the books don't balance. . Incinerations is not productive where energy is concerned if you factor in the costs of transport, the proximity principal, the co-dependence on landfill, and the disposal of resources. It makes no sense to-day with regard to Best Available Technology when taking into account Climate Change.

So I 'll wait to hear what you have got against Ringsend.

by R. Isible Sat Jan 27, 2007 19:25

Is Jasper correct when he claimes that all of the evidence cited above refers to older style incinerators?

Are the incinerators proposed for Ireland of the "old" type or of some new type with different emission profiles?

I'm skeptical of the willingness or ability of the Irish government to run incinerators (even if they are capable of being used in a safe manner) in a way which doesn't affect a significant number of people's health. However, the "anti-incinerator" arguments above don't appear to address those points clearly.

by nimbolical Sat Jan 27, 2007 22:00

We outside Dublin would all have more respect for these objectors if they had the honesty to address some difficult questions.

The Greater Dublin area is the source of more than 50% of the domestic and hazardous waste generated in the Republic of Ireland. At present most of the domestic waste is landfilled in neighbouring counties. The hazardous waste is mainly exported to the UK and Belgium. Some is exported to the Third World - India in particular.

All this waste is generated by the people who live in the most prosperous region of this small island. The domestic waste is generated by the property owners who own the most expensive homes in Ireland. The hazardous waste is a by product of the industrial wealth that sustains their standard of living.

At present this waste is being dumped in the backyards of people who are poorer on average than the people who generate this waste. The recipients of Dublin's waste are not the recipients of the jobs and wealth produced by the industries which produce the waste.

If Dublin is refusing to deal with its waste by incineration how does it intend dealing with it? Right Now - not in twenty years time. Or is it the intention to keep dumping on other people? (I cannot help noticing that there were never 30K Dublin objectors to the current arrangements)

There are high-tech alternatives to incineration coming on stream. All these alternatives are even more expensive than incineration. Are Dublin people prepared to accept the large hike in local charges which these alternative technologies would entail? Are the people who refuse to pay even the modest service charges that are currently required to fund waste-disposal in pampered Dublin prepared to pay for green technologies? My guess is that the service-charge spongers and dumpers-on-thy-neighbour element is predominant among the incinerator objectors.

Come on guys and gals, some straight answers please. We need to know whether you are prepared to put your money where your mouth is before we decide whether you deserve our support.

My guess is that you are really NIMBYS and you will be quite delighted to keep dumping on the culchies and third world. Convince me otherwise.

(p.s. - no good going for the cop-out of saying that you can make industry pay cost of green-tech. Sadly, that isn't an option. Increase taxes on industry and it will go off to India and China with the waste - and jobs)

by R.Isible Sat Jan 27, 2007 22:34

p.s. - no good going for the cop-out of saying that you can make industry pay cost of green-tech. Sadly, that isn't an option. Increase taxes on industry and it will go off to India and China with the waste - and jobs

As long as there's a profit to be made, even if it's a reduced one, then we'll see cheap excess packaging on goods. I'll wager that a significant proportion of our dioxins are carried in the plastic wrapping and re-wrapping and trays on commercial goods. I can't imagine though, that as long as there's a few bob to be made that importation will become any less profitable.

Your post appears to suggest that most of the dioxins in Ireland are the result of industrial production. Do you have a source to back that up?

by maire Sun Jan 28, 2007 20:10

Green Tech will pay handsomely for industries looking ahead. Those who represent the more viable business opportunities will be around in the next ten years - we have to become sustainable.
We are already looking at waste differently than in the past, it is valuable, it should not be burned to become valueless and to cost billions to the environment in terms of health, tourism and the effect it will have on climate change - it is too costly.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, a balance must be struck between the resources used by this generation and those placed in reserve for the next.
What have we now - development that has to be sustained at all costs, even at the expense of future generations.
There are high tech alternatives coming on stream certainly, the public want them, but who is listening, they don't want commercial incineration.

by nimbolical Sun Jan 28, 2007 20:34

Dear Risible,

Perhaps you can't read. Most likely you just didn't bother to read my comments before you rushed to respond.

I made no mention whatsoever as to the sources of dioxins in our environment. I merely posited several questions which are crying out for an honest answer by the so-called environmental activists objecting to the proposed Ringsend incinerator.

Dublin people and industry are responsible for roughly half the entire burden of domestic, industrial, and hazardous waste being generated in the entire Republic of Ireland. Rather than taking responsibility for this waste, Dublin is dumping it on other people - culchies, other European countries, and the unfortunates of the third world.

The pressing issue for the rest of us is not this proposed incinerator but what you wonderful Dublin environmentalists intend doing RIGHT NOW to take responsibility for your own waste.

Once you have taken responsibility (including financial responsibility) for your waste it is a matter for yourselves whether or not to take steps to minimize the production of the stuff in the first place. So long as the cheap (to Dubliners) option of dumping on other people remains, Dubliners have no incentive to adopt (and pay for) serious waste-minimization programmes.

BTW, since you raised the subject, vehicular diesel engines are the source of approx 85% of the entire dioxin burden in the Irish environment. The proposed incinerator when it goes ahead (even if it's emission-profile were 10 times worse than the worst-case suggested by the anti-incinerator people) would have a minimal effect on that statistic. In other words, if you are really scared of dioxin contamination you should go and live as far as possible from a public road.

The reality of course is that Dubliners are loath to pay for, or take responsibility for anything, and this is just another NIMBY outbreak.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

by R. Isible Mon Jan 29, 2007 00:50

Dear Outraged of Tunbridge Wells (Col.Mrs.Ret.),

If you don't believe that industrial production has anything to do with the production of dioxins then why did you introduce the material which I quoted? I'll quote it again here for you:

p.s. - no good going for the cop-out of saying that you can make industry pay cost of green-tech. Sadly, that isn't an option. Increase taxes on industry and it will go off to India and China with the waste - and jobs

Now, this quite clearly implies that you believe that dioxins are created by industry in Ireland. That was without a source and interested me because I wondered where you got that from. Now you've made another unsupported claim, namely that 85% of dioxins come from diesel engines. Do you have a source for that either?

Perhaps your outrage is fuelled by a secret fear that your Kimberely Mikados will no longer be presented in 3 layers of plastic?

In any event, please cite a source: that's the only interesting thing you can contribute. I can get outrage and hatred anytime I like from much more amusing exponents.

by Hellfire Mon Jan 29, 2007 01:59

According to the most recent US EPA data the major sources of dioxin are:

Coal fired Utilities (PowerStation’s and Large Scale Industrial processes)
Metal smelting
Diesel trucks
Land application of sewage sludge
Burning treated wood
These sources together account for nearly 80% of dioxin emissions.

Last time I checked none of the above activities where conducted in the home.
I think it would be a safe bet to assume therefore that the vast majority of Dioxins are indeed generated by Industry both here and abroad.

Now, what is your point exactly?

by M Cotton Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:28

Official Spin:

"Modern incinerators are safe. All the studies showing health effects (cancer, birth defects) relate to the old incinerators."

But the truth is a little different:

It is often claimed that modern incinerators are safer because they have better abatement equipment which reduce emissions of dioxins and other chemicals than older incinerators. There are good reasons to doubt this claim.

The parliamentary report (DSW 56) by Public Interest Consultants noted that in spite of the efforts of incinerator promoters to make a distinction between new incinerators and those that were forced to close by European regulations in 1996, the new incinerators are not operating in compliance with their authorisations.

There are several concerns about the newer incinerators:-

(1) Modern incinerators are much bigger.

Size itself increases the volume of emissions and hence the risk. Many modern incinerators burn 400,000 tonnes per year. This would be nine times the size of the incinerator that devastated the community at Sint Niklaas. By analogy even with the best filters in the world 9 filter-tipped cigarettes would be more dangerous than one unfiltered cigarette.

(2) There is no evidence that modern incinerators are any safer.

There are no long term studies of modern incinerators. Looking at the Sint Niklaas study it is obvious that it would take a 20 year study to reveal an excess of cancer because of the long latent interval. Evidence from the Cape Cod and Long Island studies shows it would also require a study of considerable sophistication to show up increases of cancer. This means that, at the moment, incinerators are being operated in the absence of evidence that they are any safe. In effect people living nearby are being treated like guinea pigs.

The simple inescapable fact is that incinerators emit carcinogens.

Particulates themselves are known to be carcinogenic, many heavy metals are carcinogenic, up to 10% of the chemical pollutants are carcinogenic and there is abundant evidence that carcinogens are far more dangerous when combined than when in isolation. To allow these to be released into the environment and into our bodies is both unacceptable and irresponsible.

(3) The fly ash from modern incinerators is far more toxic.

It takes a large number of tankers to transport this toxic fly ash from incinerators to waste sites. Just one accident would cause an ecological and health disaster. Sooner or later it will happen. Fly ash is dumped at waste sites. Here it can enter the air and water causing further health and environmental problems.

The bottom line is that it is foolish beyond belief to pour more carcinogens into the air at a time when cancer is at an all time high. Recent studies have shown we already have to cope with 65 carcinogens in food, 40 carcinogens in water and 60 carcinogens in the air we breathe. They should not be there at all. They should certainly not be increased. It is time to say enough is enough.

From the SAIN website

by R. Isible Mon Jan 29, 2007 14:12

According to the most recent US EPA data the major sources of dioxin are:

Coal fired Utilities (PowerStation’s and Large Scale Industrial processes)
Metal smelting
Diesel trucks
Land application of sewage sludge
Burning treated wood
These sources together account for nearly 80% of dioxin emissions.

So, the claim has now moved from being "diesel trucks produce 85% of dioxins" to "diesel trucks are responsible for less than 80% of US dioxin emissions". Not the same thing. Also please bear in mind that we're talking about Ireland, not the USA and there's no reason to suppose that our emissions profile is the same or similar. How many "large scale industrial processes" does Ireland have compared to the USA? Does Ireland practice "Land application of sewage sludge", do we have "coal fired utilities"?

What you claim above (also without a citation -- e.g. an unambiguous link pointing readers to the exact source of the information so that we can read the entire thing in context and judge for ourselves whether or not you've omitted or misunderstood the original source) doesn't seem to necessarily apply to Ireland.

Now, what is your point exactly?

Sorry, I haven't been making a simple point. I've been asking for clear sources of information about where dioxins in Ireland are generated and contained. I'm wondering whether or not the majority of our dioxins are contained in a "diluted" form in the packaging of commercial goods, mainly but not exclusively, produced abroad. The reason that I'm interested in that is that if we start burning our landfill in an incinerator then we'll be importing dioxins from foreign industrial production and profit and concentrating them locally.

I don't know if that's true or that the local concentration will be carcinogenic (Jasper claims that there's "new" incineration technology) and so far there's been no research presented with deals with this point. Similarly there have been no clear sources of research about dioxin concentrations and emissions currently in Ireland.

Not very much information for a member of the public to inform themselves with. Without any of the above information all discussion is moot and pointless.

by maire Mon Jan 29, 2007 16:50

If it is information you want, do look into www.chaseireland.org -health effects, or do your own research.

In an April 3, 1998, press release, the French Ministry of Environment revealed that of 71 MSW incinerators processing more than 6 metric tons of material per hour, dioxin emissions from 15 of them were above 10 ng I-TEQ/m3. Only 1 of these 15 (Besançon, emitting 16.3 ng I-TEQ/m3) is located in an area ("département" of Doubs) covered by a population-based general cancer registry. This finding prompted them to examine the spatial distribution of cancer cases that, if located mainly near the incinerator, could have been caused in part by dioxin.

Do we have in Ireland a population-based general cancer registry, around the Cork harbour area
that could be used as a base line health study, for the six hazardous incinerators that have been there for the past years. Perhaps one exists for the new Poolbeg incinerator, so a base study can be done now, and can be reviewed in the future and the risks could then be assessed.
Putting incinerators near heavily populated areas with heavy transport needs is crazy planning.

Bearing in mind that the Irish Government has been an important target for industry lobbyists, it may explain how appointments are made to statutory boards. It can't just be down to the name Aherne.
We need to support those communities threatened with incinerators before other towns and villages face the spectre of a contract incinerator in their backyards. It's far better to encourage existing companies, toxic producing or not, to deal with their own waste. Dublin Meath and Cork, are only three of the nine centres for incinerators, they are unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary.

by Miriam Cotton Mon Jan 29, 2007 16:53

What is particularly lethal about incineration is how little the indsutry knows about what it is doing. Its exponents try to locate the debate exclusively within the very restricted parameters of the data that they think they can use to support their case - and even there they are forced to make wild claims for its safety for which there is no supporting evidence. They then invite you to discuss the issue on those terms, exactly what 'Jasper' is doing here. It's like being put into a room with no windows and being asked to describe the scenery outside.

The Irish Doctors' Environment Association produced a report which illustrates this point well:

There are many types of compounds in our domestic waste, which contain numerous chemicals. We do not know enough about the chemicals that we already have in our environment; for example, the European Environment Agency has said that of the 100,000 chemicals on the European market, there is insufficient toxicity information available for even the most basic risk assessments on 75% of them. These are the chemicals that will be present in our waste.

Even more worryingly, 10,000 of these chemicals are at present on the EU list for priority assessment, of which 42 had been prioritized for EU assessment between 1996 and 2000. However, to our most recent knowledge, only 21 risk assessments were publicly available. And these are the chemicals that we already have! It does not make sense to burn unknown and unquantified chemicals, which will combine in the furnace forming new compounds, whose composition and effects we know little or nothing about about, and disperse them widely in our air, food and water.

With such little knowledge, it is impossible to predict adverse health effects of incinerators, new or updated. The decrease in waste volume, seen by it's proponents as the advantage of incineration arises from the dispersal of gasses and particulate aerosols into the environment, and by the formation of ash. Our association is concerned about adverse health effects from these emissions, and from the ash remaining, both bottom and fly ash removed from the stacks. Incineration transforms municipal waste into hazardous waste, producing toxic ash from household waste. The issue of where this is to be stored has not yet been resolved in the Irish context.

The emissions include organic compounds, e.g. dioxins (which have recently been classified as a human carcinogen), polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and other chemicals, heavy metals, particulates, inorganic gasses and other gasses. With regard to the emission of chemicals from incinerator stacks, it is generally regarded that setting maximum concentrations to allow ‘dilution and dispersion’ strategies, are adequate for substances of acute toxicity. This is only suitable in situations where the compound is water soluble, with established NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level), and where it is rapidly degraded. Dilution and dispersal will not work in the situation where dioxins and other compounds are soluble in fat, and are persistent and/or bio-accumulate. The human body is not designed to cope with the carbon/chlorine compound. The concentration of these compounds simply increases as they ascend through the food chain and the compounds accumulate in fat tissue. Every living creature on earth now has persistent carbon/chlorine based compounds in it’s fat. It is conservatively estimated that the average person in the ‘developed’ world has between 300 and 500 discernible residues in their bodies, the so-called body burden of chemicals.

We do not need any more. The effect of individual compounds, let alone a mixture is completely unknown and unmeasurable by current technology.

Link to report quoted above: http://www.ideaireland.org/incineration.htm

by maire Tue Jan 30, 2007 16:16

The inventory of dioxin from incineration could only be made in the Cork harbour area where there has been 6 inhouse incinerators for the past number of years this now includes the new crematorium.
When siting incinerators the precautionary principal must apply, when assessing the risks you must take into account the synergy effect of what is already there beside the site in emissions. Clean air cannot be seen, sometimes you can smell polluted air, but it must be monitored and not disguised by monitoring in heavy traffic areas. There is no safe level of dioxin, but it is the particulate matter now so fine they travel further, that does so much damage.
The handling of our waste management is structured to support the burning of our resources, instead of rewarding the communities who have performed so well by their recycling, we have failed to reduce packaging, failed to support industry to reuse this waste and failed to create thousands of sustainable jobs.
It is not necessary to create a tolling incinerator industry in direct competition with efforts to cut down on waste, cut down on emissions, and do our bit for climate change.

by R. Isible Tue Jan 30, 2007 21:32

Claims that dioxin emissions from incinerators fell by over 98% between 1990 and 1997, so any studies that rely upon data from that period should probably be treated with care. They also claim that in 1999 (in the UK) domestic heating accounted for c. 19% of dioxin emissions whereas the EfW incinerators accounted for < 1%. ( EfW seems to be industry speak for Energy from Waste and is part of a European Union directive on Waste Management: http://www.ciwem.org/policy/policies/energy_recovery_fr...e.asp )

I'm guessing that ESA-UK and CIWEM are both respectable fronts for their various industries, decked out in UN-blue and logos to look like something to do with the government.

by Jasper Wed Jan 31, 2007 13:42

"The handling of our waste management is structured to support the burning of our resources, instead of rewarding the communities who have performed so well by their recycling "

How so? Costs are reduced by recycling more. The more you recycle, the less need there is for the residual waste to be collected and thus the costs are reduced.

The fact that the presentation rates for green bins is poor is lost on some who think, because they're proactive in recycling themselves, that everyone is. I'd probably be the same except i see the opposite where I live....which isn't even that far from a recycling centre that accepts almost any kind of waste, i.e.

Aluminium Trays
Books
Cans
Cardboard
CDs
Clothes
DVD players
DVDS
Furniture
Glass
Newspapers & Magazines
Paper
Plastic bottles
Plastic Packaging
Radios
Rubble
Scrap Metal
Stamps
Tetrapak
Textiles
Tumble dryers
VCRs
Videos
Washing machines
Car batteries
Cooking oil
Engine oil
Fluorescent tubes
Freezers
Fridge
Gas Cylinders
Household batteries
Ink Cartridges
IT Equipment
Light bulbs
Medicines
Mobile Phones
Paints
Print Cartridges
Toner Cartridges
TVs
Weed Killers

Yet, on my own road, we're only one of three houses that put out a green bin to be collected and there are about 50 houses on the street. That's just shameful.

