Subject: Are we to breathe freely after the next election?
An E-Mail received by CANK

Ask your friendly future MP, county councillor etc seeking your vote:

1) Why is Britain still, and will continue to be, the dirty old man of Europe?

2) Why are we burning our rubbish when there are cheaper and cleaner alternatives?

3) Does the County Council or the waste management firm have the moral and financial responsibility for our
health, should the incinerators cause problems?

4) At school, the pupils are encouraged to recycle and think about the environment, why are we doing the
opposite by the burning of refuse for the next 20+ years?

5) Is it true that the countries who are selling us incinerators are not building them in their own countries?

6) Acid rain caused by the British power stations adversely affected much of mainland Europe, is the same true
for the planned incineration of over 10 million tonnes of refuse per year?

7) The potential risks could be greater than BSE, which took many years to reach the media; we can choose to
be vegetarians to avoid BSE, but we all have to breathe the same air. Is this fair?

8) If elected, would the future MP, county councillor etc like to live in the down wind shadow zone of an
incinerator after reading the Greenpeace web-site?

Why should we?

Good luck with the questions.

Chris Reynell.

Webmaster's Note 1st June 2001:
Members of CANK had the opportunity to meet with Mr Tami several weeks ago, at the beginning of the Election Campaign. At that time, he seemed genuinely concerned to understand the detail of this most important issue. He promised to take a view on the debate, stating that he was never one to 'sit on the fence'.
We were particularly encouraged by this approach, especially after the deafening silence from his predecessor on this matter!
The Webmaster handed him the letter  reproduced below and was promised a response.

Dear Mr Tami,

As a local resident, living some two miles from the Padeswood works, I have an acute interest in the proposed development there and have read widely on the implications installing the new kiln.

You should also be aware that I am responsible for managing the website for CANK (Campaign Against the New Kiln), though I write this in my personal capacity.

I have recently been handed a briefing sheet, produced by Castle Cement to 'keep governement abreast of Castle Cement's activities' and am extremely concerned at the number of misleading or incomplete statements made there.

Specifically:

Cement Industry leads with Climate change Agreement
You will see that Cemfuel is described as a 'substitute liquid fuel'. It has, of course, now been formally defined as hazardous waste by Mr Justice Burnton, following the recent Judicial Review.

North Wales Investment Update
Job Losses
Much bigger employers than Castle are in this area: MBNA and Marks & Spencer Financial Services, each employing several thousand local people, have both stated that they will review their expansion plans if the kiln goes ahead, with the health and welfare of their employees being their primary concern.

Pressure from Local Protestors
It was pressure from the local POPULATION that resulted in the Application being called in with some 25,000 letters; e-mails; and faxes being received by the Welsh Assembly over the days following the granting of planning approval by Flintshire County Council.

Dr Richard Roberts - North Wales Area Public Health Consultant
Judging by his reception at the Inquiry and also at a more recent public meeting to discuss an incinerator proposed for Wrexham, Dr Roberts has no credibility with the local population and is perceived as having firmly aligned himself with the incineration industry.
During the course of the Public Inquiry, it became evident that Dr Roberts had provided local  raw cancer data exclusively to Castle's Health expert. Despite repeated requests, that unedited data has still not been provided to the other Rule 6 parties to the Inquiry.
Hardly the action of an 'independant witness'.

    Cancer Statistics
    Dr Roberts 'statistical evidence' at the Inquiry was based on sampling in a 2km circle about the Padeswood works.
    Dr Vyvyan Howard, CANK's health expert and a renowned toxicologist with an international reputation, questioned Dr
    Roberts' methodology:
    Concentric circle sampling is normally only  used in flat terrain and still conditions where distrbution of pollutants might be
    expected to be fairly uniform. In that event the sample ring would normally be set at 3km and not 2. Had Dr Roberts
    increased his ring even to 2.2km, he would have got a quite different result.
    With the hills surrounding Padeswood and the prevailing, often strong, westerly winds a truer sampling technique would have
    looked  at the incidence of cancers on the windward slopes of the hills surrounding Padeswood. This is what Dr Howard
    looked for and did find an increase in respiratory cancers.
    Far from his conclusions being flawed, as Dr Roberts suggests,  they have been reviewed by Professor Epstein in Chicago
    one of the the world's leading experts in the field of cancer incidence and have been found to be well argued and well
    presented.
    By his own admission, Dr Roberts is not a toxicologist.

New Data Allays Health Fears Over Cemfuel
Dr Morton, author of the report, which he describes as 'work in progress', has expressed surprise that Castle were referring to what is as yet an unpublished document.
You may also be aware that there is great controversy in Clitheroe surrounding the siting of monitors used to derive the data being used in the report. It is the contention of local protestors that the primary monitors have been sited in areas largely unaffected by the plume grounding seen there. Repeated requests to site additional monitors in the most affected areas, for example near the grammar school and local hospital, have been ignored.

Cement kilns provide solution to waste crisis
The briefing quotes the government's Waste Strategy 2000:
'The most common example is cement manufacture where high temperatures and long residence times ensure complete combustion of the waste'
This is a  misleading statement, perpetuated by the cement industry.
Whilst most waste is, indeed, destroyed in the intense heat of the process, elements (heavy metals and halides)  are not. Post kiln, back-boiler temperatures, however, do provide an ideal environment for those halides to react to reform dioxins.
Also ultra-fine particles, now believed to be highly toxic in their own right, are produced and form the ideal substrate on which dangerous heavy metal particles can condense.

Summary
Whilst any move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by industry is to be applauded, this must not be at the expense of the health of the local population.

All truly independant research indicates that there are very real dangers in incinerating hazardous wastes in cement kilns.

Safe hazardous waste incineration and cement production are simply two mutually exclusive processes - their priorities are so different and the sophisticated and extensive abatement processes insisted on for purpose built hazardous waste incinerators are not applied to kilns.

Castle Cement have an appalling record at Padeswood which now has the dubious reputation of being the worst dioxin polluting cement plant in the UK (ENDS Report October 2000)
Castle will doubtless tell you that that is one of the reasons why they want to upgrade their plant.
From the available evidence, that would be rather like a used car salesman recommending that you buy a car with poor brakes because it is better than one with no brakes at all.
It is worth noting that Castle's Ribbledale plant, where Cemfuel has been burned since 1992 is also in the top 30 worst dioxin polluters in the UK (also ENDS Oct 2000)

This is probably the most important issue to have faced the local community for decades and I urge you to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. When you are out canvassing, gauge the level of feeling on this and the proportion of the population, those without a vested interest in Castle Cement, who oppose it.

I am treating this as an open letter to all prospective parliamentary candidates and, as such, will post it on the CANK website (www.cank.org.uk). With your permission, I shall also post your reply.

Will you confirm that you will represent your constituents in the Broughton, Penyffordd, Wrexham, Mold and Buckley areas and oppose the erection of this hazardous waste burning kiln?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,
 

Jonathan Coleman