a beginners guide to incinerator emissions & the known...

A Beginners Guide to:Incinerator Emissions & some of theknown impact on human health

A great many toxic and possibly neurotoxicagents are emitted hourly by incinerators andcirculate freely in the environment; all peopleand potential progeny are constantly exposed tothese complex mixtures and have been for manydecades, making it neither reasonable norprudent to assume a cumulative zero effect onthe health of the human population.

ToxCatISSN 1355-5707

SPECIAL

A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions Communities Against Toxics Research Unit

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant fromthe Fondation Pour Une Terre Humaine

Communities Against Toxics (CATs) is a national network of the long suffering citizens andcommunities in Great Britain and Ireland living with incinerators, waste treatment plants, toxicwaste landfills, chemical installations and other unsafe, polluting industrial facilities.Founded in 1990 CATs operates as a non-profit making, non-party political organisation dedicatedto increasing public and political awareness on environmental issues and strengthening democra-cy at a local level.To help communities protect the environment from industrial pollution and political apathy andindifference. CATs endeavours to provide information and expertise at reasonable cost andwhenever possible free of charge to members of the poorer sections of society and groups incountry’s with transitional economies.Despite helping 43 communities to resist planning applications for toxic, municipal, medical,crematorium and animal waste burners since its foundation, CATs struggles to get financialsupport from grant giving Foundations and has to rely on membership subscriptions and dona-tions to survive. It receives no financial support from government sources or industry.CATs members newsletter ToxCat is published every two months.Other publications available to members and subscribers include:ToxCat ‘Beginners Guide’ to DioxinToxCat ‘Beginners Guide’ to Endocrine DisruptersToxCat ‘Beginners Guide’ to Epidemiological Studies Around IncineratorsToxCat ‘What Do You Want, a Boy or a Girl?

If you are interested in sponsoring any of the above publications, an edition of ToxCat or help usget the web site back on line please contact:Ralph Ryder, CATs, PO Box 29, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, CH66 3TXTel: +44 (0)151 339 5473. Mb: 0179 1919 [email protected]

2

Those so-called ‘radical’ extremists actually want moderate things like a clean environment, affordablemedical care for all, increased spending on education rather than used for military purposes, a decent livingwage in return for a decent days labour, equal justice for all. The only way these are extreme is they goagainst everything the capitalist strives for. Michael Parenti ‘Dirty Truths’

Communities Against Toxics Research Unit A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions

©Greenpeace

A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions & some of the known impact onhuman healthCommunities Against Toxics Research Unit, October 2008©Ralph Anthony RyderCommunities Against ToxicsPO Box 29,Ellesmere Port,Cheshire, CH66 3TXEnglandTel/Fax: +44 (0)151 339 5473Mobile: 0791 919 [email protected]

Ralph Ryder would like to thank Pat Costner and Joe de Gangi for the many abstracts of scientificstudies bringing up to date information.The members of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives/Global Anti-Incineration Alliance forthe use of their photographs.Alan Watson and Janet Williams for their support, advice and friendship for the last 18 years.Dr's. Paul Connett and Vyvyan Howard for the many hours spent explaining in detail the disturbingaspects of incineration and the impact of chemicals on human health, especially the developingfoetus.The members of CATs for their efforts to protect the health of future generations from a corruptpolitical system and a multibillion pound industry whose only interest is making money.

The Trustees of Fondation Pour Une Terre Humaine

The banner ofCommunitiesAgainst Toxicsflies high duringa week ofdemonstrationsby citizengroups againstincinerationaround theworld.

3


“...[T]he other factor sir, which needs to be taken into account is the existingpollution in a locality and the incinerator will provide an increment on top ofthat. A small increment would be more tolerable in a already heavily pollutedlocation...” Professor Roy Harrison, Birmingham University. Statement to Houseof Lords Select Committee inquiry into Waste Incineration 1999.

A 18 month old child in Ellesmere Port taking her second daily dose of steroids for asthma.Ellesmere Port is a heavily industrialised town in the north west of England with the highestrate of infant mortality for children under 1 year of age in the UK. It is home to many pollutingindustries including the largest hazardous waste incinerator in the UK.Any suggestion that areas like this should host incinerators because the increase inpollution will be more tolerable to its residents exhibits a disgraceful indifference towardsthe well being of children like these. Anyone making such a suggestion should be removedfrom office immediately and play no further part in advising decision makers at any level.

The worst sin toward ourfellow creatures is not tohate them, but to be indif-ferent to them: that’s theessence of inhumanity:George Bernard Shaw

4


“It is not up to us to make decisions regarding the fate of unborn children; the futuregeneration must fend for itself like everyone else”.(André Rico former chairman, Pesticide Safety Committee, Conférence UIPP 28 June2001, Paris).

A young mother looks lovingly at her new-born baby. Whenever citizens questionthe thinking of industrialists and academics on the impact of chemicals on babiesand children they are told: “But they have children to” as if that guarantees theyare caring, loving people. Not everyone shows the love expressed in this mothersface towards her child and many experts' and academics exhibit the sameindifference as Prof Harrison, as the statements from pesticides expert André Ricoand Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution official Mr. Stuart Wilson testify’s:

“It is not in our remit toinclude future generations.”Mr Stuart Wilson, official ofHer Majesty's Inspectorateof Pollution, 1994*

Cherishing children is the mark of a civilized society. Joan Ganz Cooney

*In conversation with the author at an OECD meeting on Transfer Release Inventories in London. When asked"What are your organisations concerns over the impact of the chemicals emitted by incinerators on thedeveloping foetus"?

5


We are guilty of many errors and faults, but our worst crime is abandoningthe children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we needcan wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed,his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him wecannot answer ‘Tomorrow’. His name is Today’

Gabriela Mistral 1945 Noble Prize Winner for Literature.

6


Ignoring complaints from workers and residents over a 6 years period that the grounding emissions fromthis 22,000 tons per annum (tpa) liquid toxic waste incinerator was causing ill health. Cheshire CountyCouncil (CCC) granted the operators a licence to burn indefinitely on the site in 1980.

When the operator applied for planning permission eight years later to enlarge the plants capacity to60,000 tpa, a leading councillor admitted the plant was “passed its sell by date” and the site was inadequatefor the proposed expansion. The council consequently offered the operators a much larger site within thepetrochemical complex, ignoring again complaints of increased ill health by literally hundreds of workers andresidents. Despite no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) being conducted, not one County councillorquestioned the proposed facility’s envisaged environmental impact or the planned disposal of solid wasteof which the company had no previous experience during the planning meeting. Planning permission wasgranted in approx 30-35 minutes with petitions from more than 7000 residents against the scheme beingdiscarded under a table. No mention was made of the complaints of ill-health attributed to the emissionsfrom the existing incinerator. (The same councillors later spent one hour discussing a planned fish and chipshop.)

When I asked at the next council meeting: “what research had been done into complaints that theemissions of the existing incinerator were causing ill-health?” Chairman J Clarke replied “We didn’t do any,we left that to our consultants.”

My follow-on question was: “What research did your consultants do into the complaints of ill health?”Reply: “They didn’t do any... because they didn’t consider the complaints serious enough.”

If this was true, we have a engineering company making a sweeping 'mass medical diagnoses' onhundreds of complaints.

The new plant (insert) has a colourful history of fires and chemical emissions involving brominatedcompounds (as many as seven releases in one month). There have been at least three releases of iodineturning the sky above the town purple. The plant has also seen the death of one contractor on site withanother seriously injured. This appalling record did not deter CCC from granting planning permission for thebuilding of a 10,000 tpa energy from waste unit at the plant knowing very well this would increase dioxinemissions, as admitted by Manager Douglas Benjafield to Dr. Paul Connett and myself.

"I worked approximately 300 yards from the original incinerator for 17 years seeing and tasting its ‘steamplume’ on many occasions. But even I was amazed when a drum containing iodine was put into the kiln atthe new incinerator and turned a large part of the sky above the town deep purple. This incident showedhow large an area is impacted by the particles of poisonous chemicals when the plant is operational. It’sdisturbing when you consider mothers’ leave their babies' in open prams in the back garden ‘to enjoy thefresh air.’" Ralph Ryder

7


“If we don’t change direction, we’ll end up where we’re heading.”Old Chinese Proverb

INTRODUCTIONI sat down with the intention ofupdating earlier editions of‘Epidemiological Studies aroundIncinerators.’ Then I realised therewas a lot more information gainedfrom my personal experience andthat of the members ofCommunities Against Toxics thatshould be readily available tointerested citizens. Consequently Ihave expanded on my original ideaand have produced a number ofdocuments that I think will givenewcomers to the anti-incinerationbattle a factual background of whatthey are up against.The other publications are:

A Beginners Guide to: DioxinA Beginners Guide to: EndocrineDisruptersA Beginners Guide to:Epidemiological Studies aroundIncinerators .Do You Want a Boy or a Girl?

The bulk of information is takenfrom the many editions of ToxCatpublished over the last 14 yearswith updates where necessary. Myaim is not to present realms ofconfusing scientific information tothe reader. But to bring home in aunderstandable format the realityof the lies, ignorance, apathy andindifference surrounding theprocess of incineration and thepoisonous compounds it releaseshourly into the atmosphere, water,food chain, our bodies and ourdeveloping embryo's and foetuses.

You’re Life Changes Forever‘An application has been submittedfor a Energy from Waste recyclingfacility.’ Notifications like this areusually situated in a small cornerofPublic Notices section of the localpaper around the beginning ofnational holiday like Christmas,Easter or the July/August annualholiday period.

The lay citizen then has 21 daysto find out exactly what theapplication means and educatethemselves on the technologies

proposed to be able to submitobjections on ‘sound’ grounds,rather than simply write “we don’twant it here!”

As if this wasn’t difficult enoughfor anyone with no technicalbackground, sometimes the localplanning depart doesnt even havenecessary documents for publicviewing.

Visiting the planning departmentof Ellesmere Port to view thedetails of one application I wasshown a file with no realinformation on the application andit must be said, I had to submitmore information when applying forplanning permission to build agarage next to my house in the1970s.

The assistant apologised sayingthey would send me a copy of therelevent information as soon asthey received them.

I waited a week and thencontacted another local NGO tosee if they had any more details. Itscoordinator told me a lot moreinformation had been sent directlyto her. She kindly loaned me thisinformation enabling me to puttogether objections on behalf of anumber of local citizen groups.

The documents promised by theplanning department arrived theday before closure of comments,which of course would never havegiven me time to submit objections.

On another occasion I submitteda 22 page document with regardsto Cheshire County CouncilsWaste Plan. When the councilaltered some minor points of theplan I was informed off-handedlyduring a poorly attended publicconsultation in Ellesmere Port that“all objections to the first Planwould be discarded - ignored.”

I complained about this sayingmy objections covered the use ofincinerators’ and, as the new planalso contained the building ofincinerators, my objects regardingincineration were still valid.

A public comment meeting wassent up taking place in Chester. Inever received official notification

of this only hearing about it througha third party. (The story of my lifeas a campaigner.)

I duly sent in my 22 pages for theInspectors consideration but thiswas returned with the comment I‘hadn’t commented on the plan’(therefore my views wereirrelevant?)

This was more than a littlebewildering as I had beencontacted by a local parishcouncillor requesting a meetingafter she had seen my objectionson file "at the county offices."

Any citizen who is genuinelyconcerned about the impact anenergy from waste incineratormight have on public health soonrealises that one of the biggestobstacles they face is their localpoliticians and planningdepartment.

Planners will tell them they haveto stick to strict planningregulations (which reality shows isonly when it suits them). Whereasthe majority of today’s politicians,shortly after being elected, conformto some unwritten code of conductignoring the wishes of the peopleand championing industry’s causeabove all else.

Citizens also quickly learn of theappalling ignorance, apathy andindifference among the corridors ofpower about waste managementand its impact on human healthand the environment, what we areleaving for future generations tocontend with.

One theme running through thepublications I receive from theEuropean Union is the importanceof closer communications with itscitizens. “The people’s opinionmatters” and ‘we must listen to thecitizens to build a better future forthe European Community" are justtwo of the statements regularlymade.’

However, the reality is citizenscan spend months compilinginformation to present to their MEPand MP only to see it dismissedwith the wave of a hand.

8


During my 34 year involvementin the incineration ‘debate’ I havewitnessed many times thecontempt of politicians towardscitizens concerns and those whodare to ask awkward questions.

Two of the most appallingexamples are that of the CheshireCounty Councillors (which you canread about in the forthcomingToxCat Special 'Community CaseStudies') and what I can onlydescribe as the ‘Little Hitler’politicians of the east coast fishingtown of Grimsby.

In Grimsby the council planningcommittee had agreed to thebuilding of a Energy from Waste(EfW) municipal waste incineratorwithout any consultation with thepublic or even a full council hearingto debate the issue.

After much public pressure thecouncil finally agreed to a publicmeeting to 're-consider' theplanning committee’s decision.

The residents groupphotocopied approximately 100copies of a report I had compiledoutlining the dangers, expense,and impact of public health etc., ofincineration, fully referenced, topresent to each councillor. Thiswas rejected off-hand with thecouncil spokesman declaring “wewill only look at 2 A 4 sheets.”

One councillor took a copy of thereport and promptly sat on itwithout even glancing at thecontents.

The contempt of the majority ofGrimsby’s Labour councillorstowards the community's concernshad to be seen to be believed.

The council endorsed thepassing of the application with themayor, who had earlier expressedher feelings against the schemebecause of her concern forchildren’s health, casting thedeciding vote.

Council Wallace then declared"Mr Ryder was unable to provideany alternatives” without evenglancing at the prepared reportwhich for all he knew could havecontained realms of information onalternatives.

There was no doubt thesearrogant politicians had given the

company in question a lot morethan ten minutes and 2 A 4 sheetsto sell them the incinerator.

Some residents complainedbitterly about ‘in camera’ and‘behind closed door meetings'leading up to the application beingpassed.

An excellent example of whatpasses for 'Democracy in action' inthe United Kingdom today.

All too often councillors grantplanning permission for aincinerator or other dubious projecttelling the community “we took theadvice of the planning officers.”Thereby shifting the responsibilityand blame onto an un-elected andunanswerable civil servant.

Planners refuse to look atanything prepared by concernedcitizens. “We have to followplanning regulations” they say. Yetthese same officials cannot, or willnot, in Ellesmere Port at least,enforce the regulatory height of agarden fence posing the question:

“If they are so incompetent onsuch a common occurrence howcan we trust them to ensureeverything is done according toregulations with such huge projectas incinerators?”

The reality is of course wecannot!

Planners will sometimes grantpermission for incinerators or otherpolluting facilities with ‘conditions’attached. This gives [theresponsibility shifting] councillorsthe opportunity to announce “theplanning department has donereally well to ensure certaincondition have been set down inwriting.”

The company then appeals tothe government saying theconditions are “unreasonable”,resulting in them being thrown out,as happened to conditionsattached to the licensing of thehazardous waste incinerator inEllesmere Port, as councillorsknew they would be.

The Incineration ProcessThe incineration of waste is notonly unsafe and polluting, it is awaste of valuable resources weshould be conserving for our

grandchildren. A finite planet haslimited resources and I was verydisturbed to hear Chris Allen, arepresentative of DRG (anorganisation many consider simplyto be apologist for industry)speaking at a meeting of theEuropean Environmental Bureau(EEB) stating “Resources are not aproblem.” and “incineration wasjust fine”.

I told him it would be useful if hegot out of the office a bit more andspoke to people living aroundincinerators. He declined myinvitation to spend a few days inEllesmere Port to see the reality ofliving with polluting industry.

The problem with people like Mr.Allen is they live in a very different,sheltered, affluent world, nothinglike that of the members of thesocio-economic section hostage toincinerators.

Dilute and disperseMost people are aware we areabusing nature’s resources as ifthey were never ending. We aredumping millions of tons of highlypoisonous compounds, includingnuclear waste, into theenvironment with scant regard forthe impact on future generations.

The chemical industry and itsassociates, aided and abetted byself-interest politicians, haspoisoned our air, water, land, food,and bodies to such a degreescientists’ are now debating whatamount of poisons our bodies can‘tolerate’ - not what is ‘safe,’ butwhat is ‘tolerable.’ Scientists in theUnited States are warning girls ofeight years of age to watch whatthey eat now because the toxins inthe food consumed can pose a riskto the healthy development of anychild they might have in ten or 15years time.

Such a recommendation tells usthe regulations governing industrialemissions and chemicals aregrossly inadequate.

The reality is the people in placeto enforce whatever weakregulations are in place are failingto so. They have allowed industrywith its ‘dilute and disperse’disposal methods to contaminate

9


each and every one of us withhundreds of man-madecompounds.

Unfortunately influentialpyromaniacs within the EuropeanUnion (EU) are looking for a hugeexpansion of energy from wasteincinerators throughout Europe.They are using the taxes of EUcitizens to fund the building ofincinerators and, going against aEuropean Court of Justice ruling,have altered the definition ofincineration with energy recoveryfrom 'disposal’ to ‘recovery’. Thishas opened the door to the importand export of waste to othercountries rather than theinvestment in reduction, reuse, andgenuine recycling schemes andcleaner industrial processes.

Persistent Organic PollutantsIncinerators have beenacknowledged as major emitters ofPersistent Organic Pollutants(POPs) for decades. There isgrowing evidence that manysystems, including the hormoneand the reproductive system ofmany animal species, are beingdramatically affected by the POPsreleased into the environment overthe last 100 years.

POPs are generated andreleased into the environment bycertain industrial processes andwaste disposal methods.According to the United NationsEnvironment Program, incinerationis responsible for something like69% of the planets contaminationby one of the POPs of majorconcern, dioxin.

False AssurancesUntil the late 1980’s industry buildtoxic, clinical and municipal wasteincinerators with little or noopposition from bewilderedcommunities. Citizens whoquestioned the safety of suchfacilities was assured they were"state-of-the-art,' 'built using thelatest technology,' and ‘monitoredto strict regulations by the ‘efficientofficials of government agencies.'

Any citizen who continued tovoice concerns over the possibleimpact on public health of any

incinerator, no matter how old thefacility, was put down with cries of“alarmist” and “scaremonger' bypyro-politicians who, for reasonsknown only to themselves, werekeen to have incinerators built.

“There is no evidence of illhealth around incinerators”concerned communities wererepeatedly told.

Today threatened communitiesare told to “forget the oldincinerators they were old, clappedout, not performing as they shouldhave been.” A rather different storyto what the these pyro's weresaying when the plants wereoperational.

“Today’s plants are vastlyimproved” they proclaim, “thetechnology is wonderful and theamount of chemicals emitted is“insignificant” As is (they say) theincreased levels of ill health andmalformed children being born incommunities already hostage toincinerators.

Thanks to the efforts of non-governmental organisations(NGOs) like Communities AgainstToxics concerned local groups arenow better informed. They knowthat minuscule amounts of manyman-made compounds are cancercausing, persistent andaccumulative in the environmentand human fat/tissues.

They know some chemicals andby-products are capable ofdisrupting human biologicalsystems causing irreversibledamage to the healthydevelopment of the embryo, foetus,breast fed and growing child evenbeyond puberty.

Forty one communities haveresisted planning applications forincinerators to burn toxic,municipal, medical, crematorium,animal waste helped by thecontacts and informationdistributed by CATs since itsfoundation in 1990.

Given the reality of the cost andimpact of incinerators, and the factthat anti-incineration campaignershave won every argument putforward by pyromaniacs for burningwaste: *Economics: incinerationis a very expensive process;

*Environment/Health impact:incineration is acknowledge as amajor emitter of some of the mostpoisonous compounds known toman, some of which are capable ofdamaging the development of theembyro and foetus;

*Resources: incinerationdestroys resources we should beconserving for future generations:

*Employment: incinerationgenerates a small amount of jobscompared to recycling schemeshandling the same about ofdiscards;

*Safety: the number ofunauthorised releases at modernUK incinerators are disturbing.

Given all these facts its amystery why governments are stillkeen to build and fund them withtaxpayers money.

One reason is the laziness ofpoliticians. Incineration seems theeasy way out. One facility. No needto plan for several facilities tohandle different elements of thewaste stream. No need fordiscussions with several firms toensure they can take all the glass,paper, metals etc.

Another reason is industryneeds to get rid of its waste andexcess packaging; one-time useproduct manufactures (like Bicrazors and single use cameras)need to dispose of their discardedproducts. (Did you know half to athird of products end up in thewaste stream within 12 months ofpurchase - and many are designedfor just that?)

It has been estimated that lastyear approximately 2.02 billiontonnes of municipal solid waste(MSW) were generated worldwide.MSW generation looks set toincrease by 37.3% world-widebetween 2007 and 2011 accordingto a ‘Global Waste ManagementMarket Assessment Report’(09/10/2007.) Yet in manycountries more waste than ever isbeing recycled.

The EU Commission claim itsamended Waste FrameworkDirective is looking to 65%recycling, while environmentalistssay it is geared to increasedincineration and that is why they

10


have changed incineration withenergy recovery from a 'disposal'method to 'recycling.' Simply a playon words.

