Upcoming Events

National | Environment

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link Unrequited love (of sorts) 11:22 Mon Jul 16, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Left Archive: Marxism Today April 1968 (CPGB) 03:55 Mon Jul 16, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Religious divides? 12:37 Sun Jul 15, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link This ain?t no meritocracy? 11:34 Sun Jul 15, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link CLR Reading ? Week 4 10:41 Sun Jul 15, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017

offsite link IRISH COMMONWEALTH: TRADE UNIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 14:06 Sat Nov 18, 2017

offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

offsite link Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

Government in Cahoots with incinerator industry

category national | environment | news report author Monday November 20, 2006 23:08author by www.chaseireland.org - CHASE Report this post to the editors

Latest An Bord Pleanala appointment destroys confidence in Bord

Yet again the Government has appointed a member of industry with direct links to proposed incinerators to a key decision making position. On Friday last 17 November, Minister Dick Roche appointed Conal Boland of RPS Consulting to the Board of An Bord Pleanala.

CHASE PRESS RELEASE 20 November, 2006

GOVERNMENT IN CAHOOTS WITH INCINERATOR INDUSTRY

HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE APPOINTMENT Destroys Confidence in AN BORD PLEANALA
_________________________________________________________________________________

Yet again the Government has appointed a member of industry with direct links to proposed incinerators to a key decision making position. On Friday last 17 November, Minister Dick Roche appointed Conal Boland of RPS Consulting to the Board of An Bord Pleanala.

RPS Consultants advised Dublin City Council in relation to the Poolbeg Incinerator, a case which is currently being considered by An Bord Pleanala. RPS Consultants were formerly MC O’Sullivan Consultants and have been responsible for advising on various levels of Waste Management Plans that promoted incineration.

This appointment comes on the heels of the appointment of Ms Laura Burke as a director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in July 2004. Ms Burke came directly from employment by Indaver Ireland as Project Manager for the Meath and Ringaskiddy, Co Cork Incinerators.

The continuous seeding of persons with vested interests on State Appointed Boards erodes confidence in the transparency of the EPA and An Bord Pleanala, and makes a complete mockery of claims to be independent. It is an ill-judged sign of desperation to place such individuals in positions where independent assessment is a supposedly required.

“The cosy cartel which seems to exist between the government and the incinerator industry leaves us in no doubt but that the independence of An Bord Pleanala and the EPA has been seriously compromised. Philip Jones, Senior Inspector for An Bord Pleanala recommended on 14 different grounds that the Ringaskiddy Incinerator be denied planning, which was overturned by the Board in the interests of ‘national policy’. When a Board has such clear vested interest, what is the point in having an Inspector at all? The whole planning process is rapidly descending into a cynical validation process," said a spokesperson for CHASE.

The relentless pursuit by Government of this dinosaur policy makes a mockery of its KYOTO Commitments. The incinerators proposed in Ringsend, Ringaskiddy and Meath which combined will burn 900,000 tonnes of waste p.a., will result in an extra 900,000 tonnes p.a.of Carbon Dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Penalties for this will cost the Irish taxpayer stg£72million. This is an embarrassment for the Irish nation, particularly when awareness of global warming is at an all time high, and governments have been warned strongly by the recent Stern report to ignore this at their peril.

The Ringaskiddy Incinerator has two cases at the High Court. A case against An Bord Pleanala has been granted a hearing and awaits a date, and a case against the EPA awaits a preliminary hearing.

ENDS

For further information:
Mary Hurley, CHASE PRO, 021 4813070 086 8162448
Mary O’Leary, CHASE Chairperson, 021 4811952 086 8177737

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by The Insiderpublication date Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:36Report this post to the editors

"The relentless pursuit by Government of this dinosaur policy makes a mockery of its KYOTO Commitments. The incinerators proposed in Ringsend, Ringaskiddy and Meath which combined will burn 900,000 tonnes of waste p.a., will result in an extra 900,000 tonnes p.a.of Carbon Dioxide being released into the atmosphere"

Unless they are burning coal the amount of CO2 released won't be anywhere near that.

There are plenty of reasons for opposing incinerators but please, get your facts right.

author by M Cottonpublication date Tue Nov 21, 2006 18:28Report this post to the editors

"With regard to incineration, we will leave aside the illogicality of burning the earth's resources, instead of conserving them for future generations, and the demand that incinerators create for waste.

We would like to make the following 4 points to the researchers.

1)Only a limited number of studies have been carried out to determine whether individuals living near incinerators have been exposed to pollutants, and these have been limited to heavy metals and dioxins. Furthermore, as some of the emissions from incinerators are persistent and bioaccumulative, there may be a long latency period before any adverse health effects are found. We would have concerns that our present health surveillance systems are not sensitive or developed adequately to detect such events.

2)Although it is stated that there will be low levels of dioxins in the emissions to air, this will reflect only what is inhaled. However, these compounds will also be absorbed from the skin, and from foods, often grown elsewhere, thus increasing overall exposure.

3)With reference to dioxins again, current regulations only consider chlorinated dioxins. Mixed chloro and bromo varieties are also released from incinerators in appreciable quantities and appear to have equal toxicological significance. However, there is no obligation to monitor these chemicals. Our association has already been in correspondence with Indaver about this issue.

4) Recently, much concern has been expressed concerning the effects of particulate matter in the size range 2.5 microns on both the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. To our knowledge, only 5-30% of matter of this type is collected by current collecting mechanisms.

Finally, we have five reservations regarding the use of existing regulations:

(a) It is not acceptable to use the concept of 'safe' when discussing carcinogenic substances.
(b) Most environmental standards are based on BATNEEC (Best available technology, not exceeding excessive cost), and not health grounds.
(c) There is no 'standard person, people vary genetically, and by time, from the fetus to old age.
(d) For many substances, no 'safe' guideline exists, and there is huge uncertainty with regard to the effects of many chemical compounds on health.
(e) The accepted method of dispersal of pollutants is dilute and disperse. This does not work with compounds which are lipid soluble; because the body cannot cope with chlorinated hydrocarbons, they therefore accumulate.

Although requested by the European Environmental Bureau, there is no requirement for health related surveillance of incinerators. The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association submits that in the absence of a properly implemented waste management plan, it is wrong to proceed with either plans for an incinerator or landfill. Our association would hope that, in the near future, producing waste that is unrecyclable will be as frowned upon as smoking is today. We would be happy to discuss any aspect of this submission, or any other aspect waste management.

