Cleaner Greener Spondon

[jenniferbeech]

Can anyone make any sense as to why the chair of the Cleaner Greener Spondon subgroup is in favour of the hazardous waste burning incinerator planned for Spondon? You can view his letter of support (the only one in favour of the proposal when I wrote this) at:

eplanning.derby.gov.uk/acolnet/planningpages02/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=88032

Is it really appropriate that someone who is in favour of a hazardous waste burning incinerator heads such a group? Even the developers acknowledge that the village will be polluted 'in excessof significant levels'. You can find their document at the same link.

I have applied for funding from the group to fund a legal challenge to the proposal. I wonder if I will get it?

[spondonian]

I presume that you mean the subgroup of Spondon Neighbourhood Board? If so, I'm sure the chair is capable of defending themselves on this forum should they wish to. But the letter in support makes the case perfectly adequately.
You will have to provide a better reference to back up your claim that "the developers acknowledge that the village will be polluted 'in excess of significant levels'. as a Google search of the site does not find the phrase.
Better still, why not provide actual evidence of the various claims - there's much talk of nano-particles, incineration of radioactive waste and high death rates in Spondon and yet a stunning lack of facts.
Whilst in some future nirvana, there may not be any waste to dispose of, the fact is that, at the moment, the industrial site being developed off Raynesway ( a long way from Anglers Lane, by the way) WILL produce a lot of waste. Would you rather it was transported by lorry to a landfill site, or disposed of close by in a controlled fashion?

[jenniferbeech]

I certainly can produce the evidence that you require. You will find on page 41 of the developer's Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Report the area that will be polluted in excess of the significance threshold. I also have confirmation from the Council's Pollution Control Department that this is acknowledged to be the case. This area includes hundreds of houses and several schoold and nurseries.

This is the admission of the developers - I am not making it up!

You will also find a map on the same page of the document showing the exact location of the proposed development which is very close to Anglers Lane.

The 'stunning lack of facts' you talk about in your reply regarding nano particles is a very erroneous statement. Many authorites including the Health Protection Agency, The World Health Organisation and COMEAP acknowledge that incineration produces these particles and that these particles are bad. So bad in fact that our Government two weeks ago began an enquiry into their effects so that current legislation can be changed. This is expected to be in June 2010 - See our MP Bob Laxton's letter of objection. So you see, if this incinerator goes ahead as planned, it will be rushed through before our higher authorities can amend the legislation in order to protect us. Science is way ahead of legislation here and the government has acknowledged that. In addition, there is further legislation planned for December 2010 regarding the emissions of dioxins and the harm to health that this can cause. 30 children with birth defects as a result of dioxins in the air in Corby is not a 'stunning lack of fact', it is a tragedy.

Finally, the letter on the planning portal in favour of the application is riddled with error, particularly around emissions being within regulatory levels. The developers states on page 39 that emissions will not breach standards 'by a large margin'. They will be breached, but not by much so they seem to think that this is ok. Probably following the government review, this margin will significantly increase and this will make the statement even more erroneous. In terms of the energy being produced being carbon neutral, this is nonsense. The developers need to purchase carbon trading permits as the amount of carbon dioxide produced will be so huge.

So you see, there is not a 'stunning lack of fact' just the inability or unwillingness of some people to look at all of the facts together.

Please do let me know if you need any more detailed information as doing a google search on random phrases will not return the information that you require.

[spondonian]

I can't find your quote on page 41. I can find the summary on page v: "The model predicted that there would be no exceedences of the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations or relevant Environmental Assessment Levels from IPPC H1 for either the normal operating condition or the abnormaloperating condition. In most instances emissions from the process were unlikely to
have a significant impact on local air quality....
The potential impact on ambient NO2 concentrations at the Spondon AQMA was predicted to be within the 1% significance threshold specified by the Environment
Agency in IPPC H1, in all but the eastern extremities of the AQMA. At these locations, annual average NO2 Process Contributions were predicted to increase by about 0.5 μg m-3, which is marginally above the Environment Agency’s 1%
significance threshold." (my emphasis)

A nano-particle is simply a description of size, the effect on the human body depends on what the particle contains, so just saying that nano-particles are harmful is meaningless.

I presume the Corby case you are trying to tie in is the one resulting from the dismantling of a steelworks? Nothing to do with incineration and whilst there are reports of dioxins being involved, there is mention of lots of other contaminants such as cadmium. A tragedy indeed, but irrelevant to this planning application.