By the by, the WtE plant doesn't preclude recycling sincet he Dublin Waste Management Plan that recommends it specifies a target of 59% recycling also.

by nimbolical Wed Jan 31, 2007 22:02

For the victims of Dublin's current waste disposal practices (The residents of the neighbouring counties in which Dublin waste is landfilled; the people of Birkenhead and Ghent in whose neighbourhoods your waste is currently incinerated, and the powerless people of south-western India where your waste goes to enrich the wealthy few at the expense of the health of the voicless many) this incinerator is both preferable and more moral.

Oppose the incinerator and pay for greener alternatives by all means, but first and much more importantly Dublin must take responsibility for its waste rather than dumping on other people.

Has anyone in the anti-incinerator campaign got the guts and honesty to deal with these questions or is this a NIMBY campaign, and continuing to dump the waste on your neighbours and the third world is acceptable if it enables you to avoid taking responsibility for your waste.

by Marlboro man Thu Feb 01, 2007 07:16

What Questions? Do you seriously think anyone will take what you have to say seriously when you display such a rudimentary and arse about tit understanding of the failures of the government’s waste management from the top down.

If, for some bizarre reason, you are trying to galvanise support from rural Ireland by hanging the dubs from the scapegoat tree you should remember the waste management plan for all urban areas is exactly the same. Not to mention the sheer numbers of people resident in Dublin who are actually from the counties you describe as ‘Being dumped on’. Very much a case of YIMBY.

Those who oppose the incinerators also oppose landfill. They recognise the government has used the 3 R’s campaign as a publicity stunt because they have largely forgotten/ignored the first R. Which is ‘reduce’ and was completely aimed at industry.
The recycling bit has been hi-jacked by the Bin-tax brigade as moral justification for double taxing the public.
Racketeers on a grand scale have shrewdly manipulated good incentives and spotted an opportunity for profit.

70-80% of domestic refuse is unnecessary packaging. Plastics, non-degradable and in some cases bio-hazards. Redress this imbalance first and in one swoop you will drastically reduce the need for landfill and the incinerator issue becomes moot there after.
Get behind the campaign to get Government to legislate for industry to ensure better eco-friendly and waste reduction practices. That is where the real culprits lie.

You looking at the incinerator as a stand alone issue has blinkered you to these facts.
Either that or you are a vested interest.

As for this: “the people of Birkenhead and Ghent in whose neighbourhoods your waste is currently incinerated, and the powerless people of south-western India where your waste goes to enrich the wealthy few at the expense of the health of the voicless many”

The people of Birkenhead, Ghent and south-west India are ‘victims’ of the government’s short-sightedness with regard waste management. Not because of any actions of those who oppose the incinerator.
But regarding those in SW India. Thank you for admitting that incineration does indeed enrich the wealthy few at the expense of the health of the many.

Its not a case of NIMBY. It shouldn’t be in anybodies back yard. But we can only fight the good fight one area at a time.

by Jasper Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:10

"Its not a case of NIMBY. It shouldn’t be in anybodies back yard. But we can only fight the good fight one area at a time."

Indeed. Then why was the 'good fight' not being fought before an incinerator for Dublin was mooted?

by nimbolical Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:23

Marlboro Man makes the usual cop-out argument always made by NIMBYS.

Everyone knows that, even with a much greater concentration of effort on recycling, recovery, and reduction, without the incinerator, most domestic and industrial waste generated in Dublin will continue to be landfilled, incinerated, and otherwise dumped on other people for many years. This option is environmentally worse and more immoral than any incinerator for the victims of the current practices of Dublin citizens and the industries that provide their wealth and jobs.

I am not pro-incinerator. I am just against the cop-out by Dublin people failing to take responsibility for the waste they generate. They can do this because they have the continuing option of dumping on other people with less political and economic power than they.

Once all the very worthy options proposed by Marlboro Man take effect the incinerator will become redundant and it can be closed down and we can all celebrate.

What is really divisive is not pointing out the total inconsistency and lack of genuine environmental credentials of this anti-incinerator campaign, but the continuing dumping of YOUR waste on us.

So, how many of the three-thousand objectors objected to the recent application to extend land-fill of Dublin waste in neighbouring counties? None.

Now, Marlboro Man and your pals in this campaign: When do you propose starting your campaign to curtail the practices which seem to have suited you all very well up to know?

The answer isn't rocket science. But it will be very telling of your bona fides.

by Marlboro Man Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:32

“Then why was the 'good fight' not being fought before an incinerator for Dublin was mooted?”

It was Jasper. Do you not remember the bin tax campaign. All these issues where are the forefront of that good fight too.
The Incinerator just became an even bigger focus and has further consolidated efforts to get this government to tackle the real issue here and that we see through the smoke screens of NIMBYS, Incinerator safety and the laughable hijacking of the recycling initiative to make a 'greener' buck.

Jasper you are a vested interest and an apologist for those that would impose an unsafe revenue generation plant on the door-steps of those who do not want it. You are a relentless zealot who will not allow local democracy a say in this decision.

I strongly urge those with a genuine interest of public welfare and those of an eco-friendly slant to ignore this guy. He is in the employ of the very same idiots that would have you believe incineration is safe despite his alter-ego “nimbolical” above letting it slip that it is clearly not.

He will now give a long sophist account of how he is just a concerned citizen. Blitz you with industry tainted facts and swear blind he has only your best interest at heart.
Amusing and almost convincing, if not for perseverance by rubbish none the same.

“Everyone knows” that you are building straw men nimbolical, or is it Jasper?

by Jasper Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:26

"It was Jasper. Do you not remember the bin tax campaign. All these issues where are the forefront of that good fight too."

That's not the same as protesting about the dioxin emissions, that you and others are citing, being 'forced' upon others. During the bin tax campaign, how many people protested at Dublin Port or cited the health effects on our European neighbours who take our waste?

"Jasper you are a vested interest and an apologist for those that would impose an unsafe revenue generation plant on the door-steps of those who do not want it. You are a relentless zealot who will not allow local democracy a say in this decision."

I am a vested interest or I have one? Either case, you're wrong. A vested interest suggests I stand to gain financially or politically. Neither could be further from the truth. My personal circumstances won't be affected whether it goes ahead or not. You just try and tarnish everyone that has a different opinion to yours with the "you have a vested interest so you couldn't possibly have an impartial opinion" brush. That's sad.
"
"I strongly urge those with a genuine interest of public welfare and those of an eco-friendly slant to ignore this guy. He is in the employ of the very same idiots that would have you believe incineration is safe despite his alter-ego “nimbolical” above letting it slip that it is clearly not."

Exactly as above...of course I have a vested interest. I couldn't possibly be armed with scientific knowledge, an impartial view and still not be anti-incineration. Whjereas you're just a concerned citizen at the whim of corporations and you're downtrodden by the filthy lucre. Do me a favour!

He will now give a long sophist account of how he is just a concerned citizen. Blitz you with industry tainted facts and swear blind he has only your best interest at heart.
Amusing and almost convincing, if not for perseverance by rubbish none the same.

“Everyone knows” that you are building straw men nimbolical, or is it Jasper?"

I'm just Jasper. God forbit two people might actually have a similar opinion and disagree with you.

by Marlboro Man Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:46

I’m sorry jasper but this scientific knowledge you keep drumming up again and again has been countered with equally scientific knowledge supporting the idea that incinerators are not nearly as safe as you would have us believe.
Big tobacco hauled out scientist after scientist who claimed their products where non-addictive. It took years of campaigning and exhaustive studies to finally convince everyone concerned that they where indeed addictive. I know it’s an old chest nut but it fits this situation perfectly.

Suffice to say, the science bit has been done to death on this thread.
So your motives are open to question.

To err on the side of caution without said exhaustive studies on the long term effects of these incinerators is not only prudent it is an absolute necessity. Your dismissal of such and the zealousness of your argument makes the assumption that you are a vested interest a reasonable one.

I have not tarred you with any brush. You have stuck doggedly to your position. You are not impartial. Either that or your ego is doing the arguing for you.
Either way, ignoring you is best all round.

by R. Isible Thu Feb 01, 2007 13:38

Suffice to say, the science bit has been done to death on this thread.

Actually it hasn't. A very poor showing has been made by both those that are "pro" and "anti" incineration. On the "anti" side there's a distinct lack of clarity about what the actual dioxin emissions would be from the proposed incinerator (most of the studies cited have referred to older models of incinerators) and what the modelled health effects of those anticipated emission levels would be. Instead of clear information on this (perhaps there isn't any?) there have been repeated personal attacks made on "Jasper". The effect of those attacks are probably counter to what their originators intend: they make it look as though the "anti" side has nothing but invective to offer.

On the "pro" side there has been no convincing demonstration that any model of incinerator has been operated in a large city with no serious health effects on the population. Indeed if Jasper is correct that the type of incinerator that he talks about has only existed since 2002 then they may not have operated long enough for meaningful population-level data to be collected. There has been no presentation of succesful government oversight of incinerators run according to clear standards and the specific monitoring regimes that enabled that and a comparison of what might be achieved with Irish regulatory structures.

The last few contributions by Jasper, MarlboroMan, nimbolical et al are just personal bickering devoid of information and is not what the "comments" on indymedia.ie are supposed to be about, especially the flinging of demeaning epithets such as "idiot".

Science and information have been in very short supply on this thread and have been substitued with invective and large cut and pastes obviously taken from specific online sources, but with the easy to follow links removed, both marks of an absence of a convincing position and poor netiquette.

by Jasper Thu Feb 01, 2007 14:20

Still avoiding the question.

You cited bin tax protests as an example of how the anti-incineration lobby was against incinerating our waste abroad but that's not particuularly true. Bin tax protests were because they affected the people who'd be paying bin taxes....not out of any great concern for those who are subject to these huge dioxin emissions, as some would have you believe, that people abroad are subject to when incinerators burn our waste.

R. Isible, the fact is that in the past incinerators didn't have to scrub their emissions in the same way that cars didn't need to have catalytic converters. The technology has increased in both the scrubbing and the incinerators.

I'll have some data about incinerator emissions for you again....though I had posted some on a different thread about incinerators a while back.

if anyone wants to peddle the lie that I have a vested interest, fine. I don't really care and it only reflects upon a need to try and discredit me rather than what I'm saying if you harp on about it. I'm just putting forward an alternative view and I can't see why there needs to be personal attacks if you're so convinced that the scientific and environmental arguments that back your stance are good enough. Just a thought.

by nimbolical Thu Feb 01, 2007 21:23

The question now arises whether this so-called "Marlboro Man" is in the pay of the various companies who make millions from contracts with the Corpo transporting Dublin filth to neighbouring counties for landfill. Or is he getting his bungs from REChem in Wales or Indavar in Ghent who currently make millions incinerating hazardous waste from Dublin industry? Perhaps his 'interest' has been bought by one of the bogus recycling outfits who dump our waste in insecure sites next to third world slums. Is he one of the landowners in Meath or Louth who stand to make zillions when their land is rezoned to take Dublin landfill? All of these scumbags will lose their Chavet shirts when the Dublin incinerator gets built.

We should have answers to these questions too.

ps I'm NOT Jasper.

by Marlboro Man Fri Feb 02, 2007 09:04

Well, with the latest polls published this morning, it appears that FF/PD and FG/LP are neck and neck. As reported, and if it stays that way, the greens will be contingent on any formation of the next government. And we all know their naked hostility to this incinerator. Gormley has locked horns with the poodle quite publicly on this.

So there you have. In a bizarre twist it appears that vested interest will be over-ruled by expediency in the scramble for power come June.

A strange victory, but a welcome one all the same.

by nimbolical Fri Feb 02, 2007 09:50

If you look at the figures (and this poll seems to be anomalous in several respects and should be treated with extreme caution) it appears that, presuming no one will accept SF as a government partner, FF/Lab is the only viable alternative. No FG-led combo adds up to a working majority. Rabbitt has studiously avoided ruling out a FF-Lab arrangement after the election.

However, it will be very interesting at the hustings to question GP candidates in the counties surrounding Dublin as to their feelings about the present arrangements for dealing with Dublin waste. The GP can't have it both ways.

In the very highly unliklihood of the GP being in government after the election, and if the incinerator decision is somehow postponed by a political intervention in the planning process, Dublin people can expect to pay a multiple of their present service-charges to fund the GP's alternative proposals - if they have any - (and compensate the incinerator applicants for the interference with their property rights), and if there is an attempt to pass the costs on to the commercial sector, expect to see a flight of jobs and capital from Dublin. I would anticipate an early second election and a GP melt-down in the entire 'Pale'.

You'll get your incinerator all right. And what is more, because Dublin people won't pay for anything, you'll be 'gagging' for it (as the tabloids say!)

Of course, if you really believed that you have triumphed over the incinerator you would just disband your campaign and wait for the inevitable deliverance in May. I rather think that the 'deliverance' you guys will get after the election is closer to the sort received by the four heros in the movie of the same name.

hasta la vista

by Barry M Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:38

I’m loath to ignore Marlboro mans advice and ignore this guy but what the hey, one post can’t hurt
There’s nothing dubious about this poll at all. Polls are always dismissed as dubious when the results are damaging and always held aloft when favourable but you can be damn sure FF will be taking notice of it.

Nimbolicals arbitrary analysis of this poll and the potential it shows for possible coalitions is no where near enough to make me reject the collective media analysis which concludes that the greens will be pivotal in the next formation of government.

No amount of hysterical ranting and doomsday scenarios amateurishly bawled by this vested interest will change that.

All parties bar FF oppose this incinerator. As desperation sets in with FF and with the collapse of its neo-con side kick it will have no choice but to re-examine crucial issues. This being one of them. Nimbolical thinks that property rights are enough to prevent him and his consortium from being shafted by FF. Dream on. They’ll shaft anyone for power.

Nimbolical has an unhealthy obsession with Dubs and what they’ll pay for, and who’ll they vote for and is still stuck in the 17th century with regard the pale. I’m afraid you’ll find Irish people are far more sophisticated than you give them credit for. They see this exactly for what it is. The dub/rural card.

No problemo

by Jasper Fri Feb 02, 2007 13:16

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Waste_In...r.pdf

In 1990, incinerators were responsible for a third of dioxin emissions. In 1994, it was 10%. In 2004 it was less than 1%.

http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-0159.html

Dioxin emissions to air from waste incineration facilities in the Netherlands, 1989-2000
The upgrading of waste incineration installations has reduced dioxin emissions from this source to virtually zero.

by maire Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:06

Jasper,
It is distracting to get bogged down in the dioxin debate, it is a fact that incineration does increase dioxin levels in the atmosphere. The debate on mass incineration is over for the following reasons;-

The Stern Report is alrerting governments to the importance of reducing Co2 emissions. Mass incineration will seriously increase our emissions of Co2 into the athmosphere, as well as many other pollutants that lead to global warming. We as a nation are already over our Co2 limits by l5-20% This to date has cost the tax payers - 240 million euros in fines to the E.U.
This is an irresponsible waste of tax payers money. Think of how many hospital wards that would open, or how many new shcools it would provide or what a contribution that sum would make towards providing proper public transport in an effort to reduce our dependence on cars!
How can our Government ministers attend Kyoto summit meetings and commit to reducing our contribution to global warming and then endorse mass incineration as a means of waste management?

It is possible to deal with our waste and meet the Landfill Directive without incineration, using the latest technologies. The benefit of a no burn policy is that;
(a) it will conserve global resources,
(b) reduce the valume of waste,
(c) improve air and water quality
(d) reduce our Co2 footprint
The debate on mass incineration if over and only those individuals who have been successfully lobbied or who will benefit from its profits, are still promoting it.

by Jasper Mon Feb 05, 2007 17:18

"It is possible to deal with our waste and meet the Landfill Directive without incineration, using the latest technologies. The benefit of a no burn policy is that;
(a) it will conserve global resources,
(b) reduce the valume of waste,
(c) improve air and water quality
(d) reduce our Co2 footprint
The debate on mass incineration if over and only those individuals who have been successfully lobbied or who will benefit from its profits, are still promoting it."

What global resources are there in residual waste that cannot be recycled or where there is no scope for recovery?

How does not engaging in incineration reduce waste volume?

I can accept the air point though its actual effect is negligible when compared to other sources that you don't seem to object to.

Also, you're overdoing the CO2 emissions. You have to consider the alternative management techniques and their CO2 contribution or do they come completely free of CO2 emissions. Also, with the use of the incinerator as a means of generating electricity, you're reducing emissions because (a) the 'exhaust' is siphoned off to a heat exchanger and thus isn't emitted to air or water that re-enters the environment and (b) it rreduces the CO2 emissions caused by other energy producing processes. I'm sure you're aware of the ESB contribution to the CO2 footprint.

by maire Tue Feb 06, 2007 14:22

Jasper we are considering BAT Best Available Technicology, In this era of global warming, the overdoing of CO2 emissions is not the problem. Any effort that supports sustainability must be looked at.
Just bringing in prevention of waste the first in the waste management requirements means a reduction in the volumn of waste, something incineration companys do not want.
You did not answer my question, why anti Meath and Cork, and not Ringsend.

by Jasper Wed Feb 07, 2007 09:21

I don't agree with the site being used in Ringaskiddy.

