Incinerator operators are telling  communities threatened with the latest round of waste to energy ‘recycling facilities’ that the
ash produced at these plants is inert.
        Opponents to incineration say that the ash is far from inert and contains extremely dangerous levels of heavy metals which
can leach out into the surrounding soils posing a threat to the water table and food produce. Despite mountains of scientific
evidence on the high metal content of incinerator ash, industrialists have repeatedly claimed it can be use as a hard core for road
building or even in ‘breeze block’ type building materials.
        The ash from the municipal incinerator in the Byker area of Newcastle’s East End has been used for a number of years on
the pathways of local allotments parks and school playing fields. One concerned resident called Communities Against Toxics to
inquire as to whether the ash posed any danger to the people who consumed their home grown, 100% organic produce from
the allotments. Information supplied by CATs to the concerned resident resulted in ash being taken from the Christon Road
Allotment site in South Gosforth for testing. This revealed dangerously high levels of arsenic, mercury and lead, and an
astonishing level of ignorance concerning the ash content within Newcastle City council, Newcastle Health Authority and the
companies operating the incinerator.

        As a consequence of the Christon Road test Newcastle University have drafted in the help of German scientists from the
Hamburg based Ego Laboratories, the second largest laboratory in this field in the world. The scientists are taking samples from
23 allotments across Newcastle and their findings are expected in about 3 months. “There is a lot of public concern and it is
important that the sampling is done in a very scientific way, with information being made available to people” said Dr
Tanja Pless-Mulloli project leader and senior lecturer in public health at the university.

        About 2,000 tonnes of the  ash has been spread over allotments, pathways and bridle paths over the last six years and
some members of the community believe that testing was only done on the initial batch of ash. John Dobson, agency services
manager for the councils Cityworks division said “This ash has been spread since 1993 and nothing at that time suggested there
was anything untoward. The tests will show what is in the ash and if any corrective action is needs to be taken.”

        Newcastle City Council have identified 44 sites in total which have received between 10 and 150 tons of ash. In some
places it is one foot thick.

Also of great concern to the residents of Byker is the fact that the operators of the incinerators have applied to expand the
plant's capacity from 50,000 tonnes per year to 100,000 tonnes which includes 13,000 tonnes of waste tyres in a contract
estimated to be worth £100 million to the two companies concerned Northumbrian Environmental Management and Contract
Heat and Power Ltd., over the next 15 years.

        To fight this scheme local residents have formed the ‘Campaign Against Incineration of Refuse’ (CAIR) who have made
great strides in increasing awareness in the area to the dangers of incineration. They commissioned Alan Watson (Public
Interests Consultants and CATs Technical Committee) to produce a report on the application. Mr Watson
said “There is increasing evidence that exposure to chemicals is affecting the health of large numbers of people. Municipal waste
incinerators are a particularly effective way of generating very large quantities of a huge number of compounds and dispersing
them in to the air and the food chain. “It is not surprising that the public close to incinerator sites are alarmed at the prospect
and concerned about their health and that of their children. The evidence indicates their concerns are well founded.”

        Mr Watson calculated that 800 people would die as a result of the expansion and 1,600 would be hospitalised over the
lifespan of the plant.  When asked about these Council chief Barry Rowlands said “I don’t think they are credible. From advice
from our experts they would seem to be grossly exaggerated.” Councillor Rowlands failed to give any estimate from his experts
as to how many would die or be hospitalised. “It’s all too easy to simply say the figures are exaggerated, but Councillor
Rowlands should back up that statement with actual figures,” said one local resident.”

        Residents of the newly built St Peters Basin, which the incinerator overlooks, have also produced a report outlining their
concerns and pointing out that The British Journal of Cancer reported that people living within 4.6 miles of municipal waste
incinerators have an increased likelihood of developing cancers. The report also says that Newcastle’s East End already has a
20% of long term sickness and that the increase in the capacity of the plant could well tip it over the threshold. Two local
medical practices have written to the council over their patients concerns.

        The proposal to burn 13,000 tonnes of shredded tyres has created outright horror among the residents because of the
known association with the release of cadmium and its connection with stomach cancer.

        Val Barton told ToxCat, “An incinerator like Byker in the middle of a densely populated area would not be given
approval today. All potential dangers need to be addressed.”

        A public meeting held at the Byker Primary School in January saw over 150 concerned citizens listening to presentations
from renowned experts and consultants. Inconsistencies in the presentations of the experts gathered by the council led to vocal
opposition to the plan. Council expert Professor Roy Harrison of Birmingham University admitted he had never spoken to a
public meeting before and then went on to contradict evidence he had given last year to a House of Lords Select Committee.
He maintained “There will not be a significant impact on public health and that the effects of the pollutants were well known.”
His statement also contradicted that of Dr. Trisca Cresswell, director of Public Health of Newcastle and North Tyneside who
said that “a health impact assessment would be require before this issue could be properly debated.”

        Environmental Planning Manager for the Environment Agency John Burns, admitted he had never dealt with an incinerator
application before and then proceeded to undermine the credibility of the Agency by being unable to properly state the
permitted levels of dioxin emissions from an incinerator - underestimating it by over 800,000 times. When his mistake was
pointed out he snapped “whatever it will be it will be within the guidelines.”
        “It makes you worry when an official involved with the planning application has never dealt with one before and then gets
his figures hopelessly wrong” said one resident. “Makes you wonder if the whole thing was going to be rubber stamped before
things came to light over the ash?”
        When asked if the Agency had ever refused an application for an incinerator Mr Burn seemingly either did not hear the
question or declined to answer.

        Another expert, Mr Anton von Santon  (AEA Technology) stressed the need to increase incineration to prevent material
going to landfill but he failed to give any details of alternatives such as elimination, reduction, reuse and recycling.

        Dr. Vyvyan Howard (Liverpool Fetal and Infant Toxico-Pathology Unit) gave an account of the toxicity of the pollutants
emitted by waste incinerators. He said a portion of the population already had too much dioxin in their bodies and the that the
effects, including loss of intelligence, reduced immunity and disruption of hormones, were already measurable in the children of
the most heavily contaminated women.

        Paul Mobbs an Independent Consultant for CAIR drew attention to the inconsistencies of the council experts before
outlining the economic and technical deficiencies of the scheme. He pointed out that the council would be at the forefront of
local authorities; that is those local authorities who would be bankrupt by badly designed incinerator schemes.

        The incinerator produces heat for 2,000 homes in the Byker area. The poorer sections of the community were outraged
when it came to light that they, as residents of the council houses around the incinerator, were paying between £8.50-£11.00
per week, summer and winter, for heating. Non-council house tenants not tied to the incinerator scheme were paying only
about £3.50 per week. “Talk about exploitation of the poorest and weakest!” said one furious council tenant.
        It was also alleged that the council were not being charged to dispose of the rubbish at the incinerator. “We are paying the
price for them to get rid of the rubbish through extortionist heating charges,” said another tenant.

        Ralph Ryder gave a talk to the members at the heart of the CAIR campaign  in February on the experiences of CATs
members and the appalling inefficiency of the regulatory bodies. After his talk a member of the audience came forward to
announce she had contacted the regions Food Safety Officer and officials had taken samples of her allotment produce  from her
freezer to be tested. She had been warned not to eat any food she might have got from the allotment until she had been
notified of the results of tests.

See also:
The Guardian 8th May 2000:Children at risk from poisoned ash on paths
Follow up article in Toxcat May 2000