|
|
Opinion
Topic has 202 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 07/04/2009, 12:00 AM
|
GreenBlue
 
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
 ironsmad wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: |
| ironsmad wrote: | Incineration is on its technological death bed.
I agree bluebottle, but its the banksters and in yer face mobsters who as a rule do not give a fig about public health. Profit before people is there way. Bring on the plasma gasification and down with the new world order scum. I still like to have my bin emptied once a week in the summer.
|
|
Most cost effective weekly service is a weekly food waste collection via caddies to anaerobic digesters with power/district heating. This makes both feedstock plasma gasifiers highest for calorifics and output power; and allows for easy high value recycleables to be recovered. It has to be a simple layered CHP approach of treating wet organics, dry residual fuel and profitable dry recyclate. San Francisco has this middle pragmatic way and it works/ is cost effective. Going for all mixed rubbish treatment (landfill/incineration) or full material multi bin separation (zero waste/comprehensive recycling) the other way just doesn't work either way.
|
|
Well it looks like its going that way although my belief its up to each council what bin system is the most effective. Forcing never works well. Weekly Kitchen caddies are a good idea and will gain grassroot support without the EU getting its nose involved.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5110507/Households-could-be-forced-to-collect-food-waste-in-separate-bins-under-EU-plans.html
Many interests are using it as a political football. If weekly food waste initiate came from UKIP ,Daily Mail or Conservative the likes of Dorretta Cock Up would be backing it. I think its that basic. Personally I'm in favour of weekly food waste division and collection because it makes sense, not because the EU have revisited the Biowaste bandwagon. Its the sort of efficient system the Victorians would have brought in like the food collection to piggeries or ash collection to fertilise farmland or reuse in industrial processes.
|
|
Another bin to find space for.................madness roll on the great flood ,won't belong when rats the size\of cats appear on front/back lawns waiting for a their daily feast. Time to get some chickens maybe to eat what ever leftovers.
|
|
Mad, perhaps you need a wormery or maserator next christmas????![Big Smile [:D]](/cs/emoticons/emotion-2.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009, 12:42 AM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GreenBlue wrote: | | ironsmad wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: |
| ironsmad wrote: | Incineration is on its technological death bed.
I agree bluebottle, but its the banksters and in yer face mobsters who as a rule do not give a fig about public health. Profit before people is there way. Bring on the plasma gasification and down with the new world order scum. I still like to have my bin emptied once a week in the summer.
|
|
Most cost effective weekly service is a weekly food waste collection via caddies to anaerobic digesters with power/district heating. This makes both feedstock plasma gasifiers highest for calorifics and output power; and allows for easy high value recycleables to be recovered. It has to be a simple layered CHP approach of treating wet organics, dry residual fuel and profitable dry recyclate. San Francisco has this middle pragmatic way and it works/ is cost effective. Going for all mixed rubbish treatment (landfill/incineration) or full material multi bin separation (zero waste/comprehensive recycling) the other way just doesn't work either way.
|
|
Well it looks like its going that way although my belief its up to each council what bin system is the most effective. Forcing never works well. Weekly Kitchen caddies are a good idea and will gain grassroot support without the EU getting its nose involved.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5110507/Households-could-be-forced-to-collect-food-waste-in-separate-bins-under-EU-plans.html
Many interests are using it as a political football. If weekly food waste initiate came from UKIP ,Daily Mail or Conservative the likes of Dorretta Cock Up would be backing it. I think its that basic. Personally I'm in favour of weekly food waste division and collection because it makes sense, not because the EU have revisited the Biowaste bandwagon. Its the sort of efficient system the Victorians would have brought in like the food collection to piggeries or ash collection to fertilise farmland or reuse in industrial processes.
|
|
Another bin to find space for.................madness roll on the great flood ,won't belong when rats the size\of cats appear on front/back lawns waiting for a their daily feast. Time to get some chickens maybe to eat what ever leftovers.
|
|
Mad, perhaps you need a wormery or maserator next christmas???? |
|
I rather have a maserati..........bright red one.......If I trade in my old ford for two grand (Hi Mandy) will the banksters give me a loan to buy one, interest free???
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009, 9:35 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ironsmad wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: | | ironsmad wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: |
| ironsmad wrote: | Incineration is on its technological death bed.