Elizabeth Cullen
Irish Doctors' Environmental Association "

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org/HRBSubmission.htm
author by Scientistpublication date Thu Dec 07, 2006 23:55Report this post to the editors

The more modern the incinerator the higher the CO2 levels emitted. Just don't go on with carbon neutral greenwashing - particularly when government are planning on buying carbon dixoide allowances instead of doing away with building incineratiors and taking other measures to reduce Co2

author by Robinpublication date Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:38Report this post to the editors

Now the approach is to use BAT, which implies that one must use the Best Available Technology. The Not Entailing Excessive Cost part has been dropped, but now the Available part of BAT assumes that the availability of the technology in question is based upon the prospective users fiscal strength. NEEC always sounded like a bit of a cop out for the Companies, as they could argue that any costs in relation to environmental protection were excessive, but now they don't have to. Just thought y'all should know that.

author by Mairepublication date Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:56Report this post to the editors

Great to hear BATNEEC is now BAT, could we now call it BATWEED without Embracing Environment destruction

author by Jasperpublication date Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:36Report this post to the editors

I'd like to know what suggestions people have if we're to avoid incineration and landfills?

Please don't give me this 'zero waste' nonsense...it's cited by many and it's just a very quixotic idea.

It's all well and good panning ideas but unless you actually have a viable alternative, then spare the hand-wringing.

author by Jasperpublication date Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:19Report this post to the editors

"The relentless pursuit by Government of this dinosaur policy makes a mockery of its KYOTO Commitments. The incinerators proposed in Ringsend, Ringaskiddy and Meath which combined will burn 900,000 tonnes of waste p.a., will result in an extra 900,000 tonnes p.a.of Carbon Dioxide being released into the atmosphere"

So every ounce of waste is converted to CO2? That quote alone completey discredits anything that has been said, not that the whole article is a mockery.

Whoever wrote that knows less than nothing. How do such people get to peddle this guff in public?

author by mairepublication date Mon Dec 11, 2006 17:25Report this post to the editors

The alternatives to mass burn incineration are

Composting,
Anaerobic digestion
neutralization,
biodegradation,
gas phase hydrogenation,
electro chemical oxidation.
None of these technologies release dioxin like incineration does.

The best method is "prevention," it appears this particular government cannot speak its name.
Bedtime reading if you really do want to know more about alternatives can be
Mass Burn Incineration – the alternatives
There are many alternatives to mass burn incineration for sustainable waste management. Which is the most appropriate depends on the specific waste stream involved. So, the alternatives for managing construction waste differ to those for managing medical waste, household waste, packaging waste, or electrical and electronic waste.

Cleaner production, reuse, recycling, composting, alkaline hydrolysis, biodegradation, and gas phase chemical reduction are just some of the many and varied alternatives available.

Dioxin for Dinner? The Alternative Menu

Alkaline Hydrolysis
Composting
Cleaner Production

Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies (HCWA)

Recycling in Ireland (ENFO)
Other suggestions on how to make a difference (ENFO)

Alternatives to incineration (Greenpeace)

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Jasperpublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:09Report this post to the editors

Maire, many of them alternatives aren't for municipal waste. Organic waste can be composted, that's fair enough. That's why there are pilot schemes with brown bins like the scheme in Fingal. The same goes for anaerobic digestion.

Secondly, some of the other technologies aren't robust enough to take all municipal waste and don't have the same rate of recovery. The incinerator in Ringsend should generate enough electricity to power 50,000 homes. That's also saving on emissions that would be created from the generation of electricity by other means.

Also, incinerator wuld proiduce less than 1% of the dioxins in the country. There's no mass protest about the prevention of backyard burning. I would posit that that's a far greater issue than incineration when it comes to the production of dioxins.

You also say that the government is responsible for prevention but that's being a bit silly. It's you and me that generate municipal waste. Also, the producers do too and that can be tackled but the governmennt would have a very, very limited impact in that area.

Also, I'd suggest you don't cite CHASE after their hilariously stupid comment that burning 900,000 tonnes of waste produces 900,000 tonnes of CO2.

author by Mairepublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 14:01Report this post to the editors

Jasper,
(1)You state that organic waste can be composted, so why a pilot scheme of brown bins, and not a national scheme?. A good proportion of people in this country have compost bins and wormeries already, they know this fact. - they have looked into it and value its content.

(2)You state the incinerator in Ringsend should generate enough electricity for 50,000 homes, but at what costs to these homes?
IF-
Incinerators are responsible for 70% of all dioxins produced
(Stockholm Convention, 2001) AND
Mass incineration is the primary cause of dioxins in the environment
(UN Environment Programme)
AND IF
Dioxins cause cancer in adults, developmental defects in children, genetic & birth defects.
(US EPA) - SO WHAT IF
Ireland does not have adequate monitoring facilities: for people living near incinerators and landfill who will be prone to respiratory disease.
(HRB Report 2003)
Incineration has been found to be an “unacceptable risk to public health”
(Irish Doctors Environmental Association)
Can all these eminent people who have "looked into it " be wrong about these risks.

Let's hear it from the pro-incinerator himself:-

For every 1M tonnes of toxic waste burnt 333,000 tonnes of toxic ash will have to be exported.
(ratio admitted by Indaver, An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing) This is the company who could not bear to export our toxic waste for recovery or incineration abroad, although we had every right, having no commercial incineration in Ireland. (Stockholm Convention) and even though
Ireland only produces 15-20,000 tonnes of hazardous waste for incineration.
(Irish EPA), and Cork produces less than 10% of the waste targeted for the burner’.
(EPA Data base 2001)
He now finds we have too much landfill to make his proposed incinerators viable!!!!!
Have we been good at re-cycling or what?
Chase is a grouping of active citizens within their own independent groupings doing there very best to inform others of all these risks, from burning our resources - that is why we get so worked up about unethical appointments, and information being supressed, - e.g. DO EMISSIONS FROM MODERN INCINERATORS HARM HEALTH -NO. (Race Against Waste leaflet) Government publication.

You call me silly for thinking the government must be responsible for the prevention of waste. Since this comes before re-use re-duce and recycle, before incineration and before landfill, the latter two methods being regarded at the bottom of the hierarchy, I think prevention is the alternative to burning our resources. The government set up a committee - 2/3 years ago ? to deal with prevention - we should have a report on how they are getting on, and how monies have been spent.
Finally, having "looked into it" the task is not to perfect ways of destroying our waste but to avoid ways of making it.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Jasperpublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 16:25Report this post to the editors

It's a pilot scheme to assess the uptake and cost as well as the logistics. They need to assess what they should include as part of the pack and iron out any problems inherent in it. I'm sure you're aware of issues related to contamination with recycling bins and the need to educate. A pilot scheme is just to get the best system in place rather than just plough ahead without thinking.

Galway and Waterford also have brown bin schemes. They've also been recommended in many of the waste management plans wheich have been adopted in the ;;ast year or so.

