|
|
 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Mailbag: Feb - July 2006
|
![]() |
|
CONTENTS:
1) Incineration (February - July 2006
2) Recycling (January - April 2006)
3) Incineration (December 2005 - January 2006
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hull Friends of the Earth Home Page
Incineration... Dec 05-Jan-06
Letters published in Hull Daily Mail
WHY SO EAGER TO BURN WASTE?
Found the reply to my letter about incineration in January's East Riding News by Cassie Hart Fisher, East Riding Council's waste development and performance manager, very disappointing.
First, the target of 45 per cent recycling seems very complacent when some other authorities have already exceeded that and some are aiming for zero waste.
This may seem ambitious, but it is possible, as shown by examples such as Nova Scotia in Canada, a province of 950,000 people who regard waste as a resource and dismissed incineration.
They have full kerbside collection and all organic waste is collected and composted.
Why are our authorities so committed to burning waste? It is an expensive option that will take more than 20 years to recover its set up costs. It is only 20 per cent efficient and the claim that 80,000 tons of coal will be saved is less than if the materials are recycled, which would save 100,000 tons.
Incineration undermines recycling efforts by creating a demand for burnable waste, which if not met under the contracts results in fines by the operators such as those imposed in Cleveland and Nottingham.
Burning destroys more energy than it makes, as recycling is more energy efficient.
The claim that modern incinerators are cleaner is also in some doubt.
Who wants to live or work under a pall of dioxins and PCBs when cleaner, sustainable alternatives are available?
Again, why would Hull and the East Riding authorities think incineration is the answer?
Do they lack the political will to go down the alternative path for fear that the public will rebel against measures such as alternate collections?
Is it just easier for officers to outsource their responsibilities or do collection authorities hope it will mean the waste will just magically disappear so they don't have to face the problem?
Members of the public may feel that if they are not living near the proposed site they will be immune to problems associated with it. This is a completely "head in the sand" attitude as the continued waste of resources will impact on everyone eventually through higher prices for goods.
Don't let us be complacent, let us drop any idea of burning our way out of the problem and let us opt for a more imaginative, job-creating, long-term, sustainable option that we can all contribute to.
Christina Upton,
January 2006
YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS YOU NEED, MR STUART
In Response to the letter from Graham Stuart MP, "We can't offer any alternative to an incinerator when we don't have the facts" (Letters, January 14).
Firstly, the Best Practicable Environmental Options (BPEO) consultation exercise, commissioned by the joint authorities to establish the way forward with waste disposal, looked at all the options and included the views of the public.
This ranked incineration and high recycling as the clear preference for household waste disposal.
This BPEO document is a public document and it is fully available to Mr Stuart. Additionally Mr Stuart was fully briefed, at a requested meeting. This was a lengthy briefing, which explained to him the BPEO consultation and all the implications of the landfill legislation on waste disposal for the authorities.
WRG, the contractor for the joint authorities, has written to residents of all areas near the Saltend site to explain the proposals for the development of facilities and to offer the opportunity for residents' views to be put forward.
WRG is also to run a series of exhibitions to explain, in greater detail, the proposals and the constraints and safeguards it will have to operate under.
East Riding Council has updated residents and answered questions through its own newspaper. This includes us pursuing waste reduction and recycling through a questionnaire seeking views on improving recycling facilities.
The issue of the capacity of the new proposal differing from the refused Foster Street plant is easily answered: The Foster Street plant was designed to handle the amount of waste arising at that time.
Waste from East Riding and Hull residents has grown since then and this new Saltend proposal is designed to handle the amount of waste we forecast will be collected from households by 2012. This reinforces the need for us all to make a big effort to achieve a 45 per cent recycling rate and to concentrate on reducing the amount of waste we each produce.
Mr Stuart raises one last issue, that of road haulage of waste. The waste is already being hauled across the city by road as we take it to dump in landfill sites. There are no plans to increase the amount of waste moved around the road network except in response to the needs of our residents.
Cllr Symon Fraser,
January 2006
WE CAN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE TO AN INCINERATOR WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTS
He asks what alternative proposals to the incinerator at Saltend are being put forward by Hoti (Holderness Opposing The Incinerator), the organisation I set up to oppose the plans.
The simple answer for now is none. We haven't been provided with enough information by WRG - the company responsible for dealing with the councils' waste - to be able to put any forward.
We don't know which other sites WRG looked at because, for now, they won't tell us. We don't know what the combined environmental impacts will be for the incinerator because, up to now, no environmental impact assessment has been carried out. We don't know how much waste will be carried by truck, on which roads and at what times. We don't even know what sort of incinerator is being proposed.
None of this is likely to be revealed until the planning application is submitted, probably in June.
What we do know is that residents to the east of Hull have to put up with impacts from the BP plant, the Electro Furnace plant, Cranswick Foods and the stench from the water treatment plant. We don't think it is fair to ask them to put up with an incinerator as well.
We also know the incinerator will be able to handle 240,000 tons of waste a year, a 50 per cent increase on the last proposal at Foster Street just a few years ago.
We don't know why, if they were 50 per cent out last time, we should be any more confident of their judgments now.
The planning application by WRG will probably be decided in November of this year.
I urge WRG and the local councils to be as open as possible during this process, to share information early and so ensure the best possible decision is made by the planning committee.
Hoti will certainly play its part. For more information, visit www.hoti.org.uk
Graham Stuart MP.
January 2006
HOW WILL INCINERATOR BE GOOD FOR US?
Is It any wonder Hull comes in for criticism from every Tom, Dick and Harry when we have planners, WRG and councillors telling us this new incinerator will be good for us?
Will it give us cheaper electricity or cheaper rates? Will it be good for our health?