I don't agree with incineration being a solely commercial operation.

by maire Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:56

Agreed - the site in Ringaskiddy could not be more inappropriate with real risk of flooding, affecting the River Lee and therefore Cork City, emissions blowing straight at Cobh, "dipping her toes in the water" and directly across from 700 pupils in residence at the National Maritime School, where Indaver admits is near the heaviest fall out of pollution. . But our development plan had protected us from all this - how come a private company drove our waste plan to these lengths.
I think the Dept of Heritage Environment and Local Government did not rise to the challenge of planning for sustainable waste management , did not engage or "intensify cooperation with the private and voluntary sectors, and particularly with other Government Departments and agencies, so as to introduce new thinking and solutions, and establish broader support, in relation to the management of waste. The empowering of City and County Managers, versus local authorities in relation to enforcement of planning and environmental legislation, only dismantled democracy.
It was the lazy way out, but now in such fast changing times of climate warming and Co2 footprints we must acknowledge greener facilities for disposing of non-recyclable waste and declare a maratorium on commercial incineration.
"A clever man solves a problem, a wise man avoids making one"

by Jasper Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:11

"we must acknowledge greener facilities for disposing of non-recyclable waste and declare a maratorium on commercial incineration.
"A clever man solves a problem, a wise man avoids making one"

What are the greener facilities you had in mind for dealing with the non-recyclable waste?

Also, the quote at the end ties in with the comments of others regarding industry putting too much packaging into goods. Though that can be reduced, we could also reduce the amount of packaging waste we generate....buying more in bulk, being more favourable towards goods with less packaging etc. In many cases there are alternatives to the goods packaged in excess packaging.

The fact that municipal waste generation is always rising isn't because industry adds an extra layer of packaging every year.

The 'power of one' concept applies to more than just energy.

by maire Wed Feb 07, 2007 16:24

Cost effective and eco-efficient waste management alternatives to incineration exist.

Glass, metals and paper can be easily recycled and reused. Organic waste fractions can be composted at household or community level. Some plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene can be efficiently recycled if collection and recycling systems are based within the region.

Cleaner production is as much about attitudes, approaches and management as it is about technology. This is why it is called cleaner production and not cleaner technology."

If all the PVC and chlorinated wastes were eliminated from the waste stream, incineration would still be a poor solution due to high costs, loss of jobs in the recycling industry, lost profits from secondary resale and on-going contamination from heavy metal, hydrocarbon and other air emissions. Plus the cost incurred for not adhering to the Kiota agreement and increasing our carbon emissions.

For disposing of infectious waste there are several alternative dioxin-free methods that are cost comparative. When transporting this waste and the health risks of burning it are taken into account - future claims for risks to safety and health must make incineration costs prohibitive.
If insurance costs for a playground are high, what are the insurance costs for a commercial incinerator, built in the middle of a community with fallout area of 20 mile radius, depending on the wind, supported by a government publication that states there is no risk !!!!

Three of these are autoclaving, microwave disinfection and superheated steam sterilisation

link to greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/incineration/alternatives

by penguin Thu Feb 08, 2007 08:22 info at sustainability dot ie

In a recent debate about the incineration versus landfill versus dump it all on the third world options for the 3 million tons of municipal and commercial waste Ireland produces annually, a friend said he would possibly favour waste incineration were it not for the sheer incompetence of the state and corporate sector here when it comes to anything connected with the environment. But as other contributors to this post have pointed out, the problem really is with creation of waste, not disposal. Even with the best will in the world, not all waste will be 'recycled'. If the quantity of waste produced is reduced by 90% at least what we can't recycle will be of manageable quantities. This will still not resolve the issue of what happens to the stuff we can't reuse, but to use the argument ( as many opposed to the incineration option seem to do), that we shouldn't incinerate because in theory all this stuff can be recycled, simply doesn't cut it. So what do we do in the meantime, put it all in a big pile and wait for the golden era of recycling to come along? Sure we need to educate and legislate for both a drastic reduction in waste, and a move towards recycling a much higher proportion of it, but how long is it going to take the country to take this stuff on board.? The plastic bag culture is nearly as bad as ever.
I don't have the answers, but this s*** simply ain't goin' to go away. Wishful thinking about recycling however, ain't going to change the reality of the here and now.

Penguin from Mayo

by Marlboro man Thu Feb 08, 2007 09:48

The government is incompetent and they certainly should not be trusted with such an issue. The private sectors sole concern is profit, environmental friendliness will always take a back seat in that regard.

When we talk of the reduction of waste (as in the first R) we are not talking about reducing through recycling, that is the 3rd step in the initiative and is the only step that be addressed by households.

The first R is solely directed at industry. They should reduce their waste in packaging etcetera. (Cleaner production)
This is the biggest offender. Industry should endeavour to ensure all its products are reusable/recyclable

Aggressive recycling of municipal/commercial waste at present will not address the problem as it stands. But incineration is lazy and will only further push us past out Kyoto commitments and will in the long run, through carbon credits, cost us a hell of a lot more than investing in green technologies now. (They have been listed above, I’m not going to list them again)

Pro-incinerators are either vested interests or are looking for a quick fix, and we all know the inherent dangers of that.

Lets just for once in this country, apply a long term solution that doesn’t involve ‘cute hoorism’ brown envelopes and wasn’t drawn up on the back of a cigarette box in the Dail bar.

by Jasper Fri Feb 09, 2007 09:32

Cost effective and eco-efficient waste management alternatives to incineration exist.

Glass, metals and paper can be easily recycled and reused. Organic waste fractions can be composted at household or community level. Some plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene can be efficiently recycled if collection and recycling systems are based within the region.

"Cleaner production is as much about attitudes, approaches and management as it is about technology. This is why it is called cleaner production and not cleaner technology."

If all the PVC and chlorinated wastes were eliminated from the waste stream, incineration would still be a poor solution due to high costs, loss of jobs in the recycling industry, lost profits from secondary resale and on-going contamination from heavy metal, hydrocarbon and other air emissions. Plus the cost incurred for not adhering to the Kiota agreement and increasing our carbon emissions.

For disposing of infectious waste there are several alternative dioxin-free methods that are cost comparative. When transporting this waste and the health risks of burning it are taken into account - future claims for risks to safety and health must make incineration costs prohibitive.
If insurance costs for a playground are high, what are the insurance costs for a commercial incinerator, built in the middle of a community with fallout area of 20 mile radius, depending on the wind, supported by a government publication that states there is no risk !!!!

Three of these are autoclaving, microwave disinfection and superheated steam sterilisation

link to greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/incineration/alternatives"

Most infectious waste isn't incinerated anyway. Only pharmaceutical waste and a small amount of questionable waste is exported for incineration. There is one company in Ireland that has an all-island contract for the collection and treatment of such waste. They steam sterilise it and the shredded and sterilised waste is tested 48 hours later to see if it's still free of infection. The only problem is that there is only one landfill in Ireland that will accept this innocuous waste and that's due to close as it is. So whilst you've mentioned means of treating waste, it's waste that is already treated in such ways by the major companies that handle this waste.

Secondly, the economies of scale dictate that there just isn't enough of any material types to recycle in Ireland...not even on a 32-county basis. A study was carried out on it and even with paper and cardboard, the only sub-category that had enough to make indigenous recycling viable was tissue paper. It's why the Smurfit mill in Clonskeagh closed, for example.

What doesn't help is (a) that plastics aren't segregated, ie HDPE, PET etc and plastic recycling csystems aren't robust enough to handle mixed plastics and (b) the fact that waste plastic isn't recovered by the companies that collect our waste.

Nor does the appalling participation rate in recycling help.

by Maire Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:10

Jasper, Great to see you are on my side and making my arguement. There is no hazardous landfill licenced in Ireland, nor non saught by Indaver, the ash must be landfilled or exported!!!!
If we are recycling in the past 4/5 years a base rate of 9% to Galway 59% - even Dick Roche admitted "they" never envisaged "us" doing so well. Please keep quoting me, it really does help.

by Jasper Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:54

"Jasper, Great to see you are on my side and making my arguement. There is no hazardous landfill licenced in Ireland, nor non saught by Indaver, the ash must be landfilled or exported!!!!"

Yes, I never suggested there was a hazardous waste landfill in Ireland because there isn't. It was pointed out in the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan that was published a few years ago and nothing has been done yet though it's moving further up the ladder so I wouldn't be surprised if there was one within the next 5 years.

Also, Indaver don't have anything to do with the Dublin inciinerator so I don't know why they're being brought into this particular discussion. But yes, the flue ash would have to be exported. The waste material that generates it upon incineration is already being exported for incineration or landfill so are you suggesting it's better to keep exporting the problem or applying the proximity principle?

In case the hazardous landfill was in relation to the infectious waste you mentioned, there isn't one needed since it's not infectious after being treated. A landfill in Kildare takes it.

And the green altwernatives you suggested earlier, i.e. autoclaving, steam sterilisation etc were a red herring since they don't treat municipal waste. They don't reduce the waste. In fact they don't impact on any aspect of municipal waste management really.

by Marlboro man Sat Feb 10, 2007 17:34

Maire, you're debating the most mobile set of goal-posts on the planet. Why do you bother?

Those who are anti-incinerator are in the majority in the area that it is to be built. Does local-democracy count for anything?

There are alternatives, those in power know those alternatives.
They choose the lazy option of incineration having been lobbied by vested interests. Thats really how simple this is. All the padding providing from pro-incinerator hacks is swings and roundabouts designed to draw energy from the real issue by getting bogged down in twaddle.

Incineration has not been proved to be safe. It increases carbon emissions. It will render Ringsend locals nothing more than guiney pigs in a political gamble.

Something that is not safe does not need exhaustive alternatives thrashed out by those who object to it, to justify that objection.

End of story.

by Jasper Sat Feb 10, 2007 17:57

"Maire, you're debating the most mobile set of goal-posts on the planet. Why do you bother?

Those who are anti-incinerator are in the majority in the area that it is to be built. Does local-democracy count for anything?

There are alternatives, those in power know those alternatives.
They choose the lazy option of incineration having been lobbied by vested interests. Thats really how simple this is. All the padding providing from pro-incinerator hacks is swings and roundabouts designed to draw energy from the real issue by getting bogged down in twaddle.

Incineration has not been proved to be safe. It increases carbon emissions. It will render Ringsend locals nothing more than guiney pigs in a political gamble.

Something that is not safe does not need exhaustive alternatives thrashed out by those who object to it, to justify that objection.

End of story."

Tell me what the twaddle that we're getting bogged down in. You tell us that those in power chose incineration through laziness but I'd rather you just cited some actual alternatives that are viable rather than throwing out empty rhetoric.

Maire offered some 'greener' alternatives and I addressed them.

How can you say that inciineration hasn't been proven safe when it has been proved that they operate well within the emission limits that have been deemed safe for humans. You can talk about older incinerators if you like but you'd just be misinforming again.

I suggest you do a little research with a scientific basis rather than that based on the various pro- or anti-incineration groups. And do so with an open mind.

If you look at enough independent material from across the scientific spectrum and you still don't think incineration has a play, then so be it. But don't pan any opinions that are different to yours solely because they differ to yours. You don't have to have a vested interest in incineration to be of the opinion that it's not the evil that some to bellieve it to be.

And I'd imagine that I live closer to the site than you do.

by maire Mon Feb 12, 2007 16:42

Carbon emissions are the result of transport, power plants and in other countries commercial tolling incinerators, plants that give in some cases dirty energy.
Japan and America are moving away from incineration, Japan because they are finding they have overcapacity, and it is not attracting investors, America because they want to explore less damaging ways of dealing with waste, and are exploring alternatives. .
New Zealand and Nova Scotia, etc are in the great position not to have embraced incineration so" the sky's the limit" for a clean green country.
Local democracy does not exist at the moment - it is driven by acquisitive industry , yes - I must quote Cork Harbour where 30,000 signatures were against it, Cork County Council voted against it - 33 votes to 9, a Senior Inspector appointed by an Bord Pleanala advised against it on safety grounds. County Cork Development plan had written into it - no commercial incineration to be included, and this was materially contravened by a vested interest.
I am afraid the local democracy in Ringsend will fare no better, and all other areas to be involved in incineration will fare even worse because of the Strategic Infrastructural Bill. Hazardous Installations need time for the public to be involved in consultation, - not "presentation" as happens at the moment. Simple language instead of technical waffle, unless the management of our waste gets the support and consent of the electorate you have a problem, that could have been avoided.
Under E.U. Environmental Legislation for stakeholders, with regard to incineration, -
"Ensure that prior to the development of the regime, stakeholders are consulted on waste management needs, proposed waste planning processes and disposal/reduction options.
Stakeholders should include representatives from waste management firms, major waste producing sectors, local government, NGOs and other affected parties.
Ensure regular public communications about initiatives and public role in planning."
This government was a little too quick off the mark with their waste management policy, and global warming had not been judged.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:02

"Simple language instead of technical waffle"

I agree wholeheartedly.

I do think that there's not enough consultation and information evenings where information is presented and questions answered to get the public onside before ploughing ahead with anything. I think it's a problem that's happened in many areas both here and abroad.

An old college lecturer, who sits on advisory councils to the EU and further afield, on matters nuclear, said this many years ago though he was talking mainly about nuclear power.

by R. Isible Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:46

Carbon emissions are the result of transport, power plants and in other countries commercial tolling incinerators, plants that give in some cases dirty energy.

If waste is not incinerated then it will be transported somewhere else to be dumped. If it contains e.g. paper then there's every chance that will biodegrade to produce methane and CO2 (landfills have a big problem with managing the build up of explosive methane). As it's shipped or trucked to the destination landfill then fossil-fuels will be consumed in the process and CO2 (and a lot of very nasty pollutants including lead, cadmium, mercury and other heavy-metal dusts) dispsersed along the routes of the trucks.
In order to claim that incinerators are more of a problem in producing either CO2 or any other substance a reasonably complete environmental audit would need to be completed. At present it seems that the anti-incinerator argument is simply to try and associate incinerators with "bad" things, but not specify exactly how the alternatives stack up.
I have every sympathy with people that don't want to live near the incinerator, especially given the history of e.g. the MerckSharpDohme incinerator in Clonmel, but making claims about the CO2 output of incinerators as compared to the current "waste management strategy" might not wash and certainly is unconvincing without figures.

As several/many people have said before now, the problem really lies with the useless production of plastics and their wanton overuse in disposable products and the complete lack of any proposals to restart the glass recycling plant at Ringsend (closed in 2002 and slinging out a lot of people gainfully employed in doing a good job). The comments at the link below (especially by Seedot and PhuqHedd are though provoking especially when you note that it's from 3 years ago.

I wonder what wonderful results there have been in the reduction of household refuse as a result of the extra Bin Tax?

by Miriam Cotton Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:51

The reason we can't yet quote exact figures is becuase the so-called 'modern' incinerators would need to be in operation for a minium of ten years - probably twenty before you could begin to reliably ascertain what damage had been done. In effect, local populations are being used as guinea pigs for a form of waste disposal which is highly toxic in its effects. There is a lot of information available for older incincerators but those proposed for Ireland are the 'modern' variety. Objectors therefore are forced to rely on all that is known about dioxins and the damage they are known to cause. The incineration industry is in the enviable position of being allowed to say 'go on then, prove it's dangerous' without ever being required themselves to prove that it is not. But not even the incineration industry can say that there is a safe level of dioxin because they are so deadly - and as has been admitted by them, even these modern incinerators are not built to function at safe levels, they function only the least dioxin emitting level that the industry claims to be able to achieve. There is a big difference.

What we are trying to highlight therefore are the following:

The industry consistently fails to maintain emissions at the minimum levles they are supposed to operate - there are thousands of breaches in the UK alone every year.

The reporting of breaches is deliberately left in the hands of the industry itself as it would be in Ireland.

The medical evidence for what dioxins do is incontrovertible

The seriously dangerous and wholly unquantified effects on human health for the hundreds of other toxic agents and combinations of toxic agents that will result from incineration is virtually unknown. What we can say is these emissions are toxic. We know that toxic emissions affect human health adversely. It is sensible to conclude that people will suffer serious health and death if incineration is allowed to go ahead. It would be crazy to think otherwise.

Mass incineration is also ideologically motivated. It's about much more than waste. It forces us to look at our greed and at the profit motive itself. Incineration is also about maintaining the fiction that we can go on as before. Food packaging alone is a huge industry. If we really addressed the wastefulness of packaging, some people would lose a lot of profit - a lot more would loose jobs and work. That then begs the question about how we can live so as to keep a clean environment and ensure that nobody is disadvantaged. Capitalism is clearly not the answer. We know that we produce enough food to feed the world's populatin three times over and yet so many are starving and impoverished. Objection to incineration has the capacity to expose the rotten nature of capitalism in a very effective way and its promoters know that very well.

Incineration is about making profit. These are private companies with a vested interest in promoting the production of waste so as to maintain profitability.

by Jasper Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:17

"The medical evidence for what dioxins do is incontrovertible "

Only if incinerator emissions are at the maximum tolerable level. Incinerator emissions back in the late 80s were less than 1% of that level so one cannot state that the effect of dioxins is known. Especially since the other producers of dioxins are never cited in any studies. No country is dioxin free as it is, whether they have incinerators or not.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:45

...there is no tolerable level for dioxin emissions.

by Miriam Cotton Wed Feb 14, 2007 09:19

The European Parliament has rejected attempts by the Commission, on behalf of the incineration industry to rebrand incineration. The European Commission's original proposal, to classify incineration as a source of renewable energy, set out efficiency levels for energy production from waste incineration, which would have allowed some incinerators to be classed as "recovery". In Ireland, where there are so far no large-scale waste incinerators, this would have served to encourage incineration as a waste treatment option, causing emissions of gases and substances which would be harmful to the environment and health. It would also have meant a setback to recycling, and to the re-use and prevention of waste.

In December, the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee voted to take this re-branding out of the proposal and keep incineration as "disposal". Some MEPs attempted to change the definition back to the Commission's proposal in plenary, but the vote yesterday meant that this did not happen.

by Jasper Wed Feb 14, 2007 09:35

Then why don't you protest against all other sources of dioxins as well: transport, home heating and so on?