You've given that incineration is responsible for 70% of dioxins....from Chase again, I see. That's misrepresenting the truth. Incineration processes are responsible for that much. Municipal incinerators make up a small amount of that. If you look at the text of the Stockholm Convention as opposed to parroting others you'll see that.
It also includes thermal porocesses in industry, e.g. cement kilns burning haz waste, residential combustion (backyard burning), industrial boilers etc.

So yes, incineration releases dioxins but the dioxins emitted from a municipal incinerator are a negligible compared to backyard burning and thermal processes in industry.

The backyard burning of 60,000 tonnes of waste would produce 18 grams of Dioxins (EPA, 2001). A modern incinerator would produce 0.54 grams from the incineration of 1,000,000 tonnes. The Ringsend incinerator would be incinerating half that.

Incinerators are monitored so that their emissions don't exceed those set out in EC Directive on the Incineration of Waste (2000/76/EC). Countries that are considered 'Green' such as the Dutch, Swiss, Germans and Danish all rely on incinerators.

I'll also direct you to "Dioxin characterisation, formation and minimisation during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: review" as published in the Chemical Engineering Journal.

3% of the waste that goes into an incinerator would result in what's known as fly ash. Yes, it has to be exported. But so would the source of this hazardous ash. There is less volume after incineration though. Re: your point about having too much landfill space...is that where you'd rather the fly ash went?

I think you'll find there's considerably more hazardous waste for incineration now. The EPA National Hazardous Waste Management Plan from 2001 is based on 1998 data.

A couple of other points to note...Race Against Waste wasn't run by the government.

Yes, prevention is about reducing the waste generated. That's like telling me that rain is wet. But there's still waste to be dealt with. Would you rather a proliferation of landfills or an incinerator? Would you rather it was all exported to be incinerated in another country? What do you propose we do with residual waste that cannot be composted or recycled?

author by Jasper Carrott & Stickpublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 17:25Report this post to the editors

Jasper

The reason the percentage of incineration in this country is low at the moment is because the mass incinerators have not yet been built. Do you think we are all stupid or what?

Globally, incinerators are responsible for 70% of all dioxin emissions.

Equally the reason 'backyard burning' constitutes a higher proportion of incinerated rubbish in this country is, duh, again because the incinerators have not yet been built. Its a practice indulged mainly by people living in rural areas without adequate waste colleciton or recycling services and it is done by a tiny minority of the population. It is usually done at dusk when the smoke is less visible or in heavy fog for the same reason. Its not easy to do without being detected. The building of industrial scale incineration will not improve this situation: rather it will turn us all into waste burners whether we want it or not. The levels of dioxins produced will be massively increased on what they are now so stop pretending that incineration is a 'solution' to backyard burning. Your arguments are just a bunch of pro-incineration lies and distortions - much as we are used to hearing at EPA oral hearings and such like where the processes are stacked in your favour - where the hard evidence to expose your dishonesty is not allowed.

In fact, Cork Harbour is full of privately owned incinerators used for disposing of extremely dangerous waste which it would not be safe for public incinerators to handle - dioxin levels in the area have increased already - again BEFORE the proposed incinerators have been built. Of course the proposed Hazardous Waste incinerator would take that nasty little problem off the hands of all those pharmaceutical companies in the lower harbour. The incidence of brain tumours in Cork Harbour is thought to be directly related to the suicidally high concentration of pharmas in such a small area. Add the waste incinerator which will have to IMPORT even more hazardous waste to be viable and we will all be dropping like flies.

On the IBEC website (the real government of Ireland -and the guys and gals to whom our FF and PDs bow and scrape as nauseating sycophants) it states quite clear that 'thermal treatment' must be an ingredient in the waste disposal solution because that is what is moist cost effective for business. In other words environmentally conscientious appraoches to waste disposal will reduce profit margins but we'd rather people died and/or were ill than let that happen.

The vast majority of people want environmentally friendly solutions to municipal waste disposal - less packaging, the use of recylable materials as much possible, decent recyling facilities etc etc. It is IBEC and their incinerator chums from Belgium and other places who are railroading this suicidal approach to Irish waste.

We do not need these incinerators.

We will have to IMPORT other peoples waste to make them financtially viable.

author by Jasperpublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 17:50Report this post to the editors

Firstly, you might like to re-read my post and tell me where I said that "percentage of incineration in this country is low at the moment ". Then you might like to tell me where I said that backyard burning had a higher proportion.

There would be little point in saying that dioxins from incinerators in Ireland are low because there are no municipal waste incinerators in Ireland.

Which is probably why I didn't make that claim. What I did do was give figures that could be applied to any incinerator.

Also, you might like to back up the assertion that municipal waste incinerators are responsible for 70% of all dioxins emitted. I'd like a link. One that explicitly states, from an independent and scientific study, that municipal waste incinerators are responsible for that level of dioxins. Bring me some of this hard evidence you talk about.

Secondly, dioxins will be emitted when there are no scrubbers. If you look at the scientific and independent paper from the Chenmical Engineers Journal, you will see exactly how and the science behind it. Not that it would make much sense to you. There is none so blind as those that will not see.

Cost mustn't be the bottom line when it comes to conscientious waste management but it certainly has to be considered.

Of course there more ideal options. If there was less packaging and less waste being generated then we might have to look for a solution for managing all this waste. We generate a seriously large amount of municipal waste per capita. That's just the fact of the matter. We can't recycle enough because of economies of scale. Most of it ends up being exported.

All hazardous waste is exported now but I don't hear anyone crying about that waste....just the proposed incineraters in Ireland. It makes one suspect a NIMBY attitude.

Also, it's not true to suggest that waste would have to be imported. Capacity is about half a million tonnes per annum. If you look at the figures, the Dublin Waste Management Plan for example, then you'll see that waste generation is well above that in the Dublin region alone as it is. Allowing for waste prevention measures planned and in practice, as well as recycling measures, the waste to be incinerated in the Ringsend plant is still above capacity.

I'm aware this is a particularly divisive issue and to be honest, I blame misleading propaganda for a lot of the stuff that's bandied about. It's the same with nuclear power.

author by Mairepublication date Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:42Report this post to the editors

Jasper you make me feel very depressed. Do you know the difference between the brown bin and a contaminated recycling bin? Our Minister of the Environment wants to burn some of our organic waste. A resource that nature has used to renew itself from the beginning of time. The best system should be in place from the beginning, the public are leading the way on waste management - Galway are recycling 57% of their waste while Cork city is are at 7%!
The Rase against Waste leaflet is a government publication, and as such cannot come under scrutiny by The Advertising Standards Authority because it is such. A very dangerous assertion of mis-information.
If I have gone to all the trouble to give references to information, could you not "look into it"
If you really are interested in the environment perhaps you might buy Fr. Sean McDonagh's book -Climate change recommended by Sylvia Thompson, Horizons (Irish Times) who has written that to fully understand the reasons for climate change and why it's taken so long for politicians (and some scientists) to take it on board, we should read Sean McDonagh's new book, Climate Change: The Challenge to All of Us (Columba Press). Maybe a Christmas gift to yourself or someone you care to protect.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Jasperpublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:09Report this post to the editors

The public are helping with recycling, yes. But they didn't put the system in place so you can't just dismiss localk authorities.

