|Government-appointed advisers have endorsed an Environmental Impact Assessment report on an administration plan to build an incinerator to burn Hong Kong’s municipal solid waste.
The government is considering building an incinerator at either Tuen Mun or Shek Kwu Chau, as a way to dispose of waste, because Hong Kong is running out of landfill sites.
The Chairman of the Evironmental Impact Assessment subcommittee, Tsang Kam-lam, said they gave their backing after taking all the scientific evidence into consideration.
The government is facing the threat of a judicial review if it decides to build a waste incinerator on ShekKwu Chau.
The co-owner of a restaurant on Lantau Island, Tom Hope, submitted a formal notice to the Environment Secretary, Edward Yau, and the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, Professor Lam Kwan-sing, saying that if the government goes ahead with the plan, then a judicial review will be launched.
“However, it is the presence of pollutants in the gases emitted from MSWI
chimneys that attracts most concern, and in particular, the presence of dioxins (Box 3) because
they are suspected of causing cancer and are widely distributed throughout the food chain.
Of other air pollutants, acid gases and particulates, for instance, can harm people with respiratory
illnesses. A report from the Department of Health’s Committee on the Medical Effects of Air
Pollution (COMEAP) concluded that PM10 pollution from all urban sources hastens (‘brings
forward’) 8,100 deaths/yr, and increases or brings forward hospital admissions by 10,500/yr.”
Parliamentary Copyright 2000
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 7 Millbank,
London SW1P 3JA, tel:  7219 2840.
See also www.parliament.uk/post/home.htm
Download PDF : pn149
AbstractObjective—In the area of Malagrotta, asuburb of Rome (Italy), a large waste disposalsite, a waste incinerator plant, andan oil refinery plant became operationalin the early 1960s and have representedthree major sources of air pollution. Toevaluate the potential health risk due toairborne contamination around thesepoint sources, a small area analysis ofmortality was conducted. Cancer of theliver, larynx, lung, kidney, lymphatic, andhaematopoietic systems were evaluated.Methods—Sex and age specific mortality(1987–93) and population denominators(1991) were available for the census tractsof the metropolitan area of Rome. Standardisedmortality ratios (SMRs) werecomputed separately for males and femalesin bands of increasing distancefrom the plants, up to a radius of 10 km.Stone’s test for the decline in risk withdistance was performed with incrementsin radius of 1 km; SMRs were alsocomputed after adjusting for a four levelindex of socioeconomic status.Results—No overall excess or decline inrisk with distance was found for liver,lung, and lymphohaematopoietic cancersin either sex. For laryngeal cancer, anincreased but not significant risk wasfound at 0–3 km and at 3–8 km. Asignificant decline with distance inmortality from laryngeal cancer wasfound among men (p=0.03); the trendremained after adjusting for thesocioeconomic index (p=0.06).Conclusions—The study showed no associationbetween proximity to the industrialsites and mortality for most of theseveral conditions considered. However,mortality from laryngeal cancer declinedwith distance from the sources of pollution.This result is interesting, as previousfindings of an increased risk of laryngealcancer near incinerators have been controversial.(Occup Environ Med 1998;55:611–615)Keywords: environmental epidemiology; waste disposal;small area analysis
Download PDF : v055p00611
INCINERATORS – WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?by Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBSSummary of paper at the RIBA Conference 31st Jan – 2nd Feb 2005Presented on 31 January 2005 – RIBA, London.HISTORICAL AND THE TAXPAYER.1853 Dr, John Snow proves cholera from Broard St pump not “ODOURS” (used by EA 1996-) 1920s & 1930s Rockerfeller runs Standard Oil = Exxon (some capital from Rothchild Bank) and buys American Cancer Soc and invests in eugenics (cold Spring Harbour) & IG Farben etc.1943 U.S. War Office told PM1s most lethal to man & effects through body1980-1989 Pollution studies of 550000 people (Dockery & Pope etc)1990-1996 Experiments on rats; dogs & humans prove PM2.5 critical size & pathology.1997 USEPA PM2.5 rule. Prosecutions 2000& 2001 (following Health Effects Inst report May 2000& Death Disease & Dirty Power report Oct 2000) of 10 power co, 6 oil co & steel co.Sept 2003 White House Report shows savings of $193BN from PM2.5 cleanup relating to just hospital savings 7 and days off