Showing posts with label Dublin Bay Incinerator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dublin Bay Incinerator. Show all posts

August 3, 2010

US Incinerator Corporation Stiffs Ireland - Its "Not Covanta".

Covanta's Spin Department Denies any relationship to Energy Answers International.  

Yeah Right. Go figure.  Join the dots any way you see fit.  

    • Energy Answers "International"  is in US Virgin Islands.
    • Covanta-Dublin is in Luxembourg.
    • Covanta bought most of Energy Answers.


    Energy Answers "International" has just stiffed Ireland for a large sum of money says RTE. 

    Perhaps Covanta's PR company will issue The Big Lie again that Ireland will lose investment from honest US companies if honest waste-to-toxins incineration corporations from the USA are not allowed to dictate to the supine government of the NAMA Republic.  Everyone knows the honest US Embassy does not have humint nor Echelon-intel to blackmail Der Grosse Schiesskerl Aus Offaly, der Biffo.


    Covanta bought most of the waste-to-toxins assets of Energy Answers inside the borders of the USA in 2007.  Though it dreams of Enron, conveniently the remaining shell of Energy Answers with offices in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands has nothing whatsoever to do with Covanta, and is absolutely not a shell company.  Honestly.  Covanta-Dublin registered in offshore Luxembourg is also a fully honest company.  What tax dodge?  What possible evasion of health-effect liabilities?

    An "EX" EPA-Ireland founding-director was paid to consult for or is it lobby-for Energy Answers Intl.  An "EX" EPA-Ireland director was also  paid to consult for or is it lobby-for DCC/RPS/Covanta.  Covanta's PR company seems to be connected to Irish Health Minister Harney.  A 2010 Engineers Ireland report curiously omitted very strong connections by authors to Indaver, to Energy Answers Intl and to Covanta's proposed Poolbeg Incinerator and to RPS/DCC.  

    All fully legally, and nothing dodgy here whatsoever, at all, at all.  Jump Paddy. Jump.  Yes Massa.

    December 10, 2009

    Ringsend Death Risk is 20-80 Times Higher With Poolbeg Incinerator.




    Added Air Pollution From Poolbeg Incinerator 
    May Increase Deaths Twenty To Forty Times.





    Chart: Relative risk of deep vein thrombosis from fine particulate matter.







    Interpretation


    Bord Pleanála acknowledges that the current air pollution burden in Poolbeg from PM-10 air pollution particles is already at the dangerous level of 50 µg/m3.  A Poolbeg Incinerator will increase air pollution above 50 µg/m3, increasing the number of deaths from heart problems and possibly from various cancers.


    For Ringsend/Poolbeg the existing air pollution level causes the risk of death from deep vein thrombosis to be ten to twenty times higher than in a relatively clean-air suburb (see chart: read this science).   Added air pollution from an incinerator will increase the relative death risk towards the 20 to 40 times higher level.


    Politicians have ignored the science, ignored the scientists in Bord Pleanala and EPA-Ireland, recklessly sidelined Health Impact Reports and decided Poolbeg is an excellent location for further toxic air pollution from a Waste-To-Toxics incinerator!  It's a safe bet the politicians did this via the director level political cronies they appointed to Bord Pleanala and in EPA.   


    • Dublin City Council's Poolbeg Sewage Factory is managed by politicians.  A Poolbeg incinerator managed to the same incompetent standard will increase the relative death risk by20 to 40 times (even 80 times).
    • You can not prove air pollution particles have damaged your health.





    Deadliest Particles are Smaller Than PM-10


    The May 2008 Italian research is for PM10 particles.   Governments make sure not to measure the even more deadly PM2.5 and PM1.0 particles.   This is cynical preparation for the "no evidence" excuse used by industry experts, a tobacco industry best-practice.


    The EPA-Ireland website does not list site-specific-sources of deadly PM pollution at Poolbeg.  The EPA-USA has similar data on-line. 

    Footnote:  The Irish Independent reported in early-2009 that the former Ten Year Director of EPA-Ireland had been hired by Covanta/Energy-Answers.  That West Dublin incinerator was cancelled.