I think you've just proved my contention that you're scare-mongering based on selective interpretation and inclusion of irrelevancies.

[jenniferbeech]

Beware of using the summary statements. The summary is made by the environmental comapny that wrote the report. This company is the sister company of the developer so it is unlikely that the summaries are very impartial. Also, the company that wrote this report, Encia Environmental, is in administration - so that tells you the type of oranisation we are dealing with here.

The emphasis that you are working on is the opinion of the authors of the report who have a vested interest in the development. They depend on people with no technical ability reading the summary statements because they are unable to process the detail themselves.

I'm afraid I work in a more detailed way than simply looking at 'quotes'. I have a very high level engineering degree so I am able to interpret the words on a page perhaps better than some. What page 41 is telling you is that there is a 1% significance threshold and the map on that page shows you where that ends. Elsewhere in the document it talks about the levels outside this zone being insignificant - leaving us to deduce that inside the zone they are significant. If your analysis is correct, this leaves us the believe that the Council's Pollution Control department has got it wrong too as they have confirmed my analysis of the situation. You may think that this is ok if you live outside the zone, but I do not think it is ok to accept that polluting people within the zone is 'insignificant'. This is arrogance beyond belief on the part of the developers. Would they think it insignificant if there home and family were within that zone?
You also point out that the developer acknowledges an increase in pollution within the AQMA. Marginal or significant it matters not - additional pollution within an AQMA is against the policies of the government and the council. Otherwise, what is the point of an AQMA? The very fact that there is an AQMA tells you that the air is alrady polluted in this area above acceptable levels and at the end of 2010 when new regulations come into force, the Celanese pollution will be above regulations also unless they make significant changes to their operation. So, in addition to this benzene pollution, you seem to think it is acceptable to increase dioxins in the area due to the incinerator by another 10% (page 39 - although there is no direct quote - you have to work it out).
Nano particles have been acknowledged by the government to be dangerous and a hazard to health, hence the current review - do you not believe in this either? Is this also irrelevant in your pro-incineration world? I am interested to know what other research you have read alongside the document submitted by the planners?
Perhaps you would like to read the financial statement made by the owners of the technology that Cyclamax intends to use in our village. In it, Waste2Energy Holdings state that their company may never be profitable due to the inherent health risks involved with the processes and the inevitable third party claims that will arise from any installations using that technology. This is written by the company that invented this safe, clean CO2 neutral process! Add to this that Encia are in receivership and it does not instill a lot of faith.
In terms of the Corby case, it does not matter where the dioxins come from. What matters is that they were in the atmosphere and that they caused birth defects. Now, legislation is being changed largely due to that case. Are you really as blind as you seem in your inability to process this information? The government has recognised it so why can't you?
What good do you really believe that this incinerator will bring to our village? It will reduce recycling as it has to burn plastic to operate, pollution control systems can be bypassed, it will emit pollution in the form of nano particles and dioxins in excess of current and planned legislation and it will produce highly toxic material for landfill.
Some of this ash has been used in building materials but this is now likely to cease as it has been exploding on building sites and injuring people. Nasty stuff.
I notice in your reply that you totally ignore my reference to the government review on nano particles and the references to the WHO, HPA and COMEAP. This is not irrelevance but it does not fit in with the biased and erroenous conclusions you are drawing from the Encia statement. I suggest that you widen your reading material before responding.

[jenniferbeech]

One last thing, you mention cadmium in your reply as another pollutant in the Corby case. Please note on page 31 that the developers are not able to tell us what cadmium emissions there will be from the Spondon incinerator, however, a 'modelled' figure has been used. The reason they cannot use a real figure is due to the fact that they have no experience in running these incinerators.

