Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

May 26th, 2013:

City could drown in trash, environment minister warns

Comments: dynamco May 26th 2013 7:41am

Group Machiels /APP UK landfill mining project Belgium
Modular plants can be established at the HKG landfill sites to reverse-mine their contents using plasma gasification technology. Any clay material dropped into the 6000 deg C reactor fuses into molten Plasmarok to be used as inert road aggregate, NO ASH. Plasma vaporizes MSW into molecular form creating a Syngas that can be used to generate electricity or converted into carbon neutral bio-jetfuel/ marine fuel/naptha.
Advanced Plasma Power UK offered to build + finance a free demo plant here to handle 150,000 tons MSW per annum- it could be sited on a landfill. Win-win offer for HKG.
This Govt insists on promoting outdated polluting, life threatening incineration tech- 22% bottom ash and 7% fly ash by weight remain so a 3,000 tpd bonfire would leave 1/3 daily ash that requires to be treated, then landfilled -hence the need to build manmade ash lagoon islands in the sea off Lantao.

82% waste recycling in Italy/40 incinerators closed/117 municipalities adopt Zero Waste policy.
Why not here?

2nd 950 tpd plant confirmed/ Cabinet office signs to buy plant’s electricity.

South China Morning Post

Published on South China Morning Post (

Home > City could drown in trash, environment minister warns

City could drown in trash, environment minister warns

Sunday, 26 May, 2013, 12:00am

NewsHong Kong


Minister’s dire prediction comes as residents take to the streets to oppose plan to expand landfills until an incinerator can be built

Hong Kong would be swamped with rubbish if its three landfills were not expanded, the environment chief warned yesterday, as Tseung Kwan O residents took to the streets to oppose the plan. landfills at Ta Kwu Ling, Tuen Mun and Tseung Kwan O are expected to hit capacity by 2019. The government argues there is no alternative to expanding them until a planned incinerator, tied up in a legal challenge, can be built.

Environment minister Wong Kam-sing said Hong Kong would be “surrounded by rubbish” if the HK$8.9 billion expansion, planned since 2003, did not go ahead. The Legislative Council’s environment panel will discuss the proposal tomorrow.

Sai Kung district councillor Christine Fong Kwok-shan, who represents Tseung Kwan O, said they might lodge a judicial review if the government did not call off the plan. Residents want the landfill closed permanently, saying the smell could be overwhelming and affect their health.

The Tseung Kwan O landfill will be the first to hit saturation point, either next year or in 2015.

About 100 demonstrators marched from Lohas Park to the Tseung Kwan O MTR station, along Wan Po Road.

Wong said further expansion beyond the one planned was unlikely due to the site’s physical limitations.

“On one side it’s a country park, and the land on the other side has been reserved for future [other] use,” he said.

“It’s not that we have to set a deadline for the closure of the landfill. But we can’t see any space to further expand it.”

Wong urged residents living near landfills to consider Hong Kong’s overall interests. “If we don’t expand our landfills, it won’t be long before the city is surrounded by rubbish,” he said.[2]

On average, each Hong Kong person generates 1.36kg of waste a day, compared to 0.77kg in Tokyo and 1kg in Taipei.

The government last Monday unveiled its blueprint for tackling waste, with a target of a 40 per cent reduction in the amount sent to landfill by 2022. Incineration and waste charging are key components of the strategy, but the bill to introduce both is expected to face an uphill battle in the legislature.

Lawmakers rejected a funding request by the previous government for an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, near Cheung Chau. The proposal has also been challenged in court and a verdict is pending.

Documents submitted to the panel warn that “no matter how hard we work to reduce waste, there will still be inert materials, non-recyclables, construction waste and post-treatment residues that need to be disposed of”.


Waste Management



Waste Management in Hong Kong

Wong Kam-sing


The dirty truth about China’s incinerators

Series: Guardian Environment Network

Previous | Next | Index

Guardian Environment Network

The dirty truth about China’s incinerators

The boom in polluting waste-to-energy plants in China has led to a backlash from residents, including one man’s long-running legal crusade

 incinerator at a plant in Qionghai, Southern Hainan province of China

A Chinese worker controls robotic arms to throw rubbish into an incinerator at a plant in Qionghai, Southern Hainan province of China. Photograph: Corbis

Xie Yong could be called a pioneer. He is one of very few to date to sue a Chinese government agency over its unlawful refusal of requested data. His crusade for change has little to do with civic altruism, however. Xie’s struggle is personal in nature, his actions forced by desperation. He has been battling his son’s paralysis-causing epileptic seizures and mounting health care costs since 2010. His son’s condition, Xie believes, is the result of toxic emissions from an incineration plant near his home.