    __________________________________________
    Science


    Vol. 168 No. 9, May 12, 2008
    Original Investigation

    Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis

    Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD; Ida Martinelli, MD; Antonella Zanobetti, PhD; Paolo Grillo, MD; Li-Fang Hou, PhD; Pier A. Bertazzi, MD; Pier Mannuccio Mannucci, MD; Joel Schwartz, PhD

    Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(9):920-927

    Result
    Each increase of 10 µg/m3 in PM10 was associated with a 70% increase in
    deep vein thrombosis risk.

    ___________________________________

    The chart demonstrates the observed relationship between the relative risk of DVT and the level of particulate matter of less than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) in the year preceding the diagnosis.

    These results suggest a linear relationship between exposure and risk, though the 95% confidence intervals (shaded areas) are wide at the extremes of exposure. Risk is depicted in comparison with a reference value of 12.0 µg/m3 (minimum observed PM10 level).

    The histogram in the bottom part illustrates the density of exposure distribution for air pollution. 


    Risk estimates are adjusted for age, sex, year of diagnosis, area of residence, body mass index, education, current use of oral contraceptives or hormone therapy, Leiden V or prothrombin mutations, season, and ambient temperature.

    __________________________________________
    Check It Yourself at:    http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/168/9/920



    Reposted December 2009.

    August 1, 2009

    DDDA Governance and ARUP. More Docklands Developers Autocracy Rot?

    What will N.Brennan do about Arup's cross-directorship with the Developers Autocracy?

    A cosmetic resignation from DDDA or Ulster Bank does not suffice to disable the perception of an old-boy network nor the damage to international perceptions.

    • N. O’Sullivan is a director of Arup.
    • N. O’Sullivan is a director of the DDDA.
    • Arup claims DDDA's glass bottle site is fit for humans.
    How will N.Brennan educate the taxpayers about perceptions of DDDA credibiity or of Arup's "independence" now Arup is paid to pronounce on pollution at speculators' sites in Poolbeg?


    Paid-for Arup Spin on €450 Million Ringsend Glass Bottle Site
    Outstanding spin from Arup seems to claim the Ringsend Glass Bottle site lands are in “a satisfactory state” and that space created under(!) car-parking spaces and other services would “create a wide and ventilated physical barrier between polluted lands and the future habitable spaces of the new development“.


    Unpaid Expert Opinion
    Former EPA expert Malcolm Doak warned that 30 per cent methane gas levels exist on the lands and that “a significant gas risk still remains on-site”.


    Paid-for Arup Spin on €350 Million Poolbeg Incinerator
    Arup said the environmental impact statement found the Poolbeg waste-to-toxins incinerator would not significantly impact the environment and "no residual negative impacts are anticipated" from the construction or operation of the plant.

    Unpaid Expert Opinion
    Prof Staines, a medical doctor and academic, said it was "at best careless, and more realistically reckless, to proceed with a major development without considering methods of minimising harm and maximising benefits to the local community" and said the execution of a Health Impact Statement on such projects was common practice internationally.

    In relation to the environmental impact statement, undertaken by Arup Consulting Engineers on behalf of the council, Prof Staines claimed that "in no case is there any serious consideration of the actual impacts of the estimated emissions on people in the local community or on human health".
    ___________


    ______________
    DDDDA has been a poster boy for rampant multi-dimensional conflicts-of-interest. Ex: Seanie and Lar at the Glass Bottle site.

    D
    DDA's newest chairman, N.Brennan, is spun as a governance expert by advertising dependent newspapers. N.Brennan was appointed by Mr J Gormley in a closed-door recruitment process. N.Brennan was a director for Ulster bank when it financed Zoe Developments large Fabrizia site on Sandymount Strand (Zoe now has a negative net value of -€900,000,000, plus or minus an acre of occupied public footpath).

    How can Arup not anticipate any negative impacts given operator Covanta's curious record?

    The Seanie & Lar culture at DDDA-Anglo was the catalyst for the €490,000,000,000 banker bailout and the proving ground for NAMA's €90,000,000,000 developer bailout. Is there any pattern which shows the rampant multi-dimensional conflicts of interest at the €450,000,000 Glass Bottle site will not be repeated at NAMA?


    • Both NAMA and DDDA combine closed-door autocratic control over planning permits.
    • Both NAMA and DDDA have the same executive sponsors - the Galway Tent cartel.
    • NAMA adds closed-door political distortion of property markets for the next 30 years (in violation of core EU Competition Principles).