The report continues: ‘Theproduction of energy from waste atincinerators is also growing, but itis important that incineration is notused as a quick method of solvingthe basic problem of too muchwaste production...’

Unfortunately too many decisionmakers are doing just that andlooking no further than theinformation provided by theindustry’s PR machine. They donot want to acknowledge theproblems created and the longterm expensive, health-damagingdisaster incineration really is.

Dozens of communities aroundthe world are now hostage tocancer causing incineratorsbecause of the ignorance, apathy,indifference and laziness of theirelected representatives.

Evidence on the financialdisasters that incinerators arearound the world, the small numberof jobs created; theepidemiological studies showingmalformed children born aroundincinerators; are all importantfactors being ignored.

Epidemiological EvidenceAs the mountain of damagingepidemiological studies grows,pyromaniacs are doing everythingthey can to discredit those goingshowing increased ill health andcausing concern for communities,thereby threatening the expansionof the industry.

Dr. Roberts, a leading memberof the North Wales Area HealthAuthority and an avid supporter ofburning toxic waste in cementkilns. Declared during a meeting inWrexham, north Wales that a studyby Dr. Knox showing increased illhealth in industrialised areas was“seriously flawed and outdated.”

When I questioned him onanother study by Dr. Knox alsoshowing increased ill health inindustrialised areas and publishedjust two weeks before the meetinghe declined to comment.

Some pyromaniacs claim evennow there are no elevated levels ofill health around even the olderincinerators. (See ToxCat Special'Epidemiological Studies AroundIncinerators.)

Others like Prof AndrewPorteous and Dame BarbaraClayton claim all epidemiologicalstudies are “irrelevant” becausethey have been conducted aroundolder incinerators which "cannot becompared to the emissions from amodern facility”.

The truth is of course that whilea modern incinerator might intiallyseem to reduce the amount ofpollutants emitted. The increasedthroughput of waste, (say forexample) from 100,000 tonnes perannum (tpa) to 500,000 tpa willundoubted see an increase incertain pollutants being emittedwhatever anti-pollution equipmentare fitted.

Also, if we take a look at therecord of unauthorised releases atthe UK’s new generation ofincinerators any claim of reducedpollutants should be treated withextrem caution.

One important factor nevermention by the pyros is the fact thata modern incinerator does do notalter the toxicity, persistence andbio-accumulative properties of thepollutants emitted, or change theirimpact on health as individualcompounds, mixtures, or thesynergistic effect.

The less articulateLocating incinerators in lowerincome areas were the 'lessarticulate' live (as communities likemine have been called) has givenand pyromaniacs the never-to-be-missed opportunity to claim anyelevated levels of ill-health are aresult of the community’s poorsocio-economic standing,smoking, excessive drinking, poordiet etc.

The reality is many studies havetaken these factors intoconsideration and still foundsignificantly elevated levels ofserious diseases.

In response to the ever-growingmountain of epidemiological

evidence going against theindustry’s interests (and their ownplans for burning) the Britishgovernment comissioned a desk-top evaluation report by Enviros,Birmingham University andDEFRA., The ‘Review ofEnvironmental and Health Effectsof Waste Management: Municipalsolid Waste and Similar Wastes.’

One of its authors, ProfessorRoy Harrison of BirminghamUniversity is a long time supporterof incineration. He previouslyshowned scant regard for thewelfare of communities living inheavily polluted areas telling aHouse of Lords Select Committeeinquiry: ..The other factor, sir,which needs to be taken intoaccount, is the existing pollution ina locality and the incinerator willprovide an increment on top of that.A small increment would be moretolerable in an already heavilypolluted location...”

Professor Harrison hasobviously given little considerationto the statement from the WorldHealth Organisation ‘that anyadditional increase [of dioxin] couldhave devastating consequencesfor public health.’

I personally believe that wheninfluential academics 'suggest'using polluted areas and thepoorer sections as sacrificial goatsfor polluting industry, they shouldbe removed from office regardlessof their qualifications and position.

PovertyWhile no-one would disputedeprivation, poverty and itsaccompanying lifestyle plays a partin the poor health of anycommunity. We should notoverlook the vast range of toxicchemicals and by-products emitteddaily by incinerators includingarsenic, cadmium, copper,mercury, lead, vanadium, zinc,dioxins, furans and hundreds ofunknown compounds, many ofwhich could likley also bepersistent, bio-accumulative withno proven ‘safe' threshold.Synergistic effects are alsounknown.

11


“Incinerator plants are the source of serious toxic pollutants; dioxins furans, acid gases, particulates,heavy metals and they all need to be treated very seriously.”

“There must be absolute prioritisation given to human health requirements ... and the protection of theenvironment.

“I repeat that the emissions from incinerator processes are extremely toxic. Some of the emissions arecarcinogenic. We know scientifically that there is no safe threshold below which one can allow suchemissions. We must use every reasonable instrument to eliminate them altogether...”

“It is the overall impact, deposition of substances of different kinds on the environment and the cumulativeimpact that we do need to be concerned about...”

“It strikes me that we say in a rather blasé manner that we understand the health impacts of all thesethings, when our knowledge in this particular field of chemical exposure is very limited.”

“It is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to look at the overall deposition impacts. I am not surehow well honed that concept is, but certainly with regard to what we have been talking about here; cadmium,mercury and lead, which originate from many different sources, it is of course the cumulative impact whichis so serious. .. .I often wonder about whether those safety margins are absolutely, wholly and soundlybased...”

Michael Meacher, Secretary for the Environment, (UK) April 14 1999.In evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into Waste Incineration’ HL Paper 71p

Taking these factors intoaccount, common sense tells anyresonable person an incineratormust play a significant role in thepoor health of some sections of ahostage community be it theelderly, the very young, thosesuffering illness etc.

We should also not overlook thefact that the emission standards forincinerators are based on what isachievable technically, not at alevel that guarantees the safety ofpublic health as pyromaniacswould have the public believe.

The collective experiences of themembers of Communities AgainstToxics have shown that fewpoliticians have genuine concernsfor the impact of incinerators onpublic health and the unborn child.

Despite the statements made byMichael Meacher in May 2000 (seebox below) the British governmentpublished a Waste Strategy callingfor the building of over 112 Energyfrom Waste incinerators over thenext 15 years.

This sparked off a huge outcryfrom recycling company’s, anti-incineration groups, zero wasters'and a number of academicorganisations.

This resulted in governmentspokesmen claiming the Strategywas "based on recycling and not onincineration.” But the government

had granted more than 70proposed incinerator facilitiessubsidies though the Non-FossilFuel Obligation (NFFO), subsidiesthat could well cost the Britishtaxpayer an estimated £728million.

Several officials of theEnvironment Agency spokepublicly about the need for “100energy from waste incinerators” tomeet EU legislation, which causedcitizens to doubt the government'recycling' claims.

Slack MonitoringThreaten communities have beentold for decades the UKincineration industry is the mostclosely monitored section ofindustry. Unfortunately the realityof real-life tells us a very differentstory.

During investigations into thespreading of 2,000 tonnes of highlycontaminated incinerator ash overfood producing areas at BYKER,Newcastle upon Tyne forapproximately 6 years. CATsinvestigators and associatesdiscovered that officials of the UK’sEnvironment Agency were activelyencouraging the use of dioxin-laded ash in building blocks to beused in house construction, hardcore for road building, and carparks despite knowing the extent of

its heavy metal and dioxincontamination.

Communities Against ToxicsCommunities Against Toxics(CATs) has been a leading lightamong UK anti-incinerationgrassroots groups since 1990. Aswell as organising something like adozen conferences it has sentrepresentatives to importantcitizen-organised conferencesresulting in the collection anddistribution of importantinformation and the establishmentof contacts around the world.

CATs is a founder member ofseveral International community-based organisations, including theGlobal Anti-IncinerationAlliance/Global Alliance forIncineration Alternatives (GAIA).

At the last GAIA Global Meetingin San Sebastian, Spain, inSeptember (2007) more than 130activists from 39 countries met andshared experiences, informationand expertise. These activists hada revealing insight into:

*an industry surrounded bypolitical ignorance, apathy, andindifference:

*an industry using a seriouslyflawed technology, backed up withmanipulated data to conceal thetrue toxicity of chemicals emitted:

12


The following article was firstpublished in Waste Not, 276-277.April 1994. It is repeated here forthe benefit of newcomers to thefight to protect our children’shealth from the incineratorindustry.

Asked to conduct a study of paperson the health impacts ofincineration before theSubcommittee on HumanResources and IntergovernmentalRelations Committee onGovernment Operations, UnitedStates House of Representativeson January 4, 1994, Barry LJohnston, Ph.D. Assistant SurgeonGeneral Assistant, Administrator ofthe Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR)Public Health Service, U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices testified;“ATSDR often finds itself unable toanswer citizen’s questions aboutassociations between incinerationof waste and public health impacts.The scientific information on healthimpacts of incineration often isn’tavailable because relevant studieshaven’t been conducted.

Incineration of wastes should beviewed from a public healthperspective in the larger context ofgeneration and management ofwastes. Wastes become a publicconcern when they are improperlymanaged and disposed of.Therefore, in a public healthcontext, the most protective actionis not to produce waste. Wasteelimination or minimisationcomports with prevention orreduction of health consequencesof wastes.”

What data currently exist onhealth impacts from incineratoremissions of dioxin, furans,lead, mercury and otherchemicals you think mostrelevant? What is the range ofhealth effects and their intensityat likely emission levels?“There are very few data on theactual human health impacts ofincinerator emissions on the healthof communities near incinerators.Epidemiological investigationshave rarely been conducted, norhave studies of disease and illnesspatterns been undertaken. Forexample, ATSDR staff conducted a

recent literature search of the 10most frequently used computeriseddata bases. As part of the searchover 1,000,000 entries wereidentified. Approximately 72,000 ofthose entries dealt withincineration. Only one (1) singleentry discussed the conduct of apopulation-based study conductedin a community living in the vicinityof an incinerator.In the absence of human healthdata reliance is placed on usingtoxicity data for individualsubstances released into theenvironment. The effect of anytoxic substance depends onfactors such as duration ofexposure, concentration of thesubstance in the environment,biological uptake and a person'ssusceptibility factors (eg., age). Allthese factors have to beconsidered in any estimate ofimpact of incinerator emissions.Adequate information does notexist to support speculation onwhat, if any, human health effectsmight be associated withincinerator emissions.However, our experience withpublic health associations related

*an industry causing increasedLevels of ill-health andmalformation in c h i l d r e namong communities aroundthe world;

*the appalling lack of data on thetoxicity of 86% of the chemicals indaily use and even less on thoseemitted by incinerators;

*the extreme sensitivity of thedeveloping foetus and breast fedchild to chemical insult;

*the poor enforcement of weakregulations:

*the deliberate omission ofchildren under 10 years of age instudies on the health impact ofincinerator ash contaminated withheavy metals and dioxin spread onfood producing areas for

*how no-one in the nationalmedia or governmental bodyquestioned the rationale of this;

*the indifference of politicians,public health officials, regulatorybodies and academics to thewelfare of the socio-economicsections hostage to pollutingindustrial facilities;* how decision makers ignore thereal-life experiences ofcommunities and the ever-increasing mountain ofepidemiological evidence.

Of course a major problem ispoliticians are being lobbied by in-dustry representatives at every op-portunity. Some are only to eagerto accept salary's as ‘advisers’ andwork within the corridors of powerto further industry interests *

Some of these advisers havebeen in positions of power for dec-ades, working more for industrythan the people who voted forthem.* As long these Judas' are putinto such positions they will abusethe trust of the electorate.

The way to deal with this is notto vote for these people. Forgetparty politics and vote for the per-son who will work to benefit thecitizens, and not industry.It really is as simple as that!

*See: Too Close for ComfortA report on MEPs, corporate links and po-tential conflicts of interests. Andy Rowell.Available from www.spinwatch.org

13

STATE OF AFFAIRS IN 1994


to hazardous waste sites wouldsuggest the need to conduct twokinds of human healthinvestigations. One kind ofinvestigation would look at cancer,birth defects and respiratorydisease rates in areas thought to beimpacted by releases fromincinerators. A second kind of studywould be site specific.Community health surveys wouldhelp clarify whether any unusualexposure or morbidity is occurringthat might be associated with agiven incinerator.”

What kind of data do you have orgather on additive, multiple, andsynergistic impacts when thereis exposure to more than onechemical, as would be the casewith incinerator emissions? Doyou expect those impacts wouldbe greater than from a singlechemical exposure alone?“There are few data available in thescientific literature on specificinteractions of contaminates thatmay be released from wasteincinerators (dioxin, furans, lead,mercury]. In the absence of specificstudies using combinedcontaminants, and limitedunderstanding of the mechanismsof action for some substances, it isprudent to assume that the effectsof exposure to these contaminatesis additive.”

What data exist on thesensitivity of variouspopulations, by age, gender orethnic background, to thesechemicals?“Infants and children are arguablythe most sensitive segment of thehuman population to toxicexposures. Infants and children areat special risk because they playoutdoors, (where they spend moretime than adults) they ingest ormouth foreign objects, they aresmaller (greater chemical dosesper pound) than adults, (childrenare nearer the ground than adultsand most chemicals are heavierthan air) they also breathe moreair, (25 to 30 times a minutecompared to an adults 15) they arenutritionally challenged (because

of protein-calorie requirements tosupport rapid growth) and they areundergoing developmentalchanges that make them especiallyvulnerable to chemical exposure.Moreover, they have the longestlife expectancies during whichlong-term adverse health effectsmay manifest. Certain disordersmay not become evident until achild reaches a particulardevelopmental stage, which mayoccur long after the damage wasdone. Some of the largestenvironmental health programs(eg. asbestos) are directed atchildren.” (Italics are CATsadditional information.)

People of reproductive age.“All women of reproductive agemust be included in this populationbecause the most severe effectsusually occur during the very earlystages of pregnancy, often beforea woman knows she is pregnant.In addition pregnant women,especially those with multiplepregnancies, as well as thedeveloping foetus, have increasedprotein-calorie requirements tosupport rapid physical growth.The developing foetus isparticularly sensitive to chemicalexposure. Exposure to chemicalshas the greatest impact on thosefunctions undergoing the mostactive development at the time ofexposure. Animal studies andsome human studies show thatthere are critical foetaldevelopment stages during whichchemical exposure can causepermanent and devastating effects.There is also a small, but growingscientific literature that implicatessome toxicants as causing effectson male reproductive processes.For example, laboratory animalstudies have shown that exposureto lead causes adversereproductive outcomes in malerats, leading to effects onneurologic function in the offspringof the males. Similarly, PCBs in fishand waterfowl have been reportedto cause feminine features in themale of these species.”.

Elderly persons and personswith chronic illnesses“Elderly persons and thechronically ill tend to be moresusceptible to respiratory irritants.Long standing public healthpolicies such as immunisationguidelines for influenza support thisnotion. The elderly are alsonutritionally challenged, often dueto reduced protein-calorie intakeand combined with the metabolicchanges that occur during thisstage of life. Underlying illnessessuch as is the case in thechronically ill may increase theirsusceptibility to particulartoxicants. For example, personswith chronic diseases of the kidneysystem may experience moreharmful effects from exposure torenal toxicants such as lead andcadmium compared to a healthyindividual.Moreover, elderly persons andthose with chronic illnesses areoften socially isolated andpotentially less aware ofenvironmental emergencies.Because of special physicalchallenges, they may also requirespecial services during time ofevacuation in the event of such anemergency.”

Minorities.“Preventing adverse health effectsin minorities exposed to hazardoussubstances is a priority for theAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR).Minority populations, particularlyAfrican Americans, Hispanics, andNative Americans sufferdisproportionately frompreventable morbidity andmortality. Regardless of income,education, or geographical localethese populations are often inpoorer health than their whitecounterparts. This disparity is oftenassociated with inadequate accessto health care for preventiveservices as well as early diagnosisand treatment of disordersincluding those that may beassociated with exposure tohazardous substances.

14


Their disadvantaged economicstatus also frequently affectspriorities on nutritional status.Occupational chemical exposuresmay increase this population’ssusceptibility to adverse healtheffects resulting from otherexposures to hazardoussubstances.In addition, certain pre-existinggenetic disorders (G6-PDdeficiency, sickle cell anaemia)may compound the impact of suchexposures... “

What are the most serious datagaps that prevent us fromdetermining the exact healthimpacts from incinerators?The data that impede an accurateassessment of the public healthimpact can be divided into twocategories; *those associated withthe technology and the facilityitself,*and those related toenvironmental health.Following are examples of somekey data gaps in both categories.Also listed are actions that shouldbe considered in order to ensurethe protection of the public’shealth. These data gaps andrecommended actions are basedon ATSDR’s experience inproviding consultations concerninghazardous waste incinerators.Key data gaps associated with theincineration technology/facilityinclude:1) The often inadequateidentification and quantification ofwaste feed as well as fugitiveemissions associated with specificincinerator facilities. 2) Thedeposition rates to soil and waterfor all potential incinerator stackemissions are not well known. 3)The identification and

quantification of emissions duringincinerator process upsets arefrequently not measured. 4) Whenstack emissions are analysed formetals the specific metalcompounds or species present arenot usually identified.5) Concentrations of contaminatesin environmental samples aroundincinerator facilities, e.g. soil, waterand ambient air are typically notmeasured.6) There are limitations in thecurrent stack testing, air monitoringand air modelling methods. Someof these methodologies needfurther validation.7) Often there is a lack of data onthe concentration of contaminatespresent in foods that are grownnear a facility, such as vegetablesfrom gardens, cattle, fish orshellfish etc.... The secondcategory of data gaps concerns thearea of environmental health. Keydata gaps in this area include;limited demographic and healthdata on the surroundingcommunity; Lack of environmentaldata such as the types andconcentration of contaminatespresent and the environmentalmedia contaminates.Limited number of exposure,health monitoring and surveillanceactivities in communities living nearoperating incinerator facilitiespresent and the environmentalmedia contaminated.*Limited number of exposure,health monitoring and surveillanceactivities in communities living nearoperating incinerator facilities.* Data gaps in our knowledgeabout the adverse health effectsfrom specific hazardoussubstances.* Toxicologic data on the mixture ofsubstances from incinerators.

Efforts by federal and stateenvironmental and health agenciesare underway to address a fewnumbers of these data gaps.In addition to these efforts,attempts should be made to co-ordinate and collaborate in order tomaximise the results in eachindividual area of dataneeded...”END

”.. we think that it would be wrong to discount public concern about the health implications of incinerationproducts (especially dioxins) on the grounds that it is derived from the experience of an older generation ofmunicipal incinerators which the 1989 Directives have essentially done away with. Although considerableprogress has been made in understanding the toxicology and exposure effects of many of the key pollutants,continued epidemiological work will be needed. We consider there are well established grounds for caution,justifying the general approach of the draft Directive. We feel that the collection and study of data on thepotential health risks, from combustion products should continue to be a priority... “House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into 'Waste Incineration' , 11 Report HL Paper 71, 15th June 1999

15


WHATDOES

ANINCINERATOR

EMIT?

Medical waste incinerator inthe town of Empalme VillaConstitución,Santa Fé province,Argentina.Company: Ecology System.

© Greenpeace Argentina

To understand better the likelyimpact of incinerator emissions onpublic health we should considerthe waste stream a facility willhandle every day and the resultingchemicals and by-productsemitted; their known impact onhealth; the health status andsensitivity of the people impacted;the sensitivity of the humanendocrine and hormone systems;the complex nature of thedeveloping foetus and its extremesensitivity to chemical impact.

When we have considered allthese factors, we should notoverlook the efforts of industry,itsscientists, governments andregulatory officials to conceal thetoxicity and dangers of some of the

chemicals emitted in both large andsmall amounts - notably 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzene-p-dioxin(TCDD-dioxin).

Waste StreamThe waste stream of today’sgeneration of Energy from Waste(EfW) incinerators is an ever-changing complex mixture ofindustrial products, by-productsand chemicals. These includechlorinated solvents, pesticides,PVC, inks, dyes, paints, papers,textiles, pharmaceuticals, metals,babies nappies, (diaphers,)chemically treated wood and woodproducts like MDF, organic waste,upholstery, electrical equipment,

flame retardants, buildingmaterials.

Supporters of incineration(pyromaniacs) would have thepublic believe all of thesecompounds can be completelydisposed of at the same time, at thesame temperature, with the sameoxygen level, and any resultingtoxins will be safely captured in thepollution devices resulting in noharmful emissions. This is nottechnically possible and the grosscontamination of areas aroundincinerators, and indeed aroundthe globe, by persistent organicpollutants is testament to this.