Or do they not actually emit dioxins because it's all just a charade put forth by the incinerator industry which is the sole producer of dioxins?

by maire Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:38

This is risible.
"If waste is not incinerated then it will be transported somewhere else to be dumped"
Eco logic asks you to look at the problem of transporting waste to an incinerator located in a city or trucking toxic waste to the far end of the country and all the CO2 emissions that will cause. The capacity of these incinerators means they will be greedy, greedy, so there is a big problem of trucking. The bottom ash - the part which falls to the bottom of the incinerator after a burn - is created because municipal waste contains approx. 25^% noncombustibles. The bottom ash may be more hazardous than the original waste because it concentrates heavy metals that cannot be destroyed by combustion. This ash has to go to landfill or be exported. The fly ash - the particulate matter emissions which may include dioxins and furans goes up the smokestack, and even with the most modern incinerators releases toxins including trace organics and PCBs directly into the air.
There is no eco logic to burning our waste in the Time of Global Warming.

by Jasper Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:20

The capacity of the Ringsend incinerator is 600,000 tonnes p.a. but the projected waste input is 400,000 tonnes p.a. which is 25% of the current municipal waste generation in Dublin. So unlike the Indaver incinerator in Meath, there won;t be a need to import waste to make it viable.

I don't see your point about trucking. The waste is still there to be moved...not bringing it to an incinerator doesn't mean it won't be moved. There will probably be more emissions from transporting it elsewhere. Though if it goes overseas to be incinerated, that doesn't count because it's someone else's problem then.

The bottom ash isn't actually toxic and is perfectly safe to be used in road construction as is done across the globe. The flue ash is the ash that presents the problem but that's typically vitrified or encased in concrete.

I understand that trace organics will be released along with PCBs. But i don't see any great effort to protest against waste being exported for incineration, direct protests i mean, nor do I see other producers of organics, dioxins etc being lobbied.

by maire Wed Feb 14, 2007 18:12

The incinerator in Meath will have to import waste to be viable. That was the argument against building the incinerator there in the first place. Vested industry directed our waste policy in that region.
Trucking waste to burn in an incinerator into a city, and then trucking the ash back to landfill makes no sense financially.
You advise putting it into road construction, Bottom ash would not be considered green building material. In the GreenSpec criteria a few product components were singled out for avoidance in most cases : substances that deplete stratospheric ozone, and those associated with ecological or health hazards.
"We have not the resources to monitor the health affects of people living near incinerators" - ref. Mary Kelly, Director of the EPA.

by R. Isible Wed Feb 14, 2007 19:02

Eco logic asks you to look at the problem of transporting waste to an incinerator located in a city or trucking toxic waste to the far end of the country and all the CO2 emissions that will cause.

That's exactly what I said. Describing my contribution as "risible" is inappropriate and adds no value. It's a personal attack and does you no favours.

You need to do a complete audit in order to determine which is the the better option. If you're going to concentrate on CO2 emissions and the Stern report then you need to have some figures which support your contention that incineration would release more CO2 than trucking the municipal waste out of Dublin and letting it "bio-degrade" in a landfill in Meath or wherever.

For each potentially harmful substance CO2, dioxins, heavy-metals, etc you need to at least be able to produce an estimate grounded in reasonable assumptions for each method.

Otherwise your case against the incinerator remains very unbelievable and the incinerator industry will walk all over you and put forward a much more convincing picture. With the obvious lazy attraction of just burning the stuff (and the prevailing winds blowing the fumes out to sea) you'll find it hard to convince anyone that doesn't actually live at the site of the incinerator that it's a bad thing. I remain highly skeptical of the incinerator, but repeated unsupported assertions (like the CO2 one above) make me even more skeptical about anything that the anti-incinerator campaign says. It seems that you just throw accusations in the hope that one of them might pan out. A public relations disaster. Add to this your propensity for personal attacks and your doing an excellent job at killing your own case.

It's also possible that incineration is actually the best option, but given there's been no presentation of relevant figures on this it's impossible to tell.

by maire Thu Feb 15, 2007 02:43

Apologies R.isible if you felt I was making a personal attack by using the word risible.

It is not my contention that incineration would "release more C02 than trucking the municipal waste out of Dublin and letting it "bio-degrade" in a landfill in Meath or wherever. "
Rule of thumb at the moment , please prove me wrong - one ton of waste - one ton
of C02. when burned in an incinerator. Landfill and incineration both at the bottom of the waste hierachy are co-joined as ash needs to go to landfill. There is no "either or " also with trucking - it is on top of the already C02 that incineration brings.

Your contention that the Incinerator Industry will walk all over us - we don't expect otherwise - they already have.

Overcapacity in Meath, when they secretely lobbied the goverment for more capacity which meant the Proximity Principal went out the door.

Siting a 600.000 ton municipal incinerator in the middle of the capitol city - ignoring the health concerns, and not involving the communities in meanful consultation.

Siting the National Toxic incinerator and a municipal incinerator in Cork Harbour on a flooding site 50 metres from the National Maritime College with 750 pupils, a stone's throw from Navy Headquarters. Ignoring our Development Plan, our Strategic Plan, 30,000 objectors, our County Council, a Senior BP Inspector who warned of safety risks. Who has friends in high places?

Incineration is not the best option in the Time of Global Warming.

by Jasper Thu Feb 15, 2007 08:48

"The incinerator in Meath will have to import waste to be viable. That was the argument against building the incinerator there in the first place. Vested industry directed our waste policy in that region."

You keep counter-pointing with reference to the Meath incinerator when I've already stated that I don't agree with that incinerator. This discussion is about the Poolbeg incinerator.

Also, to state that one ton of waste incinerated produces one ton of CO2 is nonsense. If you've any scientific basis for that, I'd be very interested in seeing how that relationship was derived. Not stated, but derived.

by Maire Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:16

Meath, Ringsend and Ringaskiddy are all proposed sites for incineration and as such should be examined, for the benefit of other communities who will face this policy.
Please derive or state your figures on one ton of waste burned, equals ? , of C02.

by Jasper Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:42

I'm not the one making the claim. Do you have a decent basis for the claim other than a lobby group claim?

I have a figure here that's quite different which I will give once I've seen where you got yours.

Since I did ask first.

by Maire Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:36

I am not the one denying the figure. If you are sure of your figures, be brave show us them.

Re Ringsend Sandymount and Irishtown and your wish to concentrate on the proposed Poolbeg incinerator- Chris Andrews is asking the European Commission to consider petition on the Poolbeg site as is may have contravened a European directive that requires to ensure waste is disposed of without endangering human health or the environment These residental areas are already subject to an "unacceptable degree of environmental pollution, accompanied by alarming noise levels and fierce odours due to industrial activity and sever traffic."

by Jasper Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:45

Call me cynical but I would suggest that Chris Andrews might have another agenda than the greater good. What with it being in his constituency and an election looming.

Secondlly, the figure I have is ~ quarter of yours

by Jasper Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:03

"It doesn’t have to be somewhere in Dublin South East - it could be anywhere. There is no requirement for it to be in this constituency" - Chris Andrews, eco-warrior.

Once it's not in your back yard, eh Chris?

by maire Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:34

Jasper - Incineration should not be in anybodies backyard but particularly not in the chosen backyard of the Industry.
It is unwanted, unsafe, and unneccessary.
The extra taxes we will require to buy credit from countries who manage their pollution. Why should we ask other countries to manage their pollution when we won't manage our own.?

by Miriam Cotton Wed Feb 21, 2007 22:27

Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment - the main opposition group to government plans for two waste incinerators in Cork Harbour - has issued the following press release in response to the announcement of the decision to abandon plans for an incinerator in Ringsend in Tanaiste Michael McDowell's constituency.

"LOCAL DEMOCRACY ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF DUBLIN

Minister for Justice Michael Mc Dowell announced that plans to build a 600,000 tones mass burn incinerator in Ringsend have been abandoned. The Tainiste has claimed this as a victory for local democracy.

The decision was welcomed by a CHASE spokesperson who said, “at last sanity is breaking out within some sections of the Government. The Progressive Democrats have now recognized the futility of settling for such harmful methods of waste disposal. This is the only rational conclusion to be drawn in light of the overwhelming international evidence about the effects of carbon emissions on the planet. It is also in line with latest E.U policy on waste. This clearly states that waste should be diverted from incineration and landfill.”

It is now time for the rest of the Government to face up to its obligations and change Government policy on incineration and accept the reality that it is an economically unsustainable and morally repugnant form of waste management.

The silence of Minister Michael Martin is deafening. It is time he came out in support of his constituents, to ensure local democracy is not just for the citizens of Dublin.

Incineration must be removed from Government policy as it is unsafe unnecessary and unacceptable."

Ends

by Jasper Thu Feb 22, 2007 09:45

"The extra taxes we will require to buy credit from countries who manage their pollution. Why should we ask other countries to manage their pollution when we won't manage our own.? "

We're already doing that as it is. Other countries are taking in our waste - residual and otherwise. The waste generation in this country can't be turned around in a year or two and while there's an inertia amongst the general public about managing and/or minimising the waste they generate, that situation isn't going to change.

So why should we ask other countries to deal with our waste when we do nothing about it? That goes across the board.

by Maire Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:28

Jasper, I don't hear any complaint from other countries getting our valuable waste to recover or to feed their overcapacity incineration industry.
Waste is a product to be used in this country for the tolling of waste, compare it if you will with road tolling, industry getting their hands of the tolling of waste - what returns, one can understand the ferocious lobbying by the industry, particularly if the government is dragging their heels on prevention methods. The public are doing their bit with recycling, some industry with recovery, some with reuse, and the landfill directive could be met if the government tried action instead of words., and tackled prevention, packaging, and supported clean energy.
The recent EU MEP's rejection of the amendment to move incineration up the waste management hierarchy as was being lobbied by the incinerator industry is encouraging. Marking once again that incineration is disposal and not recovery, and demonstrates that the policy of burning our waste at this time in Ireland is dead in the water.

by Jasper Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42

"Jasper, I don't hear any complaint from other countries getting our valuable waste to recover or to feed their overcapacity incineration industry."

They recover our waste because we don't really have the quantities to do it here. But that's a red herring. I was talking about the waste that's going for incineration. Why should it be incinerated elsewhere if we're not happy to incinerate it here? Are we not foisting our residual (this is the key word here) waste on another country and thereby rendering their health as being less important than ours?

"The public are doing their bit with recycling"

The figures would beg to differ. The majority of people aren't doing their bit. We all know plenty of people that are but for every one of those there are several that couldn't be bothered. The quantities of illegally dumped municipal waste etc would back that up.

"The recent EU MEP's rejection of the amendment to move incineration up the waste management hierarchy as was being lobbied by the incinerator industry is encouraging. Marking once again that incineration is disposal and not recovery, and demonstrates that the policy of burning our waste at this time in Ireland is dead in the water."

I wouldn't have understood why it would be moved up the hierarchy anyway. It's disposal with a recovery aspect.

You're still missing the point about there being a lot of waste that is residual and cannot be recovered. It has to be landfilled or incinerated.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to consider incineration because everyone in the chain would be doing their bit - from government (though they can't necessarily force companies to reduce their packaging), to industry to us.

I'm not necessarily pro-incineration. I'm just not anit-incineration. I don't believe it's this behemoth of a source of carcinogens and other harmful emissions.

by maire Thu Feb 22, 2007 16:01

It is imperative that incineration remains classified as disposal rather than recovery. Incineration is a ’waste-of-energy’ not a ‘waste-to-energy’ process as the incineration lobby group would like us to believe. There are vast amounts of carbon tied up in waste than can be recovered by far more favourable technologies. Burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere is not alone a waste of resources but reckless in terms of the amounts of excess carbon dioxide being released back into the atmosphere. Waste incineration releases more harmful gases into the environment than the burning of fossil fuels

It is not true that incineration with energy recovery is a greener option than landfill. The two materials that supply a significant calorific value in municipal waste are plastics and cardboard. Plastics consist mostly of oil. In terms of the impact on climate change and our responsibility under the Kyoto Agreement, burning plastics is equivalent to burning fossil fuels. In terms of resource and energy recovery, it is far more efficient to recycle paper than burn it.
I think you are missing the point about the "residual has to be landfilled or incinerated. " If we generate waste for incineration we generate ash to be landfilled. Why not cut down our waste and landfill what cannot be recovered. That would focus all minds to reduce, reuse and recycle.
I
For each tonne of waste that is burnt there is approximately the equivalent amount of Co2 released to the atmosphere. This has huge implications in terms of Global warming and the Stern Report has clearly warned Governments of the danger of ignoring the importance of reducing our CO2 emissions. The penalties that Ireland would incur in Carbon taxes will be enormous and it is we the tax payers that will be footing the bill

I am anti-incineration, mostly for health reasons. I have listened to medical experts:- (All below can be found on www.chaseireland.org under Health effects of Waste Incinerators.

Please read Dr. A. Staines report :-
(1)Human health impact of the proposed waste incinerators at Ringaskiddy
A critique of the health assessment in the EIS submitted with the waste licence application. Presented at EPA Oral Hearing by Dr. Anthony Staines, Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, UCD.

(2)How Pollutants Affect Health - Early Dioxin Exposure in Children
Paper by Dr. Gavin ten Tusscher (Paediatrician), 2004

BSEM report :-
The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators
4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine (Dec. 2005) concludes that no new waste incinerators should be built. "Incinerators are in reality particulate generators, and their use cannot be justified now that it is clear how toxic and carcinogenic fine particulates are."

by Jasper Thu Feb 22, 2007 16:16

"It is not true that incineration with energy recovery is a greener option than landfill. The two materials that supply a significant calorific value in municipal waste are plastics and cardboard. Plastics consist mostly of oil. In terms of the impact on climate change and our responsibility under the Kyoto Agreement, burning plastics is equivalent to burning fossil fuels. In terms of resource and energy recovery, it is far more efficient to recycle paper than burn it."

Cardboard and plastics are generally recycled - they aren't residuals - so that's a red herring there.

"I think you are missing the point about the "residual has to be landfilled or incinerated. " If we generate waste for incineration we generate ash to be landfilled. Why not cut down our waste and landfill what cannot be recovered. That would focus all minds to reduce, reuse and recycle."

Cutting down on the waste we generate would be the ideal. But it hasn't been done now and that's not just the fault of the 'powers that be'. We're all culpable. It will take a serious sea-change in people's activities for there to be a significant slowdown in the generation of waste. Incineration reduces the volume of the residual waste, i.e. that which cannot be recovered, to 20% the input waste volume. About 4% of that has tp be landfilled whilst the rest of the ash can be recovered.

"For each tonne of waste that is burnt there is approximately the equivalent amount of Co2 released to the atmosphere. "

This has been addressed before. It's closer to a quarter which I stated. Unless you can find an independent, i.e. non-lobby group figure to suggest otherwise.

"This has huge implications in terms of Global warming and the Stern Report has clearly warned Governments of the danger of ignoring the importance of reducing our CO2 emissions. The penalties that Ireland would incur in Carbon taxes will be enormous and it is we the tax payers that will be footing the bill"

Again, you seem to think that incioneration creates emissions that wouldn't otherwise be generated. You might be aware of landfill gases, or the emissions from processing. Magnifying the emissions of incineration doesn't do anyone any favours.

"I am anti-incineration, mostly for health reasons. I have listened to medical experts:- (All below can be found on www.chaseireland.org under Health effects of Waste Incinerators."

Of course you can find negative ones on chaseireland. I'll steer clear of a lobby group's site anyway. I could, and already have referenced reports from award-winning cancer researchers who have stated that there is no threat from incinerators.

Look, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion per se. But I'm just offering the other side of the coin, mainly because I don't think incineration is a grave danger. I'm not all that far from where the site is...maybe a 5 minute cycle....and I'd have no wish to live that close to something that I believed was going to cause damage to my health. I just don't believe it will.

But if others can assess all of the available data, and I don't just mean the arguments put forward by pro- or anti- groups, and come to the conclusion that it is a very bad idea, then so be it. You can't really argue with that. I just have a problem with people peddling misinformation purposely.

by Marlboro man Thu Feb 22, 2007 17:46

Minister Roche has finally put this to bed and qualified McDowells assertion that the Poolbed incinerator was dead in the water.
The Deal between DCC and Elsam (DONG) looks like it will be "abandoned" to quote the minister.

Forceful mercies

by Maire Thu Feb 22, 2007 18:27

You keep asking for references :- I have given you Dr. A. Staines,
Dr. Gavin ten Tusscher, and the BSEM report, you can contact them yourself and check out their creditentals - you are behaving like a person who does not want to look at the truth. After you have looked at their studies, then contradict them not me.
I am sure there were many people like you who refused to believe that cigarettes harmed health. Live in ignorance if that is where you are happy.
Educate yourself as to where concerned citizens are coming from, particularly people who have engaged for the past six years in this debate.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 08:45

"You keep asking for references :- I have given you Dr. A. Staines,
Dr. Gavin ten Tusscher, and the BSEM report, you can contact them yourself and check out their creditentals - you are behaving like a person who does not want to look at the truth. After you have looked at their studies, then contradict them not me.
I am sure there were many people like you who refused to believe that cigarettes harmed health. Live in ignorance if that is where you are happy.
Educate yourself as to where concerned citizens are coming from, particularly people who have engaged for the past six years in this debate."

I didn't ask you for references there, for God's sake. You're just twisting everything. I know what the residents are concerned about - I said the reason I have my opinion is because I don't think the residents need to be concerned. Christ, I didn't think it was that cryptic.