I agree bluebottle, but its the banksters and in yer face mobsters who as a rule do not give a fig about public health. Profit before people is there way. Bring on the plasma gasification and down with the new world order scum. I still like to have my bin emptied once a week in the summer.
|
|
Most cost effective weekly service is a weekly food waste collection via caddies to anaerobic digesters with power/district heating. This makes both feedstock plasma gasifiers highest for calorifics and output power; and allows for easy high value recycleables to be recovered. It has to be a simple layered CHP approach of treating wet organics, dry residual fuel and profitable dry recyclate. San Francisco has this middle pragmatic way and it works/ is cost effective. Going for all mixed rubbish treatment (landfill/incineration) or full material multi bin separation (zero waste/comprehensive recycling) the other way just doesn't work either way.
|
|
Well it looks like its going that way although my belief its up to each council what bin system is the most effective. Forcing never works well. Weekly Kitchen caddies are a good idea and will gain grassroot support without the EU getting its nose involved.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5110507/Households-could-be-forced-to-collect-food-waste-in-separate-bins-under-EU-plans.html
Many interests are using it as a political football. If weekly food waste initiate came from UKIP ,Daily Mail or Conservative the likes of Dorretta Cock Up would be backing it. I think its that basic. Personally I'm in favour of weekly food waste division and collection because it makes sense, not because the EU have revisited the Biowaste bandwagon. Its the sort of efficient system the Victorians would have brought in like the food collection to piggeries or ash collection to fertilise farmland or reuse in industrial processes.
|
|
Another bin to find space for.................madness roll on the great flood ,won't belong when rats the size\of cats appear on front/back lawns waiting for a their daily feast. Time to get some chickens maybe to eat what ever leftovers.
|
|
Mad, perhaps you need a wormery or maserator next christmas????
|
|
I rather have a maserati..........bright red one.......If I trade in my old ford for two grand (Hi Mandy) will the banksters give me a loan to buy one, interest free???
|
|
Mad, Sure if you ask nicely you might get a free "Bugata Bokashi" from the council, to sort your weekly food waste problem out, very clear, no niffs, zero bio to landfull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10/04/2009, 12:10 PM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/04/2009, 7:47 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this not the same as the Israeli technologies and the Aussies.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11/04/2009, 9:22 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ironsmad wrote: | Is this not the same as the Israeli technologies and the Aussies.
|
|
Mad, its similar, in the fact metals, plastics organics are recovered mechanically, but very different
The Isrealli Arrowbio technique uses water and conveyors to separate, autoclaving uses superheated steam in a long rotating sealed trommel (pressure cooker) to separate, volume reduce, clean and sterilise the black bag waste...magnets the same. Its about even steven on Arrowbio, has its pros/cons.. overall another alternative. Contract B in Kings Lynn has 3 such companies interested offering autoclaving.. including Sterecycle, Singh and VT...so a growing option
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
21/04/2009, 12:57 AM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some a burner is hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
21/04/2009, 6:19 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ironsmad wrote: | For some a burner is hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
21/04/2009, 9:54 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mandy is in love with three things; Money, Brazilian turd picker and the EU mafia/dictatorship. The very desperate folk of Merthyr Tydfil will have a burner, with very few jobs thrown in to suck up with the taff assembly. Built with EU millions (our money) Outsourced construction by yanks for 3rd world workers (more cash in their pockets) oh yeah the locals get lungs full of crap for nowt.........wonderful.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/04/2009, 4:17 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22/04/2009, 4:54 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mad, extract, Marvellous eh?? Basically what's happening. Experts know it that have studied BWS/GWS/ Twin Towers emissions victims
http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/fuelling_the_fire.pdf
"One of the main contentious issues is the degree to which newer incinerators result in less pollution than older facilities. Legislation on pollution limits (WID) in the EU has resulted in a general reduction in air pollution from incinerators, however several outstanding concerns remain.
Nano particles are fast becoming a serious concern in the matter of incineration technologies. There are fewmethods and technologies capable of monitoring particles this small in the new incinerators. Existing research indicates that nanoparticles pose greater risks of toxicity than larger particles such as dioxins. Because of their size, nanoparticles are more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles and are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger sized particles normally cannot. The smaller a particle, the greater its surface area to volume ratio, and the more likely to be toxic.
