We store cookies on your device to make sure we give you the best experience on this website. I'm fine with this - Turn cookies off
Switch to an accessible version of this website which is easier to read. (requires cookies)

Tim East Letter Re: Incinerator

July 28, 2011 2:51 PM

Dear Letters Editor,

Tuesday's headline, "Air Emissions 'Insignificant': Independent report says incinerator will 'pose no unacceptable risk' to residents" is misleading; this may help to clarify some of the issues. (EDP 26.7.11)

There is no new or up-to-date empirical, scientific, epistemological and medical evidence submitted by Cory Wheelabrator, the applicants. It does exist, but because it does not support the case for incinerators, it doesn't feature in their submitted evidence.

The independent survey commissioned by KL&WNBC corroborated CWs Environmental Impact Assessment, but it is very selective in the evidence it chooses to quote; only opting for emission research which supports its case for an incinerator.

In fact, they both recycle and regurgitate health studies associated with incinerators provided by the applicants, NCC and the Health Protection Agency which are all significantly out of date.

The HPA's Chief Executive has confirmed that no relevant data had been examined around incinerators since 2004, which leaves the Environment Agency issuing operating permits for incinerators based on misleading, outdated and inaccurate advice.

With its emission problems, incineration isn't the panacea for our waste treatment inNorfolk, when there are more environmentally friendly alternative technologies available which won't pose a threat to public health, and produce energy as well.

Increasing our recycling rate to 70%, through reducing and reusing would lessen the need for an incinerator to burn our waste over the next 25 years.

Lastly, why is a chimney needed if nothing harmful comes out of it?