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Fri Feb 23, 2007 09:36

The ongoing debate regarding whether to incinerate or not is taking emphasis away from the basics namely, controlling the generation of waste and ensuring that as much waste that is genetrated is collected for whatever is the best means of safe disposal. The govenrment has failed to set sufficently high standards for big business and places the full responsibility for waste disposal on those that are at the end of the production process, the consumer.
The governments privatisation policy is creating a serious pollution problem countrywide because the amount of illegal dumping and burning has increased enormously. Private collection companies are levying extortionate charges and are refusing to work a waiver scheme so as to ensure that each and every household can access a refuse collection service and the urgent need for a statewide waiver scheme has again been put on hold as the government scrapes around looking for ways to reduce the taxes of big earners. If the government cannot see that this service needs to be provided free at the point of delivery so as to ensure maximum access, than we need to be very concerned regarding their likely plans for disposal. That the government appointed Dick Roche to this critically important portfolio speaks volumes for it's committment to honestly addressing the problems facing the environment.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 09:42

The problem with politics is that it's presided over by politicians who say what they think people want to hear. So while Dick Roche started his tenure by stating he'd rather have an incinerator over a proliferation of landfills, he went on to say he wouldn't back a proposal that meant an incinerator would be in his constituency.

Chris ASndrews' recent campaign was of a similar breed.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 09:54

"Minister Roche has finally put this to bed and qualified McDowells assertion that the Poolbed incinerator was dead in the water.
The Deal between DCC and Elsam (DONG) looks like it will be "abandoned" to quote the minister."

Is it or is it just the case that DONG are reviewing their options after buying Elsam?

by Marlboro man Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:34

I think Roche is trying to be all things to all men on this one. While rabid comments from McDowell where a little premature, Roche none the less moved to give his comments a little credibility (A word that should not be used in the same sentence as these two morons)

DONG have now decided the original terms of the contract are unacceptable thus scuppering the deal, its an own-goal that will be seized by FF and used as the excuse they need to renege on the deal. They are aware of how deeply unpopular this incinerator is, especially as it has become such a political hot-potato.

I keep saying that if FF/PD's had any serious commitment to waste disposal they would attack the problem at source, Industry, and work down vigorously applying the principles of the 3 R's.

I am in complete agreement with the poster above (Jim O Sullivan) in that waste management has descended into a fiasco where profit is now the name of the game and Green principles have been hi-jacked to that end.

Jasper we have (here and other threads) bounced ideas off each other but I cannot agree with this incinerator. Its position is dubious (and no doubt the result of some back-hander), its safety not proven to the extent that its introduction into an Urban environment is justified, Its economic viability (i.e. the importation of Trash) does not sit well within a broader CO2 and Global Warming initiative and it is being sold as a quick fix and straw men whipped up in an attempt to garner support or in the very least split dissention.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:32

Ah. I had only caught snippets of the story of late so wasn't aware of the full DONG stance and whether or not they'd put the kibosh on it or just going to reassess it.

I appreciate the fact that you engaged in the debate and I can't argue with the conclusion you've come to because your conclusion would appear to be based on assessing things from non-biased sources. And that's fair enough.

Personally, I don't think it's nearly as bad for the environment as people would contend but if it's not going ahead then I would like to see the government actively tackle the problem of waste generation NOW rather than putting it on the long finger. Things need to change NOW because the Dublin region is runing out of landfill space and exporting the waste is costly. The trend in waste generation is like an oil tanker....it'll take a long time too turn around and if it's left too long, we'll be buried in a mountain of waste that we'll need others to manage for us.

But while we're waiting, we should all be doing what we can and taking responsibility for the waste we generate. Not as a means to allow industry to keep foisting excess packaging on us to hope we can manage it but just to instill good practices so that when the time comes when industry is forced to cut down on what they generate and pass on, we'll have a routine of BAT for our own waste management in place.

by maire Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:38

We have just witnessed the problem of road tolling by a private company, and what it has cost the country, and will cost to rectify the delay in buying out at this time. 600,million.
Commercial incineration is a tolling waste industry with huge rewards for those that can get to that position. If they can count on support from the government by adopting it as a policy,a company can go through development plans, strategic plans, etc. with a coach in four. They can downface 30,000 objections, overrule the County Council, (The unelected County Manager, can overule ther County Council thanks to legislation by Martin Dempsey., and site them next to communities and schools.

So what about health risks? At the planning stage the company Indaver concerned with Meath and Cork manipulated their application to be lodged 3 weeks before they would have been obliged to allow the public to scrutinise health aspects. Martin Cullen appointed the project Manager of Indaver as a Director of the EPA. before they got their licence, and again Government publication Race Against Waste - Do Modern Incinerators harm health? - NO.
Misinformation on a government scale.

On the financial side, investors are shying away from incineration, because of the climate that has evolved - global warming, Co2 emissions, health reports, the possibility of big payouts for damage to health. Not really an ethical investment. There are Better Technologies available, now being availed of by countries moving away from incineration.
We the Irish however, are going the wrong way.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:23

Are you talking about other thermal treatment technologies that are better...out of interest?

Pyrolysis and gasification are only really pre-treatment methods and aren't as efficient in terms of energy recovery and therefore processing costs are higher. They're not significantly better in environmentasl terms. Also, they're not as versatile or robust when it comes to dealing with MSW. They also produce the same levels of residual waste that has to be dealt with afterwards.

by maire Fri Feb 23, 2007 14:37

Both pyrolysis and gasification turn wastes into energy rich fuels by heating the waste under controlled conditions. Whereas incineration fully converts the input waste into energy and ash, these processes deliberately limit the conversion so that combustion does not take place directly. Instead, they convert the waste into valuable intermediates that can be further processed for materials recycling or energy recovery.

Gasification can be used in conjunction with gas engines (and potentially gas turbines) to obtain higher conversion efficiency than conventional fossil-fuel energy generation. By displacing fossil-fuels, waste pyrolysis and gasification can help meet renewable energy targets, address concerns about global warming and contribute to achieving Kyoto Protocol commitments. Conventional incineration, used in conjunction with steam-cycle boilers and turbine generators, achieves lower efficiency.

by Jasper Fri Feb 23, 2007 15:37

On the other hand:

Pyroloysis:

* the waste has to be shredded first - time, energy and financial consumption
* Pyrolytic oil/tar contains toxic stuff and carcinogens
* The residue contains 20-30% of the calorific value of the primary fuel and has to be coimbusted in a boiler or gasifier. Cost.
* The char is high in heavy metal content
* Needs a back-up fuel supply
* Lack of long-term international experience.

Gasification:

- Very low energy recovery efficiency
- Need for waste to be shredded before gasification
- The gas contains traces of toxic and carcinogenic compounds that could contaminate the quench water which may need to be treated as a chemical waste
- Complicated gas clean-up for engine use.
- It generates NOx
- There may be some carbon in the residual ash
- Very costly
- Only a few non-prototype plants around
- Because it's such a complex process, i.e. it's akin to a chemical factory, it may not be viable in the long term.
- No long term operational experience

by maire Sat Feb 24, 2007 18:12

Yes, on the other hand,
For every unit of energy recovered by one of these machines, three to 5 units of energy could have been saved by recycling the products instead of destroying them in an incinerator and then replacing them with new ones.
By destroying useful resources that must then be replaced, incinerators -- including plasma arc, pyrolysis, and gasification -- make our waste problems far worse then they would otherwise be. Incinerators prevent us from adopting sensible modern ways of doing business, namely "zero waste" and "clean production.

This is why fighting incinerators is so crucially important -- incinerators are dinosaurs that prevent us from making the transition to a modern lifestyle based on resource conservation and clean production. If we don't win the fight against incinerators worldwide -- we will never be able to make the transition to a sustainable economy.

Once you build an incinerator, you must "feed the machine"- tolling tolling, tolling - for the next 30 years to get your investment back. Once you build an incinerator, resource conservation, recycling and waste reduction become "the enemy" because the machine must have a new load of fresh rubbish every day. The machine needs waste, so its very existence serves as a major deterrent to less wasteful life styles and ways of doing business.

I have seen the light - incinerators promote waste. They thrive on waste. They need waste. They demand waste, Incinerators are a major deterrent to clean production, full recycling, resource conservation, zero waste, and a sustainable economy.
They are a waste of energy.

by Jasper Wed Feb 28, 2007 13:06

Apparently, if DONG decide to pull out of the Poolbeg incinerator then DCC will just re-tender for a replacement

by Marlboro man Wed Feb 28, 2007 13:38

The re-tendering process is available to DCC but it will be under far greater scrutiny now. In any case the minister still needs to approve the new deal, something that is considerably more difficult to do with such a huge spotlight shining on Ringsend. The city manager may be unaccountable and can spout defiance at a whim but Roche has to be seen(at least) to be more tactile in matters such as these and will have to hand-lead the Media and public through the tendering process and show a transparency I'm sure that will be utterly alien to him.

Indeed, it will be easier for Roche to shelve the incinerator especially now he has no constitutionally binding contract, signed and in place, to wring his hands with (The Toll Bridge for example).

As I said before political expediency will win the day here over back-room profiteering. You can expect nothing more from this recalcitrant bunch of gombeens in power. It is an uneasy solution as it is still not one of principle, but it will do for now.

by Jasper Wed Feb 28, 2007 14:50

Oh I know it's not simple and straightforward...i just thought that people had been under the impression that the DONG takeover meant the end of any incinerator.

I'm all for transparency and though it's a second chance to right some of their wrongs, it's probably too late.

I don't think there's enough interaction with the public before these things are rushed through and certainly not in a way that's accessible to all.

by Terence Sun Apr 15, 2007 21:07

It is quite clear the government and the city council have a complete disregard for the people. Democracy is an alien concept to them, as if you go and visit the Dublin Waste website run by Dublin City Council, you will find under their "April Topic" an announcement for Oral Hearing into the Incinerator

Naturally they don't call it that but prefer to use Orwellian double-speak and refer to it as the "Thermal Plant"

Here's the blurb from the website and link below:


April's Topic - Dublin Waste to Energy (WTE) Plant

The oral hearing on the Waste-to-Energy (Thermal Treatment) project for Dublin will take place in April 2007.

The facility, if approved, will provide long-term capacity for the the treatment of residual waste or black bin waste type material which is currently sent to landfill. The recovery of energy from the process is also part of the project.

What are your opinions on the proposed Dublin WTE facilitiy and its role as part of Dublin's integrated waste management infrastructure?


Now note what it says: black bin waste. When the council decide it is time to start charging for Green waste, we will see that people will of course not be bothered and just put all that burnable green waste in the black bags.

What's more if it is only going to take black bag waste initially, you will find there will be very little material with any calorific value since there will be a lot of potentially (wet) compostible material in it. Of course they should have given out free compost bins to every household for home composting, but thats another matter. Anyway, they will find that they will have to use oil or gas to burn this stuff. Hence there will be a financial crisis with the private operator as they will be making a loss. It will be then that the pressure will be applied discreetly. And lo behold it will no doubt be the Competition Authority that will declare that Green Waste must be charged which they will duly do, because it is unfairly competing against other 'waste management services' -i.e. incineration.

Hopefully though people will continue to recycle, but should they persist, undoubtly barriers will be put up. I noticed whenever I go to the recycling center at the local dump, that there is always a huge amount of people there too, recycling their plastic like myself. How long before this free service is deemed uncompetitive?

by maire Mon Apr 16, 2007 14:40

The Government is intent on bringing in the burning of our waste, despite global warming, health effects, safety and totally ignoring Best Available Technology.

by anon Thu Apr 19, 2007 18:27

I know this sounds incredible coming from the PDs, but this is being reported on the RTE news website:

Thousands of objectors to the proposed incinerator at Poolbeg in Dublin made their opinions known to An Bord Pleanála today including three sitting TDs from Dublin South East.

The inquiry at Croke Park featured nearly 3,000 objections from Dublin South East residents to the waste burning facility.

Tánaiste Michael McDowell went as far to say that the Progressive Democrats will not go into Government unless the Incinerator project is stopped.

He also accused Dublin City Council officials of lying about the breakdown of negotiations with a Danish contractor that has the option to build and operate the facility.

Mr McDowell claims he has seen documents that show the whole public-private partnership process will have to be started over again.

The plan for a mass burning incinerator to deal with 600,000 tonnes of refuse is also opposed by most local representatives, including deputies Ruairi Quinn of Labour and John Gormley of the Greens.......

by Shite Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:09

he doesn't walk the walk.

He moved the Planning legislation through the Oireachtas which left out Poolbeg.
Theres an election coming.

Do we have to put up with this crap.

Why does he not just get a placard like everyone else and put his money
where his mouth is.

nimby!

by Me again Thu Apr 19, 2007 22:55

McDowell PD/FF in govt.cannot be trusted.
If he is minister for justice the police will be used to baton any local objectors into submission.
Think not? - just look at what is happening in N. Mayo
or do you too think that people from the west are sub-human?

by Terence Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:36

Actually McDowell is on the record for saying that the incinerator should be built as two smaller incinerators and that they be situated somewhere along the M50. His logic was that trucks would be able to get to them easily.

The reason of course is that Dublin 4 is nearby to the proposed Poolbeg / Ringsend incinerator and this would not go down well with his constituents and thus could damage his election chances.

He is obviously so concerned about this, that he specifically went to the trouble of making sure the incinerator would not be included in the new The Strategic Infrastructure Bill which is basically a bill that will run roughshod over people's rights as it will exempt projects that the governments considered of 'national strategic importance' to any of the review processes and other checks and balances

Some details of that bill can be found at:

by Derek Doom Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:49

Thermal Treatment of household waste reduces its bulk and results, ultimately, in less in emissions and less hazardous waste to landfill. I think it is arrogant for the residents of Dublin city who,arguably, are the nations most prolific waste producers to have this 'not in my back yard' kind fo mentality. It might be an eyesore and potentially hazardous (though much of this fear can be dispelled) but it is more appropriate that the cities waste is managed in the city, The area around poolbeg is already industrialized and if we're going to produce so much waste we should be able to tolerate it.

by Marlboro Man Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:59

Tell ya what Derek, you should campaign and organise a petition to have this enormous incinerator built in your back yard since you think its such a good idea.

That'll show those pesky 'NIMBY's' and will show those filthy Dubs how to act responsibly and might just stop them littering.

While all this is going on we will actively urge the government to research this 'litter gene' that only exists in Dubliners so that a treatment can be found to heal them and bring them into line with the squeaky clean non-dubs.

Jayz Derek, you're a genius.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Apr 20, 2007 14:03

And again - incineration does not reduce waste - it only disperses it - into the air and into the residual ash which is 40% of its original volume - only it has now been converted into a highly toxic substance - much worse than the original waste and it too can only be disposed of in landfill. Where all the toxins leach into the land and the water table...

by Terence Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:15

We often heard about how incinerator is setup in many a debate in the mainstream media. It's always presented as Landfill vs Incineration -like as if there is no such thing as reducing, reusing and recycling.

Now many have pointed out that the ash for incinerators while reducing the volume to about a third still needs to be landfilled and is often more toxic than the original input material because the various streams of waste can no longer be separated.

However it appears the puzzle as to why the pro-incinerator lobby never answer the question as to where this ash goes, seems to be solved, because it appears that in some countries, they may be simply reclassifying this as fertilizer and spreading it on land. It could even be sold as roadfill where it's toxic residue could seep onto adjacent land and poison it.

So in light of the recent problems regarding the spreading of sewage sludge on farmland around Eyrecourt in Co. Galway, the question has to be asked, is there a plan for this practice to be expanded and will it include the toxic ash from the Poolbeg / Ringsend Dublin incinerator?

So these questions need to be asked about the incinerator? Where is the ash going to go. Is it going to be exported and dumped on someone else? Is it going to be used as roadfill? Is it going to be reclassified as fertilizer? And what is the position in this country with regard to what can be defined as fertilizer?

For the recent story: Eyrecourt to Galway Co. Co.: Stop Shitting On Us -see the URL below
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82138

For an article describing the murky trade in incinerator ash, see: Toxic Wastes and the
New World Order, Part 1 at http://www.zmag.org/nov00cohen.htm

Here's some interesting extracts from it:

How Could Toxic Ash Be Fertilizer?

Every year, thousands of tons of “recycled” waste from the U.S., deceptively labeled as “fertilizer,” are plowed into farms, beaches, and deserts in Bangladesh, Haiti, Somalia, Brazil, and dozens of other countries. The Clinton administration has followed former President George Bush’s lead in allowing U.S. corporations to mix incinerator ash and other wastes containing high concentrations of lead, cadmium, and mercury with agricultural chemicals. This is sold to unsuspecting or uncaring agencies and governments throughout the world.

These dangerous chemicals are considered “inert,” since they play no active role as “fertilizer”—although they are very active in causing cancers and other diseases. Under U.S. law, ingredients designated as “inert” are not required to be labeled or reported to the buyer.


And it seems the problem of incinerator ash has been causing problems elsewhere too:


In Nicaragua, a proposal to import hazardous waste and incinerator ash from Philadelphia generated a storm of protest from all sectors of the Nicaraguan population, although nothing of it was reported in the U.S. press. The revolutionary Sandinista party, which came to power in 1979 and which was voted out ten years later in the midst of intense counter-revolutionary warfare sponsored by the United States, led the opposition in the Nicaraguan congress. The only support for the proposal came from Steadman Fagoth, a Miskito Indian contra leader and follower of fascist evangelist Sun Myung Moon who, after the defeat of the Sandinista government, was rewarded by the new government by placing him in charge of “environmental concerns” in the Atlantic region of the country. The Nicaraguan Association of Biologists and Environmentalists countered that the heavy rainfall on the Atlantic Coast would cause the deadly components of ash to enter the aquatic ecosystem and cause severe damage to the water table, flora and fauna, as well as to human life.

“The rain washes heavy metals, such as mercury, nickel and arsenic into the ground, carrying them to rivers, puddles, creeks, the ocean and lakes. There, fish, snails, shrimp, etc. would be contaminated... [as well as] the fauna which is then eaten by birds and other animals as well as human beings.

