24th November 1999

Dear Sir/Madam.

                             Having read your web-site with interest, I have
come to the decision that it is full of miss-informed nonsense put together
by a bunch of industry knockers who have nothing better to do.

      I agree that the new tower will be an eye-sore but it is vital to
ensure the new kiln operates to its full operating specification, both
envoiromently  and production wise.  It is also the best system in the eyes
of the environmental agency.

      Some of the things included in your site are laughable.  If masses of
toxic laden wagons are in your view are going in and out of the works then
there is no hope for the poor workers at the site.  They will properly turn
into mutants within days of the new kiln coming on line.

     Emissions will be far lower than the present 50 year old plant, both
stack emissions and low-level dust emissions that is.  I cannot understand
why there is no sense of trust on your behalf, the days of industry pulling
the wool over the eyes of the public for production purposes has gone.

     If this new kiln is blocked by the miss-informed views you are putting
out then over 200 jobs will go.  This is not management threats but just
common sense.  The plant is 50 years old and it is coming to the end of its
life.

     I have a vested interest in this matter because I have been selected as
one of the five kiln burners on the new kiln and I am currently under-going
a two year training period which includes training in different countries
which all burn alternate fuels with no hassle, including Sweden, who in my
opinion are a very green country.

    I hope the planners listen to the experts and not the amateurs and in
years to come, I hope to prove you all wrong by operating the most advanced
kiln in the world with no dust fall-out and minute emissions for the next 25
years.

yours Sincerely

  Jeff Roden

ps   A nice looking web-site
 

CANK reply
28/11/99
 

Dear Mr Roden,

We were delighted to hear from  somebody who works for Castle Cement, so soon. Please be assured that the issues that concern CANK are all the issues which should concern you and your fellow workers at the site. Nothing would please us more than for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the process and it's emissions ('however state of the art') are safe.

Let's take your various points in turn:

<<a bunch of industry knockers>>
Would you be surprised to learn that  the CANK committee includes: an Environmental Consultant; a Professor of Industrial Science; a chemical engineer; a computer programmer; and a headmaster?
Interesting, also, that two of our most ardent outside supporters both have medical backgrounds:
        Dr van Steenis, whose ceaseless opposition to polluting sites recently helped close down the incinerator at
        Killamarsh (see links page http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/news/99/november/991109ki.htm ).

        Dr Vyvyen Howard, Head of  the Foetal-Toxico Pathology Unit at Liverpool University and recognised authority on
        dioxins.

Both of these gentlemen will be speaking at the Public Meeting at The Beaufort Hotel, near Mold at 7.30pm on Tuesday 30th November

Finally, take a look at our links to other sites/papers. A good many of them have a carefully reasoned, scientific, content.
Others reflect the experiences of ordinary people living near cement kilns burning hazardous waste.
 

<< I agree that the new tower will be an eye-sore>>
Glad you made the point. One only has to look in the direction of the Padeswood stacks from Penyffordd/Penymynydd and
imagine a process structure half as high again and sixty feet square,  to get some idea of the impact it will have!
Landscape architects for Castle and CANK have acknowledged that it will be seen in three counties.

<<the best system in the eyes of the environmental agency.>>
Not a particularly good recommendation in view of their apparent performance at Clitheroe (see Lancashire Telegraph link at  let.html ). Incidentally, the Environment Agency has acknowledged that it does not yet have sufficient information on the Padeswood application.

<<masses of toxic laden wagons are in your view are going in and out of the works>>
Is there any debate about this, the plan is to increase plant output by 50%?  Are you saying that cemfuel is perfectly safe in the event of a crash/leak/spillage? If so, on what scientific basis do you make that claim?
Industrial history is strewn with cases of workers being assured by their managers that they are perfectly safe: silicosis; asbestos; radiation sickness, to name but a few. Remember, the effect of these toxins appears to be long term and cumulative.
 

<<Emissions will be far lower than the present 50 year old plant, both stack emissions and low-level dust emissions that is.>>
Are you sure this is right? Whilst certain emissions will be reduced (SOx & NOx - the products of burning fossil fuels) we have it on good authority that, overall, the opposite is true, particularly allowing for the projected 50% increase in production. It is important to look at emissions OVERALL here, not emissions per tonne.
There is also the added worry that, since the filter system on the new kiln should be more effective than the present system, the particles that still get through would be in the highly dangerous sub PM10 band.
The Oekopol EU Dust Report ( http://www.oekopol.de/) suggests that the majority of particulate emissions would be in this band. ("it is generally assumed by regulating authorities that 95% of the dust emitted with the stack gas has a diameter of
less than 10 µm. ")
 

<<why there is no sense of trust on your behalf,>>
Again,  look at Castle Cement's performance at Clitheroe and also at Padeswood! We are all entitled to ask for proof of Castle's case, and should do so. Please remember we (including you and your family) are breathing the same air.
 

<<If this new kiln is blocked by the miss-informed views you are putting out then over 200 jobs will go.>>
No one wants jobs losses. Even if the kiln is built, there will be a reduction 20 -30 jobs by Castle's own admission.
However,  210 jobs are balanced here against the long term health prospects of tens of thousands of local residents (40,000 in the Buckley area alone), especially the young and the elderly. With so much alarming evidence of dioxin; heavy metal; and particulate emissions, whether from the stack or unauthorised 'trips', all we are seeking is the adoption of 'The Precautionary Principle' here and the siting of such a kiln well away from any population centres.
 

<<I am currently under-going a two year training period which includes training in different countries
which all burn alternate fuels with no hassle, including Sweden, who in my opinion are a very green country.>>
We would certainly like to have information about the Swedish plant (not just the company's publicity material) to learn more. Perhaps you could give us their name and address?
 

<<I hope the planners listen to the experts>>
So do I.The Planning Department have continuously requested further information from Castle and indeed we understand  that information is still awaited.
 

<<the most advanced kiln in the world with no dust fall-out and minute emissions >>
No dust fallout - I thought the projected figure was 160,000 tonnes p.a.?!
Minute Emissions - They will not be minute. However, even minute quantities of dioxins are believed to carry serious long term detrimental health effects.

Experience at Clitheroe tells us that unplanned 'trips' of the system and the consequent venting of toxic emissions, are also a major cause of concern.
 

Remember, you will have heard only one side of the arguement, we are trying to redress the balance.
 

CANK