In the same breath, they say if we don't have this incinerator, our rates will increase because of landfill tax.
Please stop threatening us and insulting our intelligence.
Our council tax will go up whether we do or don't.
If this incinerator is built, we might as well throw the towel in and start believing the Toms, Dicks and Harrys of this country.
Jim Barker,
January 2006
WE'RE LOSING OUR RIGHTS
Where are our rights and democracy going?
Councils had cabinets imposed on them by Government and they took advantage of this by imposing an incinerator on us without discussion with the council. Then we had the big screen fiasco.
I urge the electorate to protest strongly on our diminishing democracy and ask all opposition parties to unite and challenge the Government and councillors whenever they step out of line. Otherwise, we may face losing our rights altogether.
Has democracy disappeared? I have no desire to live in a dictatorship.
Len Drinkell,
January 2006
WE NEED TO TEAM UP TO FIGHT PLANS
The people of Holderness have a genuine right to be concerned regarding the proposed siting of an incinerator at Saltend.
Of course the reason WRG wants to put it there is because of the sea and rail access. I think it is likely to import other countries' waste to feed the incinerator.
Don't forget it is in business to make money.
People power got rid of plans to extend the slaughterhouse at Preston and the Macdonald's at Hedon - now let the people get together and fight this.
Two down and one to go, the health of future generations is at risk.
EC Spamer,
January 2006
IF HOTI PUT FORWARD A BETTER ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD SUPPORT THEM
I Understand completely the reasons of those who do not want an incinerator built near their homes or their other facilities.
If the Holderness Opposing The Incinerator group (Hoti) were to put forward a workable, affordable scheme that would be a better way of dealing with the solid waste we all produce, I for one would support them.
Nobody wants to see lorries full of waste driving anywhere, if there was a better way. First you have to persuade people to take up minimising, reusing and recycling and then you have to deal with that with which you are left. Not a soft option.
If, after that, burning is the best environmental option, bearing in mind the failings, placing the incinerator in the centre of the city was the worst solution. I did not argue against the city centre position because it was so obviously a mistake and would be stopped.
Putting an incinerator in open countryside, near Beverley or Hessle or further into Holderness might be the considered the first choice, but the extra travel for the waste, deterioration of that countryside and the pollution of those in another area are all against it.
An incinerator on a heavy industrial site in Hedon might be the best of many bad options.
I am not arguing an incinerator in Hedon is a good idea. Just that I don't know a better one. What are the alternatives suggested by Hoti?
Jim Parish,
January 2006
OPEN DEBATE IS BEST WAY FORWARD ON INCINERATOR STALEMATE
I See that, until the planning application for the household waste incinerator comes up for approval, readers are in for "The Big Yawn".
Yes, the battle of letters in the Mail between campaigners such as myself and East Riding Council/Hull City Council over the matter.
In the past, some of the letters sent in have been excellent; some downright pointless.
May I suggest a civilised solution?
We campaigners wish to debate the whole issue in public with those council officers and cabinet members who are so enthusiastic for us to have a 326,000-tons-per-year incinerator. Unfortunately, officers and cabinet members simply refuse. (Oh, of course, there were those "workshops" in 2004. Clearly these insults to democracy are supposed to have been sufficient.)
Despite this, I ask the officers/cabinet members to meet us in public. I guarantee their fears that we will act like yobs are groundless.
PS: Sending the agents Waste Recycling Group does not count.
Barry Robinson,
December 2005
OUTRAGE OF RESIDENTS IS TO BE EXPECTED
Wrg's announcement has provoked understandable outrage among Holderness residents who feel they may be "dumped on" again.
The continuing problems with Yorkshire Water's sewage works point to a lack of planning at the design stage for that plant and I fear WRG is making a similar mistake.
WRG's proposed site appears to have been chosen on political grounds. Unfortunately, the company appears to have overlooked some issues.
One of these is the fact that the chosen site is on top of the outfall tunnel for Yorkshire Water's sewage works.
This prompts questions about how the structural integrity of the tunnel could be guaranteed during the necessary piling operations on this reclaimed land.
And how would the outfall tunnel be accessed in the future, if and when the need arises, if the incinerator is built on top of it?
It is encouraging that our MP has taken a high-profile stance against this proposal and I hope members of all parties will unite in the campaign to fight the application.
Councillor Carole Lynn, Liberal Democrat,
December 2005
INCINERATOR'S TRAFFIC IMPACT BEING IGNORED
Regarding WRG's plans to build an incinerator, I agree with Holderness MP Graham Stuart when he says WRG is not giving the public the information they need.
The point I make is the transportation side of the scheme.
According to the Mail, 132 heavy (how heavy?) vehicles will visit the Saltend plant each day.
Does that mean five days a week or seven? Does the lorry figure include transport to remove incinerated waste, such as ash, metals and residues from flue gases?
If the AB Ports container terminal extension on Victoria Dock is still ongoing, then the combined additional heavy transport from both projects will cause traffic chaos.
The increase in traffic to and from Saltend and Victoria Dock can only travel via Castle Street or the ring road via Marfleet, Maybury Road, Ings Road, Sutton Road and through Kingswood.
Castle Street is already saturated, so how much of the East Riding's waste will come through east Hull?
How much pollution will be caused when these heavy vehicles are waiting at traffic lights, or waiting for school crossing wardens four times a day?
There are four schools between Sutton Road and St Richard's at Marfleet.
In my opinion, east of Hull has its share of heavy industry.
A better site would be a west Hull location.
T Clayton,
December 2005
SO, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH OUR RUBBISH?
Week in, week out I read with interest objections from point-scoring opposition councillors and some members of the public, not wanting to have incinerators at any cost.