16


Kay and Steiglitz published a paper in Chemosphere identifying the following volatile organic chemicals emittedfrom a municipal waste incinerator: pentane; trichlorofluoromethane; acetonitrile; acetone; iodomethane;dichloromethane; 2-methyl-2-propanol; 2-methylpentane; chloroform; ethyl acetate; 2,2-dimethyl-3-pentanol;cyclohexane; benzene; 2-methylhexane; 3-methylhexane; 1,3-dimethylcyclopentane; 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane;trichloroethene; heptane; methylcyclohexane; ethylcyclopentane; 2-hexanone; toluene; 1,2-dimethylcyclohex-ane; 2-methylpropyl acetate; 3-methyleneheptane; paraldehyde; octane; tetrachloroethylene; butanoic acid ethylester; butyl acetate; ethylcyclohexane; 2-methyloctane; dimethyldioxane; 2-furanecarboxaldehyde; chloroben-zene; methyl hexanol; trimethylcyclohexane; ethyl benzene; formic acid; xylene; acetic acid; aliphatic carbonyl;ethylmethylcyclohexane; 2-heptanone; 2-butoxyethanol; nonane; isopropyl benzene; propylcyclohexane;dimethyloctane; pentanecarboxylic acid; propyl benzene; benzaldehyde; 5-methyl-2-furane carboxaldehyde; 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene; trimethylbenzene; benzonitrile; methylpropylcyclohexane;2-chlorophenol; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; phenol; 1,3-dichlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; decane; hexanecar-boxylic acid; 1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene; 2-methylisopropylbenzene; benzyl alcohol; trimethylbenzene; 1-methyl-3-propylbenzene; 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene; 2-methylbenzaldehyde; 1-methyl-2-propylbenzene; methyl de-cane; 4-methylbenzaldehyde; 1-ethyl-3,5-dimethylbenzene; 1-methyl-(1-pro-penyl)benzene; bromochloroben-zene; 4-methylphenol; benzoic acid methyl ester; 2-chloro-6-methylphenol; ethyldimethylbenzene; undecane;heptanecarboxylic acid; 1-(chloromethyl)-4-methylbenzene; 1,3-diethylbenzene; 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene;4-methylbenzyl alcohol; ethylhex anoic acid; ethyl benzaldehyde; 2,4-dichlorophenol; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene;naphthalene; cyclopentasiloxanedecamethyl; methyl acetophenone; ethanol-1-(2-butoxyethoxy); 4-chlorophe-nol; benzothiazole; benzoic acid; octanoic acid; 2-bromo-4-chlorophenol; 1,2,5-trichlorobenzene; dodecane;bromochlorophenol; 2,4-dichloro-6-methylphenol; dichloromethylphenol; hydroxybenzonitrile; tetrachloroben-zene; methylbenzoic acid; trichlorophenol; 2-(hydroxymethyl) benzoic acid; 2-ethylnaphthalene-1,2,3,4-tetrahy-dro; 2,4,6-trichlorophenol; 4-ethylacetophenone; 2,3,5-trichlorophenol; 4-chlorobenzoic acid; 2,3,4-trichlorophenol; 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene; 1,1’biphenyl (2-ethenyl-naphthalene); 3,4,5-trichlorophenol;chlorobenzoic acid; 2-hydroxy-3,5-dichlorobenzaldehyde; 2-methylbiphenyl; 2-nitrostyrene(2-nitroethenylben-zene); decanecarboxylic acid; hydroxymethoxybenzaldehyde; hydroxychloroacetophenone; ethylbenzoic acid;2,6-dichloro-4-nitrophenol; sulphonic acid m.w. 192; 4-bromo-2,5-dichlorophenol; 2-ethylbiphenyl; bromod-ichlorophenol; 1(3H)-isobenzofuranone-5-methyl; dimethylphthalate; 2,6-di-tertiary-butyl-p-benzoquinone;3,4,6-trichloro-1-methyl-phenol; 2-tertiary-butyl-4-methoxyphenol; 2,2’-dimethylbiphenyl; 2,3’-dimethylbiphenyl; pentachlorobenzene; bibenzyl; 2,4’-dimethylbiphenyl; 1-methyl-2-phenylmethylbenzene;benzoic acid phenyl ester 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol; tetrachlorobenzofurane; fluorene; phthalicester;dodecanecarboxylic acid; 3,3'-dimethylbiphenyl; 3,4’-dimethylbiphenyl; hexadecane; benzophenone;tridecanoic acid; hexachlorobenzene; heptadecane; fluorenone; dibenzothiophene; pentachlorophenol; sulphonicacid m.w. 224; phenanthrene; tetrade- canecarboxylic acid; octadecane; phthelic ester; tetradecanoic acidisopropyl ester; caffeine; 12-methyltetrade cacarboxylic acid; pentadecacarboxylic acid; methylphenanthrene;nonedecane; 9-hexadecene carboxylic acid; anthraquinone; dibutylphthalate; hexadecanoic acid; eicosane;methyl hexadecanoic acid; fluoroanthene; pen-tachlorobiphenyl; heptadecanecarboxylic acid; octadecadienal;pentachlorobiphenyl; aliphatic amide; octade-canecarboxylic acid; hexadecane amide; docosane;hexachlorobiphenyl; benzylbutylphthalate; aliphatic amide; diisooctylphthalate; hexadecanoic acid hexadecyl

Chemicals and by-productsemitted daily by an incineratorduring its operational life span

You should bear in mind thatwhereas toxicological data forindividual chemicals identified inthe stack gases of an incineratorcan offer some insight into theimpacts that can be expected fromexposure to that particularpollutant. Rudimentarytoxicological information about highdose exposure to the few individualchemicals that have been identifiedgives no indication of the potentialeffects of long-term, low doseexposure to the diverse mixtures of

chemical’s and by-productsreleased.

Incinerator stack emissions arenot comprised solely of harmlessgases: they carry waste chemicalsthat have escaped combustion aswell as newly formed “products ofincomplete combustion” (PICs).These PICs are thousands ofdifferent chemicals of which only asmall fraction have been identified.

Many compounds released fromincinerators are extremely toxic invery tiny, trace amounts andpersistent in the environment forlong periods migrating through thefood chain. Significant quantities ofsome of these substances are

already present throughout theenvironment, the human foodchain, human tissues and newlyborn babies, showing they arecapable of passing through theplacenta.

The incineration of wastes hasbeen acknowledged as the sourceof persistent pollutants in theenvironment and human tissues fordecades. Polychlorinatedbiphenyl’s (PCBs) Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins, (PCDDs) andPolychlorinated dibenzofurans,(PCDF) are known to be formed inan incinerator. These, andchlorobenzenes, chlorophenols,and a range of chlorinated

17


methanes, ethanes and ethylenes- all found in incinerator emissions- have been identified asubiquitous contaminates in humantissues.

“[C]ombustion is the only sourceof sufficient size and ubiquity toaccount for the PCDD and PCDF inhuman adipose tissue.” [1]

“Combustion processes arebelieved to be the source of mostPCDD/F to the environment”. [2]

We know that PCDDs andPCDFs exert multi-generationaleffects on multiple organ systemsin many species at extraordinarylow doses. No safe threshold hasbeen found for reproductive,developmental, and immunologicaleffects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzene-p-dioxin(TCDD) despite more than adecade of intensive research. Yetpyromaniacs still claim the levels ofTCDD emitted by a modern facilityposes no health threat, despitebeing bio-accumulative in theenvironment and human tissues.

One self-confessed pyromaniac,Dame Barbara Clayton, givingevidence to a House of Lordsinquiry into ‘Waste Incineration’ in1999 expressed her bewildermentthat:“...the public look on dioxins asthe very severe chemical that theyfear... There is no reason to havethat view, but it is very much thepublic perception.”[3]

Dame Clayton has a vastlydifferent opinion on the toxicity ofdioxin than that of Dr. LindaBirnbaum, Dr. Arnold Schecter, Dr.Chris Portier, Dr. Barry Commonerand many other scientists actuallyworking in the field of dioxinresearch. All have expressed greatconcern over their impact on healthand the mechanism by which theywork. A number have spoken ofdioxin as “the most toxic syntheticchemical known to man” and “themost potent compound producedin the lab”. Dr. Richard Clapp, whostudied the impact of [dioxincontaminated] Agent Orange onVietnam Veterans described it as“the Darth Vadar of chemicals."

Another eminent scientist indioxin research is Dr. MichaelDeVito, co-author of Toxicology of

Dioxin and Related Chemicals.Speaking at a Symposium atLancaster University in 1996 hequestioned the wisdom of theWorld Health Organisations(WHO) [then] ‘tolerable dailyintake’ (TDI) of dioxin of 10 picograms per kilogram of body weigha day (pg/kg/bw/a day) saying itwas “... insufficiently protective”and “...does not take into fullaccount the differences betweenhuman and animal metabolismwhen drawing conclusions fromanimals experiments.”

Two years later, (June 4 1998)after a four day debate among 40specialists from 15 countries theWHO declared: “The expertsrecognised that subtle effects mayalready occur in the generalpopulation in developed countriesat 2 to 6 pg/kg/be/a day” and set anew lower rate of TDI as 1 to 4pg/kg/bw/a day recommending“...that every effort be made toreduce expose to the lowestpossible level.”[4]

To reach this magical figure of 1to 4 pg the experts of WHO tookthe lowest observed level thatcaused problems in laboratoryanimals and reduced it by a factorof 10. The normal practice in suchcircumstances would be to apply afactor of 100, but had they donethis they would have beendeclaring much of the worlds foodsupply in industrialised countriesdangerously contaminated. Theywere obviously reluctant to do thisfor political reasons.

It seems the WHO, like manygovernments, are bowing to theneeds of industry and tacitlyaccepting the permanent chemicalcontamination of our air, our food,and our new-born.

Playing with FireThe following text is unashamedlytaken from Playing with Fire,written by Pat Costner and JoeThornton, Greenpeace (updated)1993.

I have included this because it isan excellent, understandableintroduction to the realities ofincineration for those of us involved

in anti-incineration battles andpolitical decision makers.

Although Playing with Fireconcentrates on hazardous wasteincineration, we should not forgetthat the waste that goes into amunicipal solid waste incineratorcontains many of the chemicalsthat are disposed of in hazardouswaste incinerators.

Incinerator Performance: Matterof Fact or Fantasy?Both the incineration industry andgovernment regulators claim to beable to evaluate and control wasteincinerators well enough toguarantee that the pollutantsreleased will cause no harm.These claims are contradicted bynumerous scientific reportsassembled by, and for, regulatoryagencies.

No large-scale combustionsystem that routinely burnshazardous waste has ever beenfully evaluated.

At present, there is no methodfor continuously monitoring allunburned and newly formedchemicals and metals emitted instack gases. Even in trial burns,only 1% to 6% of the total mass ofunburned chemicals emitted froman incinerator have beenchemically identified. As a result,the bulk of the chemicals releasedfrom incinerators, even undercarefully controlled and monitoredconditions, remainuncharacterised.

Without identification andquantification of all stackemissions, an incinerator’sperformance cannot in fact bedetermined. Instead, operatorsandregulators contend that they canpredict an incinerator’s ability toburn highly variable waste streamsand diverse chemical mixturesthroughout 20-25 years of routineoperation based on measurementstaken during a trial burn of one ortwo individual chemicals for aperiod of a few hours. Even duringthese brief, carefully controlled trialburns, incinerator operators rely onpartial and surrogatemeasurements of performancebecause only a fraction of the

18


chemicals emitted can beidentified.

...Furthermore, scientists foundthe incinerability of chemicals tovary in a complex and somewhatunpredictable way with incineratortemperature, available oxygen,waste feed rates, and wastecomposition in single-componentexperiments. Consequently,additional data...will be needed toassess the situation. However, theamount of data needed to clearlydescribe the behaviour of allpossible mixtures would beprohibitively large and costly.[5]

In summary, there is no soundbasis for assuming that thedemonstration of a DRE of 99.99%during a trial burn proves that thislevel of destruction will be achievedduring the daily incineration of

complex waste mixtures over yearsor even decades.

Furthermore, POHCs presumedto be relatively easy to destroy mayproduce PICs that are extremelydifficult to incinerate.[6]

Products of IncompleteCombustionDuring incineration, fragments ofpartially burned waste chemicalsstabilise or recombine to form newchemicals called PICs. Althoughthese chemical PICs are estimatedby the United States EnvironmentalProtection agency (U.S.EPA) tonumber in the thousands, only asmall percentage have beenidentified. Many pose far greaterhealth and environmental threatsthan the original wastes.PICs identified include thepolychlorinated dioxins and furans,

PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, andother complex organochlorines thatare highly toxic, persistent, and bio-accumulative.

According to the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency(U.S.EPA), as much as 1% of themass of waste chemicals fed intoan incinerator may exit the stackunburned or incompletely burned.Based on these data, an averagesized commercial incinerator (70million pounds per year), emitsthese chemicals, predominantlyPICs, into the air at the rate of700,000 pounds per year.[7]

The average citizen may haveproblems understanding theterminology used in relation toemissions from incinerators.Grams per cubic meter (/m3)means absolutely nothing to the layperson. Citizens should demand a

Products of Incomplete Combustion From Hazardous Waste Incineration.Acetone (1,3) Acetonitrile (5) Acetophenone (1) Benzaldehyde (1,4) Benzene (1,3,4,5) Benzenedicarbox-aldehyde (1) Benzofuran (4) Benzoic acid (1) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1,5) 1-Bromodecane (4) Bro-mofluorobenzene (4) Bromoform (3) Bromomethane (3,5) Butylbenzyl phthalate (1) Isooctane (3) Carbontetrachloride (1,2,3,4,5) Chlorobenzene (1,3,4) 1-Chlorobutane (4) Chlorocyclohexanol (1) 1-Chlorodecane(4) Chlorodibromomethane (3) 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (3) ChloroformU.2,3,4,5) 1-Chlorohexane (4)Chloromethane (3,5) 1-Chlorononane (4) 1-Chloropentane (4) Cyclohexane(l) Cyclohexanol (1) Cyclohex-ene (1) 1-Decene (4) Dibutyl phthalate (1) Dichloroacetylene (2) Dichlorobromomethane (3) 1,2-Dichlo-robenzene (4,5) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (4,5) 1.1-Dichloroethane (5) 1.2-Dichloroethane (3,4,5)1,1-Dichloroethylene (3,5) Dichlorodifluoromethane (5) Dichloromethane (1,3,4,5) 2,4-Dichlorophenol (5)Diethyl phthalate (1) Dimethyl ether (3) 3,7-Dimethyloctanol (4) Dioctyl adipate (1) Ethenylethylbenzene (1)Ethylbenzaldehyde (1) Ethylbenzene(l,3) Ethylbenzoic acid (1) Ethylphenol(l) (Ethylphenyl)ethanone (1)Ethynylbenzene (1) Formaldehyde (5) Heptane (4) Hexachlorobenzene (2,5) Hexachlorobutadiene (2)Hexanal (4) 1-Hexene (4) Methane (3) Methylcyclohexane (4) Methyl ethyl ketone (5) 2-Methyl hexane (4)3-Methyleneheptane (4) 3-Methylhexane (4) 5,7-Methylundecane (4) Naphthalene (1) Nonane (4) Nonanol(4) 4-Octene (4) Pentachloro phenol (5) Phenol (5) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (2) olychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) (2,5,6) Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) (2, 5, 6) Pentanal (4) Phenol(1,5) Phenylacetylene (1) Phenylbutenone (1) (1,4-Phenylene) bisethanone (1) PhenylpropenoHl) Prope-nylmethylbenzene (1) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (4,5) Tetrachloroethylene (1,2,3,4,5) Tetradecane (4)Tetramethyloxirane (1) Toluene (1,3,4,5) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (4,5) 1.1.1-Trichloroethane (1,3,5) 1.1.2-Trichloroethane (5) Trichloroethylene (1,2,4,5) Trichlorofluoromethane (3) Trichlorotrifluoroethane (4) 2,3,6-TVimethyldecane (4) Trimethylhexane (1) 2,3,5-Trichlorophenol (5) Vin>“l chloride (3,5)(1) Trenholm 1986 (eight full-scale hazardous waste incinerators)(2) Dellinger 1988 (turbulent flame reactor)(3) Treoholm 1987 (full-scale rotary kiln incinerator)(4) Chang 1988 (turbulent flame reactor)(5) U.S. EPA. “PIC database” in U.S. EPA 1989b (review of available data at varied units)(6) U.S. EPA 1987c (two full-scale rotary kiln incinerators).Fossil fuels contain little or no halogens and associated compounds. As detailed in PICs resulting from theincineration of halogenated material (such as the chlorinated dioxins, furans, and PCBs) are far more toxicthan PICs from fossil fuel burners.PICs in Ash ResiduesOne study of incinerator bottom ash identified 37 PICs, some of which were chlorinated species. Theconcentrations of these PICs in the ash ranged from 0.1 to 500 parts per million (ppm) (Van Buren 1985).Source: ‘Playing with Fire’ by Pat Costner & Joe Thornton. A Greenpeace Report

19


Medical waste incinerator inthe town of Empalme VillaConstitución,Santa Fé province,Argentina.Company: Ecology System.

© Greenpeace Argentina

As much as 1% of the mass of wastechemicals fed into an incinerator mayexit the stack unburned or incompletelyburned. Based on these data an averagesized commercial incinerator (70 millionpounds per year) emits these chemi-cals, predominately Products of Incom-plete Combustion (PICs) into the air atthe rate of 700,000 pounds per year.

table of total releases in anunderstandable format, one thatthey can relate to. For example: Itwas calculated by Greenpeace thata proposed 103MW energy fromwaste incinerator at Belvedere,South East London, would releaseevery year 70 tonnes of dust; 350tonnes of sulphur dioxide; 1,401tonnes of nitrogen dioxide; 0.7grams of dioxins and furans; 7tonnes of lead; 7 tonnes ofchromium; 0.6 tonnes of mercuryand cadmium.[8]

Another study in the USAshowed that a ‘state of the art’incinerator burning 2,250 tons ofhousehold waste a day wouldannually emit: 5 tons of lead; 17tons of mercury; 580 lbs ofcadmium; 2,248 tons dioxide, 18tons of fluorides, 98 tons ofparticulate matter small enough tolodge in the deepest areas of thelung. [9]

If we multiply these amounts by30, the amount of years the plantwill be contracted to burn waste for,we can get some idea of the trueamount of health damagingchemicals and metals beingemitted.

These are conservativeestimates made when themachinery is new and workingefficiently. Over the years this willwear out, malfunction, break downand emissions will undoubtedlyincrease.

These estimates have notincluded upsets or unauthorisedreleases, events that occurfrequently at the new generation ofincinerators in the UK.

It was estimated that up to:“...82 lbs of particles an hour wouldbe thrown into the air, includingheavy metals such as lead andcadmium as well as traces ofpoisonous dioxins,” (during, athermal stack release) at aproposed toxic waste incinerator atHull, England. [10]

Releases of Heavy MetalsMetals cannot be destroyed bycombustion. Moreover, incinerationchanges some metals into formsthat are more toxic, more easilyinhaled or ingested by livingorganisms, or more easily leachedfrom incinerator ashes.

Metal exposure is associatedwith a range of adverse health

effects concerning all bodysystems. In particular most heavymetals have been reported to beassociated with kidney disease,respiratory disease, cardiovasculardamage, blood effects andneruotoxicity.[11]

Nonetheless, metals arecommon constituents in the wastesburned in commercial incineratorsand at least 19 have been identifiedin the stack gases, ashes, andother residues of hazardous wasteincinerators.

The following is by no means acomprehensive list of pollutantsemitted by an incinerator during its30 plus years operational lifespan,but it will give the reader someinsight into the complexity anddangers of metals and otherincinerator by-products.

Metals: are examples of ultimatepersistence. Being elements theycan be neither degraded normetabolised. The metals that haveseverely affected ecological orhuman health in the last 25 yearsinclude lead, mercury, cadmium,selenium and tin. Of these tin,selenium and cadmium are new

20


problems in the sense that theirpresence in the environment hadnot previously been considered ahazard.

An ever-expanding body ofscientists now believes the effectsof metals have been grosslyunderestimated and it is highlylikely that no-safe level of certainmetals, like lead, exists.

Antimony: Acute inhalationexposure to antimony causesirritation of the nose and mouth,abnormalities in the circulatorysystem and disruption of therespiratory tract. Chronic exposuremay result in cardiac lesions andlung changes

Arsenic: is a human carcinogen.Lung cancer is regarded as thecritical effect following inhalationexposure. Arsenic contamination isa health concern worldwide withmillions exposed to levels thatexceed the World HealthOrganization (WHO) safetystandard of 10 parts per billion(ppb). The element was classifiedas a Group 1 carcinogen by theInternational Agency for Researchon Cancer and has been implicatedin such diseases as vasculardisorders and diabetes.

A team of researchers from theMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) and Thailand'sChulabhorn Research Institute(CRI) have identified a highlypredictive biomarker gene set forprenatal arsenic exposure.

According to the authors theresults of the study clearlydemonstrated “that prenatalexposure in humans results inmeasurable phenotypic responsesin the newborn.” (see box below)

Cadmium: Cadmium is asilverywhite brittle metal. It has no role inliving systems, but is usedincreasingly in numerous industriesincluding vinyl stabilizers,pigments, electroplating, alloys,nickel-cadmium batteries andfungicides.

It is extremely toxic to plants andanimals and can enter water or soilfrom the manufacture of pigments,vinyl stabilisers and from sewagesludge and fertilisers, especially ifindustrial waste is incorporated intothe sludge, an ever growingpractice in Britain. Cadmiumcauses cancer in rats and 5 ppm indrinking water shortened rats livesby 15%.