    See also: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0801/1224251858397.html

    June 19, 2009

    Incinerators Nanoparticles are safe. Trust Us.

    Tiny particles from incinerators will reduce your life by up to two years.

    Nobody understands the science. That's why we have Fianna Fail.

    You can trust your clever politicians to protect you by directing their political appointees, dressed up as scientists, at EPA, Bord Pleanala, and elsewhere.
    _________________
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0610/1224248531633.html

    Expert challenges risk study for incinerator

    LOUISE ROSEINGRAVE

    Wed, Jun 10, 2009

    TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS of nano-particles such as those produced from an incinerator stack can be responsible for exacerbating human health problems including asthma, bronchitis and heart disease, according to a scientific expert who gave evidence on behalf of objectors at a public hearing yesterday.

    Prof C Vyvyan Howard described Indaver Ireland’s risk assessment of possible health problems associated with a proposed toxic waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy in Cork as “simplistic” and “fundamentally flawed”.

    His claims were disputed by Indaver Ireland. Prof Howard, who is in charge of of bioimaging at the University of Ulster, has written and spoken in a variety of forums to draw attention to the threat posed by pollutants to developing foetuses and infants.

    Speaking on behalf of anti-incinerator campaign group Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment at a hearing on the proposed incinerator yesterday, Prof Howard, described as a medically qualified toxico-pathologist, claimed there were airborne particles for which there was no known safe level, and that Indaver Ireland’s risk assessment did not cover the emittance of such particles. “The risk assessment in relation to particles that has been undertaken by Indaver is rather simplistic and appears to ignore the very significant contribution made to particulate burdens made by sulphur dioxide and especially nitrous oxide emissions.”

    Prof Howard said while effects of individual toxins were known, the effects of multiple toxins in the air was unknown, and research into such effects was difficult.

    Indaver Ireland’s risk assessment is based on the effects of individual toxins as per Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards.

    “This approach is fundamentally flawed for those emissions like particles, for which no safe level can be demonstrated,” Prof Howard said.

    Air pollution levels well within legal limits were killing people, he claimed, “especially older people and those with chronic heart and lung ailments”. Children and foetuses were particularly at risk from airborne pollutant particles, as their immune system and lungs were not fully developed, he said.

    “There can be no doubt that children and even the foetus are particularly vulnerable to particle air pollutants, while this has been largely overlooked in setting current standards and controls,” he said.

    He cited a review by scientists Joachim Heinrich and Remy Slama showing fine particle pollutants had been associated with infant mortality, impaired lung function and, less consistently, with sudden infant death syndrome.

    In his report, Prof Howard claimed Indaver had “completely omitted any consideration of secondary particles and their impacts from their assessments”, which he said can account for a major fraction of the particles emitted by incinerators, despite filtration.

    It was claimed that a high proportion of ultra-fine particles emitted through the incineration process evaded filtration systems.

    “The subsequent direct uptake of these respirable particles and the ready transfer from the lungs into the bloodstream may be part of the reason that traditional toxicology is at a loss to explain the level of impacts for such apparently low exposures,” he said.

    An Indaver Ireland spokesman said Prof Howard’s opinion was “at odds” with views of the World Health Organisation, EU and EPA. “Dioxins are all around us every day. Traffic, home heating and agriculture are among the main dioxin contributors. WHO and EU set safe level limits for dioxin emissions, and expert analysis has shown that the proposed development will have a minuscule effect,” the spokesman said.

    The hearing is expected to continue until the end of next week.

    © 2009 The Irish Times

    ____________________

    May 21, 2009

    Green-FF Incinerator Cuts Pension Costs.

    Save On Your Pension Contributions.

    You can now bargain with the banks for a lower cost pension plan, thanks to Green-FF.

    Just vote Green-FF for the Poolbeg Waste-to-Toxins Incinerator so you can worry less about your pension - the incinerator will shorten your pension and your kids' lives by up to two years. Mr Dick Roach more or less confirmed that by dismissing a 2007 Dail question from a Dublin TD. Even experts agree.