Secondly, yes i do know the difference between a contaminated recycling bin and a brown bin. What's your point?

Most of the organic waste will be used for organic purposes and not just burning. I've seen policy documents that you'll see in the coming months so that much I can say. I wouldn't necessarily pay much heed to Dick Roche's comments because (a) he doesn't really know what he's talking about and (b) environmental decisions being made on his behalf come from people with a background in such things. Only people with vested interests suggest measures that aren't always the best.

Environmental companies and consultants suggest the measures that are considered best practice, as you'll note if you look at any of the waste management plans that have been produced from outside the local authorities.

Again, Race Against Waste isn't a government publication. It's a government scheme run by an independent body and all of the figures that they quote are from independent and verifiable sources. God knows I've checked.

Finally, I actually live in the vicinity of Ringsend so its not like I'm detached from the issue. I've seen the arguments for and against and I have an education in science and engineering so I have a fair idea of the issues.

I'd also like to know why there's no outcry about the waste that's being shipped abroad for incineration. I'm just curious as to why, if people are citing the adverse health impactts, why there's no protesting at Dublin and Cork ports about the fact that other countries will be subject to these massive amounts of dioxins...figures I've yet to see from sources other than Chase, by the way. Citing the Stockholm Covention but not actually giving the quotes where it says municipal waste incinerators are responsible for 70% of dioxins on a global scale is just misinterpretation.

author by Dairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:33Report this post to the editors

"I've seen policy documents that you'll see in the coming months so that much I can say"

I think Jasper has let the cat out of the bag, Should have guessed anyway by his condesending tone and smug dismissals that he was on the inside track with regard to the incinerator debate. Clearly a vested interest and clearly intent on spin. A civil servant in some capacity at any rate.

Still good to know what your dealing with, Good day sir, please be on your way.

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:06Report this post to the editors

I take it you've never heard of scrubbing.

If you've no input other than puerile name calling, then there's no point in entering a debate. I've yet to be given proper data to counterract mine and since those that are so vehemently against incineration are basing their arguments on trying to discredit people that might actually have any knowledgeable input that doesn't tally with their own opinions, then I'll step out of this argument.

By the by, good work doesn't always require every moment of your time.

catch yourself on, son.

author by Dairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:14Report this post to the editors

Oh yeah, I've watched 'The Hunt for Red October' too and 'Apollo 13' etc etc.

Poor little Jasper hasnt got anybody to bounce googled facts off anymore?

Jeez, next you'll be scientifically trying to prove that cigarette filters successfully 'Scrub' tobacco smoke of all its dioxoins as well by quoting pro-tobacco scientific research and directly quoting the seven dwarfs, (i've seen 'The Insider' too)

And whats all this 'son' business?
Have heard that type of banter as well and its used far from the environs of Ringsend.

And finally, I am highly educated, just not bought.

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:38Report this post to the editors

I don't have to google all of the facts. But yes, I have googled some scientific papers that i don't carry around with me.

Maybe if you educated yourself with some of the facts then you might not be able to partake in an informed debate.

You've yet to profer anything other than puerile nonsense.

author by Dairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 13:36Report this post to the editors

"then I'll step out of this argument."

Still here Jasper. Still incessant on the last word. Still ego-massaging.

author by Davidpublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 14:32Report this post to the editors

As comedic as your responces to jasper have been, you still haven't provided any facts to support your ridicule.

Such as:

"According to the U.S. EPA, modern incinerators are no longer significant sources of dioxins and furans. In 1987, before the governmental regulations required the use of emission controls, there was a total of 10,000 grams of dioxin emissions from U.S. waste-to-energy incinerators. Today, the total emissions from the 87 plants are only 10 grams, a reduction of 99.9%. Backyard barrel burning of household and garden wastes, still allowed in some rural areas, generates 580 grams of dioxins yearly. Studies conducted by the U.S. EPA demonstrate that the emissions from just one family using a burn barrel produces more emissions that a modern incinerators disposing of 200 tons of waste per day."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerator

The only problem with the decisions relating to incineration A) The incompetent idiots that are invovled in the desicion making process and B) Its Urban positioning.

Argue on these points not dis-creditted alarmist.

author by Mairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 15:12Report this post to the editors

Jasper,
I do not question your education, or your qualifications. However you ask about scrubbers, you are well qualified to "look into" Mr. Peter North's submission to the EPA on behalf of East Cork and Chase which you will find in total on www.chaseireland.org if you use their search engine.

On education, the very best education I have had in my entire life was at two oral hearings. The first was at the An Bord Pleanala hearing into Indavers application for a toxic incinerator in Cork Harbour. It was rivitting stuff better than any court drama, down to the HSA not knowing there was a gas pipe directly underground the facility. (They had not been told, there was a lot they had'nt been told). When the drama was over the presiding judge - BP's senior inspector found against Indaver, and gave l4 reasons why - one being risk. - Health was not an issue - Bord Pleanala did not do health!!!!!
The second was an EPA oral hearing Indaver again seeking licence for the toxic incinerator AND for a municipal incinerator which has not even yet gone for planning. We watched the EPA inspector, wringing his hands at the decision he had to make and writing to all objectors apologising for the unprecented delay because of the "complexities" of the matter. He eventually granted the licences for both, ignored all risks from a flooding site, eroding coast line, captured emmissions because of termnal inversions, and its proximity to stationary schools, navy HQ etc. How could this happen in a democracy ? In the second case could it have been the appointment by Martin Cullen of the Project Manager of Indaver to the EPA shortly before the decision? The applicant in the first case now judge in the licence!!!!!
So whatever the rights or wrongs of burning our resources, and costs in health and wealth(who wants to live beside an incinerator) when you make unethical appointment to statuary boards and silence and ignore the stakeholders , you are disabling democracy.
On getting upset about dioxins as they take centuries to break down, my hope is that other informed people will take time to keep these levels down, now and in the future.
You do seem to thinkthat landfill and incineration are alternatives; they are like siamise twins - certainly landfill will be used for the one third ash that incineration produces. It may be exported from the Dublin or Cork docks? However, reduction in dioxin emissions merely re-directs the emissions into solid wastes which are then landfilled, and are returned to the eco system through leachate

author by Dairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 15:22Report this post to the editors

You are having a laff arent you?