work savings, clearly mostly since 1997 rule, & 7 times investment cost.Okopol report 1999 & USEPA both agree spend £1 save £6 NHS £4 Social costs.Compare UK health probably best 1994 but downhill under Blair/Prescott with 2000 IPPC downgrading of BAT to anything will do, just maximise profit.Councils to be charged later 2005 £150 /ton for landfill without quotas. Also unlimited imports of hazardous waste mixed as “fuel” plus imported current radioactive medium grade hazardous waste.Much radioactive waste incinerated by 34incin England/Wales eg Grundon,Colnbrook (1990-)Industry largely controls UK. Committee members in pay of Glaxo etc Govt. lobbyist’s rule roost.Wyeth/ ABPI control health and vaccine programs, Govt. mandates so drug co. freed of much litigation. Selenium etc. to be banned 2005. Govt& industry control Guys PU now Health Protection Agency, who advise public health drs.& PCTs. Their “knowledge” is at least 70 years out of date. Birth defect data and cancer registers have been fraudulently massaged down and real causes of death altered. So-called studies are often fraudulent by fiddling data, dates, areas or controls, and omitting key references. Govt.check and censor media & UK medical & scientific journals. Truth is hidden, only is spin allowed. Subsidy of BP /AMOCO Oil Co. set up FoE c.1973 to protect oil cartel etc.& to control action groups (3x£2000pa each) = £64200 of £8.1m income 2002. Patient “charities” are mostly controlled by drug co. donors and refuse to look at causes of the illness they use to collect money. Blair gave judges £1.5 million each pension fund (?for loyalty), Blair’s pal Hodge runs Legal Aid, and Solicitors have been bribed to loose cases. NHS Whistle blowers have been sacked or suspended.Result £46Bn spent on NHS 1996 risen to £87bn 2005 meaning £27bn above inflation with only 1.5% extra output meaning £26bn extra costs from pollution & “Tony’s cronies” on top of previous £18bn ie £40bn minimal pollution cost of which 75% can be sorted readily so £30bn savings easily done including disbanding corrupt committees/quangos. Invalidity benefit is now paid to 3% of population in parts of West Berkshire & Northern Hampshire relatively less polluted compared with Merthyr Tydfil & 40% above Port Talbot as more polluted areas.Particle average sizes emitted from burning coal are alkaline PM5, heavy oils acidic PM2, orimulsion & waste mixes PM1. Only smaller than PM3 enters lungs. 90% of PM1 retained in lungs. Hence UK Govt. only measures PM10 down to PM4 in monitors – totally irrelevant. At the new Grundon incinerators (Colnbrook) there will be no monitoring of PM2.5s, radioactivity or after first year dioxins. Power stations and oil refineries have unlimited emissions, cement works virtually the same and incinerators unlimited PM2.5 & PAHsat least. Even trains are burning very substandard fuels thanks to the Rail Regulator until 2011 without emission controls.Only proper long-term study of health from incinerator was at St. Niklaas 2001 which was officially within EC directive but closed by judge in court due to deaths and illnesses. Av. 12 years was taken off lifespan. Cancer incidence rose 480% on top of Belgian national increase. Slough had SMR 88 in 1990. After 5 years of Grundon (plus it appears CHP Slough & ??previous clinical waste hosp. Incinerator) SMR rose to 122 equal to 11years off lifespan by 1995 and SMR121 in 2001. This meant cull of population especially in 50’s.Health effects found as expected around chimney (2miles) & downwind (highest rate 7miles per 100ft chimney, total spread PM2.5s over 28miles per 100ft., PM1s can be blown as far as Russia causing dimming of sun. Further health damage has occurred within 3 mile radius of hazardous waste site where incinerator fly-ash is dumped. One example is by Bishops Cleeve (Cheltenham) where radioactive flyash is dumped from Colnbrook & Bolton plus hazardous flyash from 3 other incinerators without current liner with cancer of ovary in two 30-year olds & another SADS victim noted recently.PM2.5s set up inflammation in lungs, are handled by magrophages & T-Lymphocytes. Excess or insoluble items walled off (fibrosis leading to COPD) soluble items travel by bloodstream. PAHs & heavy metals are amongst worst affecting heart & causing mutations of DNA.TOTAL EFFECTS INCLUDEBirth defects—– terminations, live defects, miscarriages. See McMaster experiment 2004Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults.T-lymphocyte diversion/depletion causes SIDS, cot deaths, autism, MS, AIDS, GBS, Attention Deficit Disorder & Behaviour problems.Lower IQ & educational achievement eg 1or 2 classes down, worse GCSE grades.Asthma, COPD, viral & other respiratory or other infections (85% younger boys)Coronary artery disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADSDiabetes 2 (and sometimes diabetes 1 ) — massive rise in the UK under Tony.Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies and arthritis.ME ( gasses affect P450 & Y-lyphocyte diversion) and CFSClinical depression. (9x rise Pembs), prison suicides), apathy,. Part of obesity problem.Hypothyroidism (part of the obesity problem under Tony)Endometeiosis & other hormones disrupted.Cancers——— leukaemias, nonhodgkins lymphoma, brain, breast, colon, lung, bladder, kidney, liver.For childhood cancers see the Knox report Jan 2005 and Perera et.al report July 2004.Cancer incidence has reached some 80% of deaths in Pembroke downwind of oil complex.PROTECTION MEASURES.Campaign & pray for revival with return of morality.Take selected public health directors to GMC for breaches of duty & fraud.Move house to a less polluted zone.Install HEPA filter in home.Avoid pesticides and fluoridated water as much as possible as cocktail effects.Take added selenium, zinc, coenzyme Q10 and vitamins C & B6Public Health Directors have orders from the GMC to protect the public, know their subject, keep up to date, listen to patients and colleagues, and be prepared to justify every sentence of documents signed by them. The Public health director at Slough like many of his fellow directors are in breach of these rules, instead of signing warrant for unlawful killing.
South China Morning Post – 31 Dec. 2011
Residents and environmentalists opposing the construction of a super incinerator off Lantau have been dealt a blow after the government’s environmental advisory body officially endorsed the plan yesterday.
However, the endorsement has fuelled momentum for a looming legal challenge against the massive project to be built on 16 hectares of reclaimed land at Shek Kwu Chau, an island south of Lantau that for many years has housed a drug rehabilitation centre.
A retired solicitor and Lantau Island restaurant owner yesterday said he would seek a judicial review of the decision if the government continued to push ahead with their original plan to build the incinerator, which will be able to process 3,000 tonnes of rubbish a day.
The threat came as the Advisory Council on the Environment yesterday approved the multibillion-dollar project at a meeting yesterday, which means the authorities can proceed with the project if funding is approved by the Legislative Council.
As the meeting took place, about 50 opponents of the project staged a noisy protest outside.
It was the second attempt by the Environmental Protection Department to push through the project in the advisory body, after sidelining it during a court case relating to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge project earlier this year.
Environmentalists and other opponents to the project say the super incinerator, as one of the largest and most expensive of its kind in the world, is not the best option for waste management and would pose a threat to marine life in the area. The project will cost between HK$8 billion and HK$13 billion.
Eddie Tse, a member of the alliance opposing the incinerator, criticised the advisory council yesterday for hastily approving the project at a closed-door meeting.
Following the endorsement, which includes an option to build the facility in Tuen Mun, the EPD will finalise the plan and table it in the Legislative Council to seek funding.
Advisory council member Tsang Kam-lam said yesterday that the environmental assessment report so far had shown that the project would not harm its surroundings. He also admitted that some members preferred Tuen Mun as a location.
Tom Hope, who manages a restaurant at Cheung Sha Beach, said yesterday he and others would launch a judicial review if the government proceeds with the incinerator on the grounds that it has not adequately explored the best technology for waste management.
Hope yesterday sent a formal notice to the Secretary for Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and members of the advisory council.
The Environmental Protection Department declined to comment on any legal challenge.
David Williams, 6, from Lantau, reads protesters’ banners opposing the planned rubbish incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Community Campaign Stops Proposed Incinerator In Western Australia
Australia – The Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) is celebrating their win in convincing the WA Government that it should not approve incinerator technologies for the Eastern Region of Perth, Western Australia.
