Health Risk by Julia Lewis
Families living downwind of incinerators are more at risk from infant death, heart disease, cancer and autism, health researchers claim. Michael Ryan and Dr Dick van Steenis believe babies are more likely to die if they are exposed to fumes from incinerators like the South East London Combined Heat and Power Plant (SELCHPP) in Deptford.
The researchers point to Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures showing infant mortality rates ward by ward. Areas downwind of the incinerator in Landmann Way have an infant mortality rate more than four times that of wards upwind of the plant. ONS figures show that, in wards north-east of SELCHP, infant deaths are 7.1 per 1,000 compared with 0.9 per 1,000 south of the plant.
Findings
They maintain research carried out in the US backs up their findings but that the Government won’t listen to them. Because of the prevailing westerly wind, they claim, areas to the north-east of an incinerator are most affected by dangerous emissions that contain PM2.5 particles – a cocktail of heavy metals small they can be breathed in.
Dr Van Steenis, a retired GP and once adviser to a House of Commons air pollution select committee, said: “There is nothing to screen out PM2.5 particles in the UK and there is no regulation.”
Dr Frederica Perera, professor at New York’s Columbia University and director of Columbia Centre for Children’s Environmental Health, said:“Many studies, including our own, have found that in utero or childhood exposures to PM2.5 particles, or pollutants in the particles, are associated with adverse respiratory health and neuro development in children, and may increase the risk of cancers later on in life. But Chris Smith, of the Government’s Environmental Protection Directorate, said no permit would be issued to an incinerator operator if a health risk was likely. Emissions were tightly controlled under EU limits and incinerators regulated. A spokesman for Environmental Services Association, which represents the waste management industry, said incinerators had to operate to ”extremely high” standards.
Michael Ryan offers the following comments:
This should be of interest to your group and also your local paper, and when you look at the picture of SELCHP incinerator, remember that the premature death rate [Standardised Mortality Ratio] in New Cross electoral ward [home to SELCHP] is the highest in London at SMR=161.
The 2nd-highest SMR in London is Camberwell Green ward [Southwark] which is adjacent to Kings College Hospital incinerator in DEnmark Hill. Across the Thames from SELCHP with SW wind is Custom House ward [Newham] where the SMR=152. Anywhere with SMR greater than one hundred has a higher than average death rate and these SMRs are for deaths under 85 years of age that occurred in the 5-year period 1999-2003 from “all causes” and are available for viewing on the ONS website.
The 625 London wards are shown first & the highest SMR in Enfield Borough is Upper Edmonton at SMR=128 and the next highest is next-door ward Edmonton Green at SMR=127. Edmonton incinerator is in Edmonton Green ward and is very close to boundary with Upper Edmonton.
It must be very annoying for incinerator promoters to find that people are dying prematurely in a consistent and predictable pattern around incinerators and other industrial sources of PM2.5 air pollution when they and their “experts” are telling us that incinerators are safe.
Please feel free to add your comments, below…
Pingback:Plymouth incinerator cancer row · UK Without Incineration Network
The ONS ward figures strategy seems to be a brilliant way around the stranglehold on small area statistics that the government has created.I wonder whether cancer stats are available,or whether they are controlled and owned elsewhere.A common attack on the ward based figures is the confounding variables of poverty,social class etc.etc.Do you have access to professional statisticians (I am not one) that can help with this,especially the trick of using Bayesian smoothing inappropriately, to make true clusters disappear.
Does it occur to you that you are reading into this simplistic analysis just what you want to see, and that the ‘confounding variables’ you refer to actually do have an effect that means attributing the high SMRs solely to the presence of an incinerator is meaningless, or at least not proven by the data? I note that there is reference to ‘ other sources of industrial pollution’ so there appears to be an acceptance that its not incinerators per se that are the problem.
Has “woohoo” a list of confounding variables that he/she knows to be genuine?
If SELCHP emissions have had any effect on infant deaths, then the data for Newham will show an increase after SELCHP started.
When woohoo has looked at the downward trend in infant deaths in Newham prior to SELCHP and the rise after SELCHP started, he/she will have to eat the words in blog posted 22 Feb 2010.
Kirklees Council know very well that emissions from their incinerator cannot be dissociated from the high infant death rates in some electoral wards. Their Geoff Bell tried to bully David Andrews of DISC, and then me. Geoff Bell not so cocky after Big Issue in the North article by Mark Metcalf (26 April -2 May 2010):
http://markwrite.co.uk/Incinerator.htm
which mentions this map:
http://ukhr.org/incineration/kirkleesarea.pdf
and even less if he’s read this Runcorn Weekly News article of 8 July 2010
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn-widnes-news/runcorn-widnes-local-news/2010/07/08/runcorn-facing-suicide-and-infant-mortality-increases-claims-incinerator-researcher-55368-26804926/
Woohoo might care to analyse ONS data at electoral ward level in all of England & Wales for infant death rates. I’ve examined data in around half the electoral wards and have consistently found elevated rates in areas subject to industrial PM2.5 emissions from incinerators, oil refineries, power stations, foundries etc. and low or zero rates in areas with clean air.
Anyone who claims that incinerators don’t harm health is either a liar or a fool as they’ll be unable to provide proof of lack of harm.
Over to you woohoo.
Here’s letter in today’s Shropshire Star:
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/07/20/letter-doesnt-recycling-reduce-need-for-shrewsbury-incinerator/
Letter: Doesn’t recycling reduce need for Shrewsbury incinerator?
Tuesday 20th July 2010, 7:00AM BST.
An artist’s impression of the proposed waste incinerator at Battlefield
Letter: Can anyone explain why Veolia proposes to build an incinerator at Battlefield that needs to burn 90,000 tonnes of waste per year when last year our total rubbish was 77,664 tonnes?
As the incinerator needs to keep going 24/7, of course the remaining rubbish will come from elsewhere – probably “commercial”.
Last week we all received black boxes for recycling plastic bottles; surely this means even less rubbish for landfill?
Veolia has already built a plasma gasification waste plant in the US. These convert rubbish at a very high temperature into glass substances which are then made into bricks, blocks, gravel and paper.
The rest is converted into electricity and liquid fuel. The whole process occurs in containment, so there are no emissions and is extremely cost effective – so much so it is deemed cheaper then landfill.
Veolia claims to reduce its landfill after incineration to just five per cent ash. Incinerators produce 30 per cent ash. Incinerators cause health problems and raise infant mortality rates in nearby areas.
Why on earth aren’t the people of Harlescott and Sundorne coming out in force?
Margaret Bowman
Shrewsbury
**************************
Mark Metcalf wants to do a follow-up article to the Big Issue in the North one about my research. It will be in a different publication and if any group wishes to be involved, they should contact him via his site:
Mark Metcalf sport and human interest writer journalist author …
On this site you will find a small selection of my written work as a journalist, reporter, writer and author. Although I have written extensively for 30 …
http://www.markwrite.co.uk/ – Cached
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Incinerators must be run at the right temperature or they can give off toxic chemicals such as dioxins.
These cause cancer and birth defects. Even the ash incinerators produce is poisonous. The government should do more to stop excess plastic packaging. Just think of all the plastic you get from one trip to the supermarket. If a plastic packaging material cannot be readily recycled then it shouldn’t be allowed to be used. We must leave some natural resources for future generations and we must stop this “bin it and burn it” waste.