DOES CO-INCINERATION CAUSE INCREASED CANCER?

..OR IS IT POSITIVELY GOOD FOR US?


Do you believe that continuous exposure to CO-INCINERATING cement plant emissions, and increased inhalation of PM2.5 truly IMPROVES THE HEALTH of Rugby residents?

What is the HPA's recommended daily dose of toxins for a healthier Rugby population?

THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MEDICINE
Strenuously rebuts the claims made by the government's Health Protection Agency regarding the cancers and HEALTH IMPACT OF Incineration and Co-incineration.

The BSEM see this:


While The HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY sees, through its rose-tinted spectacles, a cement plant that smells ONLY of roses - blooming marvellous!


The BSEM full report, and "war of words" with the Health Protection Agency, can be seen at the link below.

SUMMARY:
Research studies are revealing toxicity at progressively lower exposures for many toxic substances, and the Regulators have consistently and repeatedly underestimated the risk of pollutants: asbestos, lead, DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, cigarette smoke, etc. Often it has taken decades for regulators to acknowledge these risks and to ban them. It is disappointing that the Health Protection Agency have not grasped these points but this is not surprising as regulators and government bodies have rarely been correct about the risks from chemical pollution in the past and have only acted after considerable harm has been done. The role of the BSEM is different, however, and is to look at emerging evidence and to warn about these dangers long before this point occurs. This they believe they have done in the report.

Why does the HPA favour a method of waste disposal which has the greatest health costs, that gives the least amount of energy (after landfill) and produces potentially the most health risks? Recent evidence has shown alarming evidence of body burdens of chemical contamination in the general population, and that newborns are being born with their bodies already polluted. Present regulations fail to protect the public from toxic exposure.

1. Incineration and co-incineration discourage recycling, and encourages move to lowest priorities.

2. Serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system.

3. Very few pollutants are monitored, and no one has any idea of the concentrations.

4. Sampling is for a few hours twice a year, with plenty of "advance warning".

5. Dioxins when "spot monitored" revealed an underestimation by as much as 30-50 times.

6. PM2.5 is not monitored at all, but has strong association with heart attacks, and lung cancer.

7. Schwartz: "The magnitude of the association between fine particulates and mortality suggests that controlling fine particulates would result in saving thousands of lives each year."

8. Pollution offences have been found to be widespread and prosecution virtually non-existent.

9. HPA claims of "provides strict operating conditions and robust monitoring programmes" are meaningless spin.

10. Lack of regulation of fly ash and by pass dust.

11. Contravention of the Stockholm Convention - NOT to create large quantities of dioxins and furans!

12. Majority of studies round incinerators have shown excesses of cancer.

13. Why are incinerators being built without any studies being performed in the UK to monitor health effects round existing incinerator and co-incinerating cement plants?

14. HPA organised a conference on "health inequalities", but failed to comment on the callous policy of building incinerators in deprived areas of high mortality where the health effects are likely to be greatest. (See Rugby).

15. Incinerators and cement plants have different emission limits, and cement kilns can emit 30 times greater amount of particulates than an incinerator.

16. HPA claims burning waste in cement kilns reduces emissions, but fails to mention the increases from burning such like as tyres and petcoke: vanadium, zinc, nickel.

17. HPA will not assess the impact on health of any cement/co-incinerator/incinerator plant, despite the House of Commons Select Committee ruling that these studies should be carried out BEFORE permitting any more waste to be burnt in cement kilns.

18. Arsenic and mercury are emitted and are uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

19. The Royal Society said of the Defra Report into incineration and co-incineration: "that it gives an apparently reassuring impact of waste management options when in fact it does not present a complete or sufficiently critical summary of the evidence."

CONCLUSION:
The BSEM stands by all the conclusions in its report and believes a policy of building more incinerators and cement kilns will mean many more lives will be lost unnecessarily from cancer, including those of children, more people will die prematurely of heart disease, there will be an increase in birth defects and health costs will increase. This would be a retrograde step for a civilised society as there are far better ways fo dealing with waste and these methods would be CHEAPER, would be SAFER and would produce more ENERGY!"