    April 23, 2009

    Six Degrees of Separation Or Less, at Poolbeg

    €450,000,000
    €90,000,000,000
    €400,000,000,000
    A Colony Again.

    ___________












    ________________________


    January 29, 2009

    Europe to prosecute Britain for breaking air pollution laws

    Europe to prosecute Britain for breaking air pollution laws

    Environment commissioner begins proceedings for failure to reduce particulate pollution from traffic and industry

    A bus stands in heavy traffic in Trafalgar Square, London

    A bus stands in heavy traffic in Trafalgar Square, London. Photograph: Tim Graham/Getty images

    Europe is prosecuting Britain for consistently breaking air pollution laws and endangering people's health in urban areas.

    Legal proceedings against the government were started today by the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, and could result in unlimited daily fines.

    Britain had been given nearly 10 years by Europe to reduce its levels of the minute, sooty "particulate matter" known as PM10s, which are mainly emitted by industry and traffic.

    But EU documents seen by the Guardian earlier this month showed that Britain had been breaking the regulations, now part of UK law, for three years. More than 20 cities and conurbations were found to have dangerous levels of particulate matter between 2005-7.

    In a statement, the commission said we have "started infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for failing to comply with the EU's air quality standard for dangerous airborne particles known as PM10. These particles can cause asthma, cardiovascular problems, lung cancer and premature death."

    The decision to take Britain to the court of justice will embarrass the government because it has had since 1999 to come up with a plan to reduce PM10 levels, but has failed to do so. All other major EU countries have submitted plans and successfully negotiated a time extension.

    This week the government launched a consultation on the issue, but this was widely seen in Europe as a delaying tactic. The UK has two months to respond to the EU's letter before further action may be taken.

    Dimas showed his exasperation with Britain. "Air pollution has serious impacts on health and compliance with the standards must be our utmost priority. It is essential that where time extensions are not applicable the standards are fully respected."

    Air pollution near many roads in British cities averages well over twice the UN's World Health Organisation maximum recommended level. If Britain is to reduce PM10 levels it will have to substantially reduce traffic congestion, which could mean unpopular congestion charging and low emission zones.

    A spokesman at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The UK, along with other member states, intends to apply for a time extension to meet PM10 air quality limits. Twenty-four out of 27 member states also reported breaches of the limits in 2007. We expect to apply for this extension following a public consultation that began on Tuesday 27 January."

    But Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green party and MEP for the South East, said the move by the commission was a "damning indictment of Labour's aspirations to position itself as having any credibility on the environment at all". And she said it sent a clear signal to ministers who were going ahead with plans to expand Heathrow airport despite concerns that more planes will push pollution levels up even further.

    "Legal action is long overdue," added Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air for London. "This should be a real wake up call to Britain to take air pollution seriously."

    In a coincidence, the government also released data on air quality for 2008, showing that particulate pollution varied from year to year, and while there was a long-term decline, the fall was not fast enough to meet the new limits.

    A Defra report said that "in urban areas, air pollution in 2008 was recorded as moderate or higher on 27 days on average per site, compared with 24 days in 2007, and 59 days in 1993".

    January 20, 2009

    Poolbeg Incinerator - Organisational Deception

    "Naked deception is perfectly legal in Ireland"

    Ireland's legal system, from the point of view of an honest discussion on incineration, is a threat. Ireland's legal system, from the point of view of international investors, is a joke.

    The promoters of the Poolbeg Incinerator seem to be steeped in Ireland's culture of legal deception. Postulated examples of this are here (a). This deception may cause one hundred thousand man-years of reduced life expectancy. There is no way to be sure as the promoters seem to be curious as regards to protecting the public interest.

    An explanation of Ireland's culture of deception is here: Credibility shredded by mess of Anglo Irish. In January 2009 The Financial Times called Ireland a banana republic. The description in 2005 by the New York Times of Dublin as “the Wild West of European finance” was widely revived. The full text is posted in the first comment to this blog posting.


    Submission to Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing
    Poolbeg Incinerator - April 2007.

    ________
    (a) Check all facts yourself and then form your own opinion.

    Dublin Bay Incinerator, Dublin City Council, Poolbeg Incinerator, The Big Lie
    The Big Lie, Dublin City Council, Dublin Bay Incinerator, Poolbeg Incinerator,

    January 19, 2009

    Big Lie Technique – Property Report - Fianna Fail Connection to CBRE

    Did DCC Mislead The Oral Hearing (Poolbeg Incinerator)?





