The Colnbrook incinerators: a health timebomb
The Colnbrook Incinerators – A Health Time Bomb
By Dr J Thompson
Two incinerators are planned for Colnbrook. These have been passed by the
Environment Agency even though this area is already over the limits for pollutants
– both for particulates and nitrous oxides. Not only do they intend to
build one of the largest incinerators in the country at Colnbrook but they intend
to build it on the doorstep of one of the most vulnerable populations in the
UK, namely Slough which has the highest mortality rate in the South-east. In
addition, as if enough harm is not already being done, they intend to build
a clinical incinerator, of the type banned in Ireland, which will burn hazardous
and radioactive waste at the same site. These developments not only threaten
everyone living in the vicinity but, because of the predominant westerly winds,
they threaten the health of the millions of people who live between Colnbrook
and the West of London and everyone who lives within a 17 mile radius of these
incinerators.
Twenty-five local doctors, alarmed at this development, have written to both
the Primary Care Trust and the Environment Agency expressing their concern.
These concerns are based on robust scientific data, much of it recent, as below.
KEY STUDY 1:
A study published by Knox in 2000 showed a doubling of childhood cancers and leukaemias within 5km of municipal incinerators.
Comment: This study showed the same trend as Knox’s earlier study in
1998 which showed increased childhood cancers around combustion sites, including
incinerators. The study of the Sint Niklaas incinerator in Belgium also showed
that after five years of its operation, leukaemias and lymphomas started to
appear in children living within 1.5 km of the incinerator. The effect in the
Colnbrook/Slough area is likely to be greater due to the present of two incinerators
combined with the burning of radioactive waste.
Grundon’s have stated that there is no causal link in any of these studies,
an argument favoured by the tobacco companies in the past. This statement is
misleading as causal links almost impossible to prove in medicine. In the case
of Knox’s study the increased mortality was greater at shorter distances
from incinerators, did not occur when the incinerators stopped operating and
similar results occurred with hospital incinerators. This is a very significant
association and very close to proof.
KEY STUDY 2:
The only complete and long term study of incinerators is the study of the Sint Niklaas incinerator commissioned by the Belgian government. This showed an increase in cancers in children and adults. The cancers doubled in adults after 13 years and there was a staggering five-fold increase at 20 years. There was a 12 year reduction in life expectancy at Sint Niklaas and a huge effect on general health.
Comment: Nine separate studies have studies have shown increases in cancer
around incinerators and sadly three have shown increases in children’s
cancer. In addition it is beyond dispute that PM2.5 particulates cause lung
cancer. It is sometimes claimed that the serious health effects of the Sint
Niklaas incinerator were due to old style incinerators. It is true that modern
incinerators remove more pollutants, especially dioxins. However no one has
yet discovered exactly why incinerators cause cancer and it seems likely that
it is due to the toxic cocktail (see data on synergistic effects) found in the
emissions rather than one single substance. It is a great concern that the Sint
Niklaas incinerator was only a ninth of the size of the proposed incinerator
at Colnbrook and there was only one incinerator and there was no incineration
of radioactive waste which is, of course, highly carcinogenic. Yet it was still
had a devastating effect on a town with a population of 40,000. The effect on
children was particularly marked and the report was dedicated to “all
the deceased children who died from cancer as well as the numerous children
who have numerous serious health complaints caused by the incinerator”.
Cancer has increased relentlessly over the last century and now 1 in 3 can expect
to contract this disease compared with 1 in 13 at the turn of the century. The
WHO considers 80-90% is environmental in origin. The clue to the dangers of
toxic pollution comes from animal studies where three decades of research have
shown that cancer in animals is intimately associated with environmental pollution
and virtually non-existent in unpolluted areas. This is a huge warning to us,
as animals do not smoke, drink or eat junk food but still get cancer from polluted
environments.
In a world where there are already 60 carcinogens in the food we eat, 40 in
the water and over 60 carcinogens in the air we breathe, and studies show that
the average person has over 60 known carcinogens present in their bodies, it
is beyond stupidity to deliberately increase the levels of carcinogens further.
Worse still airborne carcinogens bypass the liver’s detoxification system.
They can do this because they attach to the microscopic PM2.5 particulates which
are breathed deep into the lung and are too small for the lung to filter out.
It’s a recipe for cancer.
Many unfounded claims have been about the safety of modern incinerators. In
fact it is obvious, just by looking at the above studies, that it would take
at least 20 years to know if they are any safer and no one is doing these studies.
In the mean time populations near incinerators are being treated as guinea pigs.
KEY STUDY 3:
The Cancer Prevention II study was published in March 2002. This huge study of 1.2 million people showed that a 10mcg/m3 increase in fine particulates (PM2.5) pollution led to a 4-6% increase in all-cause mortality, a 6-9% increase in cardiopulmonary mortality and an 8 – 14% increase in lung cancer. A further paper from this study published in December 2003 showed that a 10mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5 particulates led to an 8-18% increase in cardiovascular mortality.
Comment: These studies have enormous relevance to the Colnbrook incinerator.