The East Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) had submitted four potential incinerator technologies to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of their proposed Resource Recovery Facility. The EMRC have now withdrawn them from the assessment process.
“This is a real success story. This regional council has been promoting incineration for 11 years, one of the longest community engagement processes I have ever been involved in!” exclaimed ACE Coordinator and Spokesperson Jane Bremmer. “Although the fight is not over yet as Kwinana and Canning Vale are also considering incineration technologies, we are confident that the EPA will also reject other proposals in WA, as it has done in the eastern region, based on the convincing, common sense arguments we have provided to them,” she added.
“We couldn’t have done it without the expertise and support of Dr. Paul Connett, an internationallyrecognised waste expert who was kindly funded to come to WA by the National Toxics Network (NTN). We are all proud participants of the International POPs Elimination Network working towards a toxic free future.”
“This was a strong grassroots campaign and just goes to show that people power is still alive and well in Australia,” Stated Jane Bremmer.
For more information, visit www.ace-wa.org, or contact Jane Bremmer at 0432 041 397.
GAIA’s comments on the CDM-backed incinerator in Jiangsu Kunshan, China
Friends of Nature’s comments on the CDM-backed incinerator in West Qinhuangdao, China
GAIA’s comments on the CDM-backed incinerator in Chengdu Jiujiang, China
Protest walk against Davyhulme Incinerator was organized by the Breathe Clean Air Group (BCAG, UK). The activity is also part of the “2011 Global Day of Action Against Waste and Incineration.”
URMSTON’S Breathe Clean Air Group is planning a protest march on October 1 to coincide with a global day of action against waste and incineration.
The city government officials of the southern Dalmatian town Kastel Sucurac, environmental activists and some residents have protested against the permission given to cement company Cemex to burn allegedly harmful wooden railway sleepers in their town.
30 DECEMBER 2011 : Formal notice was today issued that the Government will face a judicial review of its proposal to build a mass-burn super-incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau island if endorsed by the Advisory Council on Environment (ACE) at its committee meeting today without further and fuller investigation of issues raised by objectors to the project.
The notice, sent today by email to Secretary for Environment Edward Yau and ACE chairman Professor Lam Kwan-Sing, and copied to the Chief Executive office, references correspondence sent by objectors to the Environment Protection Bureau and ACE over the last month identifying substantive and procedural defects in the decision making process to date and then states:
‘The EPD response and/or lack thereof [to the objector correspondence to date] is unsatisfactory and under all the circumstances manifestly unreasonable.’
The notice continues:
‘Please therefore treat this email as formal notice that if ACE issues an endorsement of EPD’s proposal as it now stands without further and fuller investigation of the alternative technologies and locations described in the objector correspondence, I and other like-minded persons intend to apply for judicial review of that decision and of any consequential final decisions of Government in relation to this project.
Such application must be initiated within 3 months of the relevant decision(s) and will in this instance be accompanied by consequential applications for suspension of the project pending the outcome of the judicial review, together with any other remedies or reliefs.’
The notice was authored by retired Hong Kong solicitor Tom Hope, whose ‘High Tide’ restaurant on Cheung Sha beach will be directly impacted by the proposed project.
Elaborating on what appears in the notice, Mr Hope said: ‘Substantive defects in the Government proposal include its declaration to ACE that the technology proposed for the super incinerator is the ‘best available’ when it is clear from the objector correspondence that this is not so. There are also procedural defects such as the failure to consult the Hong Kong public on a sufficiently broad and informed basis.’
Mr Hope added: ‘When I practised in Hong Kong as a partner in the international law firm Linklaters, I oversaw judicial review of HK Government decision-making which went to a court trial lasting several weeks. In the present circumstances, I have every reason to be confident of success should it prove necessary to maintain an action for judicial review.’
For press enquiries, contact Tom Hope on 65710962 or by email firstname.lastname@example.org.