    CBRE presented evidence to the Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing in April 2007. CBRE was paid to present this evidence - a property report- by the promoters of the Poolbeg Incinerator. It appears to be a fairytale, consistent with Big Lie spin:

    1. Hard facts are missing,
    2. DCC obstructs access to data,
    3. CBRE's charts are highly misleading (as a professional researcher would know).

    In August 2008 Senator Shane Ross reported (see blue text below) a significant link between CBRE and Fianna Fail. This begs the question: Is CBRE also a member of the Galway Tent? Feel free to email any insights or corrections to galwaytent@gmail.com


    CBRE And Fianna Fail

    -
    Peter Malone chairs property company, CBRE Gunne.

    CBRE Chairman Peter Malone ticks a few appropriate boxes. He is a well-known hotelier -- not an engineer -- and was the boss of Jurys; but Peter is also a favourite of politicians. Apart from being parachuted into the NRA chair by ministerial patronage, he has served as chairman of semi-state Bord na Mona, was a member of the review body on higher public sector remuneration and chairs property company, CBRE Gunne.

    What is interesting about CBRE Gunne is that they gave Fianna Fail generous donations in 2004 and 2005. The NRA annual report tells you none of this.

    Read more at “M50 directors unmasked” by Shane Ross, Sunday August 31 2008



    Higher Public Sector Remuneration Review


    _____________
    2)
    Phoenix Magazine comments challenge the credibility of the CBRE researcher - the professional who presented the property report under direction of the incinertor promoters.

    " .. the players who peddled the property guff for so long - the banks, developers and estate agents - are in shock. At this point a special mention must go to the likes of Marie Hunt of CBRE ... "
    The Phoenix Magazine, Annual 2008, page 138.


    The Big Lie, Dublin City Council, Dublin Bay Incinerator, Poolbeg Incinerator,

    Big Lie Technique – Property Chart - Incinerator Promoters

    Big Lie Technique – Property Chart

    The promoters of the Poolbeg Incinerator appear to use the Big Lie Technique in public communications, either accidentally or otherwise. This property chart is just one relatively simple example.


    This chart either accidentally, or otherwise, breaks established guidelines for the visual presentation of information.



    Whilst not necessarily designed to be so, the chart is a classic piece of misinformation. This would tend to make the chart consistent with the Big Lie Technique. Having spent €19,000,000 on a team of experts it is reasonable to expect the promoters of the Poolbeg Incinerator checked their contractor’s work and actively approved the chart. Thus any possible claims or excuses of honest mistakes are not really credible. If the promoters are not credible on a relatively simple piece of information how can they be trusted to have fully & professionally evaluated Incineration? How can they be trusted to run a dangerously complex incinerator? Any mistakes when running the incinerator will damage people’s health and shorten each life in the city by months to years.


    Observations such as the following support the view that the chart is consistent with The Big Lie methodology:


    • Misleading: The mixed-up time units on the X axis are unannounced and incredibly misleading. (The red and green lines have been added here in order to highlight the distortion).
    • Withheld/Omitted: Raw data is not proactively provided in the report, nor in any supplements, a minimal professional expectation.
    • Withheld/Omitted (2007): Data is withheld – even after requests. Raw data for the chart is not available, despite repeated requests in 2007.

    • Withheld/Omitted (2008): No raw data was provided in 2008, despite promises made in December 2008. The potential excuse that the data is proprietary no longer applies.

    • Withheld/Omitted: Statistical Corrections for the property bubble
    • Withheld/Omitted: Professional comments on how the property bubble distorts the report (ex: Japan)
    • Withheld/Omitted: The US Census covering a population of 300,000,000 drew directly opposite conclusions to those of the incinerator promoters. This is omitted.

    If the data does not actually exist and can not be provided is the chart actually a lie?

    If the chart is consistent with the Big Lie Technique can the public trust the promoters?

    Is trusting the promoters a bigger risk than trusting Anglo-Irish Bank? The incinerator directly threatens people’s health.


    The Big Lie, Poolbeg Incinerator, Dublin Bay Incinerator, Dublin City Council,

    Incinerator Promoters Credibility is an $8 Billion Question

    Incinerator Promotors vs Anglo-Irish Bank



    Poolbeg Incinerator Promoters Credibility is in Question

    It is difficult to establish how credible the incinerator’s promoters are. Are the promoters of the Poolbeg Incinerator any more credible than the directors of Anglo Irish Bank? Some of the information the promoters have provided to the public, or possibly withheld from the public for whatever reason, combined with other possible elements of The Big Lie Technique do not tend to inspire confidence in the promoter’s credibility.


    Why Credibility Matters

    Anglo Irish has grievously damaged Ireland’s Global Trust Rating. The peers of the incinerator promoters include Anglo Irish Bank, FAS, The EPA, An Board Pleanala, The HSE, The DDDA developer’s autocracy, the NRA, Dublin Port Company and so forth.

    At director level, this group appears to be strongly linked with Fianna Fail. Along with many others this insular group seems to be loosely referred to as the The Galway Tent. The Galway Tent culture associated with some of this group has apparently misdirected national resources for the past eight years, totally wrecking the potential of the economy for perhaps a further ten years.

    Only one view on the Poolbeg Incinerator has been presented to the public at a cost to taxpayers of €19,000,000. The promoter’s reports and claims have not apparently been subjected to any due diligence or peer review by a credible independent authority. The EPA, the HSE and An Bord Pleanala appear to be driven at director level by political appointees of Fianna Fail, so it’s naïve to suggest they are independent enough to robustly protect the public interest. Entities within the incineration industry provide further employment to these director-level public officials, a brass-necked conflict of interest denied by the promoters. The industry has also placed its employees into director level positions at some of these bodies – the poacher becomes policeman. The expensive experts used by the promoters were paid by the promoters, so it’s also naïve to suggest they are independent.

    A monstrous white elephant implemented in the form of an ugly waste-to-toxins factory sitting in Dublin Bay is a fitting monument to the possibly self-serving members of the Galway Tent.

    Trusting the promoters is too big a risk - the Poolbeg incinerator directly threatens people’s health. BSEM and WHO data suggests this is perhaps 100,000 man-years of reduced life expectancy between 2012 to 2027.

    America’s EPA prices a human life at about eight million dollars. Technology is rapidly developing – within 10 year it’s likely that health damage will be traceable directly to the specific signatures of the pollution pumped out by the Poolbeg waste-to-toxins incinerator.

    The financial risk from incineration health claims(a) could exceed the billions in bad-debt write-offs currently hidden from public view at Anglo-Irish Bank.



    Future Court Cases From Traceable Micron Particles: $8 Billion



    Nobody Believed Anglo-Irish Either


    __________________
    a) Financial risk from incineration health claims: For 100 man-years per human life the taxpayer liability is eight thousand million dollars, or $8,000,000,000.
    The Big Lie, Waste-To-Toxins, wastetoenergy, Dublin City Council, Poolbeg Incinerator, Dublin Bay Incinerator,

    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),

    January 15, 2009

    Poolbeg Incinerator Could Cost 100,000 man-years of life it its first 15 years


    An Incinerator at Poolbeg could
    reduce life expectancy by 100,000 man-years.
    That's in its first 15 years (a).



    An incinerator can be modeled as a deadly particles generator. A 70 page report from a credible medical society on the reduced life expectancy caused by incineration and deadly particles(b) is here so you make your own judgments.

    Pollution in east Dublin already exceeds the compromised EU standards and is significantly above the more protective US air quality standards. The Bord Pleanala Inspector's report noted the compromised level of air pollution in Poolbeg is already at or above the EU norms but his actions will have been dictated by the politically appointed directors at Bord Pleanala.

    The submission to the EPA Oral Hearing by a member of the St Patrick's rowing club in Ringsend illustrates concerns on cancer, ill health and premature deaths in a polluted environment. DCC refuses to run a Baseline Health Study for the area and cynically washes its hands by referring all such requests to the less than inspiring Health Service Executive (where nobody washes hands). The EPA Oral Hearing apparently accepted this Big Lie manouver.

    The EPA's directors are political appointees of Fianna Fail - at the EPA it would appear the gamekeepers have turned into poachers, and vice versa. Is the
    politically dominated EPA any more credible than the Developer's Anglo-Irish Bank, the Dublin Developer's Autocracy (DDDA) or the Developer's Irish Financial Regulator?

    In addition to invisible microscopic particles an incinerator in Dublin Bay would pump hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution into the air over Dublin each year. The total volume of waste is actually increased by waste-to-toxins incineration and is not reduced as claimed by industry Big Lies. For example, in addition to toxic ash and hundreds of other compounds, each tonne of waste generates an additional tonne of CO2. This CO2 is pumped up the chimney where it circles the world.

    Big Lie Caution: Dublin City Council has spent €19,000,000 to promote its cynical one-sided case for an Incinerator at Poolbeg. DCC has used multiple Big Lies, including the Big Lie of selective witholding of data, it seems. For instance, DCC has apparently not publicly costed nor quantified the serious health impacts in terms of compromised health and premature deaths - apart from spin such as 'you can not prove that'. This is the Tobacco Industry Big Lie in practice.

    The Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (CHASE) has other useful information.
    The Green-Fianna-Fail government has penalised Corks' citizens by presenting CHASE with a legal bill of €50,000. Contrast this to the €19,000,000 of your money given to the public service patriots in developer-lead Dublin City Council. George Bush would say the DCC fokes are Fair & Balanced.

    __________________________________________


    a)
    Basis: June 2008 Estimates by British Society for Ecological Medicine using World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines.
    Based on a very conservative estimate of the level of increase that would be expected around large incinerators in a population of 250,000.


    There is a reduction of life expectancy of 1.1 years for each 10μg per cubic metre increase in PM2.5 particulates

    The US National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 2.5 particulates was introduced into the USA in 1997 with a mean annual limit of 15μg per cubic metre. This had measurable health benefits.

    b) Deadly particles - see pages 15-16.


    _____________________
    Waste-To-Toxins, wastetoenergy, Deadly Particles (PM2.5), Poolbeg Incinerator, Dublin Bay Incinerator, Dublin City Council, EPA, Bord Pleanala, Health, Deaths, The Big Lie, 

    First posted: January 15, 2009.

    December 16, 2008

    Stop Waste Incineration Petition to European Parliament

    Read The Stop Waste Incineration Petition to European Parliament http://www.petitiononline.com/noburn08/
    ___________________________________________


    View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition


    To: European Parliament

    The European Parliament will vote on the proposal to reclassify incineration as waste recovery.
    This will put burning of waste on the same level as recycling.

    With this petition we invite You to read, and consider the following issues:


    • In terms of pollution, even applying the better available technologies, waste incineration leave in the atmosphere a big deal of seriously health demaging substances like dioxins and microscopic (nano-) particles. Many of this polluters have certain carcinogenic and even genotoxic effects on populations. Other ones have been recognized recently and are still matter of studies in terms of health conditioning. It is not legal to fill European Countries and Citizens with elements we don't know the effect.

    • Lots of scientists, doctors, associations and European Citizens have pronounced against the incineration and have asked the introduction of a moratorium in the building of new plants.

    • “Waste-to-electricity” incinerators, on the other hand, produce more climate-damaging greenhouse gases than a traditional power station.

    • In economical terms, the amount of energy needed to produce new materials is much higher than the one we obtain incinerating the garbage. Re-using them is most convenient in terms of energy saving.

    • The material resources of the land are ending and, unfortunately, we are implied with their exhaustion. After incineration and landfilling we can not make remunerative use of them any more.

    • Redefining incineration as recovery will encourage exports of hundreds of thousands of tons of waste from EU-15 to be burnt in incinerators in central and eastern European states. Some governments are for this very reason vocally opposing the Commission’s proposal.

    • The recycling of one ton of municipal waste saves on average 0.8 tons of CO2-equivalent of greenhouse gases.

    • Recycling creates many more jobs. Ironically, the Commission’s proposals argue that “recycling needs 10,000 tonnes of waste needs up to 250 jobs, compared with 20 to 40 jobs needed if the waste is incinerated and about 10 for landfill”.

    • If incineration is classified as recovery, then there will be much less of an incentive for industry to innovate towards products that avoid waste or are recyclable.

    • This will definitely not be in line with the Commission’s publicized will to promote Europe’s competitiveness and create new jobs.

    • Investments in expensive and large-scale incinerators oblige towns and regions to provide huge amounts of waste for many years, so that the investment pays off. This blocks efforts to reduce or recycle waste.

    Conclusion. The Commission’s proposals, as they stand, would perpetuate the unsustainable and inefficient approach to Europe’s waste problem for many years to come.
    We do not need such an EU waste policy. We need an EU waste prevention and recycling policy that will maximize our resource efficiency and minimize our impacts on the climate.
    We need a policy that would also protect our environment and leave more resources available for the rest of the world and the future generations.



    For all those reasons (and many others), we ask that:


    • Incineration must not be reclassified as recovery.

    • Incineration and landfilling of all waste that can be reused, recycled or composted must be phased out.

    • Effective measures for increased prevention and recycling of waste must be introduced.

    • The EU must push manufacturers to make products more durable, more reusable and more recyclable.

    • EU member states must maintain the prerogative to reject imports of waste for landfilling and incineration.

    • EU structural and cohesion funds must be systematically focused on waste prevention, sorting and recycling.

    Sincerely,

    The Undersigned

    View Current Signatures


    The Stop waste incineration Petition to European Parliament was created by Comitato per Taranto and written by Luigi Oliva (publuigi@gmail.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.
    ==============================================
    Deadly Particles (PM2.5), European Parliament, Lisbon Treaty, Poolbeg Incinerator, Dublin Bay Incinerator

    December 9, 2008

    There Is No Safe Level for Dioxins

    There Is No Safe Level for Dioxins.

    • For certain effects, including subtle behavioral impacts, a “no effect level” has yet to be established. In plain English this epa-speak translates into: There Is No Safe Level for Dioxins.

    • Levels where effects are detectable in humans is considerably smaller than previously estimated before 2004. In plain English this epa-speak translates into: The EPA is saying that current legal standards for 'safe dioxins' are a farce, and the measurements are far too expensive so they are not done except for political spin.

    • Several factors suggest a need to further evaluate the impact of these chemicals on humans at or near current background levels. In plain English this epa-speak translates into: George Bush's EPA Directors have told the EPA Scientists to shut up or be fired.

    Dioxin Effects in Human Populations

    Any increase in dioxins will make people sick.

    EPA estimates that the amount of dioxin found in the tissues of the general human population closely approaches the levels at which adverse effects might be expected to occur.


    The Cancer Risk Is Now Ten Times Higher!

    • This range for cancer risk indicates an about 10-fold higher chance than estimated in EPA’s earlier (1994) draft of this reassessment.


    Children and Other Groups of Concern

    Fetuses, infants, and children may be more sensitive to dioxin exposure because of their rapid growth and development. It is not known if the children in the general population are experiencing adverse effects from dioxin.

    ____________

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Information Sheet 2: Dioxin Reassessment, Scientific Highlights (2004):

    Information Sheet 2: Dioxin Reassessment, Scientific Highlights, Page 4.

    _________

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Information Sheet 1: Summary of the Dioxin Reassessment, (2004):


    EPA CONTACT:

    Linda C. Tuxen, NCEA, ORD (8601D), Washington, DC 20460

    E-Mail:tuxen.linda@epa.gov Tel: 202-564-3332; FAX: 202-565-0090


    _______________
    Be aware that the Bush Administration has fired EPA personnel for being honest - so expect obfuscation in EPA reports. The incineration industry in the USA and in Ireland, including Covanta (USA, Poolbeg & Rathcoole), has hired senior US and Irish EPA employees, so it’s quite possible both the US EPA and the Irish EPA are compromised.

    There is a possibility that EPA-Ireland is totally honest and is not utterly compromised as stated by the Green Party of Ireland's Environment Minister. It is also possible the revolving doors at director level between EPA-Ireland, Indaver, Covanta/Energy Answers and “Independent Consultants” have no effect whatsoever. However for the flying pigs transporting dioxins a “no effect level” has yet to be established.

    __________

    CAUTION: The text is edited for clarity. Interpretations are in blue text. Edited EPA text is in black. See this URL for the original EPA reports. http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=435880

    Poolbeg incinerator, covanta, dioxin