Comments on: Intelligent comment from BRAIN wrongfoots less than savvy councillor http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/07/31/intelligent-comment-from-brain-wrongfoots-less-than-savvy-councillor/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:29:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob Whittle http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/07/31/intelligent-comment-from-brain-wrongfoots-less-than-savvy-councillor/comment-page-1/#comment-288 Rob Whittle Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:43:11 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1293#comment-288 Nimbyism is when you fail to address or engage an issue locally. Most campaign groups are coming up with a whole raft of creative and credable layered alternative solutions for particular sites such as like for like MBT/AD technology with 2RoCs electricity/heat options; residual reductions such as weekly food waste collections; AD food digesters, Zero Waste recovery parks, or when backs are to the wall on options future plasma technology /Gasplasma for difficult waste. The local common sense, no NIMBY concepts are there; the problem is that leaders like Martin Tett in Bucks, Eddie Alcock in Suffolk are deaf to alternatives, aren't listening or serious about sustainable alternatives or change. They are kamikaze pyromaniacs, period. They continue giving it the EfW/CHP Burner Blah, Blah. Cllr Tett isn't even talking from the same script as his national Conservatives counterparts who are talking local consensus, talking incinerator taxes. Talk about changing perceptions, Tett needs to work on his perceptions. Credit must be given to very intelligent folk in BRAINS and SAVI many profession engineers, scientists, communicators etc who seen the obvious flawed tonnage, cost cracks in the EfW/CHP white elephant burner Tett is wedded too. He is starting to lose coherence and rationale in his debate with the public, BRAINS, SAVI and others. Residual waste tonnage has slumped, business case projections have dropped off/below the radar, future "Modernising Landfill Tax Legislation" in line with other EU counties theatens to to add £37.50 for every tonne of IBA disposed wastefully, without value to landfill and CLO from MBT/AD costs to lanfill finishing look set to reduce. Both IBA and CLO represent serious output tonnages (about a third) of the total residual input tonnages. Cllr Tett, Cllr Alcock I'd be seriously worried about your business cases, projections and sums. http://www2.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53038&section=local_authority On health; Cllr Tett find me one peer reviewed UK epidemiological study (not opinionated reviews) on safe health/biomarkers and proximity to modern incinerators from 2006, indeed since Elliott's concentric study in 2000. There are non. Also Cllr Tett in the HPA Nov 2005 brief 4 page statement; find and specific reference to PM2.5 fine particles from modern incinerators; there are no PM2.5 epidemiological studies or conclusions on these specifically unmonitored emissions. So groups are for from scaremongering; they are stating the precautionary and epidemiological truth. Additionally certain waste companies have been caught spinning untruths by independent watchdogs over safety claims of EfW/CHP; which can never be termed "safe". http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46508.htm ASA seriously dents any "sustainability" or "safe" claims for EfW/CHP burners. Well done BRAINS and SAI - and all those other fantastic campaign groups around the UK. Rob Whittle Vice Chair, NAIL2 Norfolk Nimbyism is when you fail to address or engage an issue locally. Most campaign groups are coming up with a whole raft of creative and credable layered alternative solutions for particular sites such as like for like MBT/AD technology with 2RoCs electricity/heat options; residual reductions such as weekly food waste collections; AD food digesters, Zero Waste recovery parks, or when backs are to the wall on options future plasma technology /Gasplasma for difficult waste. The local common sense, no NIMBY concepts are there; the problem is that leaders like Martin Tett in Bucks, Eddie Alcock in Suffolk are deaf to alternatives, aren’t listening or serious about sustainable alternatives or change. They are kamikaze pyromaniacs, period. They continue giving it the EfW/CHP Burner Blah, Blah. Cllr Tett isn’t even talking from the same script as his national Conservatives counterparts who are talking local consensus, talking incinerator taxes. Talk about changing perceptions, Tett needs to work on his perceptions.

Credit must be given to very intelligent folk in BRAINS and SAVI many profession engineers, scientists, communicators etc who seen the obvious flawed tonnage, cost cracks in the EfW/CHP white elephant burner Tett is wedded too. He is starting to lose coherence and rationale in his debate with the public, BRAINS, SAVI and others. Residual waste tonnage has slumped, business case projections have dropped off/below the radar, future “Modernising Landfill Tax Legislation” in line with other EU counties theatens to to add £37.50 for every tonne of IBA disposed wastefully, without value to landfill and CLO from MBT/AD costs to lanfill finishing look set to reduce. Both IBA and CLO represent serious output tonnages (about a third) of the total residual input tonnages. Cllr Tett, Cllr Alcock I’d be seriously worried about your business cases, projections and sums.

http://www2.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53038&section=local_authority

On health; Cllr Tett find me one peer reviewed UK epidemiological study (not opinionated reviews) on safe health/biomarkers and proximity to modern incinerators from 2006, indeed since Elliott’s concentric study in 2000. There are non. Also Cllr Tett in the HPA Nov 2005 brief 4 page statement; find and specific reference to PM2.5 fine particles from modern incinerators; there are no PM2.5 epidemiological studies or conclusions on these specifically unmonitored emissions. So groups are for from scaremongering; they are stating the precautionary and epidemiological truth.

Additionally certain waste companies have been caught spinning untruths by independent watchdogs over safety claims of EfW/CHP; which can never be termed “safe”.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46508.htm

ASA seriously dents any “sustainability” or “safe” claims for EfW/CHP burners.

Well done BRAINS and SAI – and all those other fantastic campaign groups around the UK.

Rob Whittle
Vice Chair, NAIL2
Norfolk

]]>