“In this way the chemical compounds are transferred from small animals to human beings and accumulate in muscle tissue.

“Underground water sources would also be contaminated, as the water is absorbed through the soil. In this way the chemicals reach the water table and thus, wells and other sources used by people and entire communities.

“Plants would also be contaminated by absorbing the water and therefore all crops grown for human consumption.

“Finally, the wind would carry the ash considerable distances, even reaching distant towns and communities. Their inhabitants would absorb it through their respiratory systems. Domestic animals would also be poisoned.” Faced with widespread resistance, the importation of hazardous waste was rejected...for the moment...

by maire Tue Apr 24, 2007 17:45

Thermal treatment - incineration, is just that - burning waste in your back yard - the back yard chosen by the industry. Yes it reduces its bulk , but it does not result in less emissions and less hazardous waste to landfill.

The most serious aspect of this proposal is that it will dump over 620,000 tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Ireland cannot tolerate any further increase in the CO2 load.

The effect which incineration of our waste will have In Ireland in the short term, up to 2020, will be serious, but particularly serious for countries which embraced this method before the time of global warming. The global warming crisis is now acute making this proposed development unsustainable in the true sense of the word. The legacy from commercial incineration to our grandchildren is beyond comtempt. Perhaps the fact of our Taoiseach becoming a grandfather may focus his awareness of the environment and future planning to sustain the environment may engage his attention.
The unsustainable cost and greenhouse gases suggest that incineration is not the best available technology for handling waste in Dublin and therefore the original decision for deciding on incineration should be reviewed.
The fact that it will be an eyesore and will be hazardous does not concern Derek Doom. Nobody disputes that the cities waste must be managed by the city. But the toleration of waste without any effort to prevent it shouts laziness, and greed.

by Jasper Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:25

"Thermal treatment - incineration, is just that - burning waste in your back yard - the back yard chosen by the industry. Yes it reduces its bulk , but it does not result in less emissions and less hazardous waste to landfill."

That's unbelievably wrong. You're likening incineration to uncontrolled backyard burning? Seriously, that just discredits anything you may have to say. If it reduces the bulk, how does it not reduce the amount of hazardous waste to landfill? Either way, you're wrong. It reduces the volume and mass of hazardous waste to landfill.

"The most serious aspect of this proposal is that it will dump over 620,000 tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Ireland cannot tolerate any further increase in the CO2 load."

620,000 tonnes of CO2 from less than 600,000 tonnes? Your maths is getting worse by the day.

"The effect which incineration of our waste will have In Ireland in the short term, up to 2020, will be serious, but particularly serious for countries which embraced this method before the time of global warming. The global warming crisis is now acute making this proposed development unsustainable in the true sense of the word. The legacy from commercial incineration to our grandchildren is beyond comtempt. Perhaps the fact of our Taoiseach becoming a grandfather may focus his awareness of the environment and future planning to sustain the environment may engage his attention.
The unsustainable cost and greenhouse gases suggest that incineration is not the best available technology for handling waste in Dublin and therefore the original decision for deciding on incineration should be reviewed.
The fact that it will be an eyesore and will be hazardous does not concern Derek Doom. Nobody disputes that the cities waste must be managed by the city. But the toleration of waste without any effort to prevent it shouts laziness, and greed"

Having said that, in an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for incineration but lets face it, not everyone is doing their part. I include the public, industry and the government in that. But also, there will always be residual waste and more often than not it needs to be incinerated...whether in Ireland or abroad is a different matter. I don't think we can give out about having an incinerator on Irish shores when no one bats an eyelid at the fact that it's being incinerated abroad. Yes, we pay lip service to the need for prevention but we also have a part to play in that. Not just industry and packaging. We can all cut down on the packaging waste when we shop, for example.

Also, your basing impacts on flawed science.

Finally, it will take until 2020 to turn around the situation whereby incineration is needed.

by Jasper Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:29

BAT has to be actually applicable.

It's all well and good shouting for pyrolysis or gasification but they're not feasible and don't give a solution that's a whole lot better because they're more pre-treatment processes than treatment processes.

by maire Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:59

Incineration adds to our greenhouse gases and to our bad record , that is the grim reality. Meeting the Kyoto Protocol target has to be the ideal, is that too tall an order?

Incineration is not Best Available Technology, particularly when no debate was invited on other better technologies.

If you cannot get public acceptance you are planning for failure.

We could take the opportunity to solve our waste problems without using mass-burn incineration, but vested interests have done such a gagging job that the public are only now becoming aware of the alternatives.

Prudent climate policy is pivotal in developing a safe climate, and the need for clean energy technologies does not include burning our waste, and skyfilling.

The buried ash will contaminate our water, and while we have a choice to buy water, we have no choice when it comes to our air - remember poison in, poison out, with incineration.

by Jasper Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:58

"Incineration adds to our greenhouse gases and to our bad record , that is the grim reality. Meeting the Kyoto Protocol target has to be the ideal, is that too tall an order?"

Actually, meeting Kyoto targets aren't nearly good enough but that's a different debate. You're also assuming all other treatment alternatives involve no emissions and you're also suggesting that there's more CO2 emitted than is actually incinerated..wherever you got that notion from.

"Incineration is not Best Available Technology, particularly when no debate was invited on other better technologies."

You've cited two other technologies before...neither are applicable.

"Prudent climate policy is pivotal in developing a safe climate, and the need for clean energy technologies does not include burning our waste, and skyfilling. "

Clean energy isn't the issue at hand. It certainly isn't an issue with the alternatives you cited.

"The buried ash will contaminate our water, and while we have a choice to buy water, "

Oh dear. Honestly, do you have any idea of how they deal with the ash? Or how the hazardous landfills are engineered? Or are you assuming that they dig a big hole and dump in the ash?

by maire Wed Apr 25, 2007 22:38

Jasper,
I assume nothing because I know incinerator lobbyists have been appointed by this government to key positions in An Bord Pleanala, and to the EPA.
Six years ago it was obvious that burning our waste would create more problems than it would solve.
There are severe health problems for anyone living near an incinerator. It was a quick fix for inaction on our waste problem, and time to examine the technicology is throwing up problems, economic, health, and safety. .
Now events have overtaken it and hopefully we can say phew, that was close as we could have been tied up for 20 to 30 years and could find it hard to obviate an industry which should not have been built in the first place.

We have the opportunity to leap frog to a better environmental safe place in Ireland, while concentrating on organising the hierarchy of waste management.
Lets find out who has the vision to take action in protecting our health, our safety, and our vulnerable environment, that includes the air we breath.

by Recycletta Thu Apr 26, 2007 19:22

A previous comment:
" It will take until 2020 to turn around the situation whereby incineration is needed"

At the present rate of progress, with Elsam all but pulled out and Indaver threatening the same it will take until 2020 until we get incineration in the first place.

Which is why now we should stop and take stock of the situation and legislate for a better solution than incineration.

MBT is fast becoming the preferred solution in the UK. Irish waste management patterns and habits are not that different to our nearest neighbour.

The EA is not advocating incineration as a solution. Our EPA is out of step in its support of this out dated technology, possibly blinded by the fact that two of its board members are self confessed pro-incinerators.

Incineration has had its chance in Ireland. Your argumements, however correct and well intended are falling on deaf ears. Some technologies like incineration and Nuclear Power, however technically viable are still unacceptable to the masses. And it is a democracy afterall.

We have targets to meet on the European stage. The best way of doing that is to follow the UK path and legislate for MBT. All this talk about incineration which won't happen is merely fiddling while Rome burns.

by Marlboro Man Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:56

That is the sensible approach.

I think the incinerator is a dead duck as we speak. Minister Roche has been discredited as an incompetent sycophant and thoroughly out of his depth in this portfolio.

Considering Fianna Fails adept skills at shafting the public in backrooms deals, we have only providence to thank that Roches bumbling indecision messed this up.

I've said it before but 'forceful mercies'

by AJ Fri Apr 27, 2007 13:42

Can anyone attending the Poolbeg oral hearing comment on the decision of the inspector to adjourn and seek legal advice on the complete absence of environmental impacts of district heating from the EIS? No mention at all in the document of impacts of road cutting, pipelaying, traffic delays, traffic considerations during excavation and backfilling increased air emissions etc etc not to mention cumulative effects of incinerator construction at the same time.

Sounds like a big boo boo...and perhaps a failed EIS?

by Recycletta Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:47

in August 2003, the head of the Irish EPA Mary Kelly was reported in the press as saying that “we will get domestic waste incinerators, beginning with the Indaver project in Meath where planning approval has been secured.” This statement came well ahead of the Meath oral hearing held in early 2005 and right in the middle of the EPS's own licensing process for that facility.

Is this planning bias being used as waste licence Judicial Review grounds in challenges to any of the Indaver sites or Poolbeg? If not it should be.

Contrast the words of the head of our EPA with those of the Head of the Environment Agency of UK and Wales

“The reality is there are only limited wasy of getting rid of waste,” said Environment Agency CEO Barbara Young. “The public don’t like incineration; they don’t like landfill.” She added that the Agency is also even beginning to receive complaints regarding composting facilities. Young explained that what is needed is to “create the virtuous circle that one man’s waste is another man’s raw material”.

The Irish EPA is out of step with International thinking. Incineration is dead. MBT is the way forward.

by Jasper Fri Apr 27, 2007 15:11

"Can anyone attending the Poolbeg oral hearing comment on the decision of the inspector to adjourn and seek legal advice on the complete absence of environmental impacts of district heating from the EIS?"

I wasn't at it but in the main District Heating would have more environmental benefits than problems caused. It reduces exhaust emitted and would probably negate the need for any cooling water to be drawn from Dublin Bay and subsequently there wouldn't be any warm water being returned to the Bay that would facilitate the growth of algae and such.

by Recycletta Fri Apr 27, 2007 18:49

No good Jaspar if its not in the EIS. You can say all that and it may be true but if its not in the EIS then it hasn't been assessed in planning terms. It was a Dublin City Council after thought after all...

Sounds like a boo boo to me - My bet is that it will be a solid ground for Judicial Review.

by Gordon Sun Apr 29, 2007 16:58

What I don't understand is how can they proceed with an Oral Hearing into an EIS of a development that wont happen?

ELSAM have pulled out. The EIS is based on an ELSAM design. Even if there is an underbidder it will be a different proposal so there will need to be a new EIS for the new plant.

If the underbidder changes his bid to an ELSAM bid then surely the European Procurement Rules have then been broken?

Any way you look this current planning process is doomed.

Tell your TDs on the doorstep to stop wasting public money flogging a dead horse and go back to the drawing board.

Same goes for Indaver which has been more than compromised by pet appointments to the EPA and ABP...

by Jasper Tue May 01, 2007 17:49

"No good Jaspar if its not in the EIS. You can say all that and it may be true but if its not in the EIS then it hasn't been assessed in planning terms. It was a Dublin City Council after thought after all...

Sounds like a boo boo to me - My bet is that it will be a solid ground for Judicial Review."

Oh, I know. I was just pointing out benefits of District Heating. And it was an after thought but I'm not entirely sure that any district heating in Dublin was always going to be integrated into an incinerator.

by Carrie Tue May 01, 2007 18:12

I can confirm that the OH has been adjourned until mid May to consider this issue. Sounds like a big deal. Odd that its getting no newspaper coverage.

by Recycletta Mon May 07, 2007 14:08

The issue is what is party policy on waste management. Who can we vote for?

It's not very clear. FG FF and Labour need to clarify what is now for each of them an ambiguous position on incineration.

Below is a summary of the most recent WM policy statements made by the parties. Despite a lot of waffle, only SF and the Greens are saying no incineration. Labour wants to recycle 75% which sort of rules out incineration but they dont come out and say that. FF has just announced that it will send only 10% to landfill but does not say how this is to be achieved and it does put a question mark over incineration as 30% of incinerated waste is ash for landfill. FG is suspicously vacant of any incineration policy.

Greens:

"We need to respond quickly to the growing waste crisis now confronting Irish society. Rather than investing in expensive resource-destruction technologies, the Irish Government needs to adopt a more sustainable approach to the recovery of materials for re-use or recycling. In a natural eco-system, there is a balance where the wastes from one process become the resources for other processes. Nothing is wasted. In a consumer society, however, waste is an accepted part of life. The Green Party believes that we need to reverse this trend and to avoid leaving future generations with a horrific waste legacy. '

Sinn Fein :

"It commits our party to defending the right of all people to a safe, clean and unpolluted environment. It reiterates our full opposition to incineration. ..'

Fine Gael:

Waste management is absent from recent policy statements. Plenty of individual deputies taking a no incineration stance but no formal policy on that.

Labour 2007 policy:

A State recycling agency for recycling charged with the development of recycling infrastructure and a market for recycled products.
Every household in Ireland to recycle 50 per cent of their rubbish by 2012, rising to 75 per cent by 2020.
A per capita target for municipal waste to encourage householders and local authorities prevent waste production.
Producers to assume responsibility for waste reduction at source through less and smarter packaging.

No labour party policy on incineration but an objective of 75% recycling effectively rules it out.

Fianna Fail Policy 2007

Ony 10% of waste to end up in landfill. No detail on how this is to be achieved. No change to incineration committment however decreasing landfilled waste to 10% would put another query over the viability of incineration as 30% of incinerated waste is landfilled ash which under FF policy may now have to go abroad. No committment to increased recycling.

The solution:

MBT is the only technology that can satisfy all policies!

by Ray Man Tue May 08, 2007 10:24

I still don't get why parties are sticking so firmly to incineration.

Surely its about to collapse anyway with DONG and Indaver pulling out?

Not like politicians to stay on a sinking ship

by MJ Ringsend Tue May 08, 2007 16:32

They stick to the policies because there is no national waste plan. Waste planning in Ireland is done by 10 regional authorities no less - no wonder its so mixed up.

So changing govt policy would require the changing of 10 waste plans that were only updated last year and which all rely on incineration.

Parties should be asked to support a policy for a single national waste plan - it would be easier to incorporate changes such as MBT and the demise of incineration as is happening at present,

by Jasper Wed May 09, 2007 10:44

I've asked any of the candidates calling to my door to clarify their position on the incinerator, just to see what they say. One canvasser actually said it wasn't a Dublin Central issue...so I closed the door.

The rest just parrotted a few stock quotes but knew little more than that. I was a bit disappointed, I have to say.

In short, each and every politician was short on knowledge of an issue that required thought as opposed to "The health service is rubbish, isn't it. Terrible, to be sure, to be sure".

by John Wed May 09, 2007 11:25

Direct quote from PJ Rudden RPS-MCOS on the successful ending of the poolbeg incineration debate.

( from attached paper published in 2006)

"There are currently three waste to energy proposals at various stages of
planning in Ireland – two
private proposals in Cork (Ringaskiddy) and Meath (Dunleek) by the Belgian firm Indaver and one
Public Private Partnership project at Poolbeg for Dublin City Council. All projects have
experienced local opposition to varying degrees. The Poolbeg project in Dublin is utilising an
innovative stakeholder involvement approach, which has considerably reduced public opposition in
comparison to the other proposals. This involved the use of a local Community Interest Group
(CIG) who were representative of the local community and independently facilitated getting a
considerable amount of project information from Dublin City Council well in advance of the
statutory process (www.dublinwastetoenergy.ie). The Client Representative is an RPS-COWI joint
venture who have a brief to represent “the public interest” in addition to representing Dublin City
Council in the PPP negotiation and facilitation......

...The issue of emissions and public health has been extensively raised while the majority of the
general public in Ireland now appear assured that properly run modern plants are acceptable
neighbours in city centre locations all over Europe. It is recognised that backyard burning of
domestic waste is a far greater generator of dioxins than properly run incineration. It is estimated
by the Irish EPA that the incineration of 1 million tonnes of municipal waste would contribute less
than 2% of the dioxins emitted nationally. "

no wonder there is no issue in the politicians eyes Jasper - their technical advice is that incineration has been accepted by the residents in these areas..

by john Wed May 09, 2007 11:28

Sorry,

Forgot to attach papr...

by maire Wed May 09, 2007 17:55

Well if PJRudden maintains that - ..
."The issue of emissions and public health has been extensively raised while the majority of the general public in Ireland now appear assured that properly run modern incinerator plants are acceptable neighbours in city centre locations all over Europe."
why have we got court cases if they are so acceptable. (Not to mention global warming, Stern report and World Health Organisation warnings not to place them near centres of population)
The recent suggestion of Andrew Buroni's (RPS) at the oral hearing of the proposed Ringsend incinerator that local community may benefit from HEALTH GAINS from having an incinerator in their area hardly seems truthful. There is afterall a government Commissioned Health Review Board Report, Feb 2003- stating that there is evidence that incinerator emissions may be associated with respiratory morbidity. Could the fact that RPS has benefitted to the tune of 300 million in 2006 have anything to do with this propaganda.
Incinerator projects employ far less people than reuse and recycling projects, check the Ringsend bottling company's records.
The appointment by An Bord Pleanala of a RPS Consultant, by Minister Roche, who recently reviewed the Dublin Regional Waste Management Plan smacks of croneyism and is inappropriate - Simply friends of Berties?

by recycletta Thu May 10, 2007 08:28

To call it Bertie cronieism dilutes it a bit.

In reality its the undemocratic situation where consultants like RPS have more power over DOELG civil servants than politicians or the minister

I suspect that the technical ability in the DOE may have eroded over the years to the extent that consultants hold the balance of power

lets hope the new government takes a long hard look at a situation where one or two consultants have a heavy and possibly biased influence on policy

by maire Thu May 10, 2007 10:22

There is a three legged race against waste with RPS and the government. The recent appointment by Minister Roche of another representative of RPS to An Bord Pleanala handicaps the public.