[peterambler]

i notice some person claiming to be an expert on incineration and polution in spondon ,the bit i dont understand is .if i was as clever as he is with degrees .id be proud to put my name up on the site for others to see who i am .people then would sit up and listen .i honestly think and others believe this person is a plant on the site .to play the truth down .or hed be out in the open .and proud . go back to cyclamax .incinerator company get your fee ,you had a chance to come and challenge proffesor paul connett .where were you then ./hiding from the truth /have you no consideration for the children to come in our area and older people already suffering .ill not worry .about your fancy writing ill tell the truth .incinerators wherever they are have caused deaths and cancers to increase .argue with true facts ,;google/incineration .the british goverment ignores the dangers to health ./start there .jenny you carry on your good work .nice to see you care /spondon against cyclamax incinerator /facebook /

[peterambler]

obvious this person has not done much researh from around the world /they want to look at the ones running and the problems around them /is scare mongering telling the truth / thats what jenny is doing / how much has this person really got on true knowledge / hes only been told what the goverment want to hear and not want us to know .they emply proff bridges /the man who worked for tobacco companies .in the 50/60.s who said smoking is harmless that sums it up /i hope this reson who hids his identity .has the courage to come and defend himself at the next public meeting .ill arrange one now and get a professor here at my own expense .so please accept my invitation on here publically and on our face book site for all to see .then we can see you in the true light /spondonian do you accept yes or no peter ambler

[malchall1]

Just a thought but do you know that in 50s cell had their own dump site just off Notts R.D./Derby R.D. no one realy knew what was put there but I was told to never play on what seemed to be waste land wounder why?

[spondonian]

Welcome to the debate, peterambler. I tried to interpret your postings into English but failed. But if you're "accusing" me of claiming to be an expert, I'm not. Just a member of the public trying to establish some facts in the smokescreen of irrelevancies being dragged out here.
Congratulations, jenniferbeech (apparently, according to peterambler, you and I are "hiding"our identity!) on your high level engineering degree. I've only got a low level maths degree, Sunday school certificates and an ISO9001 auditing qualification. Seems that neither of us have any expertise in chemistry or biology so we're even!
"Marginal or significant it matters not" - guess your degree didn't cover statistics then?
I think you need to decide whether this government is to be trusted or not. You place great store on them starting research on nano-particles so presumably you also trust their judgment on nuclear and coal-fired power stations? They also initiated research on microwave dangers of mobile phones, which then concluded that there was no danger, so let's wait for the results before pre-judging, shall we?
I think your response on Corby is telling. You deliberately introduce an irrelevant fact - dismantling steelworks causes health problems - into a debate about incineration and then claim it IS relevant because it includes the word dioxin. Presumably with the same logic, you'd ban water because of the 2004 Asian tsunami?
I guess we can trade selective quotes from the planning submission for some time; if you don't believe them and think their advisers are discredited, why DO you quote them?
For the record, I am not an advocate for incineration in general. I just think that, in this case, it is the least worst solution to the problem that we have now. Waste WILL be created in the new development - disposing of it on site seems to me a better solution than transporting it to landfill. I'll be very happy when the waste is no longer created, even if it means Cyclamax go out of business!
I am reacting mainly to the campaign of disinformation being put around by the opponents of this proposal. Once the campaigners stop peddling lies about what will be processed in the plant and stop quoting irrelevant "facts", I'm happy to leave the decision to the proper authorities.

[jenniferbeech]

Oh dear. You really do not have any idea about this. My engineering qualification does actually qualify me to talk about such matters - it's not all about grease and swarf you know. The fact is, the developers have admitted that the proposed plant will pollute the area above the levels indicated as being safe. Unfortunately, we do have to trust the government and use the legislation they set down because otherwise there would be anarchy. It is up to us, the voting public to push the government who represent us to do the right thing - and that is exactly what has happened with the Corby case and the current review into particulates. You seem happy to sit back, listen to the developers and whine about a government you don't trust. Talking about irrelevancies, what have microwaves got to do with any of this, or the tsunami. Your argument hese shows how silly you really are. My comparison with Corby IS relevant, as evidenced by the new legislation planned for 2010as a result of the case - which will apply to incinerators. It doesn't matter how the dioxins get into the air, dismantling of steelworks or incineration - the fact is, they cross the placenta and maim the unborn child. You will find that this is confirmed by the HPA, the WHO and COMEAP - along with many other agencies.
You raise a good question - I quote the developers because that is all we have to go on, such is the planning procedure. They are proposing the plant and so they have put this document forward. It is up to someone else to produce evidence from the other side. Unfortunately, the system is not such that we automatically get a representative allocated to us so we have to fight this as individuals. We have none of the power or might behind us that the developer has so it is very unhelpful when people begin trading insults with those who are genuinely trying to protect the community.
Malchall1 raises a good point about existing levels of contamination in the area. We already have AQMAs in the area but for some reason, you seem to think that it is ok to pollute the air even more. I think you need to have some consideration for people younger than yourself who have a lifetime in front of them. This pollution if it goes ahead will churn out rubbish into the air for 25 years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You also raise a good point about the waste from the industrial park being disposed of close to source. However, this incinerator is so large that they will actually need to ship waste from miles and miles around as Derby will not produce enough waste to keep it running. This is fact and stated in several documents. This kills your argument for the proximity principle for all the waste other than the tiny amount created by the Raynesway development.
Is it fair for the people of Spondon to inhale pollution from the burning of waste created as far afield as Sheffield? I think not.
Finally, who do you think the 'campaigners' are? I have been involved with this since the end of September. I have not heard anyone 'peddling any lies'. There are a great many people out there with no real expertise trying to interpret information which is deliberately intended to confuse. We also have some very clever people with immense expertise (I do not include myself in this by the way) who have a lot of experience with this type of technology. I appreciate that some people may employ methods that you don't agree with but I for one have always been professional, courteous and respectful of procedure so I take offence to being called a liar.
I sincerely hope that you will come to the neighbourhood forum on the 2nd December to air your views and have a discussion. It is always helpful to have more than one opinion but you really shouldn't stoop to name calling.

