May 30, 2008

West Dublin Incinerator

Rathcoole residents promise to fight thermal waste treatment plant plans

LOCAL residents in the Dublin suburb of Rathcoole have vowed to oppose plans by a US waste management company to build a waste treatment plant close to the main N7 route.

A spokesperson for the Rathcoole Community Council said last night that it has serious concerns about the threat that the proposed plant at Behan's Quarry posed to people living in the area.

It follows formal notification issued yesterday by US firm, Energy Answers International, that it will lodge an application for planning permission for the €200 million facility with An Bord Pleanála.

The company was able to bypass seeking planning permission from South Dublin County Council after An Bord Pleanála ruled last December that the project could avail of a fast-track procedure which allows strategic infrastructural developments to avoid requiring planning permission from a local authority.

Energy Answers claims its plant, which it describes as "a resource recovery project", is the first of its kind in Ireland. It will incorporate both mechanical and thermal treatment facilities.

It objects to the term ‘incinerator' used by opponents of the plant, including the Rathcoole Community Council.

It plans to thermally treat 356,000 tons of non-hazardous municipal solid waste each year. The company claims the process will also allow for 10% of the treated waste to be recoverable and recyclable, which can provide electricity for 43,000 homes.

Energy Answers also claims the entire project will be privately financed without the need to seek guarantees of income from local authorities.

However, a spokesperson for Rathcoole Community Council said it was concerned about the company's track record in operating a similar plant in the US.

She also claimed local residents were worried about that prevailing south-west winds would carry any emissions from the plant in the direction of large populations in nearby Rathcoole and Tallaght.

The Rathcoole Community Council has also questioned the need for the facility on the basis that the four Dublin local authorities are supporting a similar controversial project on the Poolbeg peninsula in Ringsend.

The spokesperson said locals were suspicious that the Rathcoole plant could give the Government an excuse not to proceed with the proposed incinerator in Poolbeg.

"It would suit [Minister for the Environment] John Gormley because of the opposition he is facing in his own constituency," she remarked.

It is expected that An Bord Pleanála will hold a public hearing into the matter before making its decision.

Seán McCárthaigh
© Irish Examiner 28.05.08

Does EPA-Ireland Have Any Integrity?

Covanta Alias Is Energy Answers

May 28, 2008

Judge Swoops On Incinerator Bosses

"Fuhgeddaboutit! No really Frankie, you keep the f*#kin' money!"
(AGI) - Naples, 27 May, 2008

Under house-arrest this morning, ordered by the Investigating Magistrate of Naples Court:
  • Andrea Orazio Monaco - Caivano Incinerator Boss;
  • Elpidio Angelino - Giugliano Incinerator Boss;
  • Domenico Ruggiero - Battipaglia Incinerator Boss;
  • Pasquale Moschella - Santa Maria Capua Vetere Incinerator Boss;
  • Silvio Astronomo - Casalduni Incinerator Boss;
  • Alessandro Di Giacomo - Pianodardine Incinerator Boss.



May 27, 2008

New Moscow Incinerator - Health Issues Ignored

Moscow Incinerator, 27 May 2008. By Maria Antonova and Matt Siegel.
Extracts -
Click green-title for original article.

  • Dangerous materials not removed.

  • Public Officials don't understand health issues.

  • What you can not see is dangerous.

Moscow plans to spend $2.5 billion on incineration. Moscow already ranks among the world's most polluted cities.

Much of the opposition centers on the fact that there is no law mandating the removal of dangerous substances, such as batteries or aerosol, prior to incineration. This greatly increases the level of cancer-causing agents like dioxin and mercury.

  • Part of the problem is getting officials to understand the very real public health issues that exist even if the plants look safe.

Visitors expecting a post-apocalyptic hellscape might be surprised if they visit existing incinerators like the one near Lipina's home in Kozhukhovo. A peaceful landscape of trees, fields and hills surrounds the incinerator with its towering smokestack. It is not always what you can see that does the most damage, however. A 2008 study commissioned by

  • the French government concluded that people living downwind of an incinerator are 20 percent more likely to developer cancer than their peers.