Firstly it confirmed earlier cohort studies such as the Six Cities study and
the ACS study which showed that exposure to fine particulate pollution led to
increases in mortality, particularly cardiac mortality, and lung cancer. These
landmark studies led to new air quality standards for PM2.5 particulates being
introduced into the USA, standards that are sadly lacking in the UK. They are
also some of the most robust studies in the medical literature and came under
intense scrutiny in the USA, being used as evidence in the Supreme Court.
Secondly incinerators are effectively particulate generators and emit large
amounts of these dangerous PM2.5 particulates. Filters in incinerators are like
sieves letting through the smallest and most dangerous particulates and these
carry most of the carcinogens. Research has conclusively shown that these small
particulates are the most lethal. The World Health Organisation Air Quality
guidelines clearly state that mortality increases in a predictable linear fashion
as particulates increase and the death rate is greater with PM2.5 particulates.
The incinerators will emit a continuous, 24 hour a day, stream of PM2.5 particulates,
ready to be breathed in by the unsuspecting population. A 10mcg/m3 is quite
a small increase in PM2.5s – note the American regulations permit levels
of up to 15mcg/m2.
This would be an extremely serious situation in any area but Slough has the
highest mortality rate for cardiovascular disease in the South-East and the
highest rate of lung cancer in Berkshire. It is hard to think of a more inappropriate
and more irresponsible place to site these incinerators. We cannot understand
why this crucial scientific data been disregarded?
KEY STUDY 4:
The 2001 study from Harvard by Peters and Dockery showed that increases in PM2.5 particulates were followed by highly significant rises in myocardial infarctions. To be specific a 25mcg/m2 rise in the 2 hours before onset was associated with a 48% rise in heart attacks and a 20mcg/m2 rise in PM2.5s in the time period 24 to 48 hours before onset was associated with a 69% increase in heart attacks. This means that moderate increases in PM2.5s can more than double the chances of people getting heart attacks.
Comment: In Slough there is a very high rate of heart disease. The incinerators will be continuously emitting large concentrations of PM2.5 particulates. In effect this means that being present in any of the nearby towns on a windless day or a more distant town, downwind, on a windy day could literally kill you. About 150 other studies have shown short-term increases in mortality, hospital admissions and cardio-respiratory disease with increasing levels of particulates. In addition three cohort studies have shown long term increases in cardio-respiratory disease due to PM2.5 particulates (as above).
KEY STUDY 5:
In June 2003 Professor Parker of the University of Newcastle published a 37 year study of incinerators in Cumbria and found a 17% increase in spina bifida and a 12% increase in congenital heart defects for births within 3km of incinerators. As data for pregnancies of less than 28 weeks gestation was not available this was thought to be an underestimate. As this came into print an official epidemiological study of 70 incinerators in France showed high and significant risks of facial defects, renal dysplasia, megacolon, chromosomal anomalies and obstructive uropathies.
Comment: These studies, combined with 2 other studies from Belgium and one
from Holland) add to the weight of evidence showing incinerators are linked
to birth defects. In addition another study has found a direct link between
air pollution and birth defects. The fact that this site will have two incinerators
including one that incinerates radioactive waste makes high rates of birth defects
all the more likely.
It is now beyond dispute that the foetus is uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemicals.
Many of these are actively transported across the placenta and because the foetus
has no fatty tissue they are stored in the brain and nervous tissue. These toxins
have an effect on neurological development, immunity, behaviour and intelligence.
The most vulnerable member of the population, the unborn child of future generations
will bear the brunt of this toxic assault. No just society would allow this.
They deserve better.
KEY STUDY 6:
Children living in Seascale were found to have a markedly increased chance of developing leukaemia compared with children living elsewhere. They had a tenfold increase in the disease (and a threefold increase in cancers). There was another cluster of leukaemia found around Dounreay, this time a six-fold increase and yet another cluster found at Aldermaston.
Comment: Britain is one of the few places in Europe that allows incineration of radioactive waste. Incineration does not get rid of radioactive waste. It simply converts it into particulate matter allowing it to be breathed in by the local population. There is no data on the incidence of cancers in areas where radioactive waste is incinerated but no one is measuring. It is notable that wherever radioactive material has been released there have been increases in leukaemias and cancers. This has been noted at Pilgrim, Massachusets, Krummel in Germany and the sites in Britain just mentioned. To release radioactive material into the air in association with numerous other carcinogens and in a form (particulates) where they easily enter the blood stream is reckless in the extreme.
KEY STUDY 7:
A White House Study by the Office of Management and Budget found that enforcing
clean air regulations had led to reductions of hospitalisation, emergency room
visits, premature deaths and lost workdays which led to a saving of between
$120 and $193 billion between October 1992 and September 2002 (enclosed). This
is likely to be a gross underestimate as it did not include prescription costs
and many other health indices.
A study by Ostro and Chestnut estimated health savings from introducing limits
of PM2.5s of 15mcg/m2 and found this led to a saving of $32 billion annually
in the US. They also concluded that a further increase of PM2.5 air pollution
of 5mcg/m3 would cost $27 billion. (These limits were introduced in 1997).
A recent report from the European Commission suggested that every tonne of municipal
waste burned causes between £21 and £126 worth of health and environmental
damage. For this incinerator the cost would be between £9 and £57
million per