They can gain access to the blood stream following inhalation or ingestion, and possibly via skin absorption. Once in the blood stream, they can be transported around the body and are taken up by organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system. The most harmful pollutants, dioxins and furans, only have to be measured once every six months and the company is often notified beforehand. UK research found that continuous monitoring of dioxins detected up to eight times more than manual sampling. In spite of the opportunities for incinerator operators to optimise conditions when emission measuring is taking place, breaches of air pollution limits still take place relatively regularly. A so called “state of the art” incinerator run by Indaver in Antwerp, Belgium, was closed down in 2002 because it breached its dioxin limits, releasing dioxin at a rate"
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/04/2009, 6:32 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GreenBlue wrote: | |
Ironmad, yep, think he even did a study. He also wrote/contributed the paper for George Monbiot about 1970's industrial location and the poor health in different communities. He did an child asthma study in SW wales 99% white community. Schools downwind of milford/haven refinery flares/oil power station masses (he uses inhaler counts), upwind/ further north, virtually no child asthmas/inhaler rates. Rossington Bros/villagers, the lads from Bacton terminus with 20x metal (cobalt) blood contents, he represented I gather. Like Cadmium, Cobalt is uncommon/occurs at very low PPM.
Planes: Yes it was Cadmium Sulphate spayingdoing a NBC fall out simulation over a isolated city, Cd being the marker chemical. Cd causes throat/ oesphagus cancer. Norwich was a hotspot, but like Christmas islands or nerve gas on servicemen at Porton Down noone knew the consequences and as top secret meant top secret/ national interest; noone took the rap during a Cold War/ Files get lost in vaults
ADD, ADHD,ODD, Autism - good question- got me wondering prior to the incinerator 2 years ago - Hereditory genetics? Bayer agriproducts(used to be Rhone Poulenc chemical) factory fume emissions/incinerators, oil based pesticides from downwind farmland? Norwich Airport?PCT vaccine policy/coverage? Too much computer gaming/ TV? Es/Perservatives in junk food? DPM from lorry/bus vehicles? Take your pick. All together? Don't think an incinerator near Norwich would have improved things.
Why does Norwich seem to have a greater proportion of population with adult mental disorders Bipolar/Depression re Hellesdon? It makes you think!!
|
|
Combined Heat and Power from waste. Here now but no incineration needed
http://www.green-england.co.uk/site/news?id=WASTE_TO_ELECTRICITY_IS_VIABLE_SAYS_NEW_BRITISH_VENTURE_WASTE2TRICITY
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/04/2009, 11:19 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GreenBlue wrote: | |
Mad, extract, Marvellous eh?? Basically what's happening. Experts know it that have studied BWS/GWS/ Twin Towers emissions victims
http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/fuelling_the_fire.pdf
"One of the main contentious issues is the degree to which newer incinerators result in less pollution than older facilities. Legislation on pollution limits (WID) in the EU has resulted in a general reduction in air pollution from incinerators, however several outstanding concerns remain.
Nano particles are fast becoming a serious concern in the matter of incineration technologies. There are fewmethods and technologies capable of monitoring particles this small in the new incinerators. Existing research indicates that nanoparticles pose greater risks of toxicity than larger particles such as dioxins. Because of their size, nanoparticles are more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles and are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger sized particles normally cannot. The smaller a particle, the greater its surface area to volume ratio, and the more likely to be toxic.
They can gain access to the blood stream following inhalation or ingestion, and possibly via skin absorption. Once in the blood stream, they can be transported around the body and are taken up by organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system. The most harmful pollutants, dioxins and furans, only have to be measured once every six months and the company is often notified beforehand. UK research found that continuous monitoring of dioxins detected up to eight times more than manual sampling. In spite of the opportunities for incinerator operators to optimise conditions when emission measuring is taking place, breaches of air pollution limits still take place relatively regularly. A so called “state of the art” incinerator run by Indaver in Antwerp, Belgium, was closed down in 2002 because it breached its dioxin limits, releasing dioxin at a rate" |
|
None of the studies claims to have found a definitive link between municipal waste incineration and health
problems, and more work on the topic is clearly needed. However, research remains hampered by the fact that
most incinerators are sited in areas with other industrial facilities and in working class areas which already
suffer from higher incidences of health problems due to lifestyle issues, and it is therefore difficult to pinpoint
precise causes and effects.
Here lies the problem lack of good medical evidence .EU banksters and other mandy type creatures don't give crap about normal folk, as long as they pocket fill out of the public purse.
