Your Guardian
Send your messages to 80360, start your message with Cheshire News or click here to contact us »
Want to share your opinion, leave a tribute or comment on a news story? It's easy!
You can register for free here and comment on any of our stories.
Your news, Your views.
New incinerator planned
10:52am Monday 4th February 2008
Comments (912) Have your say »
PLANS for a fourth incinerator in Cheshire have been announced.
Proposals for an energy from waste plant are being prepared for a site at Midpoint 18 in Middlewich - just five miles away from a proposed site in Lostock Gralam.
Cheshire residents are also fighting proposals for incinerators at Weston Point, in Runcorn, and Ince Marshes.
A public exhibition about the Middlewich proposal will be taking place at Middlewich Community Church, in Brooks Lane, from 2pm to 9pm on February 21 and 22, and from 10am to 3pm on February 23.
What do you think about proposals for a fourth incinerator in Cheshire?
Your Say YourWinsford Guardian
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08
This is outrageous. The southerners have landed this on us because they wont put there precious incinerators where they live. I say we need to fight more, petitions will be ignored. Don't let the government damage your life. If they want an incinerator, build it where they live, not in someone elses back garden.
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Nathaniel Harwood is mistaken if he thinks that incinerators are a northern issue as Sita wish to build one at Capel, Surrey and Capel Action Group have booked Dr Dick van Steenis to speak at a public meeting on the health effects on 5 Feb 2008.
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
The Surrey Mirror and Dorking Advertiser have both printed maps showing elevated infant mortality rates in electoral wards downwind of incinerators at Kirklees, Coventry and Edmonton.
Your local papers should print ward maps showing the existing pattern of infant deaths in Cheshire before another incinerator makes matters worse.
You also need a public meeting where a medically-qualified doctor can explain matters.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
12:55pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Cheshire Council again appear determined to disregard advice and successful models set by other councils and take the easy solution to waste management. Perhaps the following might galvanise the local residents to at least make a effort to come together to fight these damaging plans to build a incinerator in the heart of a residential community.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
"Air emissions from waste incinerators have been positively identified as
a cause of cancer and other health damage in 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 the communities living in the vicinity (0.5km to 5km) 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 (and is a pre-cursor of ozone, which also contributes to
respiratory problems)
• Sulphur Oxides : A by product of the process of burning waste also have
respiratory effects
• Particulates: Cause respiratory effects and there is no known safe
threshold
• Dioxins: Class 1 Carcinogen (as TCDD). Affects development and
reproduction Highly Toxic, persistent, bio accumulative. Can contaminate
the food chain
• Developmental impacts: Birth-defects, foetal death, impaired neurological,
development and subsequent cognitive defects, altered sexual
development.
As the results from these studies are wildly available it does make you consider what our elected representatives consider sound advice.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Basil, Middlewich says...
3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
Lee knight, Middlewich says...
5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Basil wrote:I agree that a balanced view would be of help in providing information, unfortunatley informed residents historically have little sway over the County's plans. The council have already identified the requiremnet for six number waste management sites within Cheshire (the councils own figures, however detail sufficient waste is not produced within Cheshire to warrent a EFW plant) and as the land fill site is to be pushed ahead in Middlewich anyway a requiremnet for this plant seems ill advised and would only compound the problems which already exist i.e. unsuitable transport network (the eastern bypass is already detailed within the County's plans and as such is not dependant on this development), residential pollution etc. There is a requirement to educate the public in the benifits of better management and alternatives, however this would also seem to be the case with the council as better solutions are readliy available to tackle the problem of waste management, however these may not prove to be as cost beneficial to the local authority.
I've just been reading the leaflet pushed through my door about this proposed development. While the leaflet obviously focuses on the benefits to the community in building the plant (alternative to landfill, generation of local electricity etc etc) I really can't help thinking that the 'voice' of the Guardian is sadly lacking in the whole incinerator debate. What would be really useful to the community would be the paper to put together an in depth article about these proposals - with balanced arguments from both sides of the debate - and let people make an informed choice. Simply publishing half a story, that stirs up more bad feeling than does good, is really not helping.
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we don’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. I’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we donÂ’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. IÂ’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we donÂ’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. IÂ’m moving out!!!!!
chris jennings, says...
5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Middlewich is becoming an embarrassment of poor decisions for the local council , gas plants , rubbish tips , poor policing , road congestion more and more facilities we donÂ’t need like an incinerator and absolutely no development of the Town It Self. IÂ’m moving out!!!!!
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of today’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that it’s a good thing and it’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Jack Jones, Middlewich says...
6:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Supporters of incinerators will tell you that anyone protesting about them knows
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
nothing of todayÂ’s technology and that they are perfectly safe. We hear this from
many sources, from the Government of the day, Incinerator manufacturers, lobby
groups and even some local councillors.
However, there are a few points worth remembering in this debate.