The US EPA is firmly in the pocket of the corporate sector, any other view of them is breath-taking naivety.

It is telling that the US EPA has never graded ash (neither bottom, or more alarmingly fly ash) from the 87 US MSW -incinceration plants as hazardous, yet all such ash is graded hazardous as standard by the UK EPA.

The US EPA are still grappling with Global Warming for christ sakes despite the massive global scientific evidence staring them straight in the face.

This Says it all
This Says it all

author by mairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 16:47Report this post to the editors

Jasper, son of Jasper, and Ghost "Check Chase's sources before posting"

There must be a guardian angel working all the time.

Chemicals proposal will regulate industry
-EU governments and the European Parliament have finally come to an agreement concerning the final provisions of what is known as the REACH proposal.

This will govern the future operation of the chemicals industry in Europe. This piece of legislation took seven years to go through the legislative procedures in Europe.

From April 2007, fresh checks will be imposed on over 30,000 chemicals that are used in everyday life in Europe.

This package will ensure the most dangerous chemical substances will be refused permission, while makers of a further 1,500 chemicals will have to submit plans to prove they operate with adequate controls. Chemicals classified as not dangerous will be exempt from fresh tests.That is progress on prevention at source, although ongoing future tests of chemical classified as not dangerous would
strengthen this proposal.
Since incineration is essential "sky fill" this regulation will greatly assist clean air essential for everyone .

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 17:07Report this post to the editors

"Jasper,
I do not question your education, or your qualifications. However you ask about scrubbers, you are well qualified to "look into" Mr. Peter North's submission to the EPA on behalf of East Cork and Chase which you will find in total on www.chaseireland.org if you use their search engine.

On education, the very best education I have had in my entire life was at two oral hearings. The first was at the An Bord Pleanala hearing into Indavers application for a toxic incinerator in Cork Harbour. It was rivitting stuff better than any court drama, down to the HSA not knowing there was a gas pipe directly underground the facility. (They had not been told, there was a lot they had'nt been told). When the drama was over the presiding judge - BP's senior inspector found against Indaver, and gave l4 reasons why - one being risk. - Health was not an issue - Bord Pleanala did not do health!!!!!
The second was an EPA oral hearing Indaver again seeking licence for the toxic incinerator AND for a municipal incinerator which has not even yet gone for planning. We watched the EPA inspector, wringing his hands at the decision he had to make and writing to all objectors apologising for the unprecented delay because of the "complexities" of the matter. He eventually granted the licences for both, ignored all risks from a flooding site, eroding coast line, captured emmissions because of termnal inversions, and its proximity to stationary schools, navy HQ etc. How could this happen in a democracy ? In the second case could it have been the appointment by Martin Cullen of the Project Manager of Indaver to the EPA shortly before the decision? The applicant in the first case now judge in the licence!!!!!
So whatever the rights or wrongs of burning our resources, and costs in health and wealth(who wants to live beside an incinerator) when you make unethical appointment to statuary boards and silence and ignore the stakeholders , you are disabling democracy.
On getting upset about dioxins as they take centuries to break down, my hope is that other informed people will take time to keep these levels down, now and in the future.
You do seem to thinkthat landfill and incineration are alternatives; they are like siamise twins - certainly landfill will be used for the one third ash that incineration produces. It may be exported from the Dublin or Cork docks? However, reduction in dioxin emissions merely re-directs the emissions into solid wastes which are then landfilled, and are returned to the eco system through leachate"

Firstly, i don't approve of the hazardous waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy. The site is all wrong.

Secondly, the appointment that began this whole discussion isn't unethical. In my line of work, I know of the man in question and he has no vested interests in incineration but merely a wealth of knowledge in this and many other areas. I have attended many conferences at which he's been and I don't support the article which frankly is bordering on libellous.

Thirdly, incinerators are monitored to ensure their emissions are kept within a safe range and these ranges are specified with the fact that they bio-accummulate borne in mind.

Of course landfill will be used to dispose of the hazardous ash. The hazardous ash will come from hazardous components that are in the residual waste stream, i.e. they cannot be recycled. What do you suggest is done with these since the only alternative for them at present is to export for incineration or disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill?

Finally, Maire, I appreciate the fact that you can enter into a reasoned debate.

Furthermore, my opinions aren't tied in with those of the government. I do not agree with some of their environmental policies and I certainly think that setting aside €270 million in the budget to pay for carbon credits sends out the wrong message and isn't, as Cowen put it, making sure we meet our Kyoto targets. It's merely allowing us to exceed it within the confines of the 'rules'. But that's aside from the current topic at hand.

I'm basing my opinions here on hard and fast scientific information that's verifiable and of from independent sources. That's why I take issue with Chase...there is a degree of blurring of the facts, such as the one that says incineration is responsible for 70% of dioxins. There's a vast difference between that and municipal waste incinerators. I've already shown the difference between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and backyard fires for example.

author by Mairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 18:24Report this post to the editors

Jasper

As the Government has appointed a member of industry with direct links to proposed incinerators to a key decision making position, when Minister Dick Roche appointed Conal Boland of RPS Consulting to the Board of An Bord Pleanala, it should be commented on, so don't shoot the messenger. Unethical or inappropriate depends on one's perception.

RPS Consultants advised Dublin City Council in relation to the Poolbeg Incinerator, a case which is currently being considered by An Bord Pleanala. RPS Consultants were formerly MC O’Sullivan Consultants and have been responsible for advising on various levels of Waste Management Plans that promoted incineration.
The proposed incinerator at Poolbeg is one of the most important cases currently before An Bord Pleanála Up to 3,000 submissions have been received from members of the public. The fact that the Minister would, at this stage, appoint somebody connected with the project to the Board is deeply worrying. Even more worrying is the fact that Mr Boland seems to have been responsible for the most recent review of the Dublin Regional Waste Management Plan, which is the main policy justification for the incinerator project. Many people must share these feelings.
In submissions to the Board on the incinerator,a good deal of energy was used to arguing that the current waste management plan is flawed, and should be set aside by the Board. It now seems that the person responsible for the most recent version of this plan will be one of those considering these submissions. Does that not scare you, if you put yourself in the otherperson's position? Planning is the keystone to getting things right, if there is "slight of hand" at that stage it leads to chaos.

author by Mairepublication date Wed Dec 13, 2006 18:26Report this post to the editors

Jasper

As the Government has appointed a member of industry with direct links to proposed incinerators to a key decision making position, when Minister Dick Roche appointed Conal Boland of RPS Consulting to the Board of An Bord Pleanala, it should be commented on, so don't shoot the messenger. Unethical or inappropriate depends on one's perception.