The thing that amazes me is not one person can explain why, or more importantly, what alternative there is. Don't say more landfill sites - there is not even enough land left to bury our dead. Let's hear your suggestions on this page.
DF Falconer,
December 2005
Recycling... Jan - Mar 06
Letters courtesy of from Hull Daily Mail
THE WASTE QUESTION
When there are no easy answers, a good rule to follow is, look at the question again.
In the case of waste, are we sure we are asking the right question? For example, before asking how can we recycle more, landfill less, and so on, we really should be asking how can we create less waste.
The top term of the waste hierarchy is Reduce. It is easy to forget, when the pressure on councils is usually in terms of percentages of total waste, but reduction should come first, and this applies not just to householders but to suppliers and manufacturers. And it also needs a lead from government.
We buy a lot of things that are hard to recycle but which could be designed and manufactured with recycling in mind. It's starting to happen with cars. It should be on the way with mobile phones.
And whatever we buy, we could probably do with less packaging, packaging that is easier to open, and packaging that can be recycled. I got a fragile parcel not so long ago. The contents were packed with paper cushions. They rotted down nicely with my compost. You can't do that with polystyrene pellets. What about biodegradable plastics that can be made from crops grown on land not used for food crops?
There are possible solutions if we look for them, but sticking to the old answers like incineration and landfill is storing up trouble for the future.
Stephen Noreiko
March 2006
HAPPY TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSION OVER WASTE
In Response to the two letters from East Riding Councillor Carole Lynn regarding confusion over incinerators.
After numerous seminars, presentations, visits, and briefings I find it hard to believe that any councillors are still confused.
Well, I'm more than happy to offer information to clarify any continuing confusion.
I have to say, there seems to be an increasing number of confused messages from councillors who otherwise claim to support recycling - maybe it's catching.
Recently I was sent a copy of a leaflet circulating in the Willerby and Kirk Ella wards, in which the councillors are seeking to pressure for larger wheelie bins.
No, not the blue recycling bin to help them recycle, but the green wheelie bin to increase the amount of non-recyclable waste presently destined for landfill.
I would like to assure your readers that East Riding Council's commitment to recycling continues to gather strength.
The roll-out of the green and blue bin system is almost complete. Our Conservative budget includes for seven-day opening at even more of our amenity sites.
We are to run a pilot trial over the summer of extended opening hours at recycling sites across the East Riding to make it easier for residents to recycle a wider range of materials.
The next big effort centres on reducing the amount of green waste being dumped in landfill.
To do this we need to make it much easier for householders to compost garden materials.
Soon we will be providing free large garden dumpy bags to make it easy for residents to take green waste to a recycle site.
Home composters will be available for a nominal charge of just £6 and we are offering community groups and town and parish councils the opportunity to get real financial rewards for groups and organisations from involvement in community composting initiatives.
So, there is no confusion. Residents tell us that reducing waste and recycling are their key priorities and we are committed, along with Hull City Council and WRG, to providing the facilities to help them. The energy from waste plant is just another part of the effort to make good use of the waste we are not able to recycle by turning it into electricity and at the same time reducing the landfill dumping of waste in the East Riding countryside.
I agree that the issues around waste can be complicated and there are many misconceptions about the technologies.
Perhaps the issues are too complicated to adequately answer through the letters page of a newspaper.
However, through your pages we do ask anyone who has questions on which they would like further clarification to write to me at the Conservative group office, East Riding Council, County Hall, Beverley, HU17 9BA.
And if any residents find their blue bins do not provide sufficient recycling space for their papers, magazines, plastics and cans, we are more than happy to provide extra bins to help improve recycling and reduce landfill. Call Adam McArthur on (01482) 395291. To ask about community composting initiatives, call Matthew Lewer or Phil Milnes on (01482) 391719.
Councillor Symon Fraser,
March 2006
When are the people of the East Riding and Hull going to take responsibility for their refuse? 'It's the councils job I pay my council tax...' Who produces all the waste? Lazy people living on ready meals and pizza. Get off your posteriors, sort your recyclables and take responsibility!!!
James, Beverley
March 2006
The world is full of Roberts of Hedon. He may have once believed his own publicity, stood for election, got well and truely walloped by those who know him and spends the rest of his time telling those who where chosen how to do it. I have never seen his name at the fore front of campaigns for better re-cycling until faced with the incinerator, then he is plastered all over the pages. Those who have always objected get left by the wayside by Robert come latelys.
Pete, Hull
March 2006
I FIND RECYCLING MORE AND MORE CONFUSING
According to the article in the Hull Daily Mail (17 February 2006), shoes and leather goods are not accepted in the Hull black boxes, and I should remove lids from plastic bottles.
According to the Hull City Council sticker with the black box collection dates for 2006-7, what can go in the box includes pairs of shoes and leather goods, and there is no mention of removing lids and caps from plastic bottles.
If the Council is really keen on increasing recycling, then we need clear unambiguous instructions. If the Council tells the public one thing and the press another, then we risk having the recycling boxes filled with unsuitable stuff.
Or is there a sinister plot to prove that Hull folk can't be trusted to recycle properly so that the Council can claim the need for more and bigger incinerators to burn everything?
Carole Noreiko,
February 2006
RECYCLING IS ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH WASTE AND HELP SAVE PLANET
Back in 1987 the UN published a report titled Our Common Future, which was about saving the planet from any further destruction and ensuring there would be a future for us and the next generation.
Countries around the world, including the UK, signed up to this and Agenda 21 was created.
This became Local Agenda 21 and the obligation of every council to sustainable development.
This means nothing decided on by any council should harm our quality of life or the environment, not only in the present but in the future.