• Despite extensive research we have yet to find any politician living in the
shadow of an incinerator and still agreeing that itÂ’s a good thing and itÂ’s
safe.
• The principle outputs of modern incinerators are dioxins and furans and
they have been proven to be carcinogenic.
• In the USA they are obliged to put warning signs on the perimeter fences
of Incinerators warning that they produce lethal and toxic outputs. No
new incinerators have been built in the USA for the past 8 years – all
through public protest.
• No one knows for sure what levels of exposure to dioxins are safe for
humans, except that in excess they can be lethal.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
7:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Its interesting to note that recent reports commissioned Defra and the DTI state:
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Whilst There are many factors associated with waste disposal policy and practice
and with local planning issues that will affect where and when future EfW
plants are built. Increasing costs of compliance with waste combustion
legislation is making smaller plant less financially attractive than larger
ones. These larger plants have more lorry movements associated with
them, favouring location away from residential or commercial districts and
thus away from major heat loads.
And yet our elected officials have designated Brooks Lane in Middlewich as a suitable location for a large scale EfW Plant.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Mark, Middlewich says...
3:08pm Tue 5 Feb 08
I am very disappointed to hear of these plans.How can it possibly be a good place for an incinerator - so close to a town centre.My main concern is that having been to many similar incinerators (in previous employment for a stack emissions monitoring company), the shear number of bin lorries coming and going to these places is very high in an area which is already very congested.The best place for incinerators (which personally I don't think are a bad idea in themselves)is in areas of existing large industry (e.g. ex ICI sites or similar) and not just in a small business park which happens to have some cheap land going spare. Hopefully all the town can get together and fight this and persuade the council that this is stupid.
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Terry, Winsford says...
8:00pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark, very nobel of you, but you would express support for incinerators in general since you as you say you have worked in an industry involving them in your work, keeping you in paid employment for god knows how many years. Rather biased I would say!
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Iggle Piggle, Winsford says...
8:54pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Rob Whittle, Norwich says...
10:44pm Tue 5 Feb 08
All should view the following modern incinerator PM2.5 infant mortality maps. Decide for yourself folks.
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
http://www.mole-vall
ey.gov.uk/index.cfm?
articleid=3585
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:The publics main concern should be how this proposal ever came to be considered. I agree that informed choice needs to be provided but as in my previous comments education needs directing at the local councils and planning officers who ultimately make these decisions.
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balanced argument, instead swathes have been set aside to denounce these facilities out of hand and advertise ill-conceived misgivings from poorly-informed idiots (Alan Lowe from Rudheath springs to mind). It has not escaped my attention that the self-same complainants do not wish to see EfW plants, landfill sites, underground disposal, power stations, or wind turbines. Lord knows where they expect power to come from and waste to go to! Guardian - get your act together and have a reporter do some proper research. It might not sell papers with scare stories but it may at least allow the silent majority to be better-informed....
How could the construction and operation of a large scale EfW plant be considered in the centre of a small residential community in the first place, and why are the council not looking at alternative solutions, the governments waste strategy states that anaerobic solutions should be of primary consideration whilst successful models across the world are showing that zero waste schemes are realistic.
¡P Canberra, Australia - 66% in 2000. Zero waste by 2010
¡P Mersea Island, Kent - 57% recycled.
¡P ƒnWealden, East Sussex - 53%
¡P Toronto, Canada, Waste Plan 60% diversion from landfill by 2006, 100%
by 2010.
¡P Nova Scotia, Canada - 50% reduction in waste
¡P Edmonton, Canada - 70% reduction in waste
¡P San Francisco, USA, aiming for zero waste. Already over 70%
The recent recycling scheme introduced by Congleton Council has seen a 70% take up by residents, whilst Vale Royal Borough Council are currently recycling 40% of their waste. Scare stories may sell papers but they may also encourage the ¡¥silent majority¡¦ to stand up and be counted when our officials come to make a decision on the future of Middlewich.
Lee Knight, Middlewich says...
9:45am Wed 6 Feb 08
Iggle Piggle wrote:
Mark from Middlewich is correct. The publics' main concern should be the traffic movements arising from the facility, not the emissions. I have visited many Energy from Waste (EfW) plants in the UK and mainland Europe and have observed, in the majority of cases, exemplary environmental compliance. Relatively small plants which provide district heating from low-grade heat (what a good idea) are embraced by people in The Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. Hardly known for their environmental complacency, these countries! This industry is amongst the mostly tightly-regulated in Europe. For every report screaming about dioxin health risks, you can find another that has observed no measurable adverse effect when normalised for the background populations' general health - smoking etc. Treatment by both local newspapers of the incineration stories has been nothing short of scandalous. Precious few column inches have been devoted to balan
Nathaniel Harwood, Northwich, UK says...
11:25am Mon 4 Feb 08