RPS Consultants advised Dublin City Council in relation to the Poolbeg Incinerator, a case which is currently being considered by An Bord Pleanala. RPS Consultants were formerly MC O’Sullivan Consultants and have been responsible for advising on various levels of Waste Management Plans that promoted incineration.
The proposed incinerator at Poolbeg is one of the most important cases currently before An Bord Pleanála Up to 3,000 submissions have been received from members of the public. The fact that the Minister would, at this stage, appoint somebody connected with the project to the Board is deeply worrying. Even more worrying is the fact that Mr Boland seems to have been responsible for the most recent review of the Dublin Regional Waste Management Plan, which is the main policy justification for the incinerator project. Many people must share these feelings.
In submissions to the Board on the incinerator,a good deal of energy was used to arguing that the current waste management plan is flawed, and should be set aside by the Board. It now seems that the person responsible for the most recent version of this plan will be one of those considering these submissions. Does that not scare you, if you put yourself in the otherperson's position? Planning is the keystone to getting things right, if there is "slight of hand" at that stage it leads to chaos.

author by Jasperpublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 09:57Report this post to the editors

Yes but any member of An Bord Pleanala that has had a direct involvement with a project before their appointment is not directly involved with ABP's decisions on that matter.

There are ten other board members that will all have an opinion so even if Mr Boland did have an input, the decision is a essentially a democratic one.

That aside, I've still yet to see a scientific report that states that dioxin levels from MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATORS (as opposed to the vague 'incineration processes) are significantly high so as to be a health risk.

The Green Party cites Holland, for example, as a good model of waste management. Yet there are 11 incinerators in Holland.

Also, where are the protests about our waste being exported for incineration? I've yet to see one. Are people against incineration or against incineration in Ireland?

author by Davidpublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:32Report this post to the editors

I think people are more concerned with the mechanisms involved in the decision making process. I don’t think they are anti-incinerator, just anti anything the government gets involved in because of its appalling track record in nearly every civil endeavor to date.

Heap on top of this alarmist claims of high levels of dioxins and mix in government incompetence it is easy to see where the general public would have concern and give credence to unsubstantiated emission warnings.

Incineration in the modern sense has been shown to be clean, there is of course the toxin transference argument, but aggressive recycling should reduce this considerably. These toxins are already in manufactured good. Best practice would be to eradicate them entirely from the manufacturing process and then focus attention on the toxins in circulation. There is no method forwarded by anti incineration groups that would address this issue.

I have some concerns with the position of the incinerator and I have a predisposed slant against government in its land rezoning shenanigans that can’t dispel a profit agenda some where at the back of this. Cynical I know, but justified at this point I would argue.

But basically a responsible considered approach to incineration is most certainly an option I could live with.

author by LOOK LADSpublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:57Report this post to the editors

Do you want a stinking filthy tip or a nice clean incinerator? Ireland needs solutions fast to its waste problems and a tip is far unhealthier than an incerinerator on your doorstep

author by Jasperpublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:26Report this post to the editors

I agree entirely. You can question the government on some of their decision-making but I just don't see why the actual incinerator itself is being questioned, given the evidence that shows that it isn't this behemoth of pollution that people are portraying it as.

As for the toxins, the RoHs Directive is one such measure taken to reduce toxic substances in manufactured goods.

author by Mairepublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 14:34Report this post to the editors

Incineration is a method where industry can break down its bulk waste and disperse it into the environment through air, water and ash emissions. It is a convenient way for industry and lazy governments to mask today's waste problems and pass them onto future generations.
There is the big picture of sustainability, waste destroyed by incineration will be replaced.
As the industry seeks to make air pollution control devises to capture extremely toxic elements of combustion the resulting residues have become more problematic, and costly to handle dispose and contain. The role of commercial mass burn incineration will become more and more less viable both economically, and environmentally.
Ireland just at this moment puts little value on heritage, health. old people, young people and particularly in maintaining our environment in a sustainable condition.
When you are aware of the weakness you look to the reasons that develope the condition. Appointments from industry which is clearly a polluting industry to positions which only mask to-day's waste problems to pass them unto future generations calls out for whistleblowers.

author by Jasperpublication date Thu Dec 14, 2006 16:59Report this post to the editors

Firstly, the waste will be sorted and anything unsuitable taken out.

Secondly, incineration isn't seen as some sort of panacea for waste problems. It's not even seen as a solution to all the ills. It's merely a part of an integrated waste management system and has been implemented as such across the world.

Also, it doesn't prevent the other more favourable routes, i.e. reuse and recycling (prevention measures are accounted for in projections). If you look at any of the waste management plans, the same ones that suggest incineration mst be considered, they also specify a wide range of measures to increase recycling and source-segregation of waste to facilitate better recycling.

Again, I will point out that the countries with the greenest records in Europe also have incinerators. How does that tally with the notion that incinerators are pulluting? It doesn't.

author by Mairepublication date Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:34Report this post to the editors

Jasper,
Firstly -The sorting of your waste - where is this done, and by whom - is it done when the lorries bring their waste to the incinerator ?
Secondly why would we tie ourselves into an unviable waste strategy with such environmental and costly problems at this time ? We are living in the time of global warming, CO2 footprints, carbon trading, and the Kiota agreement.
The reuse, reduce, recycle is alive and well , long may it continue, but if it gets a dose of mass burn incineration we all know that will burden its system.
The Danes are lauded for their waste strategy. However, question them on the hundreds of tons of ash they export yearly to be stored on the island of Langoya in the Oslo fjord (so much for the proximity principle), and the cost of that- over 4 million kroner in 2002. Again question why 62 per cent of household waste was incinerated in 2003 and only 31 per cent recycled.
Belgium has the highest levels of dioxins in Europe - at the moment Ireland holds the records for the lowest dioxin levels - we don't have commercial tolling incinerators. This position gives us a competitive edge in the food industry, we are seen to be green. Other European countries must be envious of this position. When I go into a supermarket and I look at the country of origin, I put back on the shelf anything originating from a country with high dioxin levels.( See EPA report) The cost to the Belgium government some years back because of a food scare was in the billions, and it was caused by just one gram. of dioxins.
You attack Chase for informing people and try and silence them . They have listened to experts in the medical field and scientists from the US, Canada, The Netherlands and Britain. These include chemical engineers, toxicologists and doctors . They have contacts with groups in over 90 countries who are opposing incineration, including groups from Asia, South Africa, Germany and Macedonia. They know there are exciting new technologies based on the concepts of zero waste, clean technology and toxic use reduction. These don’t carry the risks of incineration and are functioning in other parts of the world.

We know that if Ireland is to succeed in its commitments to the Kyoto agreement, the Stockholm convention and other international directives, incineration is definitely not the route to take.
So attention must be drawn to vested interests attempting to formulate waste policy .

