Comments on: COMEAP report fails peer review http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/06/22/comeap-report-fails-peer-review/ UK Without Incineration Network Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:57:41 +0100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Rob Whittle http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/06/22/comeap-report-fails-peer-review/comment-page-1/#comment-251 Rob Whittle Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:04:12 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1210#comment-251 So essentially what Max states there is a large scientific deficit and lag by COMEAP panel behind the peer review and legally tested US (Pope/Dochery et al) studies/reviews. So Defra's/ HPE policy makers really should be working with the US figures for emissions analyses rather than trudging on with the outdated figure and policy acceptance of incinerators spun for EfW/CHP. So essentially what Max states there is a large scientific deficit and lag by COMEAP panel behind the peer review and legally tested US (Pope/Dochery et al) studies/reviews. So Defra’s/ HPE policy makers really should be working with the US figures for emissions analyses rather than trudging on with the outdated figure and policy acceptance of incinerators spun for EfW/CHP.

]]> By: Max Wallis http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/06/22/comeap-report-fails-peer-review/comment-page-1/#comment-249 Max Wallis Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:37:35 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1210#comment-249 COMEAP admit their report is out of date and make no case for departing from the findings from more thorough and up-to-date analysis in the USA, produced by an expert panel chosen specifically for its breadth of expertise and independence. How can government use this report that's failed its peer review as a basis for policy ? Defra use the 6% figure for cost-benefit analyses of measures to curb traffic or justify technology for abating vehicle pollution. A two or three times higher figure requires stronger action in both respect. COMEAP admit their report is out of date and make no case for departing from the findings from more thorough and up-to-date analysis in the USA, produced by an expert panel chosen specifically for its breadth of expertise and independence. How can government use this report that’s failed its peer review as a basis for policy ?

Defra use the 6% figure for cost-benefit analyses of measures to curb traffic or justify technology for abating vehicle pollution. A two or three times higher figure requires stronger action in both respect.

]]>