See link to full report. www.ecomed.org.uk

Who do you believe?
The rose tinted spectacles of the government's protection agency, or the honest and full appraisal by the BSEM that has "NO vested interest" and only has only public's good at heart?

CEMENT INDUSTRY RACKETEERING?

SMOKE IN THE USA:
In the USA tobacco companies are being forced to advertise for a whole year: "WE HAVE LIED TO YOU ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACT OF OUR PRODUCTS", because they have been racketeering, and have actually LIED to the public about the health impact of their products.

When can we expect the same about the CEMENT companies, who STILL tell the gullible that the plants "ONLY GIVE OUT WATER VAPOUR AND HARMLESS CARBON DIOXIDE"? See Rugby Cement propaganda leaflet.

RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR:
Has 18 POINT SOURCES all emitting "dust" - health damaging PARTICULATE - in addition to the MAIN STACK. These dusts are largely unmonitored, and the gases are largely unmonitored, and not reported. The Cemex company and the Environment Agency STILL REFUSE to answer any questions about these emissions. The Environment Agency's dispersion models of these "low level point sources", known as AQMAU 1 and AQMAU 2, contained the information that was HIDDEN by the Environment Agency when they decided to permit the Rugby Cement plant to become a CO-INCINERATOR. The Public IPPC CONSULTATION in 2001-2003 was a complete and utter SHAM as the information needed, and requested, by the public, the health authority, the Rugby Borough Council, the MP Andy King, the Rugby Cement Community Forum, Faber Maunsell the air quality consultants and by RUGBY IN PLUME was HIDDEN.

This failure to comply with the Law, failure to consult openly and honestly, has lead to the COURTS, where it was found by the High Court in March 2005, and confirmed in June 2006 by the Court of Appeal, that the Agency had indeed breached the common law duty of disclosure and had acted unfairly - in order to get the cement plant changed to a co-incinerator. As a direct result of the Agency's actions Rugby residents are now told the CO-INCINERATOR plant is to burn petcoke and tyres together, and soon to co-incinerate London's household and commercial waste. The 27th July Public Question Time Debate witnessed a refusal to answer many technical questions, and STILL they go on in the same mode. This abuse of power, and failure to consult properly, has now lead to a PETITION of the HOUSE of LORDS.

Rugby in Plume have finally discovered, after years of investigation, that the Rugby Borough Council colluded with the Environment Agency to HIDE the initial 1999 IPC application and consultation (request to operate at all), from the public, to keep the information off the Public Register even up until May 2006, and to give no response to it at that time, when they had a one month consultation period. RBC officers made NO EFFORT whatsoever, then or at ANY STAGE, to try to PROTECT Rugby residents, to LIMIT the harmful effects of the plant, the emissions, the volume of traffic - the TOTAL BURDEN! They did NOTHING !! and an investigation is now going on to find out IF the officers decided to do this "nothing" all by themselves, and if so under what authority were they acting, or did some RBC Councillors have a hand in it, and is that why the elected long-standing Councillors REFUSE to answer any questions?

INCINERATION AND CO-INCINERATION IN THE USA:
The Director of the Clean Air Program for the Sierra Club reports: In the USA over the last decade, several thousand commercial, public and industrial waste incinerators have had to shut down due to new federal Clean Air Act regulations to reduce stack emissions, public pressures to reduce waste streams at generators, community pressures against nearby existing incinerators, escalating costs to comply with new federal regulations, serious accidents & explosions, legal actions by citizens, operational problems, political pressures, citations for violations & enforcement, whistle blowers revealing major problems, alternative options like recycling and other factors.

As far as I'm aware, almost no new municipal waste incinerators, no new hazardous waste incinerators, no new medical waste incinerators and no new cement kilns that are seeking to become incinerators are being built in the USA. Thousands of existing municipal and medical waste incinerators have permanently closed down and quite a few hazardous waste incinerators. Commercial facilities have had major challenges staying in business with almost no new ones being built. Even plasma incinerators have had a steep challenge trying to sell the public on these new contraptions.

In Houston, Texas, one of the last proposed commercial hazardous waste incinerators (American EnviroTech) in the USA in 1991 finally obtained its federal RCRA permit years about 1998 after applying but the incinerator has never been built because of vehement public opposition in Houston and a legal fight over who owned the property where it was to be sited; the permit is now voided. And a large commercial medical waste incinerator (EnviroGuard) near Houston was finally permitted but never built because of escalating economic costs and factors not anticipated when the permit application was submitted.

The number of incinerators in the USA continues to sharply decline. Nearly 6,200 medical waste and municipal waste incinerators or 97-98% have closed down and this trend continues for several reasons: new federal MACT standards and public opposition are probably the two biggest reasons. The number of North American commercial hazardous waste incinerators has dropped from 26 to 12 with more than 50% permanently closed since the mid 1990s. Several hundred new proposed medical and municipal waste incinerator projects never got past the early phases due to intense public opposition. More existing facilities are permanently closing down every year in the USA!

2006 USA Cement Kiln update:

A decrease of more than 50% in the number of cement kilns (CKs) and smaller lightweight aggregate kilns (LWACKs) commerically burning hazardous waste has occurred in the USA since 1990. However, 14 cement kilns & 4 LWACKs are currently burning varying volumes of hazardous waste with some relatively small amounts. At least 14 other cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns and a processor have stopped burning all hazardous waste since 1990. Another one-two dozen cement kilns and LWACKs were prevented from burning hazardous waste in the 1990s when they sought federal and state permission; several burning HW illegally and most were never prosecuted. The result is that the number of cement kilns and LWACKs burning or seeking permission to burn HW has dropped from over 40 sites to 18.
Tell the pyromaniacs that there is a distinct downward trend in pyromania in the USA.


THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE UK AND THE EU:
As you are all very aware the pyro-maniacs are hitting us with everything they have got. Politicans are falling over themselves to grant industry its every wish. In many countries cement kilns are being put forward as the answer to industries hazardous waste problems. What is the point in groups campaigning against hazardous waste incinerators when the industry is using cement kilns to dispose of this waste if these groups dont support those fighting this 'inicneration by th eback door' practice?. The cement industry throughout Europe is almost writing its own legislation/regulations and poses a very real danger to the environment and public health.
In the UK after a 16 years fight the community of Belvedere is looking odds on to be getting a huge MSW incinerator. The people of Cheshire are facing a proposal by PEEL HOLDINGS for a 600,000tpa MSW (although Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough council have objected to the plan) but another danger is Cheshire County Council are very, very keen to build a 500,000 tpa MSW on the industrial estate.
The people of Hull who defeated an application for a hazardous waste incinerator in the early 1990s, after celebrating a successful battle against a proposed MSW incinerator only a couple of years ago, are once again the target of the industry.
'Democracy' is abused every day by arrogant birds of passage politicians, and every planning proposal granted shows how hollow "by the people for the people" really is.
I would like to encourage you and your organization to join the GAIA 2006 Global Day of Action Against Waste and Incineration. We need to seriously amplify our call for a healthier/toxic-free environment - especially with the resurgence of incineration technologies throughout Europe and USA.
incineration flies in the face of a genuine Zero Waste community. A company needs a 25-30 years contract signed before anyone will put up the money to build them. If communities recycling and reuse etc, the waste will not be there and the contracts will not be signed, so pursuing a Zero Waste policy is good.

We need to fight every inch of the way to safeguard our childrens future. There are alternatives to incineration. We have won every argument put forward by the pyro-maniacs for burning. We have shown the technology to be seriously flawed, (just look at the amount of industry reported incidents at the UK's new generation of burners); the enormous cost not only of building a plant but of running one; how polluting the process is; what a waste of valuable resources it is; the amount of jobs it provides compared to recycling/composting the same amount of waste.

We should not forget the lies the industry and its supporters have churned out over the last 3 decades about the impact of incineration and its efforts to play down the toxicity of many of the chemcials emitted daily by their so-called safe - strictly monitored machines.

KOLLENBACH CEMENT PLANT

Rugby residents' COUNCIL TAX is being used for a "party" of councillors and officers to visit Germany and see how household waste is burnt in the Kollenbach plant at Beckum. The whole Council could go simply and cheaply in a morning to the Castle Cement plant at Ketton Stamford, where the same waste, but called "PROFUEL" as opposed to the name "CLIMAFUEL" as used by Cemex, is CO-INCINERATED. RBC claims to have asked Castle's management if they can visit, but Mike Healey Operations Manager for SRM Limited who "manage" Profuel at Ketton says that the company is "unable to commit to any visits in the near future as they have been inundated with recent requests." He advises the Council to keep in touch but they said they probably wouldn't be able to accommodate a visit this year.

Cemex are running "pre-application" discussions into the burning of London's household waste at Rugby until the end of September, and then will make a formal application, which will then have to go through the formal consultation process. By clicking the link you will be able to learn a lot about the Kollenbach plant and see that the main stack emissions are so very much lower (per cubic metre) than endured by the long-suffering public at Rugby. Rugby in Plume have requested answers to technical questions, but Cemex were only able to tell us that the plant was about half the size and capacity of Rugby, but they have no idea what kind of process it is, no details of main stack emission limits, point sources, transport methods, and other impacts. We have given the Councillors a list of questions and they will have no excuse whatsoever not to come back from their "jolly" with all the answers.

STILL WAITING TYRE TRIALS DATA
In the meantime the Rugby Cement Community Forum has written to the Environment Agency and Cemex asking them NOT to carry out the further trials that are planned in September with petcoke and tyres until we have had ALL the data from last year's tyre trails, and until the Tyre Burning Review Group has obtained all the data and assessed the 2005 tyre trials that took place with coal. So far we have not had enough data to decide if the several CSFs - Critical Success Factors - have been met, or not!
Click here for link..

HOUSE OF LORDS PETITION

Evening Telegraph Thursday 3rd August

GROUP TO TAKE INCINERATOR FIGHT TO "BITTER END"
Marc Meneaud reports:

Campaigners who fear Rugby will become a dumping ground if the town's cement factory is given the go-ahead to incinerate household waste have taken their fight to the House of Lords.

Pressure group Rugby in Plume has already spent £50,000 in taking the Environment agency to court, claiming it granted a license to burn waste at Rugby's Cemex factory without giving residents their say. Their case has already been reviewed by a judge who threw it out and a subsequent appeal was again dismissed. Now the campaigners' solicitors have petitioned the House of Lords to look again at the case.

Lilian Pallikaropoulos of Rugby in Plume said "We will carry this on until the bitter end, otherwise Rugby is going to become a dumping ground." Mrs Pallikaropoulos claims factory bosses will be able to burn whatever they like under the terms of the (IPPC operating) license - including potentially harmful substances. She said tyre burning trials had already taken place and more tests into burning waste were expected when the results of the tyre-burning trials were released.

The campaigners claim that, should an appeal to the House of Lords fail, they will take their case to the European Court of Justice to stop the factory burning tyres and waste because the issue is so important to residents.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos said "There are very real dangers for Rugby people. There is NO question that the plant should NOT be here. There is NO question that things will only get worse for us, air quality-wise and health wise. To try to save Rugby people from this fate I have Petitioned the House of Lords to look again at our case. It will cost me thousands of pounds, but I have to do it. I have had to spend all these years and get no proper judgement."

A spokeswoman for the Environment Agency said a huge amount of public money had already been spent on taking the matter to court. But she added "We will of course defend our position in the House of |Lords, should we be called upon to do so."

Cllr Craig Humphrey leader of rugby Borough Council said the Council had worked closely with factory bosses at the Rugby plant to make it AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE! Cemex did not want to comment when contacted by the Evening telegraph.

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/reference/matter.php?id=66

CEMENT WARNED OVER FUEL BURNING SCHEME

Owners of the Rugby Cement works have been warned they must prove a proposed fuel burning scheme is not "harmful" to the town.

Cemex claim CLIMAFUEL - a mixture of paper, plastics, wood and carpet - will have environmental benefits. Cemex is currently undertaking a consultation process into proposals and plans to apply for permission to start trials in September.

However, Ian Withers from the Environment Agency told the meeting "Cemex will have to show us that the use of Climafuel will not cause harm to the local environment. Once the trial is completed they will need to show again there is no detriment. Only then if we are satisfied these issues are covered will we be able to conclude that the use of Climate should be considered."

BELIEVE IT OR NOT? CEMEX CLAIMS DUST FALLS STRAIGHT DOWN!
Meanwhile the company denied claims made by local residents of yet another dust leak from the plant on Tuesday 25th July, saying that the release was only "minor" and had been contained "internally" and had not "escaped outside".

Very clever dust control that! Perhaps the air was so still that the dust really did "fall back to earth like a stone?" What size of particle was is that ensured that this "dust" only FELL down in the in site? This dust is so heavy it does not blow in the wind? What is it - boulder size, or a few small rocks? Perhaps they should patent this "magical method of dust control"?

Unconcerned?!

COUNCILLOR CLAIMS RUGBEIANS ARE UNCONCERNED ABOUT POLLUTION ISSUES:

Rugby Observer 3rd August.

(Councillor claims Rugby people apparently too busy to bother about their health and pollution!)

Poor attendance for a high-profile question time event about Cemex's plans to burn more rubbish shows Rugbeians are not greatly concerned about pollution council chiefs claim. The controversial remark was made after just 90 people turned up for the public debate at the Benn Hall last Thursday 27th July. About 350 free tickets were available.

It was billed as an opportunity for the pubic to grill Cemex, the Council, and environmental protest groups about Cemex's plans to burn recycled paper and plastics (that is London's household and commercial waste) as a partial substitute for fossil fuels.

Rugby MP Jeremy Wright who shares the concerns of protest groups, including Rugby in Plume and Friends of the Earth, believes more evidence is needed about air pollution and its possible health effects.

But the Tory Councillor Carolyn Robbins the Borough Council lead member for the environment said the low turn out showed people were not greatly interested. "people have a lot more important issues in their lives to be concerned about." she said.

BUT CRITICS CLAIM the fact tickets had to be pre-ordered to attend the meeting may have deterred some people from turning up. Lilian Pallikaropoulos of Rugby in Plume said: "Instead of airing the serious points that arose at the meeting councillors have chosen to zoom in on how few people came. Rugby in Plume understands all the issues only too clearly, and has been fighting the WASTE burning, and co-incineration at started by the tyre burning, for five years, and has the initial 7,500 signature petition and mandate from Rugby people.

Most councillors and officers are out of touch with public feeling, lack any understanding of what is involved, and fail to represent the public!"

What the papers say...

How the RUGBY TIMES reports 01/08/06:

SEAN LAWSON: Head of Environmental Health at RBC, and member of the panel:

"I DO not think we can draw a conclusion from the low turnout. The event was well-publicised but it's the school holidays, and it's a hot night. I would hope it's an indication that the authorities are doing a reasonable job; but I think it would be dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions.

Those who were there experienced a lively and informative debate. There were some familiar faces, but it was also very pleasing to see a number of fresh faces from the community who had not even engaged in the issue before, and who found it interesting and informative."

PAT WYATT: Parish Council Representative who lives at Long Lawford:

"I WAS disappointed with the turnout, and the fact that we HAD to apply for tickets to go to a PUBLIC MEETING! It was all a charade and I think the plant should be closed! I think if things are left to progress as they are it will only get worse!"

GARETH PREWETT: Long Lawford resident for 20 years:

"ALL 90,000 Rugby residents are guinea pigs to this experiment which is holding us to hostage.

If someone smokes and they put a filter over the cigarette it doesn't mean you won't get cancer. Rugby will be subjected to passive smoking. I see it out of my window, and see the plumes of smoke coming out of it.

The meetings are a waste of time: they use it as lip service and it is embarrassing really, and I don't agree with written questions!"

DAVID EVANS: Sustainability Director for Cemex, and long term employee of Rugby Cement, and member of the panel:

"PEOPLE have to understand we are only in the pre-application consultation stages at the moment. Cemex is trying to HELP Rugby people by getting rid of (LONDON'S) waste. The perceptions that people have are always difficult to overcome, and we offer the CHANCE for people to visit the plant to put their minds at rest. We have a school a week visiting us!!"

LILIAN PALLIKAROPOULOS: Rugby in Plume spokesperson, and member of the panel:

"THE problem with the turnout was that it was planned for the busiest week of the school holidays. Considering that this DEBATE has been going on for SEVEN years I don't think the turn out was that bad. I got good feedback.

WE have decided to PETITION the House of Lords about this issue: it is a huge CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE!

If they keep adding bits to it, like tyres and Climafuel, pollution will just get worse and worse! Cemex should THINK about bringing in more trials - as cases are NOT proven. The pollution is getting more and more each year!"

JEREMY WRIGHT MP:

"This meeting gave the public the opportunity to listen and to communicate. After we have a better understanding of the tyre-burning we will then move on to the Climafuel. It is hoped that the meeting explained everything in as little jargon as possible and I hope people who have come to those meeting have gone away more in the light."

Thursday evening's meeting, was chaired by MP JEREMY WRIGHT, and included on the panel: Rugby/Cemex David Evans; RBC EHO Sean Lawson; Friends of the Earth Lesley James: Ian Withers Environment Agency; Lilian Pallikaropoulos Rugby in Plume. Cemex wants to burn CLIMAFUEL - essentially household waste, (including plastic); and tyres - and claims it could reduce the amount of waste going to landfill sites. A FORMAL APPLICATION for permission to trial Climafuel will be made at the end of September when public feedback has been collected. However campaigners say their health could be affected by the burning of alternative fuels.

CEMEX TO BE SENTENCED AT CROWN COURT WARWICK 25TH AUGUST:
Firm in guilty plea on fallout, but powers of punishment in Rugby ruled insufficient:

Cemex pleaded guilty at Rugby Magistrate's Court on 26th July after the Environment Agency brought a charge when the plant exceeded emission (by an estimated FIVE TONNES of particulate) and is to be sentenced after a fallout which left homes and cars covered in a layer of dust on October 14th last year.


LETTERS
The Cemex debate rumbles on:

Gareth Prewett:

"Cllr Craig Humphrey's remark that the meeting was not as well attended as a meeting in Church Lawford a few years ago regarding the proposed airport tells you all that is needed to know about Rugby Borough Councillors. Had he taken the trouble to glance around the hall before making this wholly unnecessary remark, which only succeeded in giving Cemex an unexpected fillip, he would have noticed that no more than 6 out of 48 councillors could be bothered to turn up for this very important meeting.

It would appear that their concern and social conscience does not involve getting out of their chairs even for something as serious as this. Thankfully many unpaid but obviously more socially aware members of the rate-paying public did attend."

Lilian Pallikaropoulos

"The battle over whether the unsuitably located Rugby Cement co-incinerating plenty is the Best Practicable Environmental Option for the burning of London's waste, and waste tyres, has yet to be won. The campaign by Rugby in Plume is not about tyres, but about the principle of establishing the cement plant as a Co-incinerator, thus opening the floodgate to waste co-disposal.

The original planning application had no mandatory environment impact assessment and the burning of waste materials was specifically ruled out, but now we have this "change of use" to co-incinerator: by stealth! The dirty old cement plant made 300,000 tonnes of clinker a year, and this new one about 1,850,000 tonnes, with more than 700 heavy lorries on Rugby's streets each day.

In simple terms the monstrous 21st century plant gives out overall more toxic emissions than the old one, and apart from a reduction in sulphur dioxide, is not the "improvement" that the gullible and vulnerable Rugby residents were falsely promised.

Rugby in Plume now petitions the House of Lords in the hope they will be able to rectify this gross environmental travesty that has blighted the town of Rugby for residents and visitors alike."