Finally,Ireland holds that record of being the greenest - long live that record.

author by Jasperpublication date Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:38Report this post to the editors

When I've more time, I'll address all of that...but Ireland greenest?

Have you not seen how far away from Kyoto targets we are and are you aware that we'd need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90% (the global average cut is 60%) to avoid going over the 2 degree increase threshold point?

author by Mairepublication date Fri Dec 15, 2006 13:16Report this post to the editors

Jasper
I am refering to dioxins, however you can check all other pollutants yourself by going into EEA - EPER.SERVICE.URL get the map and look into Ireland - you are right, after looking there are we green at all?

author by Jasperpublication date Fri Dec 15, 2006 13:32Report this post to the editors

Not entirely dioxins related but check out http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_9/en/eea_r...6.pdf

Ireland second worst in EU-25 for GHG emissions. Second only to Luxembourg.

I'll check that about the dioxins later but since the waste is growing and we're running out of landfill space in a hurry and there aren't the recycling capabilities to lower the waste generation enough and there's only so much prevention that can be done....then it's incineration or exportation for the foreseeable future.

author by mairepublication date Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:24Report this post to the editors

We are not running out of landfill, check with Mr. John Aherne who is proposing the incinerator in Meath and in Cork Harbour - he wants a maratorium on landfill as we have too much up until 2012. He looked for more capacity before his facility had even operated. That's greed.
We have not got the recylcing capabalities because no grants are given for recovery only for disposal. We have not even tried to find out how much prevention can change things. Waste is valuable until it is burnt. "Look into " and check with recycling companies who exist here in spite of being discouraged. just check with all the companies that have sprung up in Northern Ireland.
The glass bottling company which could have given so many jobs in the south, was closed down mainly to develope its very valuable site, what vision the government used in not supporting this industry, while they are using all their energy to start up a burn all tolling industry of incineration, which is not getting acceptance from the public. Few people excluding yourself - Ibec and vested interests want incineration as part of our waste management.
Industry must take responsibility for the pollution and damage to the environment - it cannot be passed over to the public in costs to their health and their wealth.
No industry should get a licence unless they are capable of looking after their own waste.

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:45Report this post to the editors

Firstly, not all waste can be recovered or recycled. That waste is what is called 'residual waste'. Yes prevention should be better and recycling is on the increase but there's still a percentage that just cannot be recycled. The options are disposal, incineration or export for either of these two options.

If you're fundamentally opposed to either of the first two, you should be automatically opposed to the third. Otherwise, the argument is based on a NIMBY approach.

So that leaves the option of landfilling the residual waste or incinerating it. Incinerator emissions are well below the 1 nanoigram/cubic metre limit. They are a very small proportion of dioxin emissions. Yoiu cited Denmark before as a country with high dioxin emissions but less than 5% of that was from waste-to-energy plants. In fact, the largest proportion in Denmark was from home fires. Not necessarily backyard burning but home heating.

There are quite a few recycling companies in Ireland but they're mostly for packaging waste, ie paper, cardboard etc. There aren't so many for aluminium, plasticss, wood, composites (eg tetra paks), non-ferrous metals, ferrous metals. That's mostly down to economies of scale. There are some in the North but they're often as a result of a parent company operating on an all-Ireland basis essentially. Fridges being one such example.

Of course industry has to take the necessary action as well but the waste situation can't just be reversed immediately. It's like an oil-tanker....it has to be slowed before it can even come close to turning around. That's just the reality of it and for the next 20 years, even though many a recycling initiative and so on may be implemented, something will have to be done with the residual waste and you can choose between landfill or incineration. Incineration at least produces energy and doesn't produce the heinous amounts of dioxins that people imply.

Unless you can show me figures for dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators that suggest otherwise.

author by M Cottonpublication date Wed Jan 03, 2007 13:21Report this post to the editors

The same old troll repeating the same old lies and distortions:

"That's just the reality of it and for the next 20 years, even though many a recycling initiative and so on may be implemented, something will have to be done with the residual waste and you can choose between landfill or incineration. Incineration at least produces energy and doesn't produce the heinous amounts of dioxins that people imply."

Here are some facts about incineration in the UK, a country of 60 million people.

"Landfilling of municipal waste has to be reduced for a variety of reasons, foremost among them is the European Union Landfill Directive. Some local authorities claim incineration is necessary to meet the UK’s commitments under the Directive. This position is untenable. In order to meet the landfill directive targets the UK need do no more than recycle or compost 30% of household newspaper, card and organic waste by 2010. This target and the targets for 2013 and 2020 can easily be met and exceeded with technology currently available and in use in other parts of the world. Cities and regions around the world have already achieved much more than this.

Incineration does not make rubbish magically disappear, it simply turns rubbish into something else. If you put 100 tonnes of rubbish into an incinerator you get many tonnes of dangerous air pollution and 30 tonnes of contaminated ash.There are two types of ash. The largest amount is ‘bottom’ ash, the solid residual of the combustion process. Depending on what has been burned, this ash can be contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. The other type of ash is ‘fly’ ash, the highly toxic particles captured in the pollution controls of the incinerator’s chimney. The greatest reduction in mass that an incinerator can achieve is 70%, having turned the bulk of the rubbish into air pollution.

Currently operating, state-of-the-art screening and composting systems are already achieving 70% or more reduction in the mass of waste in Canadian and Australian cities. At the samer times as they are elminiating the pollution problems associated with incinerators, they are providing a useful, sometimes marketable, product. These technologies could easily be used here."

Of course the reason these technologies are not being used here is because of , you guessed it, the incineration industry whose only interest is in generating vast profits for itself out of polluting the ground and air with highly toxic ash and dioxins. NB Indaver et al will have to import waste (up to 80% of what they burn) from other countries in order to be viable. This has nothing to do with solving Irish waste problems. In fact, Irish people would suffer all of the ill health, deaths and land pollution from burning other people's waste so that these robber barons can line their own pockets. They dont give a damn either about us or about alternative waste solutions. Recycling and environmentally friendly alternatives are the enemies of this drive for profit, which is why in many palces where incineration is used you have some of the lowest levels of recycling. The incineration industry has its claws stuck deeply into Irish government and business circles. It is representated on quangos and unelected groups everywhere. IBEC, naturally, is advocating what it euphamistically calls 'thermal treatments' in order to reduce the cost to business of cleaning up the mess their production processes are causing for everyone else.

Read the truth about the incineration industry's lies and myths and about landfill and false claims about energy from incineration at the link below and consign 'Jasper's' toxic comments to the dustbin in which his threadbare PR efforts on behalf of the incineration companies belong.

http://www.chaseireland.org/Documents/IncinMyths.pdf

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Jan 03, 2007 14:18Report this post to the editors

Firest off, why do you say I'm engaging in PR? Can a person just not have a different opinion to yours? And if you're linking to the Chase website, you lose credibility since it's already been shown that they've distorted the facts by stating that incinerators are responsible for 70% of dioxin emissions.

