January 17, 2009

Poolbeg Incinerator - What are Covanta, DCC, Dong, RPS, EPA and Others Hiding?


One Page Summary of Pollution is Withheld

The operators of the proposed waste-to-toxins factory in Dublin Bay do not publish a clear single A4 page summary of the pollution from their incinerator.


Pattern of Not Honestly Answering Questions
Each person you query cynically refers you to another entity in their firewalled organisation and to thousands of pages of a politically compiled "EIS", a perhaps deliberately obfuscated set of documentation. There appears to be a consistent pattern here across people and across entities of deferring the question to others who are never available. This repeated pattern by different people in different organisations is very curious.


Why Is There No Summary?
A clear single page summary could reassure the public and definitively answer concerns on dioxins, CO2, NOx, metallic microparticles, nanoparticles, secondary particulates and the vast range of other currently known pollutants. So why is a clear summary not widely circulated? Does the Tobacco Industry provide any clues?

The lack of a clear summary is a significant and very possibly a deliberate omission or withholding of pertinent and material information. It seems something significant is being hidden. As the promotors have spent at least €20,000,000 of your money on experts and PR there is no credible reason for this cynical decision.


Deliberate Confusion Tactics?
Proposing that Joe-Six-Pack takes hours to search through thousands of pages to find one line item on dioxins amongst highly atomic data and then calculates using nanograms per second to find the annual level of dioxins is less than honest. Such an organisational approach to public concerns is very consistent with the Big Lie methodology.


Does Ireland's Political EPA Protect The Public?
It's also unknown if the supplied numbers posing as "data" have been peer reviewed. Is the EIS "data" as inaccurate as the numbers supplied at the Bord Pleanala hearing? The spin is that the EPA or the glorious HSE will protect the public.

Ireland's EPA is politically compromised and can not be relied on to protect the public. Chromium-6 pollution in Cork harbour is a fine example where the EPA appear to have done nothing beyond issuing a piece of paper. One of the EPA's director's from that time is now employed by the waste-to-toxins industry to promote incineration in Ireland. The EPA and the industry claim there is no conflict of interest here - but perhaps they should read the confidential reports on Anglo-Irish Bank and the Dublin Developer's Autocracy (DDDA)


Gombeen Man Governance Damages Ireland
Anglo-Irish Bank has destroyed Ireland's global reputation for corporate governance by apparently & deliberately withholding pertinent and material information from investors. Recent Irish economic disasters have been caused by Ireland's culture of politically driven organisations run under the control of a small cohort of cross-contaminated, intelligent, managerally-inbred, selve-serving people who seem to specialise in compromised business ethics. They do nothing illegal of course and have developed their art far beyond brown envelopes.


Two Questions
The lack of an A4 summary of public information from a sophisticated organisation raises at least two questions. What are Covanta, Dong, RPS, the developer lead DCC, the politically directed EPA and the rest of the team trying to hide from the public? And why are they apparently following Tobacco Industry Best Practice?


Our Honest Experts Recommend Incinerators.




wastetoenergy, Waste-To-Toxins, The Big Lie, EPA, Covanta Violations Lawsuits Fines Threats, Anglo Irish Bank, Dublin Bay Incinerator, Poolbeg Incinerator, Deadly Particles (PM2.5),

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Terminology has to be correct, microparticles is not a correct edidemiological term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate

Use

Fraction Size range
PM10 (thoracic fraction) <=10 μm
PM2.5 (respirable fraction) <=2.5 μm
PM1 <=1 μm
Ultrafine (UFP or UP) <=0.1 μm


PM10-PM2.5 (coarse fraction) 2.5 μm - 10 μm


Incinerators burning at 850-1000 degrees C emit mainly fine particles between PM3 to PM1; peak volume levels at PM2.2; with much lesser ultrafines/nanoparticles. The temperatures of the furnace combustion have to be much higher 2000C to shift the particle size distribution curve to emit more vapourised like UFPs/nanos; which isn't happening in most furnaces at 850-1000 degrees C.

Keep the particle terminology accurate.

The Galway Tent said...

Thanks for your comment: "peak volume levels at PM2.2;"

The *number* of these dangerous particles is not measured by any authority in Ireland. Instead a somewhat misleading *weight* of PM10s is sometimes published; PM weight & not PM number is used in EU standards (defined by EU political lobby).

The point is:
1) No credible organisation measures and publishes the data for these particles on-line in an effective manner, especially PM2.5 and PM1. There will be no active enforcement.

2) Incinerators are not continuously monitored for 'microparticles' or 'nanoparticles'. Peer reviewed data is not published on the web.

3) EPA Ireland's website does not publish daily data for PM10, PM3, PM 2, PM1 and smaller. This may be for political deniability.

4) Some US newspapers publish daily data. US's EPA also seems to publish data per location/factory.

_____
The following definitions are 'good enough for government work':
A microparticle, aka PM1, is one millionth of a metre (1m*10^-6),or smaller.
A nanoparticle is one billionth of a metre (1m*10^-9), or smaller.

In practice in general conversation 'microparticles' or 'nanoparticles' can be all particles <=10 μm.

It is not written in the bible that citizens have to use insiders language such as 'ultrafine'. That's language appropriate to industry insiders - and generally may just increase the obfuscation quotient for the general public, the goal of DCC for the Poolbeg Incinerator.

admin said...

Incenerator maybe can filter macromolecule, but nanoparticles we don't know? coleman tent

Anonymous said...

I think you'll find that the lack of an A4 sheet that can understood by the public is because a think is impossible, the public are neither chemists or engineers, they are in fact dumb. To explain the information in lay terms would take an A4 sheet for each pollutant, and then several more for the abatement technology.