May 21, 2008

Monkeys In 20th Century White Suits

County poised for 20 more years of burning garbage

Charleston's Pit of Fire


Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned

Manager Lee Bazzle stands by the furnace where our trash is burned
Stratton Lawrence

Near Spruill Avenue in North Charleston, along the bank of Shipyard Creek, sits a massive, fiery cauldron. After a garbage truck empties the trash can in front of your house, four out of five times it then heads toward Charleston County's incinerator, the only municipal trash-burning facility still operating in South Carolina. Once there, plastic bottles, batteries, candy wrappers, dirty diapers, and banana peels are shoved together into the scorching inferno, reducing their total mass by over two-thirds. The ash that's left (47,000 tons last year) is dumped in the landfill. Much of the mercury, particulate matter, and poisonous dioxins created are captured by activated charcoal and static electricity in an "electrostatic precipitator." But take a not-too-deep breath ... what's not caught blows into the air over Charleston.

"We've been burning trash since the days of the cave man," says Bob Guild, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who's worked on several incinerator cases. "You can dress people up in white outfits and have sophisticated machines, but the bottom line is we're using a technology about as primitive as human culture itself to manage our waste."

Two months ago, the incinerator was all but toast. Due to costs and environmental concerns, Charleston County Council voted to discontinue its use when operator Veolia-Montenay's current contract expired, instead diverting future trash to the Bees Ferry and pending Adams Run landfills. With 80 percent of our garbage currently being burned (230,000 tons each year), that would have meant the rapid growth of our own Mt. Trashmore in West Ashley. Bees Ferry-area homeowners then became upset about a pile of trash potentially as high as the round Holiday Inn. Veolia-Montenay came back with a plan to install a $10 million "bag house" vacuum that would cut mercury emissions by 70 percent and particulate matter in half, and Charleston County's Solid Waste department showed interest.

Councilwoman Colleen Condon now says it's "extremely likely" that they'll go forward with the incinerator, extending Veolia-Montenay's contract for 20 more years, with a possible provision allowing for 10 more in addition to that.

"The agreement we have on principle is very satisfactory to most council members. We just have to fine-tune the details about emissions levels," she says.

Our incinerator currently emits 129 pounds of mercury into the air each year from batteries, light bulbs, and other items that people put in the trash. Only four power plants in the state emit more. Even minute amounts of mercury in our body can effect neurological development, and it's a suspected factor in the autism epidemic. The 2,600 degree temperatures in the furnace also create a prime habitat for the creation of dioxins, among the most toxic chemicals to the human body and environment.

Gregg Varner, the county's director of solid waste, stresses that no renewal agreement has yet been signed and that the current contract doesn't end until 2010, but council's Special Finance Committee will discuss the issue at their May 20 meeting. He says the improvements include a turbine upgrade, which will allow the creation of more electricity from the incineration process. Currently, the "waste-to-energy" plant generates enough to power 7,000 to 10,000 homes, which is used to run the incinerator and provide revenue by selling the excess to North Carolina utility CP&L. Varner also touts a ferrous metal recovery system which will pull metal scraps from the ash pile and allow them to be recycled.

Coinciding with the decision to extend the incinerator's life at least 20 years, County Council has proposed a "Green Ribbon Committee" to explore ways of making the county's operations more environmentally responsible. Councilwoman Condon says that at a recent solid waste public meeting, constituents expressed a desire for a comprehensive strategy to promote recycling and reduce waste.

But the technicalities of the incinerator's contract could actually discourage the active pursuit of that goal. The contract has a minimum tonnage agreement that assures Veolia-Montenay 175,000 tons of garbage each year. The county's cost to incinerate decreases after meeting that goal, creating an economic incentive to burn as much as possible.

Kevin Richardson, a local soil and waste expert and a member of the subcommittee on waste and recycling for the city of Charleston's Green Council, worries that such agreements will preclude future efforts to pick up recycling from businesses, a service currently not offered by the county. Ideas like weighing household trash with a scale on the truck, and charging users accordingly, might also be discouraged.

"I just don't see how burning trash is a good way to manage the situation, especially when there's so many viable alternatives that are good for the environment, people, and business," says Richardson. "I think that within the next 20 years, it'll be common knowledge that burning trash is terrible, so why would we legally bind ourselves to it for 20 years now, when we know it's a bad thing to do?"