Xie and his wife, Ma Hongmei, lived in Nantong, Jiangsu province, when Ma gave birth to their son, Yongkang, in 2008. Even before they could celebrate his first 100 days of life, Yongkang’s parents noticed he was not developing normally. He did not laugh like other babies and had trouble seeing and hearing. Most disturbing, he twitched incessantly and could not be placated. Shortly after, he became paralysed. Doctors eventually diagnosed him with cerebral palsy.

During Ma’s pregnancy and in her son’s first two months of life, the family lived a short distance from the local trash incineration plant. The facility’s odorous emissions were constant, but neither Ma nor Xie understood what risks they might be facing. Shanghai Xinhua Hospital determined that Yongkang’s disease was not genetic, but caused by environmental factors during Ma’s pregancy.

Xie researched the science behind incineration emissions and health defects, spoke with experts, and learned that other couples in the village had experienced premature births and stillbirths. The couple concluded that their proximity to the plant, and the constant pollution it spewed, were to blame.

In 2010, Xie sought the assistance of the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV), a China-based legal aid NGO that provides assistance to citizens and wages legal battles in the name of environmental justice. The centre felt that his story justified legal action and, with Xie’s help, began collecting the evidence needed to build a case against the company that owned the plant, Jiangsu Tianying Saite Environmental Protection Energy Group.

In China’s first personal health-related legal case against a waste incinerator, the Hai’an local court heard the case in September 2010. Xie submitted analysis revealing dioxin concentrations in nearby air that grossly exceeded legal limits; reports documenting the physical condition of plant workers and other children living near the plant; and scientific papers demonstrating a link between dioxin and birth defects. The local judge rejected Xie’s claims, prompting him to appeal to the county court. A county-level trial took place May 2011, with similar results. The court deemed the evidence insufficient and issued a verdict against Xie.

In response to these blows, Xie turned directly to the authorities. He filed a request for emissions data for the plant in question from the local environmental protection bureau, to which he had legal entitlement (read more about China’s open government information laws here and here). His request was denied, on the grounds that releasing data would compromise the company’s business secrets. Xie next asked the provincial level Ministry of Environmental Protection, one administrative level higher, to release emissions reports to him. They, too, turned him down. But he is determined to continue his fight.

Activists like CLAPV’s Liu Jinmei believe that Xie’s efforts “indicate a growing awareness of safeguarding the rights of victims of pollutants”. However, it is hard to know how many individuals with situations similar to Xie’s, but completely unaware of the potentially serious health risks they face, are out there. This is because conditions at Chinese waste-to-energy facilities are by and large shrouded in mystery.

The incineration boom

China did not commission its first waste-to-energy plant until little more than a decade ago. Before 1990, public waste-treatment infrastructure handled less than 2% of the country’s household waste. At the same time, output of inorganic rubbish was marginal.

Rapid change in waste production and management trends occurred in China over the last two decades. China now generates over a quarter of the world’s garbage, at least 250 million tonnes annually. With municipal solid waste (MSW) growing 8% to10% annually, cities are under great pressure to deliver advanced waste-management solutions.

Landfills currently handle roughly half of China’s MSW, while only about 10% is incinerated. Official credo suggests that landfills will continue to play a dominant role. But Beijing’s push to increase the share of burned waste is unmistakable: a central target calls for 30% of MSW to be treated by waste-to-energy incineration by 2030.

Presently, incineration is growing at a feverish pace. Industry insiders and state-run media routinely declare 300 plants will be operational by the time the 12th Five-Year Plan runs its course in 2015. A 2009 study by banking group Standard Chartered found that over one-half of global orders for new waste-incineration facilities came from China.

Information on the number of waste-to-energy plants in China is scarce and, when available, difficult to unpack. Interviews with experts and policymakers rarely converge on a single number, but their guesses routinely fall somewhere between 100 and 200. In an independent, verified assessment I conducted in 2011, I detected at least 155 plants currently operating or under construction. I would not be surprised if plans for new plants have been announced in the three months during which my data has aged.

China’s earliest incineration plants deployed imported grate burn technology common in developed economies. Plant operators quickly found that Chinese MSW generally makes poor feedstock. This is because China’s vast informal sector extracts the most easily burned trash, like paper, wood and plastic. The remaining composition is largely organic waste, too wet to burn without costly pre-treatment or fuel supplements. Technological barriers aside, the price of these technologies also puts them out of reach for China’s second and third-tier cities.

Combined with these practical obstacles, Beijing’s drive to localise environmental technologies helped catalyse (state-funded) development of domestic incineration technologies suited to Chinese conditions. Newer plants prominently feature domestically developed equipment, including both grate and circular fluidised-bed (CFB) type incinerators. Though smaller in terms of capacity, CFB incinerators generate similar amounts of electricity to stoke grates. They are also more flexible in terms of feedstock, permitting coal to be added for easier ignition. For these reasons, CFB incinerators enjoy considerable popularity in the market and now account for about half of China’s MSW treatment capacity.

Early central-level legislation on municipal waste management – passed almost a decade ago – sanctioned private-sector involvement. These measures, intended to encourage growth in waste-to-energy installations, relaxed state control in a way that has yet to take place in the energy sector. However, the primary catalyst for growth in the sector has been generous government incentives.

Waste-to-energy incineration is classified as a renewable energy form in China, meaning that plants receive a feed-in tariff for every kilowatt hour of electricity they generate. Only two months ago, Beijing announced a fixed subsidised price for power purchased from waste-to-energy plants, which is about double that from coal-powered plants.

The results of these subsidies are dramatic. Both foreign and local waste-to-energy players have rushed to stake their claims, in some cases submitting loss-making tender offers just to get a foothold. Many waste-management experts suspect that Chinese city officials are among the most eager investors; using public infrastructure and tax revenue to profit personally.

Peeling back a green facade

The ongoing justification for favourable waste-to-energy policies in China is simple: cities stem the problem of growing waste while getting much needed electricity in the process. That formula, however appealing, appears too good to be true.

China’s incinerators, though canonised as a “clean energy,” have a dirty underside. Thermal waste treatment plants are subject to emissions regulations considerably looser than those for power plants. Legally, they can emit nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide at, respectively, four and five times the levels of power plants in China.

Newer facilities are installed with air-pollution control systems, but these are costly to use and maintain. Thus, many plants operate without the required flue gas filtering equipment. Likewise, treatment of other highly toxic byproducts – such as wastewater removed before incineration and fly ash created during burning – tends to be either poor or non-existent. This follows partly from the lack of regulations on how waste-to-energy plants should treat wastewater.

The company which operates the facility near where Xie Yong’s family lived boasts on its website that it uses an advanced pollution control system which meets European emissions standards, but no details are given. This is a common claim among waste-to-energy developers. On the other hand, air and water pollution in waste-to-energy plants in China has been well-documented. According to some reports, some plants emit dioxins at levels 24 times higher than those from American waste-to-energy facilities.

Making matters worse, plant operators regularly add coal to the burning waste. In private interviews, Waste-to-energy plant operators admitted to using a feedstock mix comprising equal parts coal and rubbish, which far exceeds the 20% coal limit mandated by the central government. It is not unheard of for the share of coal to be as high as 70%. Under these conditions, plants are operating essentially as small coal-fired power stations – exactly the kind of facility that Beijing is trying to eliminate on public health grounds.

Finally, while incineration plants in Europe charge rubbish haulers “tipping fees” that may reach US$132 (840 yuan) per tonne of waste, these fees rarely exceed US$16 (100 yuan) per tonne in China, and usually hover around US$8 (50 yuan). When Xie’s son was born, the plant near his house was making US$10 (64 yuan) for each tonne of trash they accepted. Many experts say that environmentally sound performance, and the costs it requires, is not technologically feasible with such low tipping fees.

Light beyond the haze

Weak regulation and misaligned policies, combined with an absence of public emissions data, make for a truly toxic incineration sector. Xie Yong is not the only one who has noticed.

Beginning a few years ago, communities near existing plants, offended by odorous emissions and worried about possible health risks, began protesting against new projects. In one incident, which took place in Xie’s Jiangsu province, as many as 10,000 residents gathered and clashed with police over a waste incinerator in their village. According to Chinese media reports, by mid-2010 construction of at least six new plants had been postponed due to public opposition.

By some accounts, China’s leadership has heeded the warnings. In interviews, city officials have said that some Chinese mayors are blocking new projects, concerned they could trigger unrest, thereby marring their reputations and chances of promotion.

Alongside these grassroots efforts, NGOs like Beijing-based Green Beagle are working to substantiate public opposition to incineration with actual emissions performance data. Having campaigned for, and been denied, credible figures for almost five years, the organisation is exploring the possibility of establishing independent waste-to-energy emissions monitoring stations.

As for Xie Yong, it is too early to say whether he can navigate a way through China’s legal system and extract the data he is so desperate to get his hands on, in the belief it will demonstrate a more direct relationship between the plant’s operations and his son’s crippling illness. With every other option exhausted, Xie decided early this year to sue the provincial-level Ministry of Environmental Protection at the Jiangsu provincial court. The trial is expected to take place later this year.

“Taking the ministry to court is my last choice,” Xie has said. “It’s the only way I can get justice.” Though his case is still unresolved, growing numbers of onlookers await the outcome.

Xie’s legal fight – the first of its kind – highlights the pressing need for greater transparency and accountability in the incineration sector. At the same time, growing popular opposition suggests that persistent, and public, resistance may be China’s best bet for achieving meaningful regulatory reform in the waste-to-energy sector.

not good

1. 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.”

J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.

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.
BACKGROUND: Great public concern about health effects of dioxins emitted from municipal solid waste incinerators has increased in Japan. This paper investigates the association of adverse reproductive outcomes with maternal residential proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators. METHODS: The association of adverse reproductive outcomes with mothers living within 10 km from 63 municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels (above 80 ng international toxic equivalents TEQ/m3) in Japan was examined. The numbers of observed cases were compared with the expected numbers calculated from national rates adjusted regionally. Observed/expected ratios were tested for decline in risk or peak-decline in risk with distance up to 10 km. RESULTS: In the study area within 10 km from the 63 municipal solid waste incinerators in 1997-1998, 225,215 live births, 3,387 fetal deaths, and 835 infant deaths were confirmed. None of the reproductive outcomes studied here showed statistically significant excess within 2 km from the incinerators. However, a statistically significant peak-decline in risk with distance from the incinerators up to 10 km was found for infant deaths (p=0.023) and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined (p=0.047), where a “peak” is detected around 1-2 km. CONCLUSION: 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. However, due to the lack of detailed exposure information to dioxins around the incinerators, the observed trend in risk should be interpreted cautiously and there is a need for further investigation to accumulate good evidence regarding the reproductive health effects of waste incinerator exposure.

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.
Recently, an epidemiological study was carried out to verify the hypothesis of an association between infant mortality and residence near incinerators (Tango, 2004). Limits to the study were represented by rarity of death events and heterogeneity of infant mortality. However, availability of mortality data and of an incinerator database has allowed performing an exploratory investigation.
Materials and Methods:
Infant mortality was investigated over 2 periods (1981-1991, 1992-2001) in 27 municipalities with active incinerators in the 1981-2001 time frame. For each municipality the observed/expected ratio (O/E) was obtained. To calculate expected mortality, municipalities were included inside a 50-km radius circle. A pooled estimation of the O/E ratio obtained by meta-analysis was performed for the 27 municipalities. A multiple metaregression model was used to analyze the study, activity and latency periods, the incinerator burning capacity, the number of resident newborns, the residence density, the deprivation index.
Mortality analysis was performed on resident population for the whole period on approximately 250,000 infants under 1 year of age. In the overall period 1673 cases of infant mortality were observed. The pooled estimation of the O/E ratio resulted 1.04 (CI 95%: 0.97-1.11) for total cases. The multiple metaregression model showed the incinerator burning capacity as a statistically significant factor (P=0.011). Municipalities having incinerators with a burning capacity >50,000 ton/year showed a higher mortality excess (O/E=1.11, CI 95% 1.03-1.20) compared to municipalities with incinerators of <50,000 ton/year (O/E=0.95; CI 95%: 0.86-1.04).
Findings call for further insight by analytic epidemiologic studies to confirm possible association between infant mortality and living near incinerators.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Incinerators double childhood cancer

Incinerators double childhood cancer

no incineration

Between 1974 and 1987, twice as many children who lived within 5km of incinerators in the UK died from cancer, compared to those who lived further away, according to new research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.(1)

The study comes on top of others which have found significant increases in cancers, of both adults and children, around incinerators(2) (3). However, because incinerators are often sited in industrial or deprived areas, scientists have been unable to say for sure that it is the toxins from burning mixed waste that are causing these extra cancers. Other industrial pollution or lifestyle factors, such as a poor diet, could be to blame, they say.

But the latest study found that there was no increase in cancer around “non-combustion” sites such as football grounds and biscuit makers. This appears to rule out social factors such as diet. Cancers around hospital incinerators were at similar levels to those around municipal waste incinerators, indicating that incineration could be the common cause. This led the author of the report, Professor George Knox of Birmingham University, to conclude that while nearby sources of industrial pollution might also contribute, the incinerators were “probably carcinogenic”.

The study was based on detailed examination of childhood deaths from cancer around 72 municipal and 307 hospital waste incinerators. Most of the incinerators studied have now been closed and those that remain are subject to tighter controls. However, even the most modern incinerators emit substances known to cause cancer as well as heavy metals and ultra-fine dust particles which can have a range of other health effects. Despite this the Government continues to insist on building new incinerators.

(1) International Journal of Epidemiology, 2000; 29:391-397 (2) Elliot P, Shaddick G, Kleinschmidt I et al Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain, British Journal of Cancer 1996; 73:702-10 (3) Elliot p, Eaton N, Shaddick G, Carter R, Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. Part 2:histopathological and case-note review of primary liver cancer cases, British Journal of Cancer 2000, 82(5), 1103-1106

Reply to Health Protection Agency

Download : IncineratorHPAResponse

Incinerator emissions and high infant mortality rates at electoral ward level

Download PDF : correspondence

Tetronics: Plasma Treatment of Hazardous Waste

Download PDF : HazardousWasteDatasheet

Green Alternatives to Incineration in Scotland


Toxic emissions

Poor monitoring


Birth defects

Infant mortality

Reduced life span in adults

Contamination of land, water and vegetation

Reports on health concerns over waste burning


Spanish study shows increased risk of cancer near incinerators, Dec 2012

“… results support the hypothesis of a statistically significant increase in the risk of dying from cancer in towns near incinerators and installations for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste.”

USA – Big news! EPA Health Report on Dioxin Released After Twenty Seven Years of Delays, 17 Feb 2012
(Falls Church, VA) Today the US EPA has finally released their major report on the noncancer health effects of dioxin, which for the past twenty seven years…read more

Incinerator study gets green light, 24 Jan 2012
A fresh government-backed study into the potential health risks of incinerators has been given the go-ahead, sparking concerns that key projects could be de-railed…read more

For every report that says incinerators are safe, there seems to be a dozen more that question this (scroll to the foot of this page). One of the most well known and respected is ‘The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators‘, published by the British Society for Ecological Medicine.  This examines hundreds of scientific studies from around the world.  Collectively, these studies paint a disturbing picture of a multitude of health problems that cannot be simply dismissed.

Reports by respected government bodies have been called into question. For example, in 2004, Defra published a report titled Review of the Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management. This report largely discounts health concerns related to incineration. However, the Royal Society pointed out that Defra’s report fails to discuss cumulative effects, timelines for exposure, effects of mixtures and synergies of emissions and the additive effects, for example, when combined with other environmental and occupational exposures. Defra acknowledged these deficiencies in the final draft. However, the Royal Society subsequently stated:

“Although the uncertainties have been acknowledged in this report, it is important that anyone using these data takes adequate consideration of its inherent uncertainty”. [ Source: The Royal Society’s peer review of Defra’s report on the environmental and health effects of waste management, March 2004]

Both the Defra report and the Royal Society’s peer review are available online.

Toxic emissions

Burning waste emits fine particulates, heavy metals, innumerable chemicals, a variety of poisonous gases and large quantities of toxic ash [1]. For further information see Toxic Emissions.

Poor monitoring of emissions

The quality of monitoring of emissions from incinerators is poor – click here for more details.


Emissions from incinerators are implicated in a wide variety of conditions including respiratory disorders, neurological diseases, mental illness and various types of cancer [2]. A report published in September 2011 shows that although the emissions from waste incinerators may not be great, overall they can have a significant health impact (Health burden of waste incinerators in Seoul, Scientific study published Sept 2011). Also see this letter (click here) from Giovanni Ghirga, (International Society of Doctors for Environment) from 29 March 2011, which suggests that the health burden from waste incinerators could be very high indeed.

Birth defects

Many studies indicate an increase in birth defects downwind of incinerators. A study in France has shown that chromosomal defects and other major anomalies including facial clefts, megacolon and renal dysplasias may be caused by living close to incinerators [2].

At the end of his report into the health effects of pollution on children, Ralph Ryder concludes:

“The ever-increasing number of damaged babies being born around incinerators should be taken as a strong warning that the ‘experts’ and their friendly politicians are deliberately playing down overwhelming evidence of serious harm to suit industry’s financial interests, and, as it has been shown many times before, in many cases, their own.”

Click here to download his report, “What do you want – a Boy or a Girl”.

Infant mortality

Independent researcher Michael Ryan has found that figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show that infant mortality rates (i.e. deaths below one year) in areas upwind of incinerators are significantly lower than in downwind areas. For example areas upwind of the Cheylesmore incinerator in Coventry (see areas shown in green on the map below) recorded an average infant mortality rate of 3.2 per 1,000 live births between 2003 and 2005, while in downwind areas (shown in red) the average was 8.2 (download ONS statistics). Downwind of the Deptford incinerator infant mortality is 8 times higher than the national average [see article here].

Some reports claim that such statistics can be attributed to socio-economic factors, i.e. poverty. However Mr Ryan has found that even in wealthy areas having an incinerator nearby can affect infant mortality – see report on Chingford Green ward in London.

Reduced life span in adults

ONS figures show that New Cross ward, which is largely downwind of the Debtford incinerator, has the highest Standardised Mortality Ratio out of all 625 council wards in London with a figure of 161 for 1999-2003. This translates as 61% more deaths than would be expected [3 & 4]. (See ONS statistics)

Contamination of land, water and vegetation

Studies show that soil and vegetation close to incinerators may become contaminated with incinerator releases of dioxins and heavy metals to levels above normal background concentrations. As a consequence, there is a possibility of agricultural produce becoming contaminated. Livestock may also take in pollutants, largely through ingestion of contaminated vegetation and soil [1]. Furthermore the toxic ash from incinerators will likely be put in landfill, where it can pollute watercourses [2].

[1] Allsop et al, Incineration and Human Health, 2001, Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Univ. of Exeter. Download report.

[2] Thomson, J. Anthony, H.: The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 2005, The British Society for Ecological Medicine. Download report.


[4] Original statistical analysis by Michael Ryan and Dr Dick Van Steenis. See UKHR and CountryDoctor for further information.

Reports – For further reports, Click here

Incineration and health issues – Friends of the Earth 2002

Friends of the Earth primarily campaigns against incineration because burning materials is a waste of valuable resources. However we also recognise that there are valid concerns about the impacts on health. We are especially concerned when incinerators are proposed in areas where levels of pollution are already high.

Incineration and Human Health – Greenpeace 2002

A broad range of health effects have been associated with living near to incinerators as well as with working at these installations. Such effects include cancer (among both children and adults) adverse impacts on the respiratory system, heart disease, immune system effects, increased allergies and congenital abnormalities. Some studies, particularly those on cancer, relate to old rather than modern incinerators. However, modern incinerators operating in the last few years have also been associated with adverse health effects.

The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators 2005, updated 2008

Both the amount of waste and its potential toxicity are increasing. Available landfill sites are being used up, and incineration is being seen increasingly as a solution to the waste problem. This report examines the literature concerning the health effects of incinerators.

UK dhild deaths near incinerators