Inhalation of 40mg with retentionof 5mg is fatal to humans and shortterm exposure to high levels ofinhaled cadmium causesrespiratory effects such aspneumontis. Oral exposure to highlevels results in severegastrointestinal upsets.

Cadmium is bound tometallothionein and sequestered inthe kidney. It has been postulatedthat when the kidney is “saturated,”at about 50 years of age, cadmiumis released into the blood streamand may trigger hypertension. Ithas been linked throughepidemiological studies toprostrate cancer in humans.

Cadmium enters the humanenvironment in cigarette smoke. InJapan cadmium from a smeltercontaminated irrigation water andconsumption of rice grown in thiswater resulted in a disease nameditai-itai, or “ouchouch” because ofthe extreme pain.

The long term effects ofcontinual exposure to inhaledcadmium include emphysema,anaemia and cancer.

Chromium: Chromium VI is aknown carcinogen causing lungcancer via inhalation and possiblydigestive tract cancer via ingestion.

Cobalt: Its toxic effects includelung irritation, immunologicaldeficiency, heart disease, cancerand death.

Copper: Intake of excessivelylarge doses of copper causes illeffects such as mucosalirritation/corrosion, capillarydamage, liver and kidney toxicityand disruption of the centralnervous system. Copper acts as acatalyst for dioxin production inincinerators.

Hydrogen Chlorine: Is an eyeirritant and at high concentrationscauses pulmonary oedema andlaryngeal spasms.

Hydrogen Fluoride: Humanexposure to greater than 3ppmhave shown redness of the skin,burning and irritation of the noseand throat and digestive disorders.

Lead: Lead is inherently toxic andhas no useful function in themammalian organism. It is acumulative poison and acutepoisoning causes intestinalcramps, renal failure, sterility,irreversible brain damage,(cerebral palsy and mentalretardation and anaemia). In mildercases, tiredness, irritability,abdominal pain, anaemia and inchildren behavioural changes.

Long term exposure appears tobe decreased neurologicaldevelopment in children andincreased blood pressure andhypertension in adults. Low-levellead exposure can significantlyimpair cognitive and motor function

21

Study Links Gene Expression Changes in Babies to Arsenic ExposureThe research was led by Mathuros Ruchirawat, Ph.D., director of the CRI Laboratory of EnvironmentalToxicology in Bangkok, working with Leona Samson, Ph.D., director of the MIT Center for EnvironmentalHealth Sciences and the American Cancer Society professor in the departments of Biological Engineeringand Biology. Rebecca Fry, Ph.D., a research scientist at the MIT Environmental Health Sciences Center,was lead author of the study. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2082467http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/changes.cfmJanuary 2008


Explosion at anArkansawincinerator

in children particularly if theexposure occurs before 6 years ofage. There is a general consensusamong toxicologists that everyincrease in blood lead levels of 10micrograms per deciliter isassociated with a 1 to 3 drop in IQ.

Children below six are atgreatest risk resulting in greaterincidence of mouthing behaviour,greater gastrointestinal absorptionof lead, incomplete development ofthe blood-brain barrier and greatersensitivity to neurological andhaematological effects since theplacenta is an ineffective barrier tothe entry of lead into the foetus.

The impacts of lead on thedeveloping brain have beenstudied for many years. Leadexposures during infancy andchildhood cause attention deficits,hyperactivity, impulsive behaviour,IQ deficits, reduced schoolperformance, aggression, anddelinquent behaviour. (Rice 1998;Needleman et al. 1996)

A historical review of ourunderstanding of the impacts oflead on the developing brain showsthat exposure levels that were oncethought to be safe are actually

associated with brain damagewhen children are carefully studied.Even today, the Centers forDisease Control (CDC) iscontemplating whether or not tofurther lower the screeningthreshold from 10 microgm/dl bloodto 5 microgm/dl blood sinceimpacts have now beendocumented at these lower levels.(Lanphear et al. 2000)

A majority opinion is that there isno threshold of effect in children,meaning that a level so low as to bewithout measurable effect has yetto be identified.

Mercury: Mercury as an element isindestructible. It gets into theatmosphere when toxic waste isburned. There it builds up in thebodies of animals, usually fish thateat contaminated plants and drinkcontaminated water.

Emissions are also a majorproblem as coal-burning powerplants spew tons of the metal intothe air each year. Many dentistsstill use mercury as an amalgam infillings, often released into theatmosphere during cremations. Ithas been calculated that

approximately 15% of the UKmercury contamination comes fromcrematoriums.

Mercury vapour causes tremorsand erethism, a disease whichinvolves a variety of psychologicaldifficulties including short termmemory loss and socialwithdrawal. The metal has beenlinked to neurological problemsand is especially harmful to youngchildren, infants and foetuses.

The EU Commission said up to2,200 tons of mercury could befound in the dental fillings of peoplein EU and the EFTA countries --Norway, Switzerland, Iceland andLiechtenstein. Sweden has nowbanned this use of mercury.

Once in the environmentmercury can be methylated bymicro-organisms, producing thebiologically much more availablemethylmercury. More than 95% ofthe mercury in fish appears in thechemical form of methyl mercury,which is the most toxic form of theclement.

Mercury easily crosses theplacenta and enters the foetal brainwhere it disrupts many differentprocesses necessary for normal

22


Hu et al., 2003. Characterization of multiple airborne particulate metals in the surroundings ofa municipal waste incinerator in Taiwan. Atmospheric Environment 37: 2845–2852AbstractHeavy metals are one of the concerned pollutants emitted by the municipal waste incineration system (MWIs).The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential impact on local airborne metals from the emissionsof an MWI.Aerosol samples were simultaneously collected at eight different sites around the municipalwaste incinerator using PS-1 sampler. The concentrations of 16 elements (Mg, Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb, Ti, V, Cr,Mn, Co, Ni, As, Cd, Ba and Hg) were quantified by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP–MS) and atomic absorption spectrometer (AA). The profiles of the 16 metals in the surroundings of amunicipal incinerator in central Taiwan were compared with those of the emission sources. The resultsshowed that the profiles of multiple metals obtained at all sampling sites were similar to those emitted fromthe MWI stack. These findings suggested hat the local airborne metal pollutants might probably derive fromthe stack emission of the MWI. Using cadmium as an index metal, it was found that the metals like Mg, Ti,V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, As, and Hg are highly influenced by the stack emission from the municipal incinerator.Moreover, the ratio of other metals to Cd that were increased with the distance from the incinerator. Thismight be due to the additional sources contributed to airborne metals following the emission from theincinerator and a difference in particle size of each particle-bound metal.[from body of text]In this study, the concentrations of 16 airborne metals, namely, Mg, Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co,Ni, As, Cd, Ba and Hg were measured at eight sampling sites around a municipal incinerator in Taiwan. Theresults showed a severely high metal concentration observed in the ambient air of the incinerator. Moreover,by comparing the profiles between the sampling sites and stack emission, it was found that metal profilesobtained at sampling sites were similar to the profile of stack emission from incinerator. This finding stronglysuggested that stack emission from the incinerator could be the major emission source of metals in the localarea.… Finally, this is the first time that the profiles of airborne multiple metals around a municipal incineratorwere characterized .

brain development. (Atchison andHare 1994; Sager 1988; Sager andMatheson 1988). Foetal exposureto methylmecury has been shownto cause cerebral palsy.

Methylmercury also acts on thenervous system and in particularthe sensory and coordinationcenters. The nervous system of achild continues to develop throughuntil at least 6 years of age. TheU.S.EPA has determined thatchildren born to women with bloodconcentrations above 5.8 parts perbillion are at some increased risk ofadverse health effects. About 8%of women of childbearing age in theUS had at least this amount in theirblood in 1999-2000.

Mercury released into theatmosphere can travel longdistances on global air currentsand can come to earth in areas faraway from the original source. It isusually released in an elementalform and later converted intomethylmercury by bacteria. This ismore toxic to humans than anyother form of mercury, in partbecause it is more easily absorbedin the body.

The EPA has a reference doseof methylmercury of 0.1micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight, which is approximatelyequal to a concentration of 5.8 ppbmercury in the blood. Children whoare exposed to low concentrationsof methylmercury are at increasedrisk of poor performance onneurobehavioral tests, such asthose measuring attention, finemotor function, language skills,visual-spatial abilities (likedrawing), and verbal memory.[11][12]The mercury poisoning of some10,000 people who lived aroundMinamata Bay (Japan) during theperiod 1956 to 1974 showed thatchildren can be poisoned by dailyingestion of fish polluted at only0.11ppm.

Many of the uses of mercuryhave been eliminated, but thewaste accumulated from pastproduction cannot be easilycleaned up.

The use of mercury in hospital isbeing greatly reduced and manycountries are looking to ban themetal.

Incineration is probably thesecond largest source of mercuryemissions to the atmosphere afterpower stations whose annualemissions contains 48 tons andapproximately 36% of totalemissions.[13]

Large prenatal methylmercuryexposures cause psychomotorretardation, seizures,developmental delays, and mentalretardation (Harada 1978; Amin-Zaki et al. 1976). Much smallerprenatal exposures can impair IQ,language development, visual-spatial skills, gross motor skills,memory, and attention in offspring(Crump et al. 1998; Grandjean etal. 1997).

As with lead, a historical reviewof our understanding of the toxicityof mercury in the developing brainshows that more refined testinghas exposure level thought to besafe and without adverse effects.The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) has developeda reference dose for mercury of0.1µg Hg/kg/day. Maternalexposures at or below this level arethought unlikely to increase the risk

23


Kazantzis, G., 2000. Thallium in the environment and health effects. Environmental Geochemistryand Health 22: 275–280.Abstract.Thallium is present in the natural environment in low concentration, being found most frequently in thesulphide ores of a number of heavy metals. Atmospheric emission and deposition from industrial sourceshas resulted in raised levels in the vicinity of mineral smelters, coal burning power plants, brick works andcement plants. In contaminated areas, raised levels are found in vegetables, fruit and in farm animals.Thallium is used industrially in small quantities, with uses in electronics, in the production of certain glassesand crystals and in medical diagnostics. It has in the past been commonly used as a rodenticide, but its usehas now been banned in many countries. Thallium salts are now considered to be amongst the most toxiccompounds known. With regard to population exposure, an epidemiological study in an area with highthallium concentrations in soil and garden vegetables centred on a cement plant, has found evidence of adose response relationship between thallium concentration in urine and a number of non-specific subjectivesymptoms. Much further research is required to investigate the possible adverse health effects of thalliumfollowing population exposure.The source of the thallium contaminant has also been found to influence plant uptake, thus thalliumcontamination from cement factory dust has been found to be more available than thallium content of soil.Emissions from a cement plant in Lengerich, Germany, led to high thallium concentrations in soil and insediments of rivers and brooks (Brockhaus et al., 1981). Sediment levels of 18mg Tl kg-1 dry weight havebeen found 1 km from the plant and 8.7 mg Tl kg-1 dry weight 4 km from the plant. Increased thallium levelswere found in all garden vegetables in the area, with higher levels than in soil, up to 45.2mg kg-1 in savoycabbage and green kale. The source of the thallium was found to be in residues of pyrite roasting which wasadded as a ferric oxide additive to powdered limestone to produce the required quality of cement.

of harm to the developing foetalbrain. A committee of the NationalAcademy of Sciences supports thevalidity of this reference dose(National Research Council 2000).Unfortunately, according to theEPA, 52,000-166,000 pregnantwomen in the United Statesconsume fish contaminated withmercury at levels at or above thisreference dose (U.S. EPA 1997). Apopulation survey conducted bythe CDC indicates that more than10% of women of reproductive agein the US have blood mercurylevels that may increase the risk ofimpaired brain development in theirchildren. (CDC 2001)

In the United States agovernment analysis (February2004) nearly doubled the estimateof the number of newborn childrenat risk for health problems becauseof unsafe mercury levels in theirblood. Environmental ProtectionAgency scientists said thatresearch had shown that 630,000newborns had unsafe levels ofmercury in their blood in the years1999- 2000. In a January 26presentation at EPA’s NationalForum on Contaminants in Fish, inSan Diego, EPA biochemistKathryn R. Mahaffey saidresearchers in the last few years

had shown that mercury levels in afoetus’s umbilical cord blood are70% higher than those in themother’s blood.

“We have long known that theeffects of methyl mercury on thefoetal nervous system are moreserious” than on adults, Mahaffeysaid.

“But we did not routinelymeasure [umbilical] cord blood. Wehad thought that the mother andthe fetus had the same level.”

There is some evidence thatexposure to methylmercury canalso affect the cardiovascular [14]immune [15][16] and reproductivesystems.[17]

Jane Houlihan, a vice presidentof the Environmental WorkingGroup, noted that the study “for thefirst time . . . calculated the numberbased on children’s blood levels,not mothers’.

The EPA analysis is showingthat even if the mother is below thedanger zone, she can give birth toa baby that’s over the limit.”

Mahaffey extracted data from asurvey conducted by the Centersfor Disease Control and Preventionin 1999-2000 on mercury levels inpregnant women’s blood. The newformula showed that one out of sixpregnant women had mercury

levels in their blood of at least 3.5parts per billion, sufficient for levelsin the foetus to reach or surpassthe EPA’s safety threshold of 5.8parts per billion.

In 1999-2000, the last year forwhich government data isavailable, this meant that 630,000children were at risk instead of theoriginal estimate of 320.000.[18]

Nickel: Inhalation of all forms ofnickel causes irritation, lesions andvarious immunological responses.It is allergenic’ some forms arecarcinogenic and it has beenshown to cause birth defects incertain species of animal.

Thallium: Unlike other heavymetals that have featuredprominently in toxicological folkloresince antiquity, (such as lead andarsenic) thallium is a relativenewcomer. Discovered in 1861 ithas since acquired a well-deservedreputation for its toxic propertiesand is recognised as a potentaccidental, occupational andenvironmental poison.

A natural occurrence in humans,the mean tissue concentration hasbeen calculated as 1.2ug/kg fromwhich it was deduced that thalliumcontent in a 75-kg person would be

24


Our system of public healthsafe-guards does not protect

babies in the womb from expo-sures to hundreds of industrialcontaminates. As a society, we

have an obligation to fix it.Environmental Working Group (USA)

July 14 2005.

Photo credit unknown

25

in the order of 0.1 mg It has beenused in the past as a treatment forringworm of the scalp as well as inthe treatment of syphilis,gonorrhoea, gout and night sweatsin tuberculosis.

Thallium is colourless, odourlessand tasteless, properties that havemade it an ideal poison for rodents.Thallium compounds have beenbanned as pesticides in a numberof countries, but it is still used as a

rodentcide, despiterecommendation against such useby the world Health Organisation in1973.

Thallium is one of the most toxicelements and is capable of causinglethal effects due to itsdegenerative action on nervefibres. Its periodic neighbours aremercury and lead.

It is not a transition metal and it’smelting and boiling point is

relatively low.Because of thisthallium isvolatilisedduring coalburning andseveral types ofsmeltingprocesses.

Sincethallium saltsare generallyvolatile, theincineration ofany solidwastescontaining T1products can bean importantsource of thiselement in the

atmosphere. The increasing use ofthallium in emerging technologieshas raised new concerns abouthealth risks and environmentaltoxicology of this element. Ifvolatilised thallium escapes anti-pollution devices in smoke stacks itcan enter the environment inassociation with flue dust.

Adverse health effects of longterm environmental exposure totrace amounts of thallium fromvarious anthropogenic sources(coal burning, power plants,smellers, refineries, iron and steelindustries and burning fuel) areunder consideration. Very little isknown about the threshold levelsthat may be harmful to health fordifferent age groups.

Released environmentalthallium affects different trophiclevels, human thallium cases dueto the consumption of thallium-contained vegetables and fruitgrown in the vicinity of cementplants have been reported.[19]

In another study a greaternumber of malformations thanexpected was reported in a humanpopulation exposed long term tothallium contaminated vegetables


These pictures show the incinerator’s closeproximity to housing and agricultural land. Notein the top picture the vertical plume of smokesignalling a lack of wind. The open cloches on therows of produce will undoubtedly be impacted bymillions of ultra fine chemical particles from thestacks emissions.In the bottom right hand corner of the lowerpicture you can see the metals and ash heapedoutside in the open environment. Research hasshown that incinerator ash contains high levels ofheavy metals like lead, cadmium and the chemicalby-product dioxin. Many pyromaniacs claim thatleaving the ashes open to the elements reduces thetoxicity of these metals enabling the ash to berecycled as an ‘environmentally friendly’ materi-al in road construction and building bricks.However, mixed ash from the Byker incinerator inNewcastle upon Tyne, England, showeddangerously elevated levels of metals and dioxinlevels as high as 4224 ng/kg of soil after lying in theopen environment for more than 6 years.

The Amrusieh (Beruit) incinerator.

© Greenpeace

© Greenpeace

26

© Greenpeace


Heinrich, J., Slama, R., 2007. Fine particles, a major threat to children. International Journal of Hygieneand Environmental Health. Article in Press. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.07.012aGSF-National Research Cen-tre for Environment and Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Ingolstädter Landstraße. Available online 4September 2007.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a growing body of evidence for serious health consequences of exposure to ambient air pollution.The general question of who is susceptible is one of the most important gaps in current knowledge regardingparticulate matter (PM)-related health effects. Who is susceptible depends on the specific health endpointbeing evaluated and the level and length of exposure. Here, we restrict the review on the impact of fineparticle exposure on children's health to the following outcomes: infant death, lung function, respiratorysymptoms and reproductive outcomes.MethodsThis is a strategic review of children's susceptibility to ambient fine particles and characteristics of infant andchildren which underlie their increased susceptibility to PM.ResultsAmbient fine PM is associated with intra-uterine growth retardation, infant mortality; it is associated withimpaired lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, particularly in asthmatics.Concerning infant mortality, exposure to PM is strongly and consistently associated with post neonatalrespiratory mortality and less consistently with sudden infant death syndrome. Although most of the studiesreported adverse effects for this health outcome, the evidence is weaker than for infant death. Exposure tofine PM has been associated with impaired lung function and lung function growth.

produced in the vicinity of a cementplant.[20]

The clinical picture that thalliumpoisoning presents depends on thetime and level of exposure, the rateof absorption, and particularly onindividual susceptibility. It is acumulative poison with the targetorgans the gastrointestinal tract,the peripheral and central nervoussystem, and the skin.

Experimental evidence suggeststhat the reproductive system ishighly susceptible to thallium.Decreased libido and impotencewas noted in humans who sufferedchronic exposure.It has shown to cross animal andhuman placenta.[21]

“Lead, Cadmium, Nickel ...areknown to be detrimental to humanhealth at extreme lowconcentrations.”[22]

“Developing infants and childrenare especially vulnerable toneurological damage from thesemetals.”[23]

Synergestic effectsMercury and lead are extremelyneurotoxic and cytotoxic, but theircombined synergistic effect ismuch worse. A dose of mercurysufficient to kill 1% of tested rats,when combined with a dose of leadsufficient to kill less than 1% of rats,

resulted in killing 100 % of ratstested. Thus with combinedexposure the safe dose is 1/100 asmuch as the dose individually.Studies in Australia have confirmedsimilar relationships hold forpeople.

This means most people in theU.S. (for example) are gettingdangerous levels of these metals,enough to cause some neurologiceffects. Similar is true forsynergistic effect with other toxicmetals like arsenic, and with othertoxic chemicals like PCBs.[24]

It is hypothsised that PCBstogether with dioxin can disturbvitamin K metabolism in utero andafter birth resulting in a deficiencyof the vitamin which in turn canlead to severe hemorrhaging in thebrain.[25]

A recent report by the NationalResearch Council found that 50%of all pregnancies in the U.S. arenow resulting in prenatal orpostnatal mortality, significant birthdefects, developmentalneurological problems, orotherwise chronically unhealthybabies.[26]

Exposure to toxic chemicals orenvironmental factors appear to bea factor in at least 28% of the 4million children born each year withat least 1 in 6 having one of the

neurological conditions previouslylisted according to the U.S. CensusBureau.

According to studies reviewed,over 20% of the children in theU.S. have had their healthor learning significantly adverselyaffected by toxic metals such asmercury, lead, arsenic, andcadmium; and over 50% of childrenin some urban areas have beenadversely affected. Significantbehavioural effects were alsodocumented. These toxic metalshave been found to havesynergistic negative effects onchildhood development andcognitive ability. [27][28][29][30]

Both mercury vapour andorganic mercury have been foundto be highly toxic and to haveindependent and synergisticeffects at very low levels.[31][32][33]

However, other studies havepointed out the effects andsynergistic interactions of the othertoxic metals and the fact that leadand cadmium levels tend to havepositive correlations with eachother.[34][35][36][37]

A study of rural school childrenwithout acute exposures and withIQS in the normal range foundhighly significant relations betweenlead and cadmium with intelligence

27


Andersson, M., Ottesen, R., 2007. Levels of dioxins and furans in urban surface soil in Trondheim,Norway. Environmental Pollution. Article in Press.AbstractA study was conducted on polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) in surface soilin order to determine the concentration levels and possibly distinguishing between known and potentialsources. The concentration levels are low (0.16-14ng ITEQ kg−1). The results show a clear pattern where the highest concentration levels were found in theoldest parts of the city. A number of sources were recognised in the soil samples through congener profiles,not all of them active, although similar congener profiles make it extremely difficult to distinguish betweendifferent sources. Estimations show that the municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) and domestic woodburning are the largest PCDD/F pollution sources within the area.

scores and school achievementtests.[38]

Lead and cadmium explained29% of the variance in IQ. Thesetwo metals have been found tohave different mechanisms of CNSdamage, with cadmium affectingverbal ability more and leadaffecting performance measuresmore.

