Agency reassurance not very reassuring.

Clearly the Enviroment Agency (EA) is trying its very best to reassure people that there are no "extra risks" from burning waste at Rugby, but they have started in the wrong place. First we want to know what the risk is from the coal burning cement plant, before they start "adding in" a few more toxic pollutants. They quote (Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants) COMEAP in reply to the EA/HPA (Health Protection Agency) request "to consider data collated by the HPA and EA on the effects of emissions of air pollutants substituting Substitute Liquid Fuel and used tyres for a proportion of coke used in specific cement kilns."

COMEAP reported, "the substitution of Substitute Liquid Fuel and used tyres.. in comparison to the use of COKE as a fuel, is "unlikely" to cause an increased risk to health." Well that certainly makes us all feel better! Where are these plants that they studied located; how many people in the plume grounding area; are they wet/semi-wet process like Rugby where the heavy wet plume grounds easily; how many people did they study; what was the methodology; how many people live in the two kilometre plume grounding area that they studied?

This report is not relevant in Rugby where COKE is not burnt. Does the EA, or the HPA/COMEAP, have any relevant health studies on the substitution of tyres for COAL in any cement kilns, as opposed to coke? And even more important what about their study of "Rugby town air quality and health without any cement plant emissions", or have they not carried that out yet.

In the meantime "look behind you" as the Agency have commissioned a Market Researcher to knock doors in Rugby to find out what people really think and experience in Rugby as regards the cement plant. They will be sorry they asked!