Attorney Guild points out that federal cap-and-trade carbon emission laws could also end up costing the county money if imposed during the duration of a binding contract.

"It's a devil's bargain what we do with our waste, because we're inevitably transferring it from one medium to another, whether it's a hole in the ground or into the air," says Guild. "But by the process of incineration, you liberate large volumes of mobile materials into the atmosphere that are hazardous to human health. It's a way of spreading our pollution very broadly to our lungs and environment."

The value of recyclables continues to rise, as does the cost of waste disposal. With the current contract good until 2010, environmentalists like Guild and Richardson hope that council will carefully consider profitable alternatives before fast-tracking the county into 20 more years of burn, baby, burn.

May 16, 2008

Front Companies & Dublin City Council

In the business world, front companies are used to shield the parent company from legal liability.

Front Organisation

See Also

Is Dublin City Council a front organisation?
DCC has used €18 Million in Irish tax-payer money to promote business for foreign corporations.

The tobacco industry claims cigarette smoke is safe.
The incineration industry claims it's pollution particles are safe.
So why hide behind legal firewalls in Luxembourg?

Wikipedia definition: A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization, such as intelligence agencies, criminal organizations, banned organizations, religious or political groups, advocacy groups, or corporations. Front organizations can act for the parent group without the actions being attributed to the parent group.

Many organized crime operations have substantial legitimate businesses, such as building construction companies, trash hauling services, or dock loading enterprises.

May 8, 2008

Dirty Little Secrets

Waste To Toxic Chemicals Industry
greenpeace image

Below From Australian ABC TV

Dirty Little Secrets

4 May 2006
  • Fine particle pollution is estimated to kill nearly a million people each year.
  • The toxic particles are so incredibly small they can slip straight through lung walls into our bloodstream.
  • The ELPI’s readout shows that even when ultrafine numbers are high, their mass is practically zero. They would have gone undetected by the less sophisticated weighing machines used by our governments.
  • So small, are they beyond the reach of government agencies charged with protecting public health?

May 5, 2008

Particles Inside Human Liver

Particles Inside Human Liver Cell

ESEM image of a cancerous tissue of liver
with a living cell containing
nanoparticles in the nucleus

The Field-emission Environmental Scanning Electron-Microscope can detect 10-nanometer Br, Cl and Sb particles.

Tony The Rat

Results by Antonietta M. Gatti indicate:

a- in the presence of metallic nanoparticles (Cobalt), macrophages become unable to mount appropriate defence to bacterial challenge and danger exists of increased susceptibility to infections;

b- the in-vivo tests indicated that metallic nanoparticles (and not the bulk samples) induced rhabdomyosarcoma in rats in 6 months;

c- the clinical samples showed the constant presence of micro and nanoparticles in the tissues with variable chemistry, sometimes directly related to the working place exposure.

Source: Nanopathology : a new vision of the interaction environment-human life

By Antonietta M. Gatti

WHO Reduces Deaths 700% More Than Ireland

WHO Standard Reduces Deaths Seven Times
More Than Newest EU Standard

The Irish EPA approved the Dublin Bay Incinerator in November 2007 using the proposed EU standard for air pollution (25 µg/m3 for PM2.5).

Compared to the EU standard of
25 µg/m3
  • the percentage reduction in deaths from PM2.5 pollution could grow by more than seven times if PM2.5 levels were reduced to 10 µg/m3 .
The World Health Organization standard is 10 µg/m3. In California, where hard cash decides, the standard is 12 µg/m3. Did the Toxic Chemicals EU Lobby in Brussels buy off your MEPs in Brussels to set the reckless EU standard?

Science Paper:

Recent studies have shown that PM2.5 in the air contribute to the premature death of 350,000 people across the European Union every year. []

Will you wheeze into an early grave?

May 2, 2008

F*#kin' Dublin Bay

Dublin Bay Incinerator
From Sean Moore Park

"Fuhgeddaboutit! No really Frankie,
you keep the f*#kin' money!"

EPA: 6,000 violations at Covanta Incinerator in 2 Years

(aka Covanta)

is cited by the EPA with over 6,000 permit violations at its 2,300 tons/day municipal waste incinerator in Indianapolis,Indiana.