In a keynote address by Mr. Paul Rudden in Copenhagen in October 2006 "Policy Drivers and the Planning and Implementation of Integrated Waste Management In ireland using a Regional Approach" I quote his words ;-

"when the first generation of plans were published in l999/2000 there was considerable political and environmental opposition to incineration or thermal threatment of any kind. This opposition was greatly assisted by misinformation from a number of action groups opposed to incineration. ......

Therefore in order to get the remaining regional plans adopted the Irish Government changed the law by removing the statutory powers from the Elected Members and transferred them to the City - and County Managers or Chief Executives of the local authorities. This legislative change removed the ability of minority groups to unduly influence the politicians."
"As a consequence the Plans were all legally adopted"

So convincing was Mr. Rudden of RPS that those attending thought he was a government representative.
This disenfranchisement of councillors was and remains by definition undemocratic and demonstrates a complete disregard for the genuine and well-informed concerns of councillors and the Irish people. The same Irish people from all walks of life who without any public funding are taking on the combined might of central government and powerful vested interests.

Mr. Roche very recently pushed through the Strategic Infrastructure Bill which will fastract hazardous facilities which will add to global warming and which will copperfasten our disfunctional democracy.

Last week the European Court of Justice has condemned Ireland once more for violating EU environmental law. This time the Court has found that Ireland failed to implement the four year old Directive on public access to environmental information on time. Details of the judgment are at this
link: http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&S...rcher$docrequire=alldocs&numaff=C-391/06&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100Asin

by John Boy Thu May 10, 2007 16:12

Aside from the politics of the incinerator, PJ Rudden has been at the forefront of a lot of the improvements in waste management in this country.

by maire Thu May 10, 2007 17:52

Perhaps he is at the forefront John Boy, who put him there?, 300 million in 2006,? but improvements to waste management has to be judged in the future, and it is not looking good in this time of global warming, and in supporting Best Available Technology.

by John Boy Fri May 11, 2007 09:34

""Perhaps he is at the forefront John Boy, who put him there?, 300 million in 2006,? "

No. If you look back at the first EPA National Waste Database where waste generation was quantified for the first time so that it was known how much had to be dealt with etc etc, you'll see his name amongst the authors. I suggest you do a little more research into people before you besmirch their name based on a project that they're involved in that you don't agree with.

Not everyone that isn't anti-incineration has a vested interest in an incinerator. It's not entirely impossible that they believe it's not as bad as you do.

by Alice Sun May 13, 2007 13:04

To John Boy

"Aside from the politics of the incinerator, PJ Rudden has been at the forefront of a lot of the improvements in waste management in this country"

Could you illustrate your point with examples please? Credit should only go where credit is due and in many peoples eyes the RPS / MCOS legacy in Irish Waste Management is the as yet unrealised plan to populate the country with Incinerators and the also unrealised great idea to put Irelands biggest dump on top of a very important ground water aquifer in Fingal.

But please please give us the examples of the other great improvements John Boy...

by Iris Sun May 13, 2007 13:34

John Boy,

Considering that the EPA in their latest database report question the accuracy of data in previous reports including the first one then being an author of the first EPA database report is hardly a reference...

It is a good point you make though that all of the waste strategies (also authored by MCOS including current ABP board member Conall Boland ) which led to the planning of the current crop of incinerators are based on that first (inaccurate) EPA database which you now tell us was authored by PJ.

by Simhurrll - None Sun May 13, 2007 19:17

It seems that the argument put before the Corporation of Dublin and thence to the Dail about the Incineration Programme for the area is lost to most people and therefore let's stand back awhile.

After the separation of the Recyclables (Glass, Metals, ''Paper'' and Plastics) the residual waste needs to be diverted from Land Fill. In order for this to be the case a suitable method of treatment is needed.

The current promise in this area is to Incinerate the Waste and capture some heat and electricity in order to reduce the overall impact of the costs. Let's face it Incineration of Waste is an inordinately expensive option. Look at the Belvedere (Bexley) programme for London where the proposal is to burn 800,000 tonnes per year of waste. Look at the proposal for Liverpool (in Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority's option) £300 to £400 plus million for 650,000 tonnes per year. But it isn't just the capital cost that is the issue, it is the long term operations and running costs that are the most significant. the Merseyside proposal has a projected cost over 25 years of £1,750 to 2,000 million.

Some say that the capture of heat and electricity from burning waste has an advantage. It does but it is small fry compared to the overall running costs. It acts as a small buffer but it is very small. The reason for the long term contracts is to cover the banking costs for such a programme. Capturing 'green' or renewable energy is hardly worth the benefit. It doesn't affect the long term contract period.

Environmentally the issues of incineration and their harm to the health of the public are well known and well described.

The only real alternative is to go for converting the residual waste to the Biofuels and in that the best option is ethanol. Here there is an existing technology base used by car magnates in the USA in the 1890s and through to the 1930s which turns biomass to ethanol by a catalytic process. It can be used on this part of municipal waste at less than a third the capital cost of the Dublin Incineration project and can provide sufficient fuel to meet over a third the fuel needs as a substitute for petrol in and around Dublin. Better still after less than four years of production he revenue from the sale of the ethanol would be able to be paid back to the Dublin Residents as a Tax Reduction which would be ongoing for ever.

Environmentally there would be no smoke, toxic gases or untoward emissions as everything would be contained and enclosed.

This is hear now and is possible now. A total benefit that betters all other options. A double Economic and Environmental Benefit. Compare that to Incineration. There is no comparison.

by Recycletta Sun May 13, 2007 22:15

A similar argument is made be Dominic Hogg in his latest Eunomia UK Report. He is strong on rethinking the way Ireland meets her targets and advocates a short term solution of MBT and landfill while the whole incineration concept is reviewed and alternatives are considered. MBT is a process that could very well down the line be linked to a bio-vehicle fuel process in the manner described above when such a process has got through our planning system.

The new Irish government urgently has to wake up to the reality that the world has moved on since 2001 when the now outdated waste plans and strategies first came up with incineration as the solution for this countrys waste needs. Finding replacements for the worlds dwindling oil resources is now up there alongside climate change management.

Political parties take note - MBT and bio-vehicle fuel should be a part of your modern waste manifesto - not the outdated FF/PD incineration policy.

by John Boy Mon May 14, 2007 09:18

"John Boy,

Considering that the EPA in their latest database report question the accuracy of data in previous reports including the first one then being an author of the first EPA database report is hardly a reference...

It is a good point you make though that all of the waste strategies (also authored by MCOS including current ABP board member Conall Boland ) which led to the planning of the current crop of incinerators are based on that first (inaccurate) EPA database which you now tell us was authored by PJ.

"You're missing the point, Iris.

Of course the early days were only an approximation...waste companies' records were hardly thorough and that's the ones that kept records. If you have 20% of the figures needed for making an assesssment of a total number, how possible do you think it is to make it accurate. The process would obviously have made suggestions which have led to better record keeping.

But if you want to use that to suggest someone's being untoward, then so be it.

Personally, I prefer the approach of someone like Recycletta who actually makes constructive comments rather than making an argument that's based on making insinuations.

by Simhurrll - N/A Tue May 15, 2007 22:14

At long last someone has grasped the idea that it is the Public who will benefit as the Paymaster for the Dublin Waste Master Plan proposals.
Isn't it strange that in all the reports 'engineered' in the recent years by the Corporation of Dublin through its many advisors and consulting engineers that the only recourse to solve this issue is the one that costs the most money. And when that is reduced to fee income the more a project or programme costs the higher the fees paid to the advisors/consultants.
It is about time that the Public and the Paymasters for the Dublin Waste Treatment programme were told outright that the proposal offered at the time of the strategy writing was founded on outdated assumptions. Now we have a better option and that is to convert the residual waste to a valuable fuel for motorists and a substitute for petrol namely ethanol. There'll be no gases emitted as the process is completely enclosed and thus No Chimneys and No Smoke and No Toxic Cancerous Gases emitted. All the products within the waste will either be collected [through recycling] or converted to saleable products the largest of which in terms of volume and value would be ethanol.
But nicely and even more to the point this fuel is made from waste products and not food crops. So here you have two benefits: treating waste in an environmentally and economical way, and making a valuable fuel in the process which would assist in taking the Country out of dependence on fossil fuels?
The same would equally be for Galway, the Midlands and elsewhere in Ireland be it the Republic or Northern Ireland or indeed the UK or World-Wide. But the benefits can be even better for Ireland as it would signal a real move to Green Credentials. Surly this must be an Election issue in Ireland? Didn't the Minister for the Environment once claim...Incineration not whilst I am in Power?
Now raise it in the Election as a major issue. It is the only way to save the Public's Taxes.

by maire Wed May 16, 2007 16:15

Can someone somewhere identify the green credentials of the last three Ministers of the Environment. - Dempsey, Cullen and Roche. Surely they have all been tutored in the "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil" school of scandal.

by John Mc L Wed May 16, 2007 23:34

When perfectly reasonable, educated informed individuals are saying that Incineration is no longer an option for commercial, environmental scoial and political reasons then politicans have to start taking note.

When establishment experts are coming out and backing that view it is time for policymakers to take heed.

Incineration is a policy past its best before date.

There are new exciting ways of dealing with our waste problem. Politicans, start listening. The new government has an opportunity to completely revisit this area. It is not too late to meet targets in more technologically sensible ways.

by Simhurrll - N/A Fri May 18, 2007 12:54

It needs raising at a higher level than this forum.

The Irish Times and the Dublin Cork and Galway papers would be a better venue as well as all the contenders at the General Election.

At least we know that the Green Party and Sinn Fein are against Incineration.

WE believe that the General Public in Ireland are against it and for obvious reasons.

Incineration is Environmentally Unsound, and Economically unacceptable. The 'alleged' capital cost for the plant in Dublin is €266million...this is way below any comparable project costing anywhere else in the EU! Why? Is it being subsidised? It sounds like it.

The 'alleged' fees for treatment are quoted at around €88-33 per tonne. This is very surprising as the financial model for this low gate fee implies that the pay back period cannot be maintained. We understand that the traditional gate fee for any new incineration plant is €120-00. THis accounts to a subsidy, and is an infringement of EU policy! (The other proposals in Ireland concur with this!) Even then under a PPPP proposal the payback period is likely to be greater than 30 years.

The new Waste Incineration Directive requires that the Sponsor of a Project (through his Service Provider) should account for the attenuation or other address of Green House Gases.

Carbon Dioxide produced in the Incineration Process must therefore be added to the Irish Inventory of Green House gases it produces. And this is currently €17-00 per tonne for the Carbon discharged to the atmosphere.

The adjudication of the proposition for a Waste to Energy Plant for Dublin/Cork/Meath/Galway , etc. under the guise of the so-called BATNEEC (Best appropriate technology not exceeding excessive costs) has not been updated to take account of converting the residual waste from Dublin to the renewable fuel Ethanol. A proposal here which would be less than a third of the incineration plant cost and then provide a positive income (without the need for subsidising the gate fee) and one which after paying off the debt burden could share the profits from the sale of the fuel Ethanol with the Tax payers by offering a rebate has not been considered.

The proposition here is that by converting the residual waste from Dublin to the renewable fuel ethanol will effectively not cost the Public any more than the current system for disposal of the waste to land fill.

That is the issue.

It is an election issue.

It has been ignored in Dublin, Meath, Cork, Galway.

Converting Waste to Ethanol is good for the Public's Wealth.

This forum does not raise this issue to the highest public awareness. It needs to be.

by Simhurrll - N/A Sat May 19, 2007 11:04

Responding to Recyletta

How very right you are in your proactive stance.

Separation to clean the waste and then fuel production is the best option. It is exactly what is proposed for the NW England and in Croatia and in Canada.

This proposition is that it will convert the waste from Dublin to the renewable fuel ethanol

And

will not cost the Public any more than the current system for disposal of the waste to land fill.

No ncreases in Gate fees for Treatment,

No hidden Subsidies to the Service Provider

A truely Open Book System

Whereby the Product [in this case Ethanol] after sale will produce a revenue stream the value of which is significant enough to support Corporation Tax Reductions and thus provide relief for the Public who after all are the Paymasters here.

All the reports by Dublin Corporation and the other major Corporations in Ireland seem to skate over the fact that the current system views waste as costing money to treat ---- and a lot of money ---- effectively a permanent drain on a County's Resources ---- whereas it need not be so. Waste ---- in this instance Municipal Waste ---- is a Raw Material which can be used to make commercial gains, and by extracting the Recyclable Materials and then extracing Ethanol from the residue that final product can alone provide an income which is strong enough to pay for the treatment process of the whole and provide a surplus.

Simply put it converts a cost to treat to one that produces a revenue.

That is the issue. That is an Election issue. That is the Election issue that befronts Ireland!

If the Public were really made aware of this issue and it was put plainly that treating Waste from Dublin [or Cork, Meath, Galway] need not cost these inordinate sums of money [as currently proposed] and it need not be treated by Environmentally unacceptable treatment systems ---- Incineration Plants etc. ---- then we are sure that they would react. After all spending less than €100 million on the capital cost of Dublin's Waste Treatment programme is far more credible than the sums that are currently considered.

You might also consider the fact that nearly a large quantity of the recycled paper collected in Ireland [Dublin and Cork] ----around 400,000 tonnes per year---- is actually shipped to China where the majority is burnt. What a traversty of the situation. This could also be retained in Ireland and used to make Ethanol fuel as well in the same process. In fact it would provide enhanced returns to the Country by increasing the output of Ethanol. Someone here needs to grasp the metal if this as well since between Ireland and the UK 4 million tonnes of Recycled Paper is exported to China. This could make over 1600 million litres of Ethanol fuel, and that is a large quantity ----- enough to meet Ireland's requirements for Ethanol fuel substitution in Petrol alone. But by adding the quantity of Ethanol arising from the Municipal Waste sector it would result in Ireland becoming a potential exporter of this fuel!

by Recycletta Mon May 21, 2007 16:20

Simhurrll,

Your analysis makes me think that this argument should be focussed at the new Minister for Finance, not just Environment.

By NOT incinerating waste the country will save millions of euro

This needs to be quantified.

Annual MSW arisings are 3m tonnes. 75% biodegradable. Can you do your ethanol calcs on that?

Plus

Potential fines of say 60 million euro plus 40,000 euro per day thereafter for maybe 5 years if late delivery of incinerators causees Ireland to miss 2010 landfill diversion targets.

The cost of incineration to the Irish taxpayer is mounting...

by Jamie Tue May 22, 2007 13:06

"Political parties take note - MBT and bio-vehicle fuel should be a part of your modern waste manifesto - not the outdated FF/PD incineration policy."

I agree. No point sending valuable energy up the chimney

by Simhurrll Wed May 23, 2007 01:38

TRy this for size....
a] Dublin's Residual Waste Incineration programme.....budget €266million
Dublin's Waste Treatment Capacity 600,000 tonnes per year (assumed to be
20% water content.)
Dublin's Gate Fee ? Suspected to be €80+ per tonne (index linked)
Operating Period 30 years.
Revenue based upon 7.2 MWhr per 100,000 tonne per year (dry weight) and
qualifies for a Renewable Electricity calculation. (this is based upon the
Taiwan experience of the highest ever value of power. Average is 6.7 MW per
100,000 tonnes.)
Electrical Calculation based upon €urocents 7.5 per KWhr at a pf of 0.97.

b] Dublin's Residual Waste Incineration programme.....budget €100million
Dublin's Waste Treatment Capacity 600,000 tonnes per year (assumed to be
20% water content.)
Dublin's Gate Fee €50 max per tonne (initially, then after 6th year reducing to
€zero by year 10)
Operating Period 30 years.
Revenue based upon 230 litres of Ethanol per dry tonne of Residual Waste
per year.

Assume manning levels are equivalent in each case to 40 popleper year.
Current Internationally recognised low price of Ethanol is €urocents 45 per
litre.
Renewable Fuel Credits recognised as €urocents 28.52 per litre.
Energy calculation

by jamie Mon May 28, 2007 19:36

incineration then makes NO economic sense. How on earth did we get into this mess? Is there an Independent TD who can help us fight this if FF doesnt choose the Greens to get back into government with???????

by Recycletta Thu Jun 07, 2007 15:11

06 June 2007

Biorefineries better than incinerators

IT IS disappointing that plans for an incinerator at Poolbeg are still being considered. Incineration is the worst option, economically and environmentally, for handling organic non-toxic municipal ‘waste’.

All waste materials should be evaluated in the context of their value as biofuel and as feedstocks for biorefineries.

The University of Limerick has advocated for some time the technologies which now exist for producing ethanol and various valuable platform chemicals from organic wastes.

Municipal waste is 75% biotransformable. That asset has been recognised in many countries which are funding waste-to-ethanol projects.

If the material bound for incineration at Poolbeg were to go instead to a biorefinery, it would have a massive impact on our obligations under the European biofuels directive. In fact, we could effectively meet our 2010 requirements for petrol with the 150-million litres of ethanol which would be produced.

Clearly, that would give higher revenue streams than incineration, and capital costs and gate fees would be significantly lower. A similar quantity of ethanol could also be obtained if we were to process the 400,000-plus tons of ‘waste’ paper now shipped to China.