Both Hull City Council and East Riding Council have this obligation, yet they promote incineration, which is a direct violation of their obligations under Local Agenda 21.
Incinerators produce greenhouse gases and are a source of heavy metals, particulates and dioxins, all bad news for health.
Dioxins, for example, are extremely toxic, even in very low doses, and take a long time to break down. They are bio-accumulative (they build up in our bodies), can cause cancer and affect our hormones and unborn children. We already have dioxins in our air. We should not allow incinerators to increase the dose.
Recycling is the sustainable option. Research shows at least 80 per cent of our waste can be recycled or composted and many communities already achieve this.
The Netherlands achieved 60 per cent several years ago. Recycling also creates jobs. In Germany recycling employs more people than telecommunications and in the US it has overtaken the auto industry in direct jobs.
Redesigned production and increasing recycling is creating a new green industrial revolution. The councils are lost in the past and ruining our future, in my opinion. Both should be signing the Zero Waste Charter and stop trying to fool us that people prefer incineration based on the results of that so-called "consultation".
Dr Haris Livas-Dawes,
February 2006
TAKING RECYCLING SERIOUSLY
From the number of letters in The Mail, readers are at last taking the emotive subject of waste recycling seriously.
The only disappointing feature of all this correspondence is we now have the Holderness Nimbys joining the Ferriby High Road and Clough Road Nimbys who feel they speak for all the residents of the East Riding, Hull and Holderness.
The best article I have read on this subject was in this month's issue of The East Riding News, where James Ward interviewed Councillor Symon Fraser.
All the right questions were asked and a frank reply without any smoke-screens was given.
After reading this, if anyone with a genuine interest in waste recycling still has any questions unanswered may I suggest they visit the superb new recycling facility in Burma Road, east Hull.
This is a squeaky clean, state-of-the-art version of the proposed Humberfield site, completely under cover, and with no need to climb slippery steps to dispose of your rubbish.
Why not go and see for yourself, after all, we are the people creating the rubbish.
David N Bartlett,
January 2006
LIME IS ONE SOLUTION TO RECYCLING PROBLEMS
Regarding the debate about rubbish and pollution, I've been recycling (cleaning) bricks for 10 years now.
From day one, I thought about the lime mortar that was getting discarded and I soon found out the lime mortar was just as valuable.
What I found out was astonishing - lime is a living mineral and breathes, but will only breath in Co? (pollution) exhaust fumes or any germs and lives off it.
It's estimated for every ton of lime mortar laid, it takes a ton of Co? (pollution) to dry it.
Lime mortar was used for 3,000 years up until the end of the Second World War, when they wanted houses built faster and found something new called cement, which does not breathe.
So all the big boys bought all the lime mines and started making man-made cement instead. Every ton also takes a ton of Co? to make it. That doesn't seem right to me.
Our health, or more cement? Surely we could go back to the traditional ways. I now make lime paint, lime plaster and lime mortar all from recycling my bricks.
What I would like to do with old lorry tyres is put three on top of each other, fill them with my hard core and lime mortar and let them set a bit. It will never dry as it is living.
Lime is the only thing that can set under water. Link the tyres all together and make a barrier reef from Bridlington to Spurn to stop all the costal erosion.
Trevor Postill,
January 2006
RECYCLING SCHEME PRESENTED WRONGLY
What a pity Hull City Council felt it necessary to bribe its taxpayers - presumably from public funds - with the chance of finding a "crisp £20 note" in its information on changes to the refuse and recycling services.
There was a further inducement of a chance to win £200 of vouchers by returning a questionnaire. Who is funding this?
Councillor Daren Hale was quoted in the Mail saying: "Those who disagree with the initiative therefore disagree with the idea that our streets should be pleasant places to live."
Is that really true? The many letters in the Mail would suggest it's not the initiative that's the problem, but the way it's been presented to the public.
John Cross,
January 2006
Incineration... Feb 06 - July 06
Letters published in Hull Daily Mail
BURNER IS DOOMED FROM THE START
The whole incinerator scheme is ill-thought-out and destined to fail.
The waste is going to be transported between Holme-on-Spalding Moor and Saltend by road. This will result in lots more wagons on the A63 and M62 (to Howden) before they are routed via the A614 to Gallymoor.
WRG should put the whole operation on one central industrial site. Rural Gallymoor is not the place to do this kind of operation.
Ian Shields,
July 2006
MORE TRAFFIC, MORE POLLUTION...
From my understanding of the plan it would appear that rubbish will be carted from Hull to Holme upon Spalding Moor.It will then be sorted and the material for incineration will then be taken back to Saltend. More traffic - roughly 80 loads a day. More traffic, pollution and nuisance. It should be sorted at Saltend. This appears to another snafu from the Planning authorities.
David Wilson,
July 2006
NEIGHBOURHOOD BURNING MADNESS
Just a thought, but as the incinerator will be servicing the whole of Hull and the East Riding, no mattrer where it is located, traffic will have to be used to take the rubbish there. The alternative is to have your own friendly neighbourhood burner on each street corner. That is until a supermarket builds a bigger one and destroys the corner incinerator as they have with shops.
Anita,
July 2006
FLAWED SURVEY DIDN'T REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION
Throughout last year, the Hull and East Riding Joint Waste Management Committee maintained there was significant public support for an incinerator at Saltend.
Our two local authorities justified the claim with the results of a survey conducted on their behalf.
Residents and councillors opposed to the incinerator have challenged this interpretation consistently. During a recent meeting, concerns about the consultation were raised.
Given the authority's past guarantees regarding the sewerage plant, Councillor Fraser's assurances that the environment would be protected by existing planning controls failed to impress those who attended.