Start-Up Date: November 1988
Permit violations: June 1989 to May 1991
Owner & Operator: Ogden Martin Systems of Indianapolis
Pollution Controls: Dry Scrubbers, Baghouse
Boiler Manufacturer: Riley Stoker
Builder: J.A. Jones Construction Company
Air Pollution Controls: Environmental Elements Corporation

EPA counted a total of 6,000 violations of Ogden Martin’s incinerator permit limits during a 2 year period from 1989 to 1991 at Ogden’s incinerator in Indianapolis.

Among the violations: Ogden Martin bypassed their pollution controls - scrubbers and baghouse - 18 to 20 times. Ogden’s incinerator had 27 boiler tube failures within one year.

According to an interview with Jeff Stant, the Executive Director of the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC), the US EPA, the State of Indiana, the City of Indianapolis and HEC, are all currently involved in an official capacity in an enforcement action which is aimed at Ogden Martin’s poorly operated Indianapolis incinerator.

May 1, 2008

Tips For A Dirty Dublin Bomb

May 1, 2008: The US Government "mistakenly" dumped depleted Uranium into an incinerator.

Osama Bin Liner (c) has similar advanced plans lodged in a special purpose offshore entity based in Luxembourg and Surinam. The ConadVantage.

Currently, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, its alleged by others, sends illegal radioactive medical waste to The Balkans (result of a political quid pro quo on statehood). At the Bord Pleanala Hearing the Chief DONG Engineer said they could stop illegal radioactive medical waste activity by asking the drivers for their ID cards! (See hearing transcripts). Homer was impressed.

How To Do A Dirty Bomb Over Dublin.

When you want to send metallic nano-particles over Dublin just dump
Depleted Uranium into the 20th century Dublin Bay Incinerator (depleted Uranium is low in actual radioactivity; the issue is metallic nano-particles causing Gulf War Syndrome).

To see this through Gary Gilmore's eyes, or DCCs, just use the best available technology as per the following article, dated May 1, 2008, from Utah.

Incinerator doesn't want a repeat incident

But skeptics say the plant's changes likely won't boost safety
Do you turn it away? Do you pull off to the side and dump it on the ground, potentially increasing individual exposure by digging through it trying to find the waste that set the alarm off?
- Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District director Nathan Rich, wondering what would happen if instruments did detect depleted uranium in shipments of waste at the Layton incinerator.

The director of the Layton incinerator where Air Force personnel mistakenly burned several pounds of depleted uranium over an eight-month period said his agency is “taking reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure this doesn't happen again.”

But Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District director Nathan Rich lamented it is unlikely that any of those steps could have prevented what occurred over the last year.

Rich said his plant was exploring two modes of additional control on the waste that comes into the incinerator for disposal. He said it was likely the plant would institute a policy requiring all users to sign a document making them responsible for the content of the waste they wanted destroyed. He also said he is exploring the possibility of placing a radiation detector at the plant.

Plant managers say that Hill Air Force Base officers promised ahead of time that there was nothing dangerous in the waste they delivered in eight shipments to the incinerator. As such, Rich said, it is unlikely that requiring further documentation would have prevented the recent burn incidents.
“My understanding is that the base would have filled out the paperwork and said, 'There's nothing hazardous here,' ” he said. “But it might help us with some liability issues.”
And that, Rich said, might prompt incinerator users to think harder about what they are burning.
Rich also wasn't sure that a radiation-detection system would actually identify a small amount of depleted uranium, like that fed into the Layton incinerator. “And even if the radiation detector does go off, then what do you do?” he asked. “Do you turn it away? Do you pull off to the side and dump it on the ground, potentially increasing individual exposure by digging through it trying to find the waste that set the alarm off?”

Brian Moench, co-founder and president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, said he isn't comforted by the steps being taken to prevent further problems of this sort - not only on the part of the incinerator, but also on the part of the military, regulators and government officials.

He said that in addition to an investigation into what went wrong, Utahns need to demand a fundamental shift in the way they think about radioactive waste. “I think the basic misconception that seems to permeate everybody involved in this process is that low levels of nuclear radiation are acceptable,” Moench said. “And they are not acceptable.”