Weather
Incinerator petition online (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Incinerator petition online
9:50am Sunday 30th November 2008
Campaigners fighting to throw out controversial plans for a £1bn incinerator on their doorstep want 20,000 residents across south Oxfordshire to sign an online petition.
Action group Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator (SCAI) has set up the petition at www.scai.co.uk to drum up opposition to the waste burner proposed in the village, claiming it could cause harmful pollution.
Oxfordshire County Council, the waste disposal authority, is looking to build an incinerator capable of burning 300,000 tonnes of waste a year, at Sutton Courtenay landfill site, or at Ardley, near Bicester.
The Waste Recycling Group, the company behind the south Oxfordshire facility, will submit its planning application early next year when County Hall will make its decision.
SCAI will also present its petition at the same time. So far 1,400 people have signed online, with another 2,000 names collected on paper.
Father-of-one Callum MacKenzie, of Drayton Road, Sutton Courtenay, has given up his job as an artist to concentrate on the campaign.
He said: “We want people to sign the petition to try and influence the planning councillors next year.
“Signing the petition gives people the chance to go on our website where we’ve put a lot of information on the incinerator together to help them make an informed decision.
“We feel it is crucially important all local residents understand the risks involved with incinerators.”
The campaigners are concerned that no independent study into the health issues involved in incineration has been carried out, and no study is planned on the cumulative health and environmental impact of building an incinerator on a landfill site.
They also claim incineration can cause air pollution up to 12 miles away, and that there alternatives to incineration.
Several hundred people from Appleford signed a petition against the plans, presented to county councillors three months ago.
Mr MacKenzie said: “About 97 per cent of the population of Culham have opposed it and we are currently collating the results for Sutton Courtenay.”
The county council’s head of sustainable development, Chris Cousins, said: "We will of course gladly study the objections raised by local people and are, in any case, obliged to do so as part of the planning process.
“As regards health issues, the county council will rely on the expert bodies with statutory responsibility to advise on the control of emissions and the health effects.
“The appropriate bodies are the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency.
“Currently they advise that incinerators are safe.
“If campaigners believe they have real published and peer reviewed evidence that runs contrary to current advice they must approach the Health Protection Agency and the Environment Agency with that evidence."
didcot@oxfordmail.co.uk
More News stories
- Advice centre under threat
- MP warns cuts threaten help for carers
- Scouting museum gets a new look
- Sailor follows in family footsteps
- Lawyers warn Legal Aid changes will hit poor
- Co-op team digs in at nature reserve
- Brother kicks off Jake’s day
- County rules out NHS funding for homeopathy
- Falcons on show at castle
Your Say YourOxford
Gunslinger, Abingdon says...
4:23pm Sun 30 Nov 08
Same with nuclear power and GM food, there are pros and cons, but very little reasoned discussion.
If you can't win the argument in a rational and reasoned way, just stir up a bit of public fear and latent NIMBYism!
Gunslinger, Abingdon says...
5:44pm Sun 30 Nov 08
Same with nuclear power and GM food, there are pros and cons, but very little reasoned discussion.
If you can't win the argument in a rational and reasoned way, just stir up a bit of public fear and latent NIMBYism!
Loomer, Abingdon says...
8:53pm Sun 30 Nov 08
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
9:28am Mon 1 Dec 08
The above Oxford Mail article reports that Oxfordshire County Council tell the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency abut published peer-reviewed evidence of harm to health.
Studies of infant mortality rates around 63 Japanese incinerators and 27 incinerators in Italy both showed elevated rates of infant deaths in proximity to incinerators. These studies were published in 2004 & 2007 respectively and are cited by me on an earlier Oxford Mail blog & are here again:
J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.
Links
Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan.
Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T.
Department of Technology Assessment and Biostatistics, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Epidemiology:Volume 18(5) SupplSeptember 2007p S125
Infant Mortality in 27 Italian Municipalities With Solid Waste Incinerators (1981-2001)
Bianchi, F; Minichilli, F; Pierini, A; Linzalone, N; Rial, M
CNR National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Epidemiology Unit, Pisa, Italy.
Note the 1st sentence in the conclusion of the Japanese study:
"Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined."
Out of London's 625 electoral wards, only fourteen had zero infant deaths in each of the 6 years 2002-2007. Oxford County Council should check the locations of these 14 "zero" wards as they had minimal exposure to PM2.5 emissions from the incinerators that impact adversely on much of London.
The same 6-year set of London infant mortality data revealed 16 wards where the rate ranged upwards from 11.0 per 1,000 live births and the majority of these wards were in close proximity to the incinerators.
It's no coincidence that industrial PM2.5 air pollution is associated with high rates of infant mortality.
Other countries are opting for plasma gasification of waste, which is about one hundred pounds per tonne cheaper than incineration if health damage costs from incinerator emissions are included in calculations.
More information at www.ukhr.org
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Your sayYour Oxford
Add your comment
Register for a FREE The Oxford Times account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Campaigner Callum MacKenzie
Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Gunslinger, Abingdon says...
4:22pm Sun 30 Nov 08
Same with nuclear power and GM food, there are pros and cons, but very little reasoned discussion.
If you can't win the argument in a rational and reasoned way, just stir up a bit of public fear and latent NIMBYism!