[spondonian]

Not working today, jenniferbeeches?
"Is it fair for the people of Spondon to inhale pollution from the burning of waste created as far afield as Sheffield?" - ah, the NIMBY argument beloved by Dorothy Skrytek.
"Whine about a government you don't trust" - I didn't say that, I was suggesting that if you believe the government on one issue (nano-particle research), I presume that YOU also trust them on their power station policy?
"Who do you think the 'campaigners' are"? I don't know. With the honourable exception of yourself (and peterambler) they hide behind anonymity to promulgate lies (nuclear waste, domestic refuse). Feel free to dissociate yourself from them and be careful about the company you keep.
Yes, I do plan to attend the Forum next week. I rarely miss one, I've been campaigning for the overall improvement of Spondon for over 30 years, not just for 2 months. Are you implying that for the first time the protesters will actually use the democratic process instead of just standing outside waving placards?

[jenniferbeech]

I run my own company so I have the luxury of being able to take a time out when I wish. Sadly, it also means that I often have to work very late and at weekends - but that is the price of success eh?!
I sincerely hope that the process will be used correctly. I am not a placard waver, but I also believe that sometimes, people who are are very helpful in bringing issues to the public's attention. At the risk of being irrelevant, look at the plight of Fathers for Justice. No-one really knew about the plight of fathers separated from their children until Batman and Robin climbed onto Buckingham Palace. Now there have been changes in the law pushed through by the more sedate people on the case.

Please do not hold it against me that I have only been involved for 2 months. I have lived in Spondon for 6 years and for 4 of those, I commuted along the hell of the A52 into Nottingham to work. I did not really spend enough time in the village to understand all of the issues. However, in 2007 I had a child and that is why I am so passionate about this particular issue. I am very much a 'live and let live' person, until something threatens the health and wellbeing of my family. Then I become engaged. I now spend most of my time in Spondon and rather than it being a place where my house happens to be, I am very fond of the place and the people. Perhaps I have even smiled at you in the village!
As far as power stations go, I am far too busy working, looking after my toddler and carrying baby number 2 to research that too. I very much doubt that I would like what I found if I did. One step at a time eh?
I think we should channel our energy and work together to be honest. As much fun as it may be bantering over e-mail, only a handful of people actually read this stuff. We are not going to make the blindest bit of difference by doing this in this way. Quite funny really when you think about the passion in this thread.
So Spondonian (I have a suspician that I know you), let's meet on the 2nd. I will be working in Yorkshire during the day but I will do my very very best to be there - although I might be a little bit late. Perhaps we can think of something btween us that is more constructive than this.

[spondonvic]

I look forward to a rational debate on the 2nd

[spondonian]

Perhaps your relative inexperience in Spondon life explains your question that started this thread, as you may be ignorant of the amount of work this guy has put in for Spondon over the decades. But perhaps you should turn the question round and wonder why somebody so committed to the environment and Spondon is NOT against the proposal?
Maybe, like me, he is wondering why we hear so much about what you and your fellow travellers are AGAINST but have nothing about what you are FOR. How do YOU propose to deal with the inevitable waste?