Daniel J Hayes
IRCSET Research Student
University of Limerick

by SimHurrrll - N/A Wed Jun 13, 2007 14:36

Your article reported in the Examiner 06th June 2007 must be more widely published. the statement that 'Biorefineries better than incinerators' is a truism that has been recognised by many across the world. Even countries that have installed such plants have realised that they are a burden both environmentally as well as commercially.
Not only Is it ''disappointing that plans for an incinerator at Poolbeg are still being considered''' but the issue is that ''Incineration is the worst option, economically and environmentally...... for handling organic non-toxic municipal ‘waste’. ''
A waste material is a resource and it should be returned into use economically as well as environmentally.
Let's set aside the environmental arguments first to concentrate on the commercial benefits first after establishing what is in the waste. There are some parts of the waste
1] Municipal Solid Waste - MSW contains water. This fraction in NW Europe is around 25% of the trucked in load.
2] MSW also contains materials including:-
(i) occasional aggregate debris such as small stones or pieces of broken glass; (ii) glass bottles; (iii) metal products - typically cans; (iv) plastic containers and bags; (v) paper and cardboard packaging; (vi) food waste;
(vii) garden cuttings and trimmings and the likes; (viii) food hall wastes and food preparation waste and discards; (ix) wood and similar discards; (x) and various other commodities which can include biomass such as cotton cloths.
When we recycle the primary recyclable materials (i), (ii), (iii) (iv) and (v) it leaves around 60 to 70% of the waste by weight as a residue. Most of this residue is organic and classified as a Biomass and is dominated by Cellulose.
Although we separate Paper and Cardboard Packaging. Whilst in theory this 'Recovered Paper' (otherwise known as Recycled Paper) is available for incorporation into new paper manufacture this fraction is the proportion of such 'Recovered Paper' which cannot be used for this purpose.
As noted, across the European Union and elsewhere across the 'so-called' Western Nations, a large proportion of this is shipped to the CPR and the Far East where it is generally burnt...yes a small proportion is reused but the majority is unusable having been shipped 10,000 km.
Ireland adds to this by exporting 400,000 tonnes of paper to China.
The UK exported 1,827,000 tonnes in the last reporting period, and is projected to be exporting nearer to 4,000,000 tonnes this year. (Liverpool is one of the focal points for exporting this and last year it contributed over 750,000 tonnes. Sheerness is another port used for the same purpose.)
World-wide the USA and Canada add around 12,000,000 tonnes to this pile each year. It is big business FOR THE CHINESE. (Did you see the programme about Paul Merton in China this week and the reports of the Billionaires making money from the EU's Paper Waste?) They get it delivered to them as 'free' materials - in other words it costs money to ship it to them...roughly €90-00 per tonne (UK£60-00 per tonne) inclusive of €30/UK£20 per tonne shipping costs!
3] Consider now the generalised calculations for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) referred to earlier as being a starting point for determining the commercial returns for making the fuel (Biofuel) Ethanol from MSW.
Dublin has a programme which has 600,000 tonnes of separated waste after removing the Recyclables. This Residue is Biomass. It contains water.
From the statement in 1,
3.1. The Dry weight of Biomass at (say) 66.667% of 600,000 tonnes per year
3.2. This equates to ............... 400,000 tonnes per year.
3.3. The Capital Investment Cost to build one plant with the capacity to treat
and convert this waste to Ethanol is around
................ €90 to 110 million (UK£62 to 75million).
3.4. The potential production rate for making Ethanol from this is
................ 225 to 250 litres per dry tonne
(it may be more but the assumption is at the lower end of expectations)
3.5. Quantity of Ethanol Produced becomes
................ 400,000 x 225 litres per year
= ............... 90,000,000 litres per year
3.6. Value of Ethanol per litre is currently given as
................ €00--45 per litre (UK£00--32 per litre)
Value per year ................ 90,000,000 x €00-45 (UK£00-32)
= ............... €40.5 million (UK£28.8 million).
3.7. Value of RTFO (Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation) Tax Advantage
which is assumed to be applicable for 5 years ONLY!
................ €00-2852 per litre (UK£00--20 per litre)
Value per year ................ 90,000,000 x €00--2852 (UK£00-20)
say €00-28 per litre.
= ................ €25.2 million (UK£18 million).
3.8. Running costs equate to a cost of around €00-23.5 (UK£00-16 per litre.
= ............... €21.15 million (UK£l4.4 million
3.9. Revenue as a Gate Fee assumed to be €50-00 (UK£33-00) per tonne.
= ............... €30 million (UK£20 million).
From the above information we suggest that you could compare the effects
against an incineration programme and the needs for financing. It will be
seen that after year 6 of production the intention to reduce the costs for
treatment of the Waste progressively to a lower cost is not unreasonable, and
the horizon of a no Gate Fee is perfectly feasible.
4. However using the data about the paper waste exported out of the Country makes the benefits even more useful. Here the 400,000 tonnes of paper waste in a treatment conversion plant would be far more beneficial.
Each tonne of paper would produce around 350 to 450 litres of Ethanol.
= ............... 1,600,000,000 litres (say) for a similar Capital Investment. The commentary by the University of Limerick is therefore very plausible.
What should also be noted is the fact that if Ireland were to Import the Biofuel Ethanol into the Country it (Ireland) would have to pay the RTFO (Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation) to the Exporting Country supplying the Fuel. SURPRISING ISN'T IT?
I trust that you will now appreciate the issue more.

by Dan Hayes - University of Limerick Wed Jun 20, 2007 15:46 danieljohnhayes at gmail dot com

Hi,

It was my letter that was published a little while back in the examiner. You make some excellent points and I would like to discuss things with you further. My email is danieljohnhayes AT gmail.com

I am having some meetings with government officials and private groups in the next few weeks, hopefully this current shambles at Poolbeg can be averted.

Please get in touch

Cheers

by ML Wed Jul 11, 2007 16:48

Dan,

Good to hear that there is some behind the scenes action on this. I was beginning to fear that The Greenparty was being hoodwinked by Dept officials. Surely Mr Gormley realises the basic fact that while he may not want to compromise a planning procedure by getting involved as Minister he is OBLIGED to get involved in the procurement process that has just announced a complete change in the consortium to whom the PPP contract is to be awarded seperate to the terms understood by the other bidders in the race. The Minister must call a halt to the flawed procurement process before the government gets fined by the EU or sued by a competitor bidder.

This project no longer has any credibility. The Ministers for Environment and Finance have the powers to pull the plug and the reason to do so before this becomes an International scandal.

by Jane Wed Jul 11, 2007 21:35

Is there any insight yet into the new terms agreed by Dublin Council with the Dong substitute bidder? Surely this cant' be legal to introduce a new bidder into a process that has been ongoing for years and from which other bidders have already been disqualified or dropped out? Don't DCC have to go before the Minister to get approval for such changes?

by Don Wed Jul 11, 2007 23:40

Which party was most vocal against this in the Dail?
Answer.
Fine Gael.

But no, leftie dont like to recognise that FG actually cares about people.

by interested observer Thu Jul 12, 2007 13:22

More from our hardworking friends in Limerick

11 July 2007

Why incineration is such a waste

IT SEEMS the Poolbeg incinerator debacle continues apace with even the Greens apparently resigned to its inevitability.

I can only surmise that the reason this white elephant is still being pursued is because policymakers think municipal ‘waste’ is a problem that is inherently costly to deal with.

In this case, attitudes need to change and, instead of thinking purely in terms of waste disposal, we should evaluate incineration against alternative technologies as a source of revenue.

Under a best-case scenario, the €266 million facility would generate 29 megawatts of electricity — a capital cost of €9,200 per kilowatt of installed capacity. This is around 20 times the cost of a gas-fired power station and five times that of a nuclear facility.

Yet while these stations pay for fuel, incineration is so inefficient that the facility will need a gate-fee charge of €88 per tonne.

This is €30 per tonne more than existing landfill fees and will surely lead to increased bin charges. Final economics may be worse if the alleged costs are compared with other schemes — a similar proposal for Liverpool will cost £300m-£400m to build, with projected costs over 20 years of between £1.75 billion and £2 billion.

In contrast, there are several technologies that will profitably provide fuels and chemicals from wastes.

For example, one process, at a capital cost of under €60m, could give at least €100m litres of ethanol from the ‘waste’ planned for Poolbeg. Other processes could offer higher yields at greater capital costs, although still substantially less than those for the proposed incinerator. These volumes could satisfy the EU directive for the biofuel content of petrol by 2010. Also, operational costs would be less than 33 cent per litre (petrol equivalent) — very competitive since petrol costs 50 cent per litre, pre-tax.

Hence, current gate fees could be abolished once capital costs arereclaimed, and the savings passed on to households. Importantly, such facilities could be located at more convenient sites than Poolbeg, reducing traffic problems.

Environment Minister John Gormley, whose web page still contains anti-incinerator articles, is wrong when he says it is too late to stop Poolbeg. He could insist that future gate fees at any waste facility are no greater than existing landfill charges. In such a scenario, incineration could not go forward, but bio-refineries would prosper. The adjudication process for waste treatment facilities has not considered ethanol production.

Our group at the University of Limerick proposes an open debate with the Dublin engineers on incineration and alternative technologies.

We believe this is the best way to address the interests of taxpayers and that such a debate would alert people that their ‘waste’ has significant environmental and commercial value.

Daniel J Hayes
IRCSET Research Student
Chemical and
Environmental Sciences
University of Limerick

by maire Fri Jul 13, 2007 14:57

"we should evaluate incineration against alternative technologies as a source of revenue. "
It is so logically, and so simple it will never catch on.
Why are we hell bent on promoting such an inefficient method of managing our waste by burning it, and thereby limiting its future as revenue.

by Anne Sun Jul 15, 2007 22:11

The EPA is hosting a conference in Dublin on 4th/ 5th Sept. Headlining is Dominic Hogg discussing MBT as the only way for Ireland now that Incineration is well and truely dead. Incinerator promoter PJ Rudden is chairing the session. It should be fun.

Book early to avoid disappointment! EMAIL INFO@EPA.IE to get more information.

by ML Thu Jul 19, 2007 13:55

To Interested Observer and Anne

Perhaps Daniel Hayes should attend that conference the EPA is hosting in Sept? It would be interesting to have him, Dom Hogg and RPS all in the same room debating these issues.

Clearly now that there are more sustainable solutions than incineration Government policy has to be changed to reflect the new priorities.

Fuel supply and its security would seem to be as important if not more than waste recovery just for recovery's sake.

Better to heat homes in Poolbeg with woodchip from sustainable sources than to be building an incinerator for the technical reason that it is providing heat to houses.

Better then to take the waste that would have gone to poolbeg and turn it into vehicle fuel after a MBT process as advocated by Hogg.

Daniel from UL is correct - the debate needs to happen urgently.

by Jane Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:42

Its a number 1 issue for this Government, Fuel Security.

Most of our fuel comes from a gas pipe from Russia via UK. Should there be any political issues between those two countries ( there is at present!!) then we are at risk of being cut off.

The national power supply is creeky and over stretched. If we can make fuel from the waste destined for poolbeg then of course that would be better than heating ringsend houses with it when they could be heated by wood pellets instead!

by Pedant Fri Jul 20, 2007 13:04

While I am not exactly a fan of incineration, I do think that some of the figures being bandied about are quite misleading. The quote below is from one of the comments above, from an extract from Daniel J. Hayes piece:

"Yet while these stations pay for fuel, incineration is so inefficient that the facility will need a gate-fee charge of €88 per tonne.
This is €30 per tonne more than existing landfill fees and will surely lead to increased bin charges."

Landill gate fees currently stand at around €130 - €155, as far as I am aware, including the landfill levy, which is used to fund other waste related activities by the Government. If there is a landfill around that is charging €58 per tonne, it must be an illegal landfill!!

So by saying that this will " surely lead to increased bin charges" is being quite disingenuous.

Propaganda (which is what it looks like) like this only serves to polarise both sides more (not saying there ain't plenty on the other side too), which is exactly why I personally welcome a reasoned debate in relation to the issue of incineration as well as other waste disposal/recovery options.

Whether we get a reasonable debate is the thing, most of those involved can't see the woods for the trees. Does anyone here who is opposed to the Poolbeg facility believe that incineration is the best option in some cases (i.e. certain hazardous waste streams)?

by Harry Fri Jul 20, 2007 13:15

I agree that Mr Daniel Hayes needs to revisit his calculations however I suspect that the argument is still correct even if the numbers are out dated. My guess is that the 88 per tonne is an old number that came from the original MCOS waste strategy documents for Incineration in Galway and the North East. That number was calculated in 2001 when landfill gatefees were less than 50 euro per tonne.

Dan Hayes argument is supported by John Aherne of Indaver who is regularly saying that incineration fees cannot compete with landfill. This would suggest that incineration costs more than landfill at the gate

by JohnO'R - N/A Mon Jul 23, 2007 18:25

I am intrigued with the debate over the Dublin Incineration programme.
When All things are considered equal the only thing that matters to the Public and the payers is the Costs.
If a Company could propose charging a Zero fee to treat the waste in Dublin (and its hinterlands) after a short a period as that suggested and equally suggest that it need not cost this exorbitant amount of money to build (didn't we read that it would cost less than €90million for a plant that could make ethanol from the biocontent of the waste) then Incineration (dressed up in any guize) must be dead in the water. Using the various figures quoted for treating the waste and questioning whether they are right (or legal?) befuddles the issue. The proposition is that the suggestion is that here there is a means that might reduce the treatment costs to zero after a few years. If that is possible with one process then the incineration lobbyists should match the offer once and for all. If also a proposition is included which doesnot need subsidies to maker it bankable then the incineration lobbyists should match that offer as well. If there is an allegation or an argument that by 'over-charging' for one facility the Government can use the excess revenue or money for other purposes then this is highly dingenuous and needs eradicating.
Ireland needs the biofuel ethanol and this is one way of attempting to get some of it at the least cost to the environment and Without using food crops.
It looks to me as though the Government under its new stewardship including Green MPs must --- and I repeat --- MUST --- abandon the folly of this ridiculous incineration programme for Ireland and move forward in this area.
Let's have a real debate about the issue. The solution isn't needed for at least 3 years (no matter what MCO'S says) and this idea confirms that there is a better way.
So the question might arise about cancelling an order with a proposed Contractor. I have recently read that Malaysia cancelled their proposed Kula Lumpur incineration project for financial reasons without compensating the preferred contractor. So the issue is not an issue. And if there was an alleged problem with this and the transfer of the contract from one organization to another that really doesn't matter any more.

by John O'R - N/A Tue Jul 24, 2007 23:21

Following the note of yesterday about the Poolbeg option.
Try this for starters.
Lets say there is 600,000 tonnes of waste collected for incineration per year.
This needs transporting through to Poolbeg.
One Dustcart can carry about 20 tonnes per load.
Number of inward bound loads per year therefore is 30,000.
Number of outward bound loads per year therefore is 30,000.
Total movement of Dustcartd is 60,000.
Working week is 5 days.
Number of Dustcarts per week is 60,000 divided by 52 = 1150 (say)
Working hours are per week are 37.5 hrs.
Number of Dustcaers per hour is 1150 divided by 37.5 = 30 per hour (average!)
Peak Dustcart movement based upon observations around Dublin and Belfast and Cork is 2 to 1. This implies a movement inbound fully loaded at
One Dustcart every minute.
Where was that shown in the Dublin Master Plan?
Come on Dublin Corporation and the Others who is hiding the truth here from the Public around the area? This is not on for the poor beleagured residents of the area.
>>>
Copy of note about the abandonment of the Malaysian Programme is here.

Malaysia scraps controversial incinerator project

AFP - Saturday, July 7 05:39 pm
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysia said Saturday it had scrapped a controversial plan to build one of the biggest incinerators in Asia.

(Advertisement)

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said the decision was made because of the high cost of construction -- around 435 million dollars -- and not because of protests about the environmental and health impact of the project.

"We have studied (it). The construction of the Broga incinerator not only includes a capital expenditure of 1.5 billion ringgit but also high maintenance costs," he said.

Najib said the high cost of the incinerator would have led to higher taxes charged by the local town council for waste disposal.

David Quee, a committee member of the "Broga No Incinerator Action Committee", on Friday told AFP that the decision to scrap the project was announced by government lawyers in a letter to their counsel.

The incinerator project was to be built by a consortium comprising Japans Ebara Corporation and local partner Hartasuma Sdn Bhd.

Broga, the site of the incinerator, is located south of the capital Kuala Lumpur. The project was designed to reduce Kuala Lumpur's dependence on landfill as a means of waste management.

Britain's Nottingham University has a campus in the area, which is surrounded by vegetable farms, palm oil and fruit plantations.

"Everybody is happy now. Our major concern was pollution and our health. It is also situated near a water catchment area," Quee said.

by Linda Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:02

Another important point to add to the above is that the longer that incineration sits in regional waste plans as the preferred technology for up to 40 percent of the waste, the longer it confuses the planners. If the planning policy says that this waste must be ringfenced for incineration then planners will not allow alternative better technologies on the basis of lack of need.

Gormley needs to issue a new policy statement - pushing incineration back down to where it belongs.

The longer we stay on this fake incineration roller coaster the closer we get to crippling EU fines.

by maire Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:24

When the government had as a policy the commercial burning of our waste as a quick fix to our waste problem, it put pressure on the EPA to support and license a hazardous facility on a flooding site, which is on the banks of the river Lee.
With the recent events of flooding in England, it does not need a great imagination to picture what will happen when flooding hits the toxic transport station and incineration, sited on this most unsuitable site on the River Lee.
Yes, Indaver have l2 million to cover clean up, will it be anywhere near enough. ?
Will the EPA take responsibility for granting a license for a flooding site to be used,- No is the answer there. Perhaps someone can ask the EPA what is their responsibility to duty of care to the public at this forthcoming conference, in Sept.
Site Selection is crutial for hazardous installations. They should not be rushed through under the Strategic Infrastructure Bill, and great care should be taken to listen to local knowledge and to WHO guidelines on site selection.
While 3000 objected to Poolbeg and were not heard, 30,000 objected to the toxic incinerator proposed for Ringaskiddy, on this and health grounds, - they were not heard.