To EPD c/o Edward Yau, Anissa Wong and Elvis Au
To Aecom c/o Echo Leong
To all ACE members c/o chairman + secretariat
cc. HK Chief Executive office
EPD PROPOSAL FOR MASS BURN INCINERATOR IWMF AT SHEK KWU CHAU
I write with reference to the coming meeting of ACE on 30 December (today) at which I understand EPD’s proposal for the referenced project will be reviewed by ACE who will then be asked by EPD to issue a formal endorsement.
I also make reference to correspondence from myself and others objecting to this proposal filed with EPD, Aecom and ACE arising out of EPD’s presentation on 5 December to ACE’s sub-committee (‘the objector correspondence’) pointing out substantive and procedural defects in the decision making process to date.
The EPD response and/or lack thereof is unsatisfactory and under all the circumstances manifestly unreasonable.
Please therefore treat this email as formal notice that if ACE issues an endorsement of EPD’s proposal as it now stands without further and fuller investigation of the alternative technologies and locations described in the objector correspondence, I and other like-minded persons intend to apply for judicial review of that decision and of any consequential final decisions of Government in relation to this project.
Such application must be initiated within 3 months of the relevant decision(s) and will in this instance be accompanied by consequential applications for suspension of the project pending the outcome of the judicial review, together with any other remedies or reliefs.
Download PDF : 111230_ACE_EPD_Hope_Incinerator Press Release
Inquiry is ordered into incinerators and health hazards they may pose
by Mark Metcalf, Tribune Magazine
June 8th, 2011
A team from Imperial College, London, has been commissioned to carry out the inquiry by the Health Protection Agency after fears were raised about the health risks of incinerators, particularly for young children.
Dozens of incinerators have been built around the country as Britain struggles to cope with its mounting refuse problems. But campaigners have become concerned that the price is being paid with poor health among babies and infants in the localities where such amenities are sited.
One such activist is Michael Ryan, who lives in Shrewsbury, and who lost his only daughter at 14 weeks – and then suffered further personal tragedies when his teenage son and his mother both died, too. All lived downwind of an incinerator.
Mr Ryan began a painstaking piece of research into the subject of health – and deaths – of people living in close proximity to incinerators. The results from London are startling. In 12 of the capital’s 625 wards, there were no infant deaths between 2002 and 2008. But Southwark, which has two incinerators close by, had the highest rate with 7.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in that period.
Critics say it’s not microscopic particles from incinerators that kill babies and young children, but poverty. And while it is true that some people living close to incinerators are at the lower end of the social scale, Mr Ryan’s research reveals that death rates in more affluent middle class areas are higher if there is an incinerator nearby.
Affluent Chingford Green ward in Waltham Forest has the second highest average number of child deaths in London. It happens to be close to Britain’s largest incinerator.
“If it’s all about poverty, then how come the levels of infant mortality in countryside areas, where wages have always been below average, aren’t high?” asks Mr Ryan.
Now, to cries of “at last” from Mr Ryan, HPA head Justin McCracken has said that following discussions with Professor Paul Elliott, head of the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, it has been “concluded that an epidemiological study of birth outcomes around municipal waste incinerators would produce reliable results. Work is now progressing in developing a detailed proposal for what will be a complex study.”
In 2004, a study in Japan found a “peak decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined”.
Evaluation of municipal waste incinerator fly ash toxicity and the role of cadmium by two aquatic toxicity tests
So, should Hong Kong move to old technology incineration bonfires ?
Fly ash from a municipal solid waste incinerator in Japan is regulated under the hazardous waste regulation “Waste under Special Control” according to the Amendment of the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Law, because it contains high concentrations of heavy metals which are available for leaching. To evaluate the toxicity of fly ash, a fly ash leachate was prepared according to the Japanese standard leaching procedure. The chemical analysis of the leachate showed that possibly one of the most toxic substances was cadmium. The toxicity of the leachate and the cadmium was determined by algal assay and a Daphnia acute toxicity test. The results showed that the leachate was about seven times more toxic to the growth of algae and 20 to 30 times more toxic to the survival of Daphnia than expected from its cadmium concentration. The toxicity interaction between cadmium and the other constituents in the leachate was also examined. The toxicity of cadmium showed an additive effect with the other constituents in the leachate in algal assay. In the Daphnia test, however, cadmium showed an antagonistic effect