Writing to the Mail last December, an East Riding council officer insisted "all residents were able to rank incineration as their least- preferred option".
Not so. Only 250,000 questionnaires were distributed to as many households. Considerably more adults live in Hull and the East Riding. Therefore, all residents did not have the opportunity to rank incineration as their least- preferred option.
Of the questionnaires, only 29,000 were returned. Just 6,665 respondents chose incineration as their preferred option for the disposal of waste.
In fact, a greater number (6,826) actually placed incineration as their least-preferred option.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to avoid selecting incineration to any extent, 4,000 others declined to complete that section of the questionnaire at all.
The Hull and East Riding Joint Waste Management Committee ought to have recognised these 4,000 respondents had selected the only possible way of rejecting incineration entirely. Instead, it chose to disregard their contributions.
Because of the survey's ambiguity, it is impossible to draw any useful conclusions from the questionnaires returned by residents who "preferred" incineration as a second, third, fourth or fifth choice.
The authorities can claim the option was not entirely rejected. Equally, it is clear these respondents did not favour a waste burner sufficiently to make it their first choice.
Holderness Opposing The Incinerator considers it imperative Hull and East Riding councils now agree to a survey that will consult all residents, enable the arguments in favour and against incineration to be made and allow respondents the to make a clear choice .
Councillor Ann Suggit, member for South West Holderness,
July 2006
INCINERATOR DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A FAIT ACCOMPLI
Now that the planning application for the incinerator is before the two councils, it's worth repeating that incineration is non-sustainable, a health hazard and contributes to climate change.
What is the alternative? Zero waste. As expert Richard Anthony told a packed meeting of Hull and Holderness Opposing the Incinerator (Hoti), zero waste is possible and he used the example of Lowestoft.
There are only 12 categories of materials in the world and all can be reused or recycled. The best place to do this is an all-purpose resource recovery park, which creates jobs and not only makes money, but also dispenses it.
The earth's resources are finite and either burning or burying them is criminal. In my opinion, the two councils should renegotiate their agreement with WRG.
If WRG is honest about its title, it can replace the incinerator with a resource recovery park. As councillors from both councils were present at the meeting they should be persuasive on this issue.
Dr Haris Livas-Dawes,
Hull friends of the Earth,
July 2006
BURNER IS DOOMED FROM THE START
The whole incinerator scheme is ill-thought-out and destined to fail.
The waste is going to be transported between Holme-on-Spalding Moor and Saltend by road. This will result in lots more wagons on the A63 and M62 (to Howden) before they are routed via the A614 to Gallymoor.
WRG should put the whole operation on one central industrial site. Rural Gallymoor is not the place to do this kind of operation.
Ian Shields,
July 2006
LET'S EXPLORE ALL THE WAYS OTHER COUNCILS ARE DEALING WITH THE RECYCLING OF WASTE
Regarding the article headlined "Using incineration to deal with waste is Stone Age technology".
Waste should be regarded as both a source of revenue and energy and not as rubbish to be fed into a plant that uses more energy than it produces, but, more seriously, manufactures dioxins that are without doubt a danger to the population.
The report by the British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) is a serious piece of work that should not be dismissed, and a rebuttal by Dr Mark Broomfield of Envirus does not hold water.
In the report, he concludes there should be no discernible benefit in policy changes relating to waste incineration and public exposure to dioxins. This conclusion is based on the fact that as a source of pollutants, MSW Incinerators could be insignificant compared with other sources.
However, Dr Broomfield fails to highlight the ground level of concentrations in the immediate area around the incinerator. The BSEM report has considered carefully the issue of incineration and health around the majority of existing and planned incinerators, or will be cited in areas where there are already significant levels of hazardous pollutants for which there are no safe limits.
During incineration, abnormal conditions, such as great blockage in the furnace, will cause a rapid shutdown of the plant. During such conditions the under-fire age is reduced to zero, resulting in a rapid reduction in the flue gas generation. The bag filter is automatically bypassed in such situations and the reduced flow of gases is discharged via the stack. These omissions are not recorded. Zero waste is a better option. We should be honest and transparent with the people of Hull and we should let them know what other councils have achieved in waste recycling and we should use all the innovative modern methods available.
I will reiterate what I said in a letter prior to the incineration inquiry. The Waste Recycling Group should practise what its name suggests.
Councillor John Nicholson,
Lib Dem, Holderness ward,
May 2006
WHY ARE SO MANY TORY COUNCILLORS KEEN TO BACK LABOUR'S PLAN?
When replying to Barry Robinson's recent letter, Edward Liddell dismissed David Cameron's reservations concerning incineration, because they represent his "personal opinion and not party policy".
The leader of the Conservative Party will (no doubt) be mortified to learn that the West Hull and Hessle Conservative Association chairman rejects his views.
But Mr Cameron is not the sole Conservative Member of Parliament to disagree with East Riding Conservative councillors.
Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart is leading the campaign against the Saltend incinerator. Mr Liddell ignored the fact.
Meanwhile, it is distinctly odd that almost every local Conservative appears to support the building of this waste burner - almost as if it were an agreed policy?
Surely not: It is accepted that planning issues transcend party-politics - and the proposed Saltend incinerator is a planning issue.
Mr Liddell wrote: "East Riding and Hull City Council have come up with a joint proposal. They are the authorities responsible for waste disposal, not town and parish councils and not unelected committees of local pressure groups."
But the same voters have approved all of them. If Mr Liddell can only recognise the voice of the people in local government diktats, then his hearing is defective.
He refers to the "East Riding and Hull City Council joint proposal", but then adds: "Each council must dispose of its own waste." Which is it? With this contradiction, Mr Liddell raises what is perhaps the most important question.
Namely, why are East Riding Conservative councillors so hell-bent on allowing the Labour controlled authority of Hale & Co to dispose of their political and environmental problems at the expense of south Holderness residents?
Robert Bottamley,
May 2006
IS INCINERATOR SUSTAINABLE?
There are wise and foolish protesters. The foolish ones are those protesting against wind energy.
Have they not heard of climate change?
A leading international magazine recently devoted a whole issue to this subject with huge headlines: "Be worried. Be very, very worried."
Well, I am worried the wind energy protesters do not realise our planet is on the brink.
We have to cut the burning of fossil fuels and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere or we will begin the fast slide to destruction.
The way to do this is with renewable energy. The UK with 40 per cent of the wind energy potential in Europe would have enough wind power to meet our electricity needs three times over.
Wind energy protects the environment and creates a new renewable energy industry. There are towns actually asking for wind energy.
Residents in Aapua in Sweden lobbied for five years to get a wind farm and, now they have it, it is supplying 40 per cent of the town's electricity.
The wise protesters are those protesting against incineration as a way to handle waste.
Councillor Daren Hale wrote to the Mail to say we don't have to worry about the health hazards.
Yes Cllr Hale, we do. The dioxins produced and the toxic fly ash have led to a huge amount of documentation about the health hazards of incinerators.
National government, local governments, even the Regional Spacial Strategy have signed up to sustainable development, which means doing nothing to cause harm to today's people or to generations in the future.
An incinerator is not sustainable. I would hate to be a councillor voting for a health hazard.
Dr Haris Livas-Dawes, Friends Of The Earth,
April 2006
INCINERATION WILL TURN CLOCK BACK
"BURN your refuse - reduce your rates" was the slogan printed years ago on the sides of corporation dustcarts.
In those days, from Skidby hill, all you could see of Hull was a pall of smog. Advocates of incineration want to put the clock back.
Don Canty,
April 2006
OUR CONSERVATIVE COUNCIL IS GOING AGAINST NATIONAL PARTY POLICY ON INCINERATION
East Riding Council is Conservative-run.
A colleague wrote to David Cameron, expressing concerns about incineration. In the reply were some interesting phrases, as follows.
"Mr Cameron shares your concern at the proliferation of proposals for new incinerators. At the last election, the Conservative Party proposed giving local committees a much greater say over the siting of these often controversial facilities," the letter stated.
"We believe the increase in proposed incineration is coming at the expense of a successful and ambitious recycling strategy. Far more analysis needs to be undertaken into ways of improving the way we deal with waste before a major expansion of incineration plants could be justified. It is strange that certain areas of the country are able to recycle more than 50 per cent of their waste while others barely manage double figures.
"However, where there is community consent and clear benefit to local people, particularly arising from smaller scale, modern energy from waste technology, we do believe there could be a place for certain plants. Ultimately individual sites must be a matter for local decision making, and it is up to local authorities to determine their own plans for waste disposal."
Now the thing that strikes me is the mention of "giving local committees a much greater say in the siting of (incinerators)" and "where there is community consent".
When we opposed the Hull incinerator we obtained 26,000 signatures. Twenty-three East Riding parish and town councils, from as far away as Skipsea, supported our stand.
In the recent public consultation, which has led to the proposal to build an incinerator at Saltend, (five miles from the Hull one), only 6,600 respondents made incineration their first choice and only 6,800 made it their last choice.
Before the Saltend site was announced, I corresponded with local councils. Ten, representing 47,888 residents, sent me letters agreeing they had not been adequately consulted, (or in some cases simply that they had not been consulted).
I ask all Conservative voters, councillors, MPs and constituency party chairmen: "What effect do you feel the decision by a Conservative council to go against an environmentally sound party policy will have on the fortunes of the national party? As there are perfectly obvious, cheaper, voter-friendly alternatives, do you believe that councillors Stephen Parnaby and Symon Fraser are correct in supporting the policies of an increasingly vulnerable national Labour Party and Hull City Council?"
Barry Robinson,
April 2006
FACTS NOT ALWAYS AS THEY SEEM
In His letter (Mail, April 1), Councillor Daren Hale urged readers to reject propaganda.
His advice came in response to a recent report from the British Society for Ecological Medicine.
The organisation found that waste burners are a health hazard and suggested the Government should discontinue incineration as a method of waste disposal.
This newspaper has called on those in authority to present the facts.
Cllr Hale also hoped conclusions would be drawn from "the full facts" - but only after he had given what was in my opinion a biased interpretation of statistics to imply that incineration is risk-free.
Does Cllr Hale possess any scientific, medical or technological expertise?
If not, he speaks without personal authority and (like most of us) must borrow information from those qualified to provide it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.
But the views of experts differ - and so does the way in which Cllr Hale chooses to approach their work.
Faced with an unhelpful study, he is quick to point out the author is "a leading anti-incinerator campaigner".
Yet, where investigations appear to serve his purpose, he fails to mention they are commissioned by the Government and by firms such as WRG.
In short, Cllr Hale's letter is not the presentation of mere facts - it is the propaganda he suggested we reject.
Robert Bottamley,
April 2006
INCINERATION AND LANDFILL, IS STORING UP TROUBLE FOR THE FUTURE
When there are no easy answers, a good rule to follow is, 'Look at the question again'.
In the case of waste, are we sure we are asking the right question?
For example, before asking how can we recycle more, landfill less, and so on, we really should be asking how can we create less waste.
The top term of the waste hierarchy is reduce. It is easy to forget, when the pressure on councils is usually in terms of percentages of total waste, but reduction should come first, and this applies not just to householders but to suppliers and manufacturers. And it also needs a lead from Government.
We buy a lot of things that are hard to recycle but could be designed and manufactured with recycling in mind.
It's starting to happen with cars. It should be on the way with mobile phones.
And whatever we buy, we could probably do with less packaging, packaging that is easier to open, and packaging that can be recycled.
I got a fragile parcel not so long ago. The contents were packed with paper cushions. They rotted down nicely with my compost. You can't do that with polystyrene pellets.
What about biodegradable plastics that can be made from crops grown on land not used for food crops?
There are possible solutions if we look for them, but sticking to the old answers, such as incineration and landfill, is storing up trouble for the future.
Stephen F Noreiko,
Hull Friends of the Earth,
March 2006
A GREAT PILE OF TWADDLE...
A great pile of dishonest twaddle from Fraser. He hasn't addressed any of the issues raised by Cllr Lynn. He just witters on about green bins and blue bins and "dumpy bags". Why doesn't this hypocrite - who calls opponents of the Saltend incinerator "ranting Nimbys" - explain how the ERYC can support WRG's waste burner, yet refuse a Hutton Cranswick butcher a "domestic" incinerator? (And Hutton Cranswick just happens to be in Symon Fraser's ward.) Why do we put such people in a position whereby they can affect our lives?
Robert, Hedon
March 2006
COME CLEAN ON WASTE SITES
Wrg would like us to believe that a single incinerator at Saltend would be the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for disposing of the residual wastes from Hull and the East Riding.
While debatable whether the proposed incineration technology would meet the BPEO criteria (as against gasification, for example), it is undeniable that a site at the southern edge of the catchment area would necessitate more ton-miles of road traffic than a more central location.
Perhaps WRG could explain how many of the 100 or so sites it says it has considered would produce a lower environmental impact, in terms of road traffic, than the Saltend site?
In my opinion, its secrecy on the question of the other locations implies it has something to hide. Why can't it come clean on this?
Malcolm Lynn,
March 2006
PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED BY COUNCIL'S MIXED MESSAGES OVER THE INCINERATOR PROPOSAL
With regard to the letter from Councillor Symon Fraser, it is no wonder politicians and the public are confused when the message is so confusing.
As an East Riding ward councillor for South West Holderness, I am confused by some of his statements.
Cllr Fraser claims the increased size of the incinerator proposed at Saltend from that proposed at Foster Street is because "the Foster Street plant was designed to handle the amount of waste arising at that time. Waste from Hull and the East Riding has grown since then".
Only a month ago I was told by an officer that the Foster Street proposal was smaller because it was still intended to send some waste to landfill at that time. Which is it?
Cllr Fraser also claims "there are no plans to increase the amount of waste moved around the road network".
Does that mean waste is to be transported by rail or ship instead?
It is surely obvious that if at least 55 per cent of the waste (assuming 45 per cent recycling) is to come to one location, there must be more traffic on the road network in the area around it.
Even considering the entire Hull and East Riding area, if waste has to travel further to its final destination, the total mileage of the transport vehicles must increase.
Last but not least, Cllr Fraser again claims incineration and high recycling were "the clear preference for household waste disposal".
I understand that, even on the low number of questionnaires returned for the Best Practical Environmental Options consultation exercise, more ranked incineration as their least preferred option than as their first preferred option.
That is hardly a clear preference.
Councillor Carole Lynn,
February 2006
WASTE CONSULTATION AVOIDED THE MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION
Have been following, with a great deal of interest, the letters regarding the proposed incinerator that the East Riding Council and Hull City Council want to site at Hedon.
As a concerned Hedon resident, who joined with others in opposing the previous attempt to site an incinerator here, I can only marvel at the blinkered way in which the two councils seem to think they can force their wishes on the public.
When will those of our elected representatives in favour of incineration learn to listen to the people?
If the East Riding Council and Hull City Council would issue a simple questionnaire asking "Do you support incineration of our household waste" with a "yes" or "no" box, I am sure they would get a resounding "no".
Is it a coincidence that this option was not on the last questionnaire distributed to residents by the East Riding Council?
I have read much about how other councils, both here and abroad, operate a zero waste policy by recycling.
Why can't the East Riding and Hull councils do the same?
Barry Robinson's letter (Mail, January 26) made very interesting reading and, as far as I can see, totally blows out of the water East Riding Council's assertion that incineration is the only way.
Wake up, councillors and listen to the people.
We do not want and will not have an incinerator.
Anita Hall,
February 2006
YES, I AM GUILTY OF 'NIMBYISM' OVER THE INCINERATOR ISSUE, BUT NO ONE WOULD WANT IT NEAR THEIR HOUSE
For the second time in a month, Mr Parrish (Letters, February 17) has accused East Riding opponents of the proposed Saltend waste burner of "Nimbyism".
Mr Parrish, of Hull, believes no incinerator should be built in a residential area, but defends the building of one at Saltend.
In which case, he calls for two mutually exclusive conditions to be met at the same time. How would he describe Hedon, Paull, Preston, Bilton and Thorngumbald other than as densely populated, residential areas with nearby schools? My own home stands only a mile away from WRG's intended site.
It is entirely unnecessary for Mr Parrish to write any further letters containing accusations of "Nimbyism": I am only too willing to plead guilty.
Your correspondent might like to consider the recommendations of the British Society of Ecological Medicine, released this month. It concluded:
In my opinion, the truth is that advocates of incineration endorse the building of a waste burner at Saltend, because they fear one might otherwise be built nearer to their own homes.
No less guilty of "Nimbyism" than the scheme's opponents, they face the additional charge of hypocrisy.
Robert Bottamley,
February 2006
PLEASE DON'T LET THE INCINERATOR RUIN OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE WITH ANOTHER EYESORE
We In the village of Paull, on the outskirts of Hull and Holderness, have the potential of another Kilnsea/Spurn Point on our doorstep.
There's plenty of wildlife and a bird reserve, there are walks up and down the Humber estuary. There is the added attraction of Fort Paull, dating back to Napoleonic times, not to mention the public houses that sell good beer and food.
But if WRG and councillors get their way, they're going to ruin all this with the building of an incinerator that no one wants.
In my opinion, the village of Paull has enough eyesores on its doorstep. It's neighbour, BP Chemicals, with all its fall-outs, emissions, noise, smells etc, and across the way from BP is Electro Furness, which I believe covers everything in its sight with dust.
Then across Hedon Road from Electro Furness is a new high-tech sewage plant that "never smells"? Honestly, the stench in warm weather makes you feel more ill than the smell from BP.
Jim Barker,
February 2006
CHILDREN WILL SUFFER EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS
Regarding the issues of incinerating, health and the environment.
Adding to Ms Upton's letter (Mail, January 31), the report on Sint Niklaas incinerator in Belgium is the only complete study ever done on incinerators.
It showed that blood and glandular cancers appeared in children about five years after the incinerator started operating.
This preceded the increase in adult cancers by seven years. Adult cancers showed a five-fold increase over 20 years.
The Sint Niklaas study also showed an excess of autism, hyperactivity, allergies, asthma, repeated infections and congenital defects.
Children are more vulnerable to the pollutants produced by incinerators, breathing in more air than adults relative to their size, and are likely to be the first to suffer from adverse effects. The foetus and newborn are uniquely vulnerable.
Pollutants emitted from incinerators include dioxins, acid gases, nitrogen oxide, heavy metals and particulates.
We have a long-term choice - more recycling or more pollution.
Stephen Spriggs,
February 2006
MY DAUGHTER'S HEALTH ISN'T WORTH THE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO THIS TYPE OF POLLUTION
Am not a scientist or a politician - just a concerned parent.
After reading the January issue of East Riding News, specifically the article on reducing landfill and the energy from waste (EFW) plants - incinerators to you and I - I felt I had to put pen to paper.
Every time waste is incinerated, dioxins are produced and released into the atmosphere. The definition of dioxin in my dictionary is "an extremely toxic substance that causes chloracne (a skin disease) and genetic mutation". That suggests to me dioxins are hazardous to health.
In the article, Councillor Symon Fraser says we should get things in proportion. He says there are more dioxins released into the atmosphere on Bonfire Night than the entire EFW industry produces in a year.
This may be so, but on Bonfire Night, fires are evenly distributed over the country for one night on a voluntary basis, not concentrated into a handful of sites that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
As far as the dioxins released are concerned, I understand the human body acts as a carbon filter, taking dioxins from the air and storing them in the body. The body cannot expel the dioxins.
Prolonged exposure even to small amounts on a continuing basis will, in the end, have adverse effects.
I live in Preston, next to South Holderness Technology College, one of the biggest schools in the area. Adjacent to that is Preston Primary School, not to mention the two primary schools in Hedon and the one in Paull. My daughter's nursery is about a 10-minute walk from the proposed site.
This is not just an East Riding issue - my sister lives on Bilton Grange, virtually the same distance from the site as me, and within walking distance of six schools.
I wait with bated breath for the next unappetising instalment.
I support the "green" council initiatives and recycle and compost everything possible.
I would welcome a recycling plant, but the council will have to do much more than increase my council tax before I give it the right to increase the risks to my or any other child's health.
I am sure parents and grandparents in the East Riding and east Hull feel the same.
Mrs J Lawson,
February 2006
MACHIAVELLI QUOTE
Machiavelli the philosopher said some six hundred years ago and I quote:" There is nothing so hard in this world as to seek to introduce a new order of things" unquote.How right he was, and still is.
Daniel, Hull
February 2006
FLAWED MISLEADING QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire was indeed biased in favour of incineration.For those who completed the relevant sections, there was no way to avoid endorsing a waste burner to some extent, even if they ranked it last in order of preference.The only way to deny incineration any credibility as an option was to refuse to complete those sections at all. We now know that more than 4,000 respondents did precisely that. Of course, these were completely discounted.We also know that only 6665 respondents ranked incineration as their firs, preferred option. In fact, more ranked it last - 6828.It seems reasonable to suppose that if those who ranked it between choices 2-5 had favoured incineration to the extent inferred by our two local councils, then they would have ranked it first.Given this evidence, it can be seen that Hull& East Riding local authority claims of mass support for a waste burnere are the merest nonsense.
Robert, Hedon
February 2006
GET REAL ABOUT DEALING WITH WASTE PROBLEM
When the Russians turn off the gas supplies and the power stations grind to a halt, will the incinerator protestors please be the first to turn out their lights?
We all use electricity and fuel to keep us warm, to light our houses and to travel around.
If we can use our waste as a fuel to make electricity and reduce our dependence on imported gas and oil, it is a good idea.
If we can stop landfill dumping most of our rubbish in the countryside, it is an even better idea.
If we can have better recycling facilities for more things, then it is beginning to get me interested.
So come on, the rubbish handling facilities have to be somewhere. We do need them and just saying "not in my backyard" gives us no answers.
Michael JT Lee,
February 2006
REPLY:
If you're so keen to have an incinerator, Mr Lee of Driffield, then why not campaign to have it built in the Driffield Ward? Or are you a Nimby too: would that particular solution to the waste problem be just a little too real for you to contemplate? I suggest you have this waste burner in Nafferton, next door to Cllr Symon Fraser - the arrogant idiot who holds the ERYC porfolio for the environment, God help us.
Robert, Hedon
February 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