Polychlorinated biphenylsPolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)include 209 congeners that varybased on the number andpositionsof chlorine atoms. They areindustrial chemicals usedthroughout the world for decades inelectrical equipment, paints, and aslubricants. Their manufacture wasbanned in the USA in 1977because of concerns that theycould cause cancer. Since then,additional health impacts havebecome apparent, includingimpairment of normal braindevelopment.

In Taiwan 2000 people werepoisoned by PCB polluted rice oil.Children born to poisoned motherswere studied long term. A quarterof them died before the age of fouras a result of respiratory infections.At eight the others still had naildeformities and chronic otitis media(middle ear infection) together withbronchitis. Adults showed anincrease in skin allergies,chloracne, headaches, sine andjoint diseases and goiter.

People are exposed primarilythrough eating PCB-contaminatedmeat, processed food, dairyproducts, or fish.

Epidemiologic studies havelinked prenatal PCB exposure with

impaired neurodevelopment ininfants and young children. Inanimal studies prenatal exposurecaused decreased levels of thethyroid hormone thyroxine(T4).Given that thyroid hormonesare essential for proper neuro-development, disruption of thethyroid system may be a pathwayby which PCBs cause damage.

PCBs are persistent in theenvironment. Consequently, mostof the PCBs that were everproduced are still present somewhere, whether in an electricaltransformer, soil, landfill, river orlake sediments. PCBs are solublein fat and tend to concentrate asthey move up the food web. As aresult PCBs continue tocontaminate the food supply.

Despite the fact that more fat-soluble PCBs are transferredduring breastfeeding thantransplacentally, studies of neuro-behavourial end points in PCBexposed children have shownpersistent deficits duringadolescence are associated withtransplacental exposure,suggesting that the foetal brain isthe most sensitive target organ forneurotoxic effects.

The impacts of PCBs on braindevelopment have been examinedin several large human studieswhere exposures during foetaldevelopment were measured by

sampling maternal or umbilicalcord blood or breast milk.

Foetal exposures to PCBs atcurrent environmental levels causeimpaired reflexes, delays indeveloping motor skills, delayedcognitive development,hyperactivity, and IQ deficits asreported in Jacobsen andJacobsen 1990; Jacobsen andJacobsen 1996; Patandin et al.1999; Lonky et al. 1996; Stewart etal. 2000. Impaired learning, alteredbehaviour, and hyperactivity havealso been demonstrated inlaboratory animals (Rice andHayward 1997; Rice 1999).

Many scientists are studying themechanisms by which PCBsinterfere with brain development.(Zoeller et al. 2000; Brouwer et al.1999; Osius et al. 1999; Tilson1997; Koopman-Esseboom et al.1994)

One mechanism that seemsparticularly important isinterference with normal thyroidhormone function.

Because thyroid hormone isessential for normal braindevelopment, the effects of PCBsand other chemicals that interferewith thyroid hormone function areof particular concern. A study byHaddow et al., in 1999 of womenwith hypothyroidism duringpregnancy showed the extremesensitivity of the developing brainto even mildly depressed or low-

“For specific air pollutants, such as some metals incineration is amajor contribution. Therefore, we need to understand much moreabout the chronic health effects the elements emitted from inciner-ators that may have an impact on health.Professor Stephen T Holgate, Director, Respiratory Medical Research CouncilClinical Professor, University of Southampton.

28


"The study indicated that the air quality of PM2.5, PM10 and PAHs had significant contamination by airpollutants emitted from a medical waste incineration factory, representing a public health problem for nearbyresidences, despite the factory being equipped with a modern air pollution control system."Mao et al., 2007. Airborne particle PM2.5/PM10 mass distribution and particle-bound PAH concentrationsnear a medical waste incinerator. Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 2467–2475AbstractThis study attempts to determine the influence of air quality in a residential area near a medical wasteincineration plant. Ambient air concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PM10 andPM2.5 (PM—particulate matter) were determined by collecting air samples in areas both upwind anddownwind of the plant. The differences in air pollutant levels between the study area and a reference area11km away from the plant were evaluated.Dichotomous samplers were used for sampling PM2.5and PM10 from ambient air. Two hundred and twen-ty samples were obtained from the study area, and 100 samples were taken from a reference area. Sampleswere weighed by an electronic microbalance and concentrations of PM2.5and PM10 were determined. AHPLC equipped with a fluorescenceThe experimental results indicated that the average concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 were 30.34 +/-17.95and 36.81 +/-`20.45 mgm _ 3, respectively, in the study area, while the average ratio of PM2.5/ PM10 was0.82 +/- 0.01. The concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 of the study area located downwind of the incineratorwere significantly higher than The concentration of PAHs in PM2.5 in the study area was 2.2 times higherthan in the reference area ( P o 0.05).Furthermore, the benzo( a )pyrene concentrations in PM2.5and PM10 were 0.11 +/- 0.05 ngm -3 and 0.12+/- 0.06 ngm 5.3 times higher than in the reference area ( P < 0.05), respectively.The study indicated that the air quality of PM2.5, PM10 and PAHs had significant contamination by airpollutants emitted from a medical waste incineration factory, representing a public health problem for nearbyresidences, despite the factory being equipped with a modern air pollution control system.

normal thyroid hormone levels. At7-9 years of age, offspring of thesewomen were more likely than theoffspring of others with normalthyroid function to perform poorlyon tests of attention and worddiscrimination.[39]

ParticulatesParticles of chemicals and theirby-products are emitted in the formof an aerosol of ultrafine mist everyminute of an incinerators operation.These particulates are chemicallyhighly reactive, even whenoriginating from a relatively un-reactive bulk material.

Particles range in size and thesmallest are the most dangerousas they easily enter the deepestpart of the lungs. If the particles aresoluble in water they pass directlyinto the bloodstream where they sitfor years leaking their toxiccontents into the blood stream.[40]

Most people will think of'particles' as very tiny solid balls.They are in fact like little meteorswith irregular shaped surfaces andfull of holes (like the chocolatedelight Malteser’s). It is the surfaceinside these holes and tunnels thatthe toxin materials like lead,mercury, and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) cover. Themassive surface area associatedwith a small mass of nano-metresized particles can act as acatalytic surface for the secondaryformation of organic compoundsthus making particulates a uniquelyefficient carrier of dangeroustoxins, directly into thebloodstream.

Research has shown that theinhalation of ultrafine particles isassociated with changes in thecogulability of the blood and thishas been connected withepidemiological findings ofincreased cardiovascular diseasein populations exposed to higherthan average PM 10 exposure.[41]"The study indicated that the airquality of PM2.5, PM10 and PAHshad significant contamination by airpollutants emitted from a medicalwaste incineration factory,representing a public healthproblem for nearby residences,despite the factory being equippedwith a modern air pollution controlsystem."

There is consistent evidence ofan association between long-termexposure to outdoor air pollutionwith PMs and poor respiratoryhealth in children. Studies have

shown that the prevalence ofbronchitis symptoms and reducedlung function in children isassociated with exposure toparticulate matter at annualaverage levels above 20 Î¼g/m3as PM2.5 (particles with adiameterunder 2.5 Î¼m) or 30 Î¼g/m3 asPM10 (particles with a diameterunder 10 Î¼m). Evidence indicatesthat smog can not only aggravateexisting childhood asthma, but mayactually cause it, especially inassociation with ozoneexposure.[42]

According to more than a dozenstudies there appears to be nothreshold, the level of fine particlepollution below which no deathsoccur. Even air pollution levelswithin legal limits are killing people,especially the elderly and peoplewith chronic heart and lungailments.[43]

Since 1987 the US.EPA havebeen measuring fine particular airpollution calling it PM10 meaning“particular matter 10 micro metresor less in diameter.”

It is difficult to imagine how smallthese particles are. To help thereader understand what we’retalking about here, look at the dotover the letter i. That dot measures

29


Hu et al., 2003. Characterization of multiple airborne particulate metals in the surroundings ofa municipal waste incinerator in Taiwan. Atmospheric Environment 37: 2845–2852AbstractHeavy metals are one of the concerned pollutants emitted by the municipal waste incineration system(MWIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential impact on local airborne metals from theemissions of an MWI. Aerosol samples were simultaneously collected at eight different sites around themunicipal waste incinerator using PS-1 sampler. The concentrations of 16 elements (Mg, Al, Fe, Cu, Zn,Pb, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, As, Cd, Ba and Hg) were quantified by inductively coupled plasma-massspectrometry (ICP–MS) and atomic absorption spectrometer (AA). The profiles of the 16 metals in thesurroundings of a municipal incinerator in central Taiwan were compared with those of the emissionsources. The results showed that the profiles of multiple metals obtained at all sampling sites were similarto those emitted from the MWI stack. These findings suggested that the local airborne metal pollutants mightprobably derive from the stack emission of the MWI. Using cadmium as an index metal, it was found thatthe metals like Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, As, and Hg are highly influenced by the stack emission from themunicipal incinerator. Moreover, the ratio of other metals to Cd that were increased with the distance fromthe incinerator. This might be due to the additional sources contributed to airborne metals following theemission from the incinerator and a difference in particle size of each particle-bound metal.[from body of text]In this study, the concentrations of 16 airborne metals, namely, Mg, Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co,Ni, As, Cd, Ba and Hg were measured at eight sampling sites around a municipal incinerator in Taiwan. Theresults showed a severely high metal concentration observed in the ambient air of the incinerator. Moreover,by comparing the profiles between the sampling sites and stack emission, it was found that metal profilesobtained at sampling sites were similar to the profile of stack emission from incinerator. This finding stronglysuggested that stack emission from the incinerator could be the major emission source of metals in the localarea.… Finally, this is the first time that the profiles of airborne multiple metals around a municipal incineratorwere characterized .

about 400 micrometers indiameter. You can fit 40,000particles with a diameter of 2 um onthe dot. When the particles have adiameter of 0.3 um, you can fit 1.7million particles on the dot over thei.[44]

If particles are 10 micrometers indiameter, then 1600 particles canfit on the dot. If the particlediameter is 2.5 micrometers, then25,600 particles can fit on the dot.About 60% of PM10 particles (byweight) have a diameter of 2.5micron meters or less.

Particles larger than 10 microget caught in your nose and throat,never entering the lungs. Particlessmaller than 10 micrometres canget into the large upper branchesjust below your throat where theyare caught and removed bycoughing, spitting and swallowing.Particles smaller than fivemicrometres can get into yourbronchial tubes at the top of thelungs. Particles smaller than 2.5micrometres in diameter can getdown into the deepest (alveolar)parts of the lungs where gas

exchange occurs between the airand your bloodstream with oxygenmoving in and carbon dioxidemoving out. These ultra-fineparticles are the most dangerouswith the deepest sections of thelungs (alveolar) having no effectivemechanism for removing them.[45]

One hypothesis is that theparticles retained in the deep lungcause inflammation which in turnreleases natural chemicals into theblood. [46]

Polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAH)Frederica P. Perera of theColumbia Center for Children’sEnvironmental Health studied 60infants born in New York Cityto non-smoking mothersparticipating in an ongoing studybeginning in 1998.

The researchers analysedexposure rates to airbornepollutants known as polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)--which are present in vehicleexhaust, power plant emissions

and tobacco smoke--in three low-income areas.

The pregnant women filled outquestionnaires and wore a portableair monitor for 48 hours during theirthird trimester. After the birth, thescientists analyzed samples ofumbilical cord blood and tested forchromosomal abnormalities. Theyfound that exposure to combustionpollutants was positively linked tochromosomal abnormalities in fetaltissue: newborns in the low-exposure group exhibited 4.7abnormalities per thousand whiteblood cells. Babies born to mothersin the highest exposure group had7.2 abnormalities per thousandcells.

This evidence that air pollutantscan alter chromosomes in utero istroubling since other studies havevalidated this type of geneticalteration as a biomarker of cancerrisk,”

Perera remarks. “While we can’testimate the precise increase incancer risk, these findingsunderscore the need forpolicymakers at the federal, state

30


Singh, S., Prakash, V., 2007. Toxic Environmental Releases from Medical Waste Incineration: AReview. Environ. Monit. Assess. 132:67 – 81AbstractToxic releases from medical waste incineration comprising organic emissions such as polychlorinateddibenzo-dioxin/furan (PCDD/Fs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), inorganic emissions andashes containing toxic metals have been reviewed. Attempts made by various investigators toreduce/eliminate emissions have also been included. Legislations concerning emission standards formedical waste incinerators have been discussed.[from text] ...MWIs are the major source of PCDD/Fs, PAHs and toxic heavy metals to the environment. Thesecompounds pass to air as vapors or stuck to the surfaces of small solid particles and travel long distancesbefore they return to earth in rainfall or particle setting. The exposure of these compounds and metals tohuman population occur by inhalation or orally or through skin contacts. Not only the incinerationtemperature, but their emissions are also related to the type of waste, APCDs, operating parameters,contents of incineration and segregation of waste. Most of the incineration systems, which do not haveefficient APCDs and do not implement the segregation processes, do not obey the emission standards fororganic emissions.

and local levels to take appropriatesteps to protect children from theseavoidable exposures.”

Researches found a statisticallysignificant link between bronchitis,the most commonly diagnosedillness, and elevated ambientPAHs, escalating 56% in childrenaged 2 to 4.5 years for each 30-day-average increase of 100ng/m3. The increase was 29% forchildren under age 2 years. Foreach 30-day-average increase inPM2.5 of 25 µg/m3, bronchitisdiagnoses rose 30% for childrenup to age 2 years. In children aged2 to 4.5, it rose 23%. Some otherpollutants that could play a role inrespiratory illness, such as ozone,nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, andmetals, were not covered in theanalysis.

However, the study wasstrengthened by the use of adoctor’s diagnosis rather thanparental reports or recalledincidents, and the likelihood of a sickchild visiting a doctor was very high,given that health care was freeand readily available.

The findings lead the authors toconclude that relatively short-termexposure to ubiquitous PAHs maypose a significant respiratory threatto children.[47]

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzenepara-dioxin (TCDD)Despite all the evidence to thecontrary, many pyromaniacs

saying as recently as July 2005,“the worst thing caused by dioxin ischloracne.” The reality is TCDD isthe incineration by-product that hascaused most concern amongscientist and communities.

Much has been written aboutthis unwanted carcinogen, butcancer is not the worst illness to becaused by dioxin. Immune systemand reproductive effects appear tooccur at body burdensapproximately 100 limes lower thanthose associated with cancer.

The British government admittedin 1995 that incineration wasresponsible for between 65% to82% of the UK’s dioxincontamination.[48] One year laterthis figure had risen to 85%. TheUnited Nations EnvironmentProgram concluded thatincineration is responsible for 69%of the global dioxin contamination.(For more on this by-product seeToxCat Beginners Guide to:Dioxin.)

After closing the majority ofincinerators through their failure tomeet new legislation introduced in1996. The British governmentestimated that the new generationof EfW incinerator plants wouldcontribute approximately 6% to18% of the UK’s future dioxincontamination. However, this figurewas calculated before theypublished a Waste Strategy in May2000 calling for the building ofapproximately 112 EfW incineratorplants over the next 15 years.

For more than a decade theyhad claimed “...the dioxin emittedby a modern incinerator poses nothreat to the health of any sectionof society, including nursingchildren” despite being unable tosubstantiate this claim with soundscientific evidence of a 'safe'threshold.

With the publication of (genuine)independent epidemiologicalstudies and studies on dioxin, itbecame more obvious to activiststhis statement was an outrageouslie to protect the waste industry’sinterests. In response to the publicoutcry following the publication oftheir Waste Strategy in 2000, thegovernment looked towardsscientists whose views wereconsistent with their policy toproduce a ‘desk-top’ evaluation ofa selection of epidemiologicalstudies. The conclusion of thisresearch was that incineratorsposed only a “minor threat tohealth...”.[49]

However, the records ofincidents at the most modernenergy from waste incinerators andthe current monitoring system failsto any instil any confidence inthreatened communities.

When we consider theslackness of the regulatory bodiesat a number of incinerators we find:*Stoke on Trent; where a municipalwaste incinerator was exceedingits authorised limits for dioxin by an300 times. Fully aware of this thecouncil and Her Majesty's

31

A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions... Communities Against Toxics Research Unit

"Of more concern are the residual flows from waste incineration. These are voluminous flows like MSWI flyash and slags, and several EU member states prefer to re-use these materials in road building and otherbuilding products. This might lead to a slow enrichment of the building sector with lead, and the long-termconsequences in terms of emissions to water and soil cannot be evaluated within the confines of this study,but are a issue in the sustainable management of lead flow."Tukker et al., 2006. Risks to health and environment of the use of lead in products in the EU.Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49: 89–109AbstractThe EU Commission’s Services asked TNO and CML to perform a study into the risks of the present usesof lead over time, as an input to a discussion on the need of a further reduction of the use of this material.The study was set up as a substance flow analysis to analyse trends in uses and emissions of lead in Europebetween 2000 and 2030. The study showed among others that the flow to (final) landfill of lead is decliningfrom about 290 ktpa in 2000 to 220 ktpa in 2003 for the EU15. Alloys, or more specifically lead in electronicequipment, contribute to about 5% of these flows.The study also compared current actual exposures in the environment, of workers, and the general public(adults and young children) to authoritative limit values set in the EU. From this, it appeared that underunfavourable conditions (high dust/soil intake via hand-mouth behaviour) young children may exceed theirtolerable daily intake (TDI). The study hence concluded that for children, there is a need for furtherinformation and/or testing.It has to be stressed, however, that this purely risk based approach leaves several questions aboutsustainable lead management unanswered. It gives a ‘picture’ at a given moment in time. Successes inlowering exposure were mainly reached by reducing direct emissions from various sources (e.g. emissionsto air via leaded gasoline). However, it is also clear that the use and hence the economical stock of lead isgrowing, as is the stock in landfills and certain residues from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (MSWIs),which might be re-used. This led to a discussion driven by the fear for slow ‘enrichment’ of the economicaland ecological system with lead, and hence a possible higher exposure in future.[from body of text]The [lead] flows in the waste stage need attention. It is again a matter of policy rather than science to decideif a relatively high accumulation of lead on landfills is desirable. The mass flows are 1–2 order of magnitudeshigher than emissions to soil. One could state that modern controlled landfills have at present such lowemissions that it is unlikely that they pose risks; others argue that one should strive for prevention oflandfilling of hazardous materials since it can never be guaranteed that the present quality of landfills will bemaintained on the very long term. Of more concern are the residual flows from waste incineration. Theseare voluminous flows like MSWI fly ash and slags, and several EU member states prefer to re-use thesematerials in road building and other building products. This might lead to a slow enrichment of the buildingsector with lead, and the long-term consequences in terms of emissions to water and soil cannot beevaluated within the confines of this study, but are a issue in the sustainable management of lead flow.Again, it is a matter of policy rather than science to decide if one desires relatively lead-free final wasteresidues (implying ensuring a close to 100% recycling or diminishing lead use in products for which this isnot achievable), or that one accepts these including the related long-term uncertainties.

Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP)allowed it to continue operating inthat state until January 1995, asonce again industry’s interest camebefore public health.[50] 1996-2000:62 exceedences. A now famousnote reads: “failure [due] tooperator inadvertently pressingwrong button.”*Winchester: Samples were takenin 1989 and 1991 around amunicipal waste incinerator in thecity and the findings kept secret byHMIP for 4 years. When the resultswere made public in December1994 after pressure fromenvironmental organisations, they

showed dioxin levels similar tothose found at Bolsover,Derbyshire, where dioxincontaminated milk was deemed tootoxic for human consumption.*Residents in one area ofWolverhampton found their lives "aliving hell" after thecommencement of SITA’s (formallyElm Energy's**) tyre burning ‘stateof the art’ waste-to-energyincinerator in the mid 1990's.

“It’s a nightmare, life is a misery.The steam and smoke come intoyour house and you get an acidtaste in your mouth, children coughup black stuff and they don’t use

the playground anymore” said oneresident,[51]** Elm energy tried to set upoperations in East Kilbride,Scotland, and Guilford, Surrey, butmassive public protests (aided byinformation and support fromCATs) saw off these applications.

The company finally gotpermission in the ‘Black country’region of the midlands wherecouncillors are still of the “wherethere’s muck there’s money”mentality and dirty industry rules.

In September 2000 residentspicketed the plant which was due torestart operations after it has been

32


closed for 4 months following alarge explosion.