Once again, someone opposing incineration posts from articles with a biased opinion rather than independent sources.

1) No one said that the waste disappeared. Contaminated ash will more often than not come from contaminated waste. But after incineration its volume is reduced. Bottom ash is contains a lot of clinker that can be used in road construction. Ferrous metals can and are used in steel production.

2) You have composting technologies in bold. I'm talking abouit residual waste, not organic waste. Organic waste should be recycled and that's why the so-called brown bin is being rolled out across the country. 70% reduction in mass of waste seems a bit unlikely since studies have shown that only about 35% of household waste is organic....nevertheless I'm all in favour of recycling it.

3) The Dublin incinerator won't need to import waste. I'm not taking into consideration the Ringaskiddy incinerator there because I don't agree with that incinerator.

Finally, if you want to read "the truths and myths" about incineration,, find a site that doesn't twist facts and embellish the result with nonsense. Find independent reports from somewhere like the European Environment Agency, for example.

author by mairepublication date Wed Jan 03, 2007 17:19Report this post to the editors

The co-joining of vested incineration industry with the management of our waste ignores any duty of care to the public and to the environment.
Those in power must listen to active citizens on how we want to deal with our waste and the inclusion of the public in the consultation process is imperative. Listening just to vested interests in industry leads to very bad planning with regard to development plans and ignores other options, of dealing with our waste.
Jasper, you write about the economic scale of incineration, dioxins, and energy. You fail to mention resource losses, and health risks.
Resource Loss: Commercial Incineration wastes natural resources, it undermines re-cycling by demanding a steady stream of waste. Most incinerators are not very efficient at capturing energy from the waste they burn, by re-cycling rather than burning waste material the energy saved is :-
Paper 3 times, Plastic 5 times, textile 6 times. - Plastic packaging - Plastic accounts for 4% of oil consumption, and oil is a non-renewable resource.
Human Health Risks. Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as a cause of cancer and other health damage to humans. - 6.7 % increase in the likelihood of mortality from lung cancer.
- 2 fold increased probability of cancer mortality in children -
- 37% excess mortality due to liver cancer.
Studies of communities living in the vicinity 0.5 to 5 km of municipal solid waste incinerators have shown elevated levels of dioxins in blood samples compared to background population levels.
Nitrogen Oxides :- a by product of the process of burning waste have respiratory effects . This has also been confirmed by our own HRB.
Particulates: (The real real baddies) causes respiratory problems, and there is no known safe threshold.
Dioxins - A class one carcinogen affects development and reproduction and is highly toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. It contaminates the food chain, so has developmental impacts - birth defects, foetal death, impaired neurological, development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual development.

Economics - Commercial Incineration is not economically viable. It presupposes a constant stream of waste over a 20 year period to make the plant worthwhile. It is a tolling industry which gets set up to make money- lots and lots of it, and in Britain they have found that if the waste stream is not available then the council ends up paying fines to the Incinerator operator, so it costs the tax payer more than if they had used virtually any other method., of dealing with their waste. To seriously underestimate the value and success of source waste separation and to also assume that both the volumes of unsorted household waste and industrial waste will continue to rise shows lack of vision, an unwillingness to use prevention methods, and lack of insistence on the Polluter Pays Policy. The putting aside of 270 million euro to off set carbon emissions shows this lack of vision. Would any company anywhere chose to incur those kind of costs, instead of fixing the causes, expect to be in business in the future?. What lack of vision.!

Recycling creates significant jobs in the local environment - sustainable jobs which may be badly needed if our housing runs into difficulty. - Types of waste disposal comparisons with jobs created shows - Landfill 40 - 60, Incineration 100 - 290 (the higher proportion being associated with building the incinerator, so are not permanent jobs. ) Composting 200 - 300 , and re-cycling 400 - 500.
To suggest that the North’s success in creating recycling companies is down to economies of scale is to deny the closing of the glass bottling company in Dublin because of development value of the land and not having the vision to see what jobs could be created. British Glass estimate that up to 90% of new glass could be made from reclaimed scrap glass.
“Of course industry has to take the necessary action as well” Now you are talking, but you have not listened to the no option of incineration OR landfill - they are co-joined because of disposal of ash, the residue of the waste you talk about will have been dispersed into sky fill by burning.

This Nimby - is scrutinising what exactly is Now In My Backyard, and knows burning bonfires is wrong and burning resources in incinerators is wrong , because of the resources losses, the damage for Human Health, and the unsound economic grounds . Again we won’t mention the CO2 footprint of incineration, climate change, or the Kyoto agreement. But I would suggest that all other Nimbys - scrutinise what exactly is in your backyard, and what some company is deciding should be in your back yard.

author by MLpublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 16:56Report this post to the editors

The arguments in this thread highlight the lack of public credibility in an incineration planning and licensing process that involved the alleged "planting" of "vested interests" on the boards of An Bord Pleanala and the EPA.

One good move by the new minister for environment would be to hold open competitions for such positions in the future.

author by JSMetal2publication date Tue Aug 14, 2007 08:45Report this post to the editors

I agree with ML. Appointments to State Boards should be by open competition by open selection committees. Especially working executive appointments. Transparency on this issue is pretty shot.

Another good move by Mr Gormley might be to invite applications for his closest advisers from professionally qualified and experienced environmentalists and planners. Fourteen years of listening to MSOS singing the incineration tune must have left it ringing in the ears of the DOE officials, drowning out any hope of a good hearing for alternative technologies. Yet the world has moved on in that 14 years - fuel supply and its security are now higher on the agenda, alongside climate change. Mr Gormley needs fresh untainted advice on this whole area.

A Green marker has been set in the sand - No Incineration. There is huge strength to maintaining that position - it will encourage creativity and inventiveness. There is always a new way. Incineration is not the only way. Remember there are only three fundamental problems to be solved - waste minimisation (which has never been seriously tackled before at Ministerial level and so should be a successful move), making sure that whatever ends up in landfill is treated so that it is no longer biodegradable ( simple composting) and identifying an appropriate technology to make vehicle fuel from waste.

So target education to cut down on waste, then recycle and biologically treat what must go to landfill while you work out a way to turn it into vehicle fuel. Remember the EU targets for landfill diversion do not apply non-biodegradable waste so if you remove the biodegradability the targets will be automatically met while removing nuisances such as odour from landfill. This buys time to get the infrastructure to turn it into vehicle fuel.

So much more sustainable than investing in big greedy incinerators which must be fed for ever more. Local Authority resources currently directed at developing incinerators should be focussed on waste minimisation. The key to this is cutting down before it becomes waste.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2018 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy