- Energy Answers "International" is in US Virgin Islands.
- Covanta-Dublin is in Luxembourg.
- Covanta bought most of Energy Answers.
All fully legally, and nothing dodgy here whatsoever, at all, at all. Jump Paddy. Jump. Yes Massa.

Added Air Pollution From Poolbeg Incinerator 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”.
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".
___________

Tiny particles from incinerators will reduce your life by up to two years.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
____________________
You can now bargain with the banks for a lower cost pension plan, thanks to Green-FF.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".

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
" .. 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 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:
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,

June 2008 Estimates by British Society for Ecological Medicine using World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines.| |
To: European ParliamentThe 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,

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.
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.
____________

EPA CONTACT:
Linda C. Tuxen, NCEA, ORD (8601D),
E-Mail:tuxen.linda@epa.gov Tel: 202-564-3332; FAX: 202-565-0090
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