Apart from the waste sector investments, a EUR 60 million investment in 2003 for Cimpor SA cement company
in Portugal also supported the upgrading of three cement plants burning waste tyres,
There is a nasty connection between the above and the faceless Brussels commissioners and the Bilderberg hand-shakers.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
23/04/2009, 6:00 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,598
|
Re: Incinerators & infant mortality rates at electoral ward level
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ironsmad wrote: | | GreenBlue wrote: | |
Mad, extract, Marvellous eh?? Basically what's happening. Experts know it that have studied BWS/GWS/ Twin Towers emissions victims
http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/fuelling_the_fire.pdf
"One of the main contentious issues is the degree to which newer incinerators result in less pollution than older facilities. Legislation on pollution limits (WID) in the EU has resulted in a general reduction in air pollution from incinerators, however several outstanding concerns remain.
Nano particles are fast becoming a serious concern in the matter of incineration technologies. There are fewmethods and technologies capable of monitoring particles this small in the new incinerators. Existing research indicates that nanoparticles pose greater risks of toxicity than larger particles such as dioxins. Because of their size, nanoparticles are more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles and are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger sized particles normally cannot. The smaller a particle, the greater its surface area to volume ratio, and the more likely to be toxic.
They can gain access to the blood stream following inhalation or ingestion, and possibly via skin absorption. Once in the blood stream, they can be transported around the body and are taken up by organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system. The most harmful pollutants, dioxins and furans, only have to be measured once every six months and the company is often notified beforehand. UK research found that continuous monitoring of dioxins detected up to eight times more than manual sampling. In spite of the opportunities for incinerator operators to optimise conditions when emission measuring is taking place, breaches of air pollution limits still take place relatively regularly. A so called “state of the art” incinerator run by Indaver in Antwerp, Belgium, was closed down in 2002 because it breached its dioxin limits, releasing dioxin at a rate"
|
|
None of the studies claims to have found a definitive link between municipal waste incineration and health
problems, and more work on the topic is clearly needed. However, research remains hampered by the fact that
most incinerators are sited in areas with other industrial facilities and in working class areas which already
suffer from higher incidences of health problems due to lifestyle issues, and it is therefore difficult to pinpoint
precise causes and effects.
Here lies the problem lack of good medical evidence .EU banksters and other mandy type creatures don't give crap about normal folk, as long as they pocket fill out of the public purse.
Apart from the waste sector investments, a EUR 60 million investment in 2003 for Cimpor SA cement company
in Portugal also supported the upgrading of three cement plants burning waste tyres,
There is a nasty connection between the above and the faceless Brussells commissioners and the Bilderberg hand-shakers.
|
|
The epidemiological studies are clear and pinpoint incinerators, almost forensically. MSW incinerators affect health!!!. Classic Belgium study of modern incinerator/health biomarkers definatively proved the link, with cancer. There are definitive studies of 40 incinerators in Italy, 60 incinerators in Japan and worse health biomarkers. Last month scientist found 4 microgramme /cu metre levels of fine particles PM2.5 and less caused infant/birth defects (just as an example of one biomarker) in a cohort of 250,000.(big).number crunching for age, gender, race, socio-economics, etc etc..via multi regression etc There these can be measured as signicant whether the incinerator or industry lobbyist wish to hear the studies/epidemiology. Precautionary (Stokholm)Principle should apply.
The EU Waste Incinerator Directive allow incinerators to operate at 10 microgrammes /cu metre levels so regulated levels are twice that which is safe, with no idea/specific measurements of the really tiny stuff. Incinerator operatives commonly run above and are allowed to run outside this limit when running up, running down or non optimimal running like filter bipassing operations, when sub optimal burning is occuring; but the dioxins, total death particles and other pollulants aren 't countered...but locals still breathe them in!!!!
Plasma technology runs at nil dioxin levels and 0.5 microgrammes /cu metre of fine particles... so is the Best Available Technology BAT for 1) Emmissions 2) Converting MSW into something useful with only 0.5% waste to landfill and 3) 65%+ net efficiencies for CHP Power and District Heating (compared to 30% from a steam turbine/CHP incinerator). There is simply not need to spend and waste extra £Bn on incinerators period when the affordable substitute is available!!
More health studies and PM2.5, UFP and nano particle research are indeed needed. Modern incinerators are still experimental technology in this regard. The UK government stopped all health studies on the area in 2004 and prevented them for 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|