Friday, May 30, 2008

West Dublin Incinerator

Rathcoole residents promise to fight thermal waste treatment plant plans

LOCAL residents in the Dublin suburb of Rathcoole have vowed to oppose plans by a US waste management company to build a waste treatment plant close to the main N7 route.

A spokesperson for the Rathcoole Community Council said last night that it has serious concerns about the threat that the proposed plant at Behan's Quarry posed to people living in the area.

It follows formal notification issued yesterday by US firm, Energy Answers International, that it will lodge an application for planning permission for the €200 million facility with An Bord Pleanála.

The company was able to bypass seeking planning permission from South Dublin County Council after An Bord Pleanála ruled last December that the project could avail of a fast-track procedure which allows strategic infrastructural developments to avoid requiring planning permission from a local authority.

Energy Answers claims its plant, which it describes as "a resource recovery project", is the first of its kind in Ireland. It will incorporate both mechanical and thermal treatment facilities.

It objects to the term ‘incinerator' used by opponents of the plant, including the Rathcoole Community Council.

It plans to thermally treat 356,000 tons of non-hazardous municipal solid waste each year. The company claims the process will also allow for 10% of the treated waste to be recoverable and recyclable, which can provide electricity for 43,000 homes.

Energy Answers also claims the entire project will be privately financed without the need to seek guarantees of income from local authorities.

However, a spokesperson for Rathcoole Community Council said it was concerned about the company's track record in operating a similar plant in the US.

She also claimed local residents were worried about that prevailing south-west winds would carry any emissions from the plant in the direction of large populations in nearby Rathcoole and Tallaght.

The Rathcoole Community Council has also questioned the need for the facility on the basis that the four Dublin local authorities are supporting a similar controversial project on the Poolbeg peninsula in Ringsend.

The spokesperson said locals were suspicious that the Rathcoole plant could give the Government an excuse not to proceed with the proposed incinerator in Poolbeg.

"It would suit [Minister for the Environment] John Gormley because of the opposition he is facing in his own constituency," she remarked.

It is expected that An Bord Pleanála will hold a public hearing into the matter before making its decision.

Seán McCárthaigh
© Irish Examiner 28.05.08

____________________
Does EPA-Ireland Have Any Integrity?
http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-epa-ireland-have-any-integrity.html

Covanta Alias Is Energy Answers
http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/07/covanta-alias-is-energy-answers.html

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Judge Swoops On Incinerator Bosses

"Fuhgeddaboutit! No really Frankie, you keep the f*#kin' money!"
__________
(AGI) - Naples, 27 May, 2008

Under house-arrest this morning, ordered by the Investigating Magistrate of Naples Court:
  • Andrea Orazio Monaco - Caivano Incinerator Boss;
  • Elpidio Angelino - Giugliano Incinerator Boss;
  • Domenico Ruggiero - Battipaglia Incinerator Boss;
  • Pasquale Moschella - Santa Maria Capua Vetere Incinerator Boss;
  • Silvio Astronomo - Casalduni Incinerator Boss;
  • Alessandro Di Giacomo - Pianodardine Incinerator Boss.

____________



__________________________
More:
http://www.agi.it/italy/news/200805271812-cro-ren0079-art.html

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

New Moscow Incinerator - Health Issues Ignored



Moscow Incinerator, 27 May 2008. By Maria Antonova and Matt Siegel.
Extracts -
Click green-title for original article.

  • Dangerous materials not removed.

  • Public Officials don't understand health issues.

  • What you can not see is dangerous.


Moscow plans to spend $2.5 billion on incineration. Moscow already ranks among the world's most polluted cities.

Much of the opposition centers on the fact that there is no law mandating the removal of dangerous substances, such as batteries or aerosol, prior to incineration. This greatly increases the level of cancer-causing agents like dioxin and mercury.

  • Part of the problem is getting officials to understand the very real public health issues that exist even if the plants look safe.

Visitors expecting a post-apocalyptic hellscape might be surprised if they visit existing incinerators like the one near Lipina's home in Kozhukhovo. A peaceful landscape of trees, fields and hills surrounds the incinerator with its towering smokestack. It is not always what you can see that does the most damage, however. A 2008 study commissioned by

  • the French government concluded that people living downwind of an incinerator are 20 percent more likely to developer cancer than their peers.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Monkeys In 20th Century White Suits


County poised for 20 more years of burning garbage

Charleston's Pit of Fire


BY STRATTON LAWRENCE

Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned

Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned
Stratton Lawrence

Near Spruill Avenue in North Charleston, along the bank of Shipyard Creek, sits a massive, fiery cauldron. After a garbage truck empties the trash can in front of your house, four out of five times it then heads toward Charleston County's incinerator, the only municipal trash-burning facility still operating in South Carolina. Once there, plastic bottles, batteries, candy wrappers, dirty diapers, and banana peels are shoved together into the scorching inferno, reducing their total mass by over two-thirds. The ash that's left (47,000 tons last year) is dumped in the landfill. Much of the mercury, particulate matter, and poisonous dioxins created are captured by activated charcoal and static electricity in an "electrostatic precipitator." But take a not-too-deep breath ... what's not caught blows into the air over Charleston.

"We've been burning trash since the days of the cave man," says Bob Guild, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who's worked on several incinerator cases. "You can dress people up in white outfits and have sophisticated machines, but the bottom line is we're using a technology about as primitive as human culture itself to manage our waste."

Two months ago, the incinerator was all but toast. Due to costs and environmental concerns, Charleston County Council voted to discontinue its use when operator Veolia-Montenay's current contract expired, instead diverting future trash to the Bees Ferry and pending Adams Run landfills. With 80 percent of our garbage currently being burned (230,000 tons each year), that would have meant the rapid growth of our own Mt. Trashmore in West Ashley. Bees Ferry-area homeowners then became upset about a pile of trash potentially as high as the round Holiday Inn. Veolia-Montenay came back with a plan to install a $10 million "bag house" vacuum that would cut mercury emissions by 70 percent and particulate matter in half, and Charleston County's Solid Waste department showed interest.

Councilwoman Colleen Condon now says it's "extremely likely" that they'll go forward with the incinerator, extending Veolia-Montenay's contract for 20 more years, with a possible provision allowing for 10 more in addition to that.

"The agreement we have on principle is very satisfactory to most council members. We just have to fine-tune the details about emissions levels," she says.

Our incinerator currently emits 129 pounds of mercury into the air each year from batteries, light bulbs, and other items that people put in the trash. Only four power plants in the state emit more. Even minute amounts of mercury in our body can effect neurological development, and it's a suspected factor in the autism epidemic. The 2,600 degree temperatures in the furnace also create a prime habitat for the creation of dioxins, among the most toxic chemicals to the human body and environment.

Gregg Varner, the county's director of solid waste, stresses that no renewal agreement has yet been signed and that the current contract doesn't end until 2010, but council's Special Finance Committee will discuss the issue at their May 20 meeting. He says the improvements include a turbine upgrade, which will allow the creation of more electricity from the incineration process. Currently, the "waste-to-energy" plant generates enough to power 7,000 to 10,000 homes, which is used to run the incinerator and provide revenue by selling the excess to North Carolina utility CP&L. Varner also touts a ferrous metal recovery system which will pull metal scraps from the ash pile and allow them to be recycled.

Coinciding with the decision to extend the incinerator's life at least 20 years, County Council has proposed a "Green Ribbon Committee" to explore ways of making the county's operations more environmentally responsible. Councilwoman Condon says that at a recent solid waste public meeting, constituents expressed a desire for a comprehensive strategy to promote recycling and reduce waste.

But the technicalities of the incinerator's contract could actually discourage the active pursuit of that goal. The contract has a minimum tonnage agreement that assures Veolia-Montenay 175,000 tons of garbage each year. The county's cost to incinerate decreases after meeting that goal, creating an economic incentive to burn as much as possible.

Kevin Richardson, a local soil and waste expert and a member of the subcommittee on waste and recycling for the city of Charleston's Green Council, worries that such agreements will preclude future efforts to pick up recycling from businesses, a service currently not offered by the county. Ideas like weighing household trash with a scale on the truck, and charging users accordingly, might also be discouraged.

"I just don't see how burning trash is a good way to manage the situation, especially when there's so many viable alternatives that are good for the environment, people, and business," says Richardson. "I think that within the next 20 years, it'll be common knowledge that burning trash is terrible, so why would we legally bind ourselves to it for 20 years now, when we know it's a bad thing to do?"

Attorney Guild points out that federal cap-and-trade carbon emission laws could also end up costing the county money if imposed during the duration of a binding contract.

"It's a devil's bargain what we do with our waste, because we're inevitably transferring it from one medium to another, whether it's a hole in the ground or into the air," says Guild. "But by the process of incineration, you liberate large volumes of mobile materials into the atmosphere that are hazardous to human health. It's a way of spreading our pollution very broadly to our lungs and environment."

The value of recyclables continues to rise, as does the cost of waste disposal. With the current contract good until 2010, environmentalists like Guild and Richardson hope that council will carefully consider profitable alternatives before fast-tracking the county into 20 more years of burn, baby, burn.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Front Companies & Dublin City Council

In the business world, front companies are used to shield the parent company from legal liability.

Front Organisation

See Also http://www.fiasco.ie/dublinincinerator/index.html

Is Dublin City Council a front organisation?
DCC has used €18 Million in Irish tax-payer money to promote business for foreign corporations.

The tobacco industry claims cigarette smoke is safe.
The incineration industry claims it's pollution particles are safe.
So why hide behind legal firewalls in Luxembourg?

__________________
Wikipedia definition: A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization, such as intelligence agencies, criminal organizations, banned organizations, religious or political groups, advocacy groups, or corporations. Front organizations can act for the parent group without the actions being attributed to the parent group.

Many organized crime operations have substantial legitimate businesses, such as building construction companies, trash hauling services, or dock loading enterprises.


Monday, May 12, 2008

Ringsend Death Risk is 20-80 Times Higher With Incinerator.




Incinerator Will Increase Deaths By
Twenty To Eighty Times.



Chart: Level of exposure to fine particulate matter and the risk of deep vein thrombosis.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/168/9/920/IOI80006F2


Interpretation

The upper chart says the risk of death from deep vein thrombosis in Ringsend/Poolbeg is already ten to twenty times higher than in a cleaner-air suburb. An excellent location for further toxic chemical pollution from a Waste-To-Toxics factory!
  • An incinerator managed as cynically as DCC's Sewage Factory will increase the death risk by 20 to 80 times.
  • You can not prove pollution particles have damaged your health.
Death Risk increases by 70% for each extra 10 µg/m3 in PM10.

Will you bet your life on the curious air-quality reports produced by the cynical promoters of the Dublin Bay Incinerator at Poolbeg?

You can smell sewage facility by-products.
You can not smell dangerous PM10 or PM2.5 particles.
You can not prove PM10 nor PM2.5 particles have damaged your health.


Note:
This May 2008 Italian research is for PM10 particles.
The even more deadly PM2.5 and PM1.0 particles are typically not measured by any government. This is used in the "no evidence" excuse used by industry experts, a tobacco industry best-practice.

The Big Lie Technique
You spend millions to promote an Urban Beach.
This is after you first turn Sandymount Strand into a Toxic Dump and use The Big Lie to name it Sean Moore Park.

Poolbeg is already at or above the W.H.O. recommended level for deadly PM2.5 pollution.
But you can not prove that.

Neither EPA-Ireland, DCC nor DDDA have used their millions of taxpayer funds to publish comprehensive peer-reviewed science-led air quality surveys, apparently. DDDA in its glossy brochures makes reference to what appears to be a political-science analysis done at its IGB site and to a suboptimal analysis done for just 8 months, possibly using a jam jar, in Pearse Street.

DCC produced a deeply flawed air quality report at The Bord Pleanala hearing. The EPA-Ireland website does not list site-specific-sources of deadly PM pollution at Poolbeg (the EPA-USA has similar data on-line).

The Irish Independent reports that the former Ten Year Director of EPA-Ireland has been hired by Covanta-Energy-Answers

Reason
For The Big Lie Technique (allegedly): Deniability.

__________________________________________
Science


Vol. 168 No. 9, May 12, 2008
Original Investigation

Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis

Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD; Ida Martinelli, MD; Antonella Zanobetti, PhD; Paolo Grillo, MD; Li-Fang Hou, PhD; Pier A. Bertazzi, MD; Pier Mannuccio Mannucci, MD; Joel Schwartz, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(9):920-927

Result
Each increase of 10 µg/m3 in PM10 was associated with a 70% increase in
deep vein thrombosis risk.

___________________________________

The chart demonstrates the observed relationship between the relative risk of DVT and the level of particulate matter of less than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) in the year preceding the diagnosis.

These results suggest a linear relationship between exposure and risk, though the 95% confidence intervals (shaded areas) are wide at the extremes of exposure. Risk is depicted in comparison with a reference value of 12.0 µg/m3 (minimum observed PM10 level).

The histogram in the bottom part illustrates the density of exposure distribution for air pollution. Risk estimates are adjusted for age, sex, year of diagnosis, area of residence, body mass index, education, current use of oral contraceptives or hormone therapy, Leiden V or prothrombin mutations, season, and ambient temperature.


__________________________________________
Check It Yourself: Click blog posting title or click here
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/168/9/920