Advocates of EfW are nowsaying “it was the last generation ofdirty, old clapped-out incinerators'that were causing the problems.”

But the same people wereadamant those plants wereworking perfectly and "posed nothreat to human health” wheneverquestioned by concerned citizens.If the technology has improved somuch and the operators actingmore responsibly and subject to‘robust enforcement of regulations.’Why are we witnessing:

*The miscalculation for a periodof four years and the submission of16 wrong entries out of 20 on dioxinmonitoring data by the operators ofthe misnamed South East LondonCombined Heat and Power Plant(SELCHP) that still isn’t producingheat for anyone.

Neither the independentmonitoring company AEATechnology, or the EnvironmentAgency spotted this mistake,although the EA had warned theoperators in the first instance theyhad got their calculations wrong.They never thought to follow up tomonitor the plant closely to makesure things were being donecorrectly.

*The amount of unauthorisedemission releases at the sameSELCHP facility with the plantbreaking the official limit of oxidesof nitrogen emissions, (which hasbeen linked to asthma) four timesin 19 inspections. Had emissions ofup to 50% higher during timeswhen it was not inspected. 1996-2000:101 exceedences

*The Edmonton incinerator,classified as third in the league ofmajor industrial polluters leading to

complaints from doctors of patientsliving on its windward side becauseof the incidence of asthma.[49]Twenty exceedences.

*The Tyseley incinerator,spoken of as being thought“wonderful by the people ofBirmingham" by Dame Clayton to aHouse of Lords Inquiry was in factdentified as the second worstpolluter on the 1999 EnvironmentAgency table.[52].1996-2000 - 143exceedances.

*The Nottingham Eastcroftincinerator has had a number of`dump-stack' openings andregistered eleven unauthorisedreleases during 1996- 97. Theplant is thought to be the cause ofthe increased incidence of asthmain the area by residents who havecomplained of significantemissions of dust. [52] Seventy Twoexceedences.

*The high PCB and dioxincontamination around theupgraded, (but now thankfullyclosed) state of the art ReChemhazardous waste incinerator atPontypool, south Wales.[53]The levels of dioxin contaminationhad not significantly reduced over10 years, pointing to the continuedrelease of these toxins from theplant.

*The amount of incidents at theCleanaway (now Veloila) newgeneration hazardous wasteincinerator at Ellesmere Port,Cheshire. The manager of the plantboasted that the facility had thebest record of any incinerator intheworld over 10 years.

It is a sad indictment of theindustry if this is truly the case andthe list of incidents is such that noreasonable person could say it was

a good example of a well-runincinerator.

There have been a number ofexplosions and as many as 6releases of the flame retardantchemical bromine in one month.The sky above the town has beenturned purple on at least threeoccasions by unathorised releasesof the chemical iodine, showing themixing of compounds andincineration technology is far fromas safe as the government wouldhave the public believe.[54]

Disturbingly, despite its historyof incidents, fires, explosions andchemical releases, this plant wasgiven authorisation to dispose of acompound used in chemicalwarfare and now used in tefloncoating. The first consignment wasreturned during transportation ‘dueto a unexplained loss of pressure inthe tank en route.’

I attended a special meetingcalled by Ellesmere Port andNeston Borough Council to discussthe burning of this waste and hearda representative of theEnvironment Agency tell thoseattending “the Environment Agencyknow the health impact of everychemical coming out of the top ofthe incinerator stack.”

Yet another example ofsomeone in authority seriouslymisleading decision makers andthe general public about incineratoremissions.

Reality of Burning*The new Dundee EfW incineratorwas closed due to being gutted bya in-house fire.*The upgraded Raikes Lane EMIincinerator in Bolton (Lancashire)has a history of malfunctions andoperators errors. One of the most

33

Thomas, V., McCreight, C., 2007. Relation of Chlorine, Copper and Sulphur to Dioxin EmissionFactors. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Article in Press.AbstractDioxin emission factors for different combustion categories range over five orders of magnitude. Bothchlorine and transition metals including copper have been suggested to promote the formation of dioxin inincinerators, and sulphur has been suggested to inhibit dioxin formation. We show that dioxin (PCDD andPCDF) emission factors from 17 different combustion categories are approximately linearly correlated withthe average copper or chlorine content of the combusted material, and inverse linearly correlated with theaverage sulphur content of the material. Copper and chlorine are correlated and thus cannot bedistinguished. The analysis suggests that the wide range of dioxin emission factors could be explained bythe content of sulphur and transition metals or chlorine in combusted materials.


Professor Roy Harrison (Birmingham University) told a House of Lords Select Committee looking into‘Waste Incineration’ “...[T]he other factor sir, which needs to be taken into account is the existing pollutionin a locality and the incinerator will provide an increment on top of that. A small increment would be moretolerable in a already heavily polluted location...”It is interesting to note what the Professor seemingly defines as “a small increment.” A proposed waste toenergy incinerator at Belvedere, London was calculated to emit annually: 70 tonnes of dust: 350 tonnes ofsulphur dioxide; 1.401 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide; 7 tonnes of lead; 7 tonnes of chromium; 0.6 tonnes ofmercury and cadmium; 0.7 grams of dioxin. Multiply these figures by 30, the amount of years wastecompany’s are given contracts for, and it amounts to far more than what any reasonable person woulddefine as “a small increment.”

ridiculous incidents was when theyaccidentally got the bonnet andside door of a ford transit van downon to the grate!

For 182 days the plant burned24,492 tonnes of wasterepresenting an availabilitycompared to a design rate of 16tonnes/per hour of about 35%. Foractual operations the availabilityhad been 56°%, but with athroughput of only 10 to 6 tonnes/hrand electrical output of only 7.4MW compared to a design of 12.Altogether not an inspiringperformance.

There have also been a numberof breaches of the authorisationsince somebody parked the transitvan on the grate, including aparticulate emission level of 235mg/m3 (vs 30 mg/m3 standard).Hydrgen Choride hourly limit 39mg/m3, reported maximum 282.5mg/m3.Carbon monoxide hourly limit 150mg/m3, reported maximum 258.7mg/m3.The Environmental Statement(Section 5, p 37 Table 5.13) saidthat the number of vehiclemovements from the site PERANNUM (presumably this is anerror and should be per month)would be 4,024 ‘from mid-1998’ i.e.when operational.

The previous movements were9,913 ‘per annum’ (same error) andthe planning officers reportconfirmed that there would be areduction of 60% of vehiclemovements.In fact movements are recorded as:Jan 12,344Feb 10,968 Mar 12,244 (August2000 had 12,800!) So much for thetraffic benefits that were claimed....

Other plants exceedences were:Coventry - 67Sheffield - 203The operators of the old Sheffieldplant admitted the plant was pastits sell-by date, but it was allowedto continue operating as the mostpolluting incinerator in the UK.

MonitoringAnother worrying aspect of theincineration industry is a greatmany of its monitoring company’sare actually subsidiaries of thecompanies owning the incineratorsthey are ‘independently’monitoring.ENTEC and AES are both asubsidiary of SITA.EUS Labs: in 1995 they were theReChem Environmental Researchof Southampton.FYI: Hampshire's refuse is handledby Hampshire Waste Services Ltd.a joint venture between Onyx awaste management company andAEP who manufactureincinerators. Both Onyx and AEPare owned by Vivendi, anotherFrench company, whoseEnvironmental Director is JohnGummer, MP. Former UKSecretary of State for theEnvironment and a trail blazer forthe industry at the beginning of therush to burn in the mid 1990s.

A Minor Health ThreatGiven the epidemiological data andincreased awareness on thetoxicity of the chemicals and by-products emitted hourly byincinerators, the UK governmenthad no choice but toadmitincinerators pose at least somethreat to health. Admitting to thembeing a “minor health threat”enables politicians and industry tocontinue their plans to build

incinerators the length and breadthof the UK, in the most deprivedareas. It also gives the public theimpression that they have takenthe latest scientific evidence intoserious consideration. When allthey have done is a desk-topsummary to down-grade theconclusions of selectedepidemiological studies showingelevated levels of ill-health.

Politicians in the UK and EUhave now gone one step further bysimply refusing to acceptincinerators have any impact onhealth.

During a skill share meeting inBrussels on December 13 (2008)representatives of NGOs from 10Members states delegates weretold that during discussions in theEuropean Parliament on proposedamendments to the WasteFramework Directive, the healthimpact of energy from wasteincinerators was not evendiscussed/tabled. There were NOdiscussions – health impact wasnot considered ‘because therewould not be any!’

Delegates were stunned to hearthis news and alarmed that despite:

*having data on the toxicity ofonly 14% of the chemicals in usetoday;

*the ever-increasing mountainof epidemiological evidenceshowing elevated levels ofmalformed babies, cancers andother serious diseases aroundincinerators;

*warnings from severalecological and medical relatedorganisations including Doctors;

*the increased knowledge onendocrine disrupting chemicalsand the sensitivity of thedeveloping embryo and foetus tochemical impact; MEPs refuse to

34


“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of makingdecisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people whopay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell

believe there will be anydetrimental impact whatsoever onhealth from the thousands ofchemical mixtures emitted everyhour of an incinerators operationallifespan! This is foolishness in theextreme.

It is obvious today’s politiciansare refusing to learn anything frompast experiences and the warningsigns so obvious to others. Theylisten only to the industry’s PRmachine’s; industry paid ‘advisers’like pyromaniac MEP Dr CarolineJackson; and academics like ProfHarrison whose love of incinerationis quite simply 'unatural.'

They have learnt nothing fromreports like ‘Late lessons from earlywarnings: the precautionaryprinciple 1896-2000’ produced bythe European Environment Agencyin 2001 (ISBN 92-9167-323-4)revealing how vital signs ofdamage on 12 topics were ignoredby ‘experts’ for decades.

DeprivationThat incinerators and dirty industryare situated in the most deprivedareas is a major social issue in theUnited States. This ‘environmentalinjustice’ is also widely practicedhere in the UK, as severalpublished research papersconfirm. [55][56][57][58] [59][60][61][62][63]

These all show that incineratorsand polluting industrial processesare far more likely to be sited inalready heavily polluted lower-working class towns, or as we haveso contemptibly been described"the less articulate sections.'[64]

Indeed the Mersey basin areawith the towns of Runcorn, Haltonand Ellesmere Port has alwaysbeen targeted by dirty industryfully aware of the weakness on thecouncils concerned.

These are already hostage tothe UK's largest hazardous wasteincinerator; the Ineos Chlor sitewith three chemical waste inciner-ators and huge power station sup-plying electricity to the complex

and the national grid; on top of thisplanning permission has beengranted on the site for a 800,000tpa EfW incinerator (despiteCheshire only producing 400,000tpa of waste).

The area also has a nuclearplant (Capenhurst) that to date hassent 1.031 wagon loads of low-levelradioactive waste to Sellafield forprocessing; and 96 hectares ofpetro-chemical industry.

As if this wasn't enough yetanother application for a 600,000tpa EfW incinerator has been thesubject of a public inquiry and thecommunity are nervously awaitingthe Inspectors decision.

It has long been established thatthere is a strong correlationbetween industry, poverty andinfant mortality. Ellesmere Port hasthe highest rate of mortality forchildren up to 1 year of age in theUK. While Haltons elevateddisease and deaths rates are farabove the national average.

ImmunityUnfortunately, unlike the rest of theUK’s work force 'Duty of Care' doesnot seemingly apply to the peoples'elected representatives. [UK]Politicians are not heldaccountable for the consequencesof decisions they make while inoffice, no matter how much illhealth, suffering and deaths theycause.

The BSE scandal revealed theamazing degree of immunityenjoyed by British politicians whoknowingly, to safeguard industrialinterests', endangered the health ofthe nation for something like adecade by keeping the fact that theprion was capable of jumping thespecies barrier secret. A deceit thatresulted in 165 deaths (as of June2007).

I have no doubt if we follow theincineration route planned we willbe seeing a lot more chemicallydamaged babies being born, andhigh infant mortality rates within

communities hostage to thesefacilities. 'Birds of passage'politicians will simply walk awayleaving the family to care for theunfortunate individual and copewith the economic pressure andpsychological trauma of raising achild with physical or mentaldefects, Society will have to payfhe health care bills incurredthroughout the childs life -something never calculated intothe true cost of incineration.

Unfortunately experience hasshown us that this will not botherthe politicians and academics whothink it’s OK to dump a dangerous,polluting, unnecessary industryonto the poorest section of societyand their children and theirchildren.

As a result of their experiencesCATs members know the generalpublic give sections of society’shierarchy far too much respect. Auniversity education, nicemanners, polished shoes and anice suit does not guaranteeintegrity and high moral principals.Indeed, time has shown that manypoliticians, academics and highranking officials of governmentagency’s are simply money-orientated charlatans who will liethrough their back teeth tosafeguard the financial interest ofindustry and fill their own pocketswith 30 pieces of silver.

Newcomers to the anti-incineration fight will undoubtedlyexperience the reality of this soonenough and realise the only oneswho are going to protect thechildren and future generationsfrom polluting industry arethemselves.

Wishing you and your loved onesgood health

Ralph Ryder,

Copyright© Ralph RyderNovember 2008

35

A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions Communities Against Toxics Research Unit36

References[1] Eitzer, B and Hites, R., “Airborne Dioxins and Furans: Sources and Fates,” Environmental Science andTechnology, vol: 20, p. 1185, 1986[2] Wagrowski, D., Hites, R., 2000. Insights into the global distribution of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxinsand dibenzofurans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 2952-2958 Ref to Brzuzy, L. P.; Hites, R. A. Environ. Sci.Technol. 1996, 30, 1797-1804. and Fiedler, H. Chemosphere 1996, 32, 55-64.[3] In evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into ‘Waste Incineration’ HL Paper 71. 1999[4] WHO Consultation , Geneva Switzerland, May 25-29 1998[5] Senkan, S. “Thermal Destruction of Hazardous Wastes.” Environmental Science and Technology22:4:368-370, 1988.[6] Staley, L, M. Richards, G. Huffman, and D. Chang. Incinerator Operating Parameters Which Correlate WithPerformance. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA/600/2-86/091, Octo- ber 1986.[7] Playing with Fire, Pat Costner & Joe Thornton. Greenpeace (updated 1993)[8] Greenpeace, Municipal Waste Incineration and Waste to Energy Plants - Summary (date unknown)[9] The Ecology of Commerce, Paul Hawkin. Weidenfield & Nicolson ISBN 0-297-81462-1. 1993[10] IT Corporation (USA) consultant Rudi Novak speaking on behalf of IT (Europe) at a public inquiry into thebuilding of a hazardous waste incinerator near Hull, England[11] P. Grandjean, P. Weihe, R. F. White and F. Debes. 1998. Cognitive performance of children prenatallyexposed to “safe” levels of methylmercury. Environmental Research 77 (2):165-72[12] T. Kjellstrom, P. Kennedy, S. Wallis and C. Mantell. 1986 Physical and metals development of childrenwith prenatal exposure to mercury from fish. Stage 1: Preliminary tests at age 4. Sweden: Swedish NationalEnvironmental Protection Board[13] Dehorn MacKenzie. Arrested development - Official safety limits on mercury are too high to preventdamage before birth'. New Scientist No. 2 109. 22 November 1997[14] N. Sørenson, K. Murata, E. Budtz-Jørgensen, P Weihe and P. Grandjean. 1999. Prenatal methylmercuryexposure as a cardiovascular risk factor at seven years of age. Epidemiology 10 (4):370-5.[15]L.I Sweet and J.T. Zelikoff. 2001. Toxicology and immunotoxicology of mercury; a comparative review infish and humans. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews 4 (2): 161-205[16] N. Brenden, H. Rabbani and M. Abedi-Valugerdi. 2001. Analysis of mercury-induced immune activationon nonobese diabetic (NOD) mice. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 125 (2): 202-10.[17] National Academy of Sciences 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: NationalAcamemy Press http//:books.nap.edu/catalog/9899.html?onpi_newsdoc071100.[18] EPA doubles mercury risk in newborns, New estimate based on levels in umbilical cord blood. By GuyGugliotta (ban-toxics) Updated: 12:42 p.m. ET Feb. 06, 2004[19] Brockhaus, A., Dolgner R, Ewers, U., Krömer, U., Soddeman, H., and Wiegand, H. Intake and healtheffects of thallium among a population living in the vicinity of a cement plant emitting thallium containing dust.Int. Arch. Occ. Environ. Hlth., 48, 375-389[20] Dolgner R, Brockhaus, A., Ewers, U., Wiegand, H. Majewski, F., Soddeman, H. Repeated surveillanceof exposure to thallium in a population living in the vicinity of a cement plant emitting dust containing thallium.Int. Arch. Occ. Environ. Hlth., 52, 79-94[21] Thallium In The Environment, edited by Jerome O. Nriagu. John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN 0-471-17755-51998[22] Trentholm A., Gorman P., and Junclaus G. Performance Evaluation of Full Scale Hazardous WasteIncinerators. Vol: Executive Summary. Cincinnati, Oh: U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering ResearchLaboratory, EPA 600/2-84-181a, November 1984.[23] Shane B. “Human Reproductive Hazards, Evaluation and Chemical Etiology.” Environmental Science andTechnology 23, 1 off. 1989[24] EPA spokesman, U.S.News & World Report, “In the Air that they Breathe”, Science & News, 12-20-99.&EPA spokesman, U.S. News & World Report, “Kids at Risk” (cover story), 6-19-2000; & U.S. EPA, 1996,“Integrated Risk Information System,” National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio (&web page);[25] Koppe JG., Tussher G T., Boer de P. ‘Background Exposure to Dioxins and PCBs in Europe and theResulting Health Effects. Chemosphere 409/9-11 pg 125301260[26] National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Developmental Toxicology,Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, June 1, 2000, 313 pages; & Evaluat-ing Chemical and Other Agent Exposures for Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Subcommittee onReproductive and Developmental Toxicity, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies andToxicology, National Research Council National Academy Press, 262 pages, 6 x 9, 2001; & NationalEnvironmental Trust (NET), Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Learning Disabilities Association of


America, “Polluting Our Future: Chemical Pollution in the U.S. that Affects Child Development and Learning”Sept 2000; http://www.safekidsinfo.org[27] Moon C, Marlowe M Stellem J, Errera J. “Main and Interactive Effects of Metallic Pollutants on CognitiveFunctioning”, Journal of Learning Disabilities 1985; 18(4):217-221.[28] Marlowe M, Errera J, Cossairt A, Welch K. Hair mineral content as a predictor of learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities 1985.[29] Marlowe M, Moon C, Errera J, Jacobs J. Levels and combinations of metallic toxins and measures ofbehavioural disturbance. In: Rutherford RB(Ed.), Monographs in Behaviour Disorders, Vol 5, p76-85; Councilfor Children and Behaviour Disorders, Reston Va; & Chisolm J. Toxicity from heavy metal interactions andbehavioural effects. Paediatrics 1974; 53:841-43.[30] Quig D. Cysteine metabolism and metal toxicity. Doctor’s Data, Inc., West Chicago, IL, [email protected] Altern Med Rev, 1998 Aug, 3:4, 262-70; & http://www.doctorsdata.com; & GreatSmokies Diagnostic Lab, Metals & Minerals in Children's Health, http://www.gsdl.com (by condition).[31] B. Windham, Annotated Bibliography: “Health Effects Related to Mercury from Amalgam Fillings andDocumented Clinical Results of Replacement of Amalgam Fillings” 2001. (over 800 references & 60,000clinical cases) www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html);[32] Grandjean P; Jurgensen PJ; Weihe P. Milk as a Source of Methylmercury Exposure in Infants. Milk as aSource of Methylmercury Exposure in Infants. Environ Health Perspect 1994 Jan;102(1):74-7; & WatanabeC, Satoh H. Evolution of our understanding of methylmercury as a health threat. Environ Health Perspect[33] Science News, Methylmercury’s toxic toll. July 29, 2000, Vol 158, No.5, p77; & National ResearchCouncil, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, National Academy Press, Wash, DC, 2000; & Grandjean P,2000, Health effects of seafood contamination with methylmercury and PCBs in the Faroes. Atlantic CoastContaminants Workshop, June 22-25, 2000, Bar Harbour Maine.[34] Marlowe M, Cossairt A, Moon C. Errera J. “Main and Interactive Effects of Metallic Toxins on ClassroomBehaviour,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1985; 13(2): 185-98.[35] Marlowe M, Errera J, Jacobs J. Increased lead and cadmium burdens among mentally retarded childrenand children with borderline intelligence. Am J Ment Defic 1983 Mar;87(5):477-83; & Journal of SpecialEducation 1982; 16:87-99.[36] Bonithon-Kopp C, Huel G, Moreau T, Wendling R. Prenatal exposure to lead and cadmium andpsychomotor development of the child at 6 years. Neurolbehav Toxicol Teratol 1986; 8(3):307-10.[37] Stewart-Pinkham, S M. The effect of ambient cadmium air pollution on the hair mineral content of children.The Science of the Total Environment 1989; 78: 289-96.[38] Thatcher RW, Lester ML, McAlaster R, Horst R. Effects of low levels of cadmium and lead on cognitivefunctioning in children. Arch Environ Health 1982 May-Jun;37(3):159-66.[39] Adapted from Schettler T. ‘Toxic threats to neurologic development of children.’ Environ Health Perspect2001 Dec;109 Suppl 6:813-6 See ToxCat Vol 5 No 1 Jan/Feb 2004[40] National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, AIRBORNE PARTICLES (Baltimore, Md:University Park Press,1979), pgs. 108, 110.[41] Particulate Aerosols, Incinerators and Health . C.V Howard. P. Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al (eds: ), HealthImpacts of Waste Management Policies, 155-174, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000[42] USEPA ‘Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)’ Draft Report 1994[43] Dockery, D.W., and Pope 111, C.A. "Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution"Annual Reviewof Public Health Vol 15 (1994) pgs 107-132.[44] Rachel’s Environment Health Weekly 131.[45] National Research Council, National Academy of Science, airborne particles (Baltimore, N D. UniversityPark Press, 1979) pgs 108,110[46] Anthony Seaton and others, “Particulate air pollution and acute health effects,” the Lancet Vol 345, (21stJanuary 1995), pages 176 - 178[47] Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: AirPollution Can Affect Fetal Development, Scientists Say. see also Environmental Health Perspectives115:1510–1518; Hertz- Picciotto et al. and Frederica P. Perera, et al; Relationship between PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbon–DNA Adducts, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and Child Development in the WorldTrade Center Cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 October; 115(10):1497–1502.[48] A Review of Dioxin Emissions in the UK, HMIP, 1995. DOE report HMIP/RR/95/004[49] Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and SimilarWastes, Enviro, the University of Birmingham, Defra www.defra.gov.uk May 2004[50] ‘Ignorance-Apathy-Lies & Deceit’. The Truth about Waste Incineration & Its Chemical By-Products.' RalphRyder, Presentation to the `Citizens Jury on Waste Management Options.’ Merseyside. Summer 2000.[51]. ToxCat ISSN 1355-5707 Vol. 1 No. 1 winter.[52] `Creating wealth from waste.' Robin Murray, DEMOS ISBN 1 8988309 0', 8 (1999)

37


[53] Foxall, C., Lovett, A., Creaser, C., Ball, J. 1997. Environmental levels of PCDD/DFs and PCBs in thePanteg District of South Wales, UK and their implications for human exposure. Organohalogen Compounds31: 342-347[54] ToxCat ISSN 1355-5707 Vol. 1 no. 1 winter.[55]. Bevc, C. A., B. K. Marshall, et al. (2007). “Environmental justice and toxic exposure: Toward a spatialmodel of physical health and psychological well-being.” Social Science Research 36(1): 48-67.[56] Friends of the Earth (2001). “Pollution and Poverty- Breaking the link.”[57] Friends of the Earth (2004). Incinerators and deprivation.[58] Macinko, J. A., L. Shi, et al. (2004). “Wage inequality, the health system, and infant mortality in wealthyindustrialized countries, 1970-1996.” Soc Sci Med 58(2): 279-92. “This study provides international evidencefor the impact of wage inequalities on infant mortality”[59] Mitchell, G. and G. Walker (2003). Project Record Part 1: Environmental Quality and Social DeprivationPhase I: A Review of Research and Analytical Methods, R&D Project[60] Poustie, M. (2004). Environmental Justice in SEPA’s Environmental Protection Activities: A Report for theScottish Environment Protection Agency.[61] Walker, G. and H. Bulkeley (2006). “Geographies of environmental justice.” Geoforum[62] Walker, G., J. Fairburn, et al. (2003). Project Record Part 2: Environmental Quality and Social DeprivationPhase II: National Analysis of Flood Hazard, IPC Industries and Air Quality, R&D Project, EnvironmentAgency. [63] Walker, G., H. Fay, et al. (2005). Environmental Justice

Impact Assessment An evaluation of requirements and tools for distributional analysis A REPORTFOR FRIENDS OF THE EARTH.[64] House of Lords inquiry into ‘Waste Incineration’ HL Paper 71. 1999

See: ‘Monsanto’s Fradulent Studies,’ Cover-up of Dioxin Contamination in Products - Falsification of DioxinHealth Studies, memo, Cate Jenkins PhD., U.S.EPA Chemist Regulatory Development Branch Nov 15, 1990.quoted in ‘Some Interesting Facts About Dioxin’ CATs Zero Waste Conference, London, May 2001. See alsoCorner House Briefing ‘Exporting Corruption: Privatisation, Multinationals and Bribery’ available [email protected] conducting studies on the impact of dioxin the French scientists of Afssa failed to included dioxin-likePCBs in their calculations. They also failed to consider the intake during the first two years of a child’s life, theperiod intake is highest. Research by the community based independent organisation CNIID showed levelsabout four times higher than the Afssa study. (See ToxCat vol. 3 no. 6 Nov/Dec 2000, ISSN 1355-5707)Britain’s Environment Agency failed to included PCBs in their study on the impact of contaminated ash on thecommunity of Byker, Newcastle, claiming they would have been destroyed in the incinerator ignoring the factPCBs need 1300 degree to be destroyed, a temperature not reached at the Byker incinerator. They, togetherwith the Food Standard Agency, failed to include children under 10 years of age, the most susceptible sectionto chemical impact and declared there was “no adverse health effects,” despite dioxin levels of 4,900ng/kgbeing found in ash that had been in the open environment for approximately six years.Some general data on metals taken from: Toxic Substances in the Environment. B. Magnus Francis, JohnWiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-50781-4 and Schettler T. ‘Toxic threats to neurologic development of children.’Environ Health Perspect 2001 Dec;109 Suppl 6:813-6 and: Report on America’s Children & the EnvironmentAlso see The Budapest Collection, e-library on children’s health and the environment, WHO June 2004.

© R Ryder, November 2008

Communities Against Toxics Research Unit A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions 39

Jiang et al., 2007. Investigation of basic properties of fly ash from urban waste incinerators inChina. J. Environ. Sci. 19: 458-464AbstractBasic properties of fly ash samples from different urban waste combustion facilities in China were analyzedusing as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) scanning electron microscopy (SEM) X-ray diffraction (XRD). Theleaching toxicity procedure and some factors influencing heavy metals distribution in fly ash were furtherinvestigated. Experimental results indicate that the fly ash structures are complex and its properties arevariable. The results of XRF and SEM revealed that the major elements (>10000 mg/kg listed in decreasingorder of abundance) in fly ash are O Ca Cl Si S K Na Al Fe and Zn. These elements account for 93% to 97%and the content of Cl ranges from 6.93% to 29.18 % while that of SiO2 does from 4.48% to 24.84%. Theminor elements (1000 to 10000 mg/kg) include Cr Cu and Pb. Primary heavy metals in fly ash include ZnPb Cr Cu etc. According to standard leaching test heavy metal leaching levels vary from 0 to 163.10 mg/L(Pb) and from 0.049 to 164.90 mg/L (Zn) mostly exceeding the Chinese Identification Standard for hazard-ous wastes. Morphology of fly ash is irregular with both amorphous structures and polycrystalline aggre-gates. Further research showed that heavy metals were volatilized at a high furnace temperaturecondensed when cooling down during the post-furnace system and captured at air pollution control systems.Generally heavy metals are mainly present in the forms of aerosol particulates or tiny particulates enrichedon surfaces of fly ash particles. The properties of fly ash are greatly influenced by the treatment capacitiesof incinerators or the variation of waste retention time in chamber. Fly ash from combustors of largercapacities generally has higher contents of volatile component and higher leaching toxicity while those ofsmaller capacities often produce fly ash containing higher levels of nonvolatile components and has lowertoxicity. The content of heavy metals and leaching toxicity maybe have no convincing correlation and highalkali content of CaO greatly contribute to leaching toxicity of heavy metal and acid neutralization capacityagainst acid rain.

Arickx et al., 2007. Influence of treatment techniques on Cu leaching and different organic fractionsin MSWI bottom ash leachate. Waste Management. Article in Press.

AbstractThe leaching of heavy metals, such as copper, from municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ashis of concern in many countries and may inhibit the beneficial reuse of this secondary material. Previousstudies have focused on the role of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) on the leaching of copper. Recently, astudy of the Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands (ECN) showed fulvic acid-type components toexist in the MSWI bottom ash leachates and to be likely responsible for the generally observed enhancedcopper leaching. These findings were verified for a MSWI bottom ash (B 0.1-2 mm) fraction from anincinerator in Flanders. The filtered leachates were subjected to the IHSS fractionation procedure toidentify and quantify the fractions of humic acid (HA), fulvic acid (FA) and hydrophilic organic carbon (Hi).The possible complexation of fulvic acid with other heavy metals (e.g., lead) was also investigated. Theidentified role of fulvic acids in the leaching of copper and other heavy metals can be used in the developmentof techniques to improve the environmental quality of MSWI bottom ash. Thermal treatment and extractionwith a 0.2 M ammonium-citratesolution were optimized to reduce the leaching of copper and other heavymetals. The effect of these techniques on the different fractions of organic matter (HA, FA, Hi) was studied.However, due to the obvious drawbacks of the two techniques, research is focused on finding other (new)techniques to treat MSWI bottom ash. In view of this, particle size-based separation was performed toevaluate its effect on heavy metal leaching and on HA, FA and Hi in MSWI bottom ash leachates.[from text]…In Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, ca. 24% of the collected MSW (3.385 million tons) was incineratedin 2004. Incineration of this MSW and the industrial waste comparable to it, produced almost 220,000tons of bottom ash in 2004. About 31% of this bottom ash was used as secondary material (VMM, 2005). …A MSWI bottom ash fraction (0.1-2 mm) was characterized for heavy metals and DOC in the leachate.Results show that leaching of Cu, Pb and Zn (and also Ba, Mo and Sb) exceed their limit values for reuseas secondary material in granular applications. Three techniques - heating, extraction with ammonium-citrate and particle size-based separation - were optimised to improve the environmental quality of thisbottom ash fraction in view of recycling.


Science Daily (Apr. 25, 2008) — How do mercuryemissions affect pregnant mothers, the unborn andtoddlers? Do the level of emissions impact autismrates? Does it matter whether a mercury-emittingsource is 10 miles away from families versus 20miles? Is the risk of autism greater for children wholive closer to the pollution source?

A newly published study of Texas school districtdata and industrial mercury-release data, conductedby researchers at The University of Texas HealthScience Center at San Antonio, indeed shows a sta-tistically significant link between pounds of industrialrelease of mercury and increased autism rates. It alsoshows—for the first time in scientific literature—astatistically significant association between autismrisk and distance from the mercury source.

“This is not a definitive study, but just one more thatfurthers the association between environmental mer-cury and autism,” said lead author Raymond F. Palm-er, Ph.D., associate professor of family andcommunity medicine at the UT Health Science CenterSan Antonio. The article is in the journal Health &Place.

Dr. Palmer, Stephen Blanchard, Ph.D., of Our Ladyof the Lake University in San Antonio and RobertWood of the UT Health Science Center found thatcommunity autism prevalence is reduced by 1 percentto 2 percent with each 10 miles of distance from thepollution source.

“This study was not designed to understand whichindividuals in the population are at risk due to mercuryexposure,” Dr. Palmer said. “However, it does sug-gest generally that there is greater autism risk closerto the polluting source.”

The study should encourage further investigationsdesigned to determine the multiple routes of mercuryexposure. “The effects of persistent, low-dose expo-sure to mercury pollution, in addition to fish consump-tion, deserve attention,” Dr. Palmer said. “Ultimately,we will want to know who in the general population isat greatest risk based on genetic susceptibilities suchas subtle deficits in the ability to detoxify heavy met-als.”

The new study findings are consistent with a hostof other studies that confirm higher amounts of mercu-ry in plants, animals and humans the closer they areto the pollution source. The price on children may bethe highest.

“We suspect low-dose exposures to various envi-ronmental toxicants, including mercury, that occurduring critical windows of neural development amonggenetically susceptible children may increase the riskfor developmental disorders such as autism,” theauthors wrote.

Mercury-release data examined were from 39 coal-fired power plants and 56 industrial facilities in Texas.Autism rates examined were from 1,040 Texas schooldistricts.For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by allindustrial sources in Texas into the environment in1998, there was a corresponding 2.6 percent increasein autism rates in the Texas school districts in 2002.·For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released byTexas power plants in 1998, there was a correspond-ing 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texasschool districts in 2002.Autism prevalence diminished 1 percent to 2 percentfor every 10 miles from the source.·Mercury exposure through fish consumption is welldocumented, but very little is known about exposureroutes through air and ground water.·There is evidence that children and other developingorganisms are more susceptible to neurobiologicaleffects of mercury.

Implications“We need to be concerned about global mercury

emissions since a substantial proportion of mercuryreleases are spread around the world by long-rangeair and ocean currents,” Dr. Palmer said. “Steps forcontrolling and eliminating mercury pollution on aworldwide basis may be advantageous. This entailsgreener, non- mercury- polluting technologies.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)estimated environmental mercury releases at 158million tons annually nationwide in the late 1990s, thetime period studied by the Texas team. Mostexposures were said to come from coal-fired utilityplants (33%of exposures), municipal/medical wasteincinerators (29%) and commercial/industrial boilers(18%). Cement plants also release mercury.

With the enactment of clean air legislation andother measures, mercury deposition into theenvironment is decreasing slightly.

LimitationsDr. Palmer and his colleagues pointed out the studydid not reflect the true community prevalence rates ofautism because children younger than school age arenot counted in the Texas Education Agency datasystem.The 1:500 autism rates in the study are lower thanthe 1:150 autism rates in recent reports of the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Furthermore, the authors note that distance was notcalculated from individual homes to the pollutionsource but from central points in school districts thatvaried widely in area.

Autism Risk Linked To Distance From Power Plants,Other Mercury-releasing Sources


Slob, W., L. M. Troost, et al. (1993). The combustion of Municipal Solid Waste in the Netherlands. Emissionsoccurring during Combustion. Dispersal of dioxins and the associated risk.Elevated dioxin concentrations in Dutch cow's milk originating from areas near municipal solid waste incineratorstriggered an extensive research programme in the Netherlands, including (1) emission measurements of all Dutchmunicipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators, (2) compliance of MSW incinerators with licences and directives, (3)dispersion and occurrence of dioxins in air, soil and cow's milk, and (4) dioxin exposure of the Dutch population.These investigations resulted in a large number of reports. This report provides a comprehensive overview ofresearch results and associated policy implications. Seven out of the twelve incinerators did not comply with thelicenses, whereas nine of them did not satisfy the Incineration Directive 1985. Technical management and processcontrol were found to be unsatisfactory in several cases. Dioxin emissions varied between 2,2 to 360 ng TEQ/m3 flugas. Four installations were closed down in 1990. Near several MSW incinerators dioxin concentrations in milk werefound exceeding the milk standard of 6 pg/g fat. Milk and related products from these areas were bannedfromconsumption. The milk standard was based on the result of an exposure analysis that at this value less than1%of theDutch population would exceed the TDI of 10 pg TEQ/kg body weight. At background dioxin concentrations in milkand related products (2 pg TEQ/g fat), the TDI is exceeded by a small fraction of children below 7 years of age. Amathematical chain model was developed that succeeded in quantitatively relating dioxin emissions with amountsin cow's milk. In addition, this model showed that emissions below the required level of 0.1 ng/m3 (to be satisfied at 30November 1993) will make a negligible contribution to levels in cow's milk. Great efforts are presently made to reducethe emissions to this required level. Therefore, it may be expected that in the near future exceedance of the milkstandard will not occur anymore in the Netherlands.At some sites levels of 3-4 pg TEQ/g fat will endure because of dioxins that have accumulated in soil from highemissions in the past. Although the dioxin problem in the Netherlands has triggered drastic improvements in emissions,it has at the same time aroused opposition from the Dutch population against incineration of municipal waste. Thereforea delay in growth in incineration capacity may be expected.<http://rivm.openrepository.com/rivm/bitstream/10029/10470/1/730501052.pdf>

Lewtas, J., 2007. Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanismsassociated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects. Mutation Research 636: 95–133AbstractCombustion emissions account for over half of the fine particle (PM2.5) air pollution and most of the primaryparticulate organic matter. Human exposure to combustion emissions including the associated airborne fineparticles and mutagenic and carcinogenic constituents (e.g., polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC), nitro-PAC)have been studied in populations in Europe, America, Asia, and increasingly in third-world counties. Bioassay-directed fractionation studies of particulate organic air pollution have identified mutagenic and carcinogenicpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), nitrated PAH, nitro-lactones, and lower molecular weight compoundsfrom cooking. A number of these components are significant sources of human exposure to mutagenic andcarcinogenic chemicals that may also cause oxidative and DNA damage that can lead to reproductive andcardiovascular effects...Biomarkers of exposure, dose and susceptibility have been measured in populations exposed to air pollutioncombustion emissions. Biomarkers have included metabolic genotype, DNA adducts, PAH metabolites, andurinary mutagenic activity. A number of studies have shown a significant correlation of exposure to PM2.5 withthese biomarkers. In addition, stratification by genotype increased this correlation. New multivariate receptormodels, recently used to determine the sources of ambient particles, are now being explored in the analysis ofhuman exposure and biomarker data.Human studies of short- and long-term exposures to combustion emissions and ambient fine particulate airpollution have been associated with measures of genetic damage. Long-term epidemiologic studies have reportedan increased risk of all causes of mortality, cardiopulmonary mortality, and lung cancer mortality associated withincreasing exposures to air pollution. Adverse reproductive effects (e.g., risk for low birth weight) have alsorecently been reported in Eastern Europe and North America. Although there is substantial evidence that PAH orsubstituted PAH may be causative agents in cancer and reproductive effects, an increasing number of studiesinvestigating cardiopulmonary and cardiovascular effects are investigating these and other potential causativeagents from air pollution combustion sources.

41

Data sourcesData for environmentally released mercury were fromthe United States Environmental Protection AgencyToxics Release Inventory. Data for releases by coal-fired power plants came from the same inventory andfrom the Texas Commission for EnvironmentalQuality. Data for school district autism came from theTexas Education Agency.

Journal reference: Palmer, R.F., et al., Proximity topoint sources of environmental mercury release as apredictor of autism prevalence. Health & Place (2008),doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.02.001.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424120953.htm


The following is adapted from an article published in ToxCat Vol 6 No 5 (October 2007). I have included ithere simply to increase awareness on the reality that public health comes a long way behind industryinterests in the corridors of the European Parliament. Despite the UK’s DEFRA report on the enormoussavings made by not going down the incineration path, the EU Commission, which can only be describedas a quango of unelected individuals (undoubtedly with ties to industries and undoubtedly fingers innumerous industry related pies), are ignoring a European Court ruling that doesn’t fit in with their plans. It iswise to remember that it wasn’t that long ago one set of Commissioners were forced to resign after the truthabout their gross corruption was revealed. I think it's time someone looked at the workings, accounts, andinterests of the members of this latest group. R Ryder

A report by the UK Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) assessed theconsequential damage costs avoided through the reduction in incineration and increased recycling broughtabout by the court judgement. It showed that there would be a net environmental benefit in England ofbetween £45 ( €64) million to £182 (€260) million in 2008. The total benefits of the reduction in incinerationwere estimated as between £238 (€340) million and £814 (€1,163) million.

42

NGO's around the world bandedtogether to fight a proposal bythe European Commission tomake 622 amendments tocurrent Waste FrameworkDirective. (See ToxCat vol 6 No 3)“These changes will not solve anyof the problems we face” saidStefan Scheuer of the EuropeanEnvironment Bureau (EEB). Theseamendments are being pushed bya certain section of people ie. Theincinerator lobby and their politicalallies led by MEP CarolineJackson. The whole excise servesno purpose other than to make theincinerator industry a lot of moneyat the expense of the communitiesof Europe.

On 21st December 2005, theEuropean Commission presenteda Proposal for a Draft Directive onWaste and a “Thematic Strategy onthe prevention and recycling ofwaste” Although similar in manyways to the current WasteFramework Directive, the newproposal includes some 622changes, many of which threatento completely undermine the statedlong term goal for the EU ofbecoming a “recycling society”.

Of principle concern is theproposal to raise the status ofincineration from being defined as“disposal” to “recovery” elevatingburning with energy recovery to thesame level as materials recyclingand re-use in a three tier wastehierarchy of reduction, recoveryand disposal being promoted bythe Draft Direc- tive. The current

strategy is based on a 5 tierhierarchy.

To better understand thebackground and the significance ofthese proposals we should lookback at the 2003 judgment by

the European Court of Justicedetermining on the case C-458/00,the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities versus the GrandDuchy of Luxemburg AdvocateGeneral Jacobs found against theCommission and concluded thatthe primary objective ofincineration in a dedicatedmunicipal waste incinerator is‘waste disposal.’

The Court added that even if, asa secondary effect of the process,energy is generated and used, thisclassification as a disposaloperation is not changed andremains the same, if as asecondary effect of the process,energy is generated and used.

This decision infuriated themembers of the Commission whoare now ignoring the judgementand pushing for changes in thedirective that suits them and thewaste industry.

“The Jacobs judgement upsetthe Commission so they simplythrow it out. If they don’t like whatthe courts say they simply changethe law. I’m sure not many peopleoutside the corridors of power inBrussels are aware this unelectedbody have the power to do this.

It seems we are seeing exactlywhat George Orwell warned usabout so long ago, ‘the Corporate

State’” said one British activists.An indication of the significance

of the Advocate Jacob’s judgementEuropean Commission IgnoresCourt Ruling on Waste Definitionagainst the Commission can beseen in a report produced by theUK Department of the EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

This report assess theconsequential damage costsavoided through the reduction inincineration and increasedrecycling brought about by thejudgement. It showed that therewould be a net environmentalbenefit in England of between £45( €64) million to £182 (€260) millionin 2008. The total benefits of thereduction in incineration wereestimated as between £238 (€340)million and £814 (€1,163) million.

This is the true reality of whatthe European Union is all about,putting industry’s interests first.The whole idea of a EuropeanUnion was the brain child ofsomething like forty of the worldslargest industries who were lookingto increase their trading markets,their profit margins and protecttheir interests.

Over the years more and moreindustry-minded politicians havebeen elected and today wefind ourselves with 15,000 industriallobbyist working permanently inBrussels. These are daily bendingthe ear of politicians seemingly alltoo eager to grant them theirwishes, even if its detrimental tothe environment, threatens public

Communities Against Toxics Research Unit A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions 43

health and is incredibly costlymonetary - wise to the communitiesof Europe.

In 2003, still smarting from theECJ decision the Commission thenundermined it by revising Directive94/62/EC on packaging andpackaging waste. This revisionallows the incineration ofpackaging waste rather thanrecovery and thus sacrificed thehuge reductions in environmentaldamage.

Much of that waste is now sentto incinerators instead of beingrecycled showing clearly thatincinerators are burning wastesthat would otherwise have beenrecycled, despite the claims ofRapporteur Caroline Jackson in aletter to a concerned citizen.

Now, in the Thematic Strategy,the Commission that the“definitions in the presentlegislation, as interpreted by theEuropean Court of Justice, do notpromote best environmentalpractice for example as regardsrecovering energy from waste inmunicipal incinerators”.

That may be correct but it isactually a irrelevant distraction.The decisions of the Court relateessentially to controls on wasteshipments which are much moretightly controlled for disposal thanfor recovery and not to thepromotion of energy recovery.There are other controls, includingboth the Pollution Prevention andControl and the Waste incinerationDirectives, (which is also beingamended to suit industry interestfirst and foremost) which should, ifproperly applied, ensure thatincinerators are designed, built andoperated using Best AvailableTechniques (BAT) and high levelsof energy efficiency.

Indeed the Commissioncontinues “setting the level of the(efficiency) threshold by referenceto performance of a BAT plantwould facilitate the achievement ofthe targets for diversion fromlandfill”.

The best way to ensure that

works in practice must be toproperly enforcing the existinglegal framework laws particularlywhen the proposals also includesimplification measures to avoidthe requirements for anyadditional waste permit if an IPPCpermit is held.

The Commission also claimsthat unless the current position lawis changed some authorities maybe tempted to choose land-filling asa cheaper alternative toincineration. But this ignores therelatively stringent requirements ofthe Landfill Directive which isproviding most of the incentive forauthorities to move to incinerationas a means of compliance.

The Commission has recentlypublished “additional information”supporting the proposals. Thisinformation largely relies on a studyby the Confederation of EuropeanWaste to Energy Plants (CEWEP)which is not published on theinternet and is not readily available.

That study shows that of the 97unnamed incinerators studied, 67would comply with the criteria pro-posed by the Commission forexisting installations.

The Commission claims that the“criteria defined by the Courtinclude subjective elements and agrey area remains” and that anumber of installations “that havebeen built with the principalobjective of producing energy maybe classified as recovery”.

Again this may be correct –although no supporting evidence isprovided – but this misses the pointand the clear language entirely ofthe opinion of the AdvocateGeneral, who said: “the decisivequestion is whether the waste isused for a genuine purpose: if itwere not available for a givenoperation, would that operationnone the less be carried out usingsome other material?

In the case of waste beingincinerated in a plant developed forthat purpose, the answer to thatquestion is clearly “no” in theabsence of available waste, there

would be no incineration.”In genuine terms, then, it is

difficult to see how there can bemore than a tiny number ofexamples of incinerators that couldbe classed as recovery operationsin these circumstances. It certainlydoes not provide a justification toopening the flood gates to includethe majority of incinerators in therecovery category!

It is notable that in Case 458/00which was presumably broughtbecause the Commission felt thatstrong evidence was available, theCourt confirmed “The Commissionhas not adduced [cited] anyevidence in the context of itsaction… which shows that,contrary to what the competentLuxembourg authoritiesconsidered in the contesteddecisions, …the principal objectiveof the operation in question was therecovery of waste. It has notprovided any evidence at all ofthis,… such as the fact that thewaste in question was intended fora plant which, unless it wassupplied with waste, would havehad to operate using a primaryenergy source, or that the wastewas to have been delivered to theprocessing plant in exchange forpayment by the plant operator tothe producer or holder of thewaste”.

The Commission’s additionalinformation further claims that thevery recent changes to theRegulations on waste the shipmentof waste which become (applicableas of on 12th July 2007) will allowMember States to oppose somewaste exports or imports of somewastes on the basis of the proximityprinciple. It is not clear from this,however, that the changes it ONLYapplies to mixed municipal wastecollected from private households(waste entry 20 03 01). Commercialand industrial wastes couldtherefore move freely over largedistances, if they were ultimatelydestined for incineration in a plantmeeting the rather lax efficiencycriteria for recovery.


That was one of the AdvocateGeneral’s principal objections inthe opinion of the AdvocateGeneral: “It is clearly desirable onenvironmental grounds to limitlarge scale shipments of householdwaste for incineration; if, however,incineration of such waste wereclassified as recovery simply on thebasis that the resulting energycould be used, be encouraged.”

The current proposals ascurrently drafted would certainlyencourage such movements –particularly from countries whererecycling or incineration is moreexpensive to those countries withlower disposal costs and cheaperincinerators. The principlebeneficiaries of such relaxation islikely to be the packaging industrywho would undoubtedly use theproposed changes to support

arguments that energy recoveryhas the same position in thehierarchy as is equivalent torecycling when planning and insupport of the proposals for andsiting of new incinerators.

This equivalency has thepotential to seriously underminethe status of recycling and reuse inall sectors.

In summary, therefore, theconcerns raised by theCommission’s as justifications forthe changes are either ill founded,not supported by evidence, or arebest addressed by the effectiveimplementation of the existinglegislative framework. Theirreasons aren’t good enough tomake a case for adopting theproposed changes to the WasteFramework Directive. Seriousconcerns about the impacts of the

changes on long distance wastemovements remain in spite ofrecent the revisions to the WasteShipment Regulations.

These changes do nothing torestrict the free movement and longdistance transport of commercialand industrial wastes aroundEurope as highlighted by the ECJ;.

It should also be noted thatchanges to the StockholmConvention on the levels ofcontamination (includingincinerator ash contamination) byPersistent Organic Pollutants andnecessitating remediation leavethe door wide open for heavilycontaminated materials/waste tobe exported to developingcountries under the ‘recovery’tag/description.

“It is clearly desirable on environmental grounds to limit large scale shipments ofhousehold waste for incineration; if, however, incineration of such waste wereclassified as recovery simply on the basis that the resulting energy could be used,be encouraged.”

Alternative Positions Promoted by the WasteIncineration Industry:The International Waste Association (ISWA)has published a short paper. http://www.iswa.orgCommendably they say that :“ISWA finds I problematicthat re-use is placed at the same level as recycling andrecovery operation. ISWA believes that it is important tointroduce drivers for increasing the level of preventionincluding re-use at a European level.”And:ISWA however, finds that it is important to have aEuropean strategy for waste prevention with commonquantitative targets, as requested in the t EnvironmentalAction Programme.The European Thematic Strategy for Prevention andRecycling as proposed by the Commission, does notinclude “real” strategy for prevention at a Europeanlevel as expected in the 6EAP.ISWA would like to see a more ambitious politicalstandpoint for reaching a higher level for prevention atan international level and believe that EU, as one of thekey players seen in an international environmentalpolicy perspective should take the lead in this area.

On LCA:ISWA agree that the hierarchy is not the ultimate driverfor sustainable waste management, but believes that it isvery important to keep this instrument until we havesolved the above problems of the LC approach.

On the key aspect of the efficiency level forincineration to become recovery: ISWA suggest it veryimportant that these efficiency criteria, which also areto be set by the Commission in a comitologyprocedure, are set at a high environmentalprotection level, which is why ISWA would like see thesedecisions to be taken in an open democratic procedure.

Some activists think there are some attractions of thisapproach pointing out that if the efficiency level washigh enough then combined with the Article 5requirement to recover waste then many EU incineratorswould have to close. However, more cautious activistspoint out that this is a extremely dangerous strategy asthe efficiency targets could (and undoubtedly would) belowered at the last minute allowing even the mostpolluting burners to be classified as a recovery operation.

Confederation of European Waste-to-EnergyPlants (CEWEP): CEWEP want to reduce theefficiency factor to 0.5 for existing plants – with afurther reduction of 0.1 for ‘small plants and plantswhich produce electricity only due to lack of heatdemand’. A 0.5 EF would mean that plant with anelectrical generation efficiency of less than 20% wouldbe defined as ‘recovery’ and 0.4 a pitiful 15% efficiencyafter applying the 2.6 factor for electrical output.

Continued on foot of next page


Veolia (Cleanaway) Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Ellesmere Port.Capacity 100,000 tonnes per annum. Notifiable releases to airYear 1998 1999 2000 20001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Antimony <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <5kg <5kg <5kg 1.37kgArsenic <1kg <1kg <1kg <1kg <1kg <1kg <1kg 2.57kgCadmium <100g <100g <100g <1kg <1kg <1kg 1kg 5.24kgCarbon diox 127000t 121358t 12058t 13170t 130333t 124755t 120000t 122598t 108148tCarbon mon 10.19t <10t <10t 11.69t <100t <100000kg <100000kg <100000kg <100000kgChromium <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kgCopper <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kgLead <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <100kg <100kg <100kg <100kg <100kgManaganese <100kg <100kg <100kg <100kg <50kg <50kg <50kg <50kg <10kgMercury 1080g 1407g 1590g 1402g <1kg <1kg <1kg 1.31kg 7.03kgMethane <100kg <10t <10t <10t <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kgNickel <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kg <10kgParticulates <10t <10t <10t <10t <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kgVOCs <1t <1t <1t <1t <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kgDioxin & fur <0.1g <0.1g 0.1g <0.1g <0.1g <0kg <0kg 0kg <0kgSulphur ox <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <100t <100000kg <100000kg <100000kg<100000kg Vanadium <100kg <100kg <100kg <100kg <50kg <50kg <50kg <50kg<10kg Nitrogen ox 137t 109.3t 110.13t 162t 135780kg 132316kg 127000kg 132477kg146603kg PCBs as TEQ <100g <100g <100g <100g<0kgPM 10 <1t <1t <1t <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <1000kgHydrogen ox <1t <10000kg <10000kg <10000kgHydrogen F <5000kgInorganic fl <5000kg <5000kg <5000kg <5000kg <1000kgInorganic c <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kg <10000kgPM 2.5 < 1000kg

45

As the formula already allows a high premium for electrical generation there is no good reason to allow afurther derogation for plants generating only electricity.

CEWEP claimed that 67 out of 97 – or 69% of existing plants would meet the threshold of 0.6 and that reducingthis to 0.5 would ensure that 88% of incinerators would be classed as recovery operations. Even for ‘heat only’plant then the overall efficiency would only need to be about 45 %.These levels can be compared with modern Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant which have thermalefficiencies of nearly 60% for electrical generation - or condensing boilers which are over 90% for heat.


The councillor who championed for the building of the Cleanaway incinerator in Ellesmere Portsaying “it was a environmental improvement” and “the townsfolk should be proud to have thiscompany in their town” later complained about the company in the local press after a series of firesand chemical releases.

46

By NICHOLAS MASON

A LEADING county councillor hasblasted bosses at Ellesmere Port'scontroversial Cleanawayincinerator, after a violent blazeripped through part of the plant.

Worried drivers on the M53noticed plumes of acrid smokedrifting into the sky, as they madetheir way home from work lastThursday evening.

Firemen from the town werequickly on the scene and had to usea foam jet and breathingapparatus to bring the blaze undercontrol.

FlamesBut Counicllor Derek Bateman(Central and Westminister) saidthe blaze should never havehappend and demanded thatCleanway 'get their act together.'

He said: 'I saw the flames formyself when I was making my wayhome.'

'There was a huge amount ofsmoke shooting into the sky and atfirst I thought it was the biggerincinerator at Shell.

'We will definately be askingtough questions at our next liasonmeeting with Cleanaway.

'The assurances we have beengetting in rcent months suggestedthat this sort of thing should neverhappen.

But this is the third majorincedent since the plant was opend,which is three too many.

'It is high time Cleanaway gottheir act together because this issimply not good enough.'

Cleanaway spokesman AlanTringham said. 'A fire broke out ina redundant vessel which was dueto be removed the next day.

'The vessel had beendisconnected from the plant andthroughly cleaned prior todismantling.

'This ensured no waste wasinvolved in the fire.'

He added that Cleanawaywould be carrying out a fullinvestigation.

“The amount ofchemicals emitted will beinsignificant...”

“The plant will be anenvironmental

improvement withcleaner air and water

going out than comingin.”

“A man can sit on thetop of this chimneystack all day with noadverse effects”

“... sticking one’s headdown a modern[Japanese] incineratorchimney is less riskythan smoking a singlecigarette”

“The ash will beinnocuous”-

“the resulting ash is aenvironmentally

friendly material”

“ The amount of dioxinemitted from a modernEfW incinerator is nothreat to the health ofany section of society,including nursingchildren..”

“The amount of dioxinproduced by a modernincinerator is likedropping a sugar cubein Loch Ness”

“The plant willencourage other

industry intothe area”

“Incinerators poseonly a minor threatto health.”

Incredible statements from people keen to build incinerators.

“The incinerator section is themost closely monitored sectionof UK industry.”

“There are not enoughdioxin emitted todetect...

“Dioxins arebreathed in andout.”

47Communities Against Toxics Research Unit A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions


House prices dropped20% within a 10 mileradius of theTysley incinerator inBirmingham

Cardiovascular andrespiratory illness is arisk factor from the ad-verse health effects ofparticles in the elderlyin urban conurbations

Increases in all cancers,with a 37% increase inliver cancer foundaround incinerators.

There is no establishedsafe level of dioxin

The plant willencourage more‘dirty’ industry tothe area

Arsenic, Antimony,Lead, Cadmium,Mercury,and hundreds ofproducts ofIncompletecombustion areemitted hourly

Studies show a in-creased number ofmalformations inbabies born aroundincinerators

Many of the chemicals emitted in what pyromaniacs and industrydescribe as ‘insignificant amounts’ are persistent and accumulative inhuman tissue resulting in the build-up to significant and health threatening/ damaging amounts in the human body.

A sugar cube of dioxinwould make every fishin Loch Ness too toxicto eat

The reality is...The technology doesn’texist to enable continuousmonitoring of dioxin

Ash from the Bykerincinerator containinghigh levels of heavymetals and dioxin wasspread around foodproducing areas forapprox 6 yearsunmonitored by theregulatory bodies

48

For years citizens expressing concern that incinerators were damaging the health of people within theircommunity were told at “there is no evidence of increased ill health around incinerators.”Often they were told of the findings of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, ConsumerProducts and the Environment (COC) a quango of ‘experts’ who advise the UK government whose conclusionafter looking at selected data, was that incinerators pose no threat to health. This conclusion was repeatedlyquoted during public inquiries into planning application for incinerators throughout the UK.Today, despite all the evidence showing increased cancers and other disturbing disabilities, notably in newborn children, their stance remains the same. However they now acknowledge that it is possible the ‘old’incinerators were the cause of certain illnesses. (Something Prof Roy Harrison would not agree with.)The fact that the increased throughput of the modern facilities could well mean that quantities of somepollutants emitted increases does not, according to these experts, mean there is any danger of increasedill-health from incinerators.

Hansard: 26 Nov 2008 : Column 2085WDerek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has (a) evaluated and(b) commissioned on the health effects of incinerators on people in the locality. [238581]Dawn Primarolo: Advice has been sought from the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food,Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) on the possible health effects populations living in the vicinityof incinerators, based on research carried out by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU). This Unit isbased at Imperial College and is funded by the Department.In 2000, the COC reviewed a large study by SAHSU that examined 14 million people living within 7.5 km of72 municipal solid waste incinerators, which operated up to 1987. The Committee concluded that, 'anypotential risk of cancer due to residency, for periods in excess of 10 years, near to municipal solid wasteincinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques'. The COCissued a statement on this, a copy has been placed in the Library and is available at:www.iacoc.org.uk/statements/Municipalsolidwasteincineratorscoc00slmarch2000.htmIn July and November this year, the COC reviewed the results of more recent studies from the scientificliterature, which have investigated rates of cancer in people living near municipal solid waste incinerators. ACOC statement is being prepared and will be published shortly.COC Minutes of July meeting <http://www.iacoc.org.uk/meetings/documents/COCMinutes170708.pdf>514 ITEM 7: Update review of "Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators" (CC/08/15)1. Following a request from the Chairman of COC, an update review of cancer incidence near municipal solidwaste incinerators had been prepared.The committee was reminded that the COC published a statement in March2000 on municipal solid waste andcancer. The statement concluded that “The Committee was reassured that any potential risk of cancer due toresidency (for periods in excess of 10 years) near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly lowand probably not measurable by the most modern epidemiological techniques. The Committee agreed that,at the present time, there was no need for any further epidemiological investigations of cancer incidence nearmunicipal solid waste incinerators”. The committee was informed that there have been a number of publica-tions since the last review of the data on cancer incidence in individuals living close to municipal solid wasteincinerators (MSWI), as detailed in CC/08/15. Six further relevant epidemiological papers have been pub-lished since the 2000 COC statement, 3 of which investigated cancer incidence around a single incinerator inFrance. Positive associations were found for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma (STS) andchildhood cancer and exposure to pollutants (principally, polychlorinated dibenzo –p-dioxins and polychlorin-ated dibenzo-p-furans (“dioxins”)) from MSWI in a number of the papers presented. No association or adecreased association was observed for invasive breast cancer and emissions of dioxins from a MSWI.32. The committee assessed the quality of the epidemiology papers. It was noted that all studies were carriedout on incinerators in operation prior to current controls on emissions. The committee was reassured that therewere no new data that caused concern about the current situation and therefore there was no need for achange in the advice given in the previous 2000 statement. Looking at the papers individually, the committeeagreed that the paper of Knox (2000) contained a complex analysis and lacked control data.It was noted that the paper of Viel et al (2000) did not make any adjustments for socioeconomic confoundingbut that the data in the paper by Floret et al (2003) had been adjusted and showed a positive associationbetween STS and dioxin emissions. Members noted the sex difference in the STS association in the Viel etal (2000) paper but commented that there was no information about the quality of the STS diagnosis. Thereare many variants of STS and there is probably a male excess. For both Zambon et al (2007)and Comba etal (2003), the committee noted that the studies made no adjustments for confounding and the strength ofassociation was poor. Overall, the committee considered that there was possibly some evidence of a positiveassociation at higher levels of exposure in the past but no evidence of an association between cancerincidence and MSWI at current levels of emissions.Communities Against Toxics Research Unit A Beginners Guide to: Incinerator Emissions 49

33. It was agreed that the secretariat would bring an update statement to the 560 November meeting. Thestatement by COC at their meeting on 20th November has been published and says <http://www.www.iacoc.org.uk/papers/documents/UPDATECC0816statementonCancerIncidenceandMSWI.pdf>

9. In summary, we consider that, on balance, these studies indicate that there is possibly some evidence of apositive association between the incidence of certain cancers and residence near a MSWI at the higher levelsof emissions in the past. However, they offer no support for an association at current levels of emissions.Overall, we are reassured that the new data do not raise any concerns about the current situation andtherefore there is no need to change the advice given in the previous statement in 2000.

As pointed out by Alan Watson of Public Interest Consultants: ‘It looks like they have finally and verybegrudgingly accepted we were right to be concerned about the older incinerators at least... What it should goon to say is that the risk assessments currently being used indicate that those old incinerators were safe andtherefore cannot be relied upon...’

Sustainable development rests on three pillars, namely the economy, the societyand the environment. Humankind stands in the centre of the prosperouseconomy, the future oriented society, and the sound environment. Our childrenand grandchildren, the heart and the soul of sustainable development, will inheritthe future society, operate the future economy and manage the environment forthe future of mankind. Therefore, it is an intrinsic component of sustainabledevelopment to protect the health of children and ensure that children live inenvironments that allow them to reach their full potential as individuals andcontributing members of these societies.

World Health Organisation Budapest 2004


a beginners guide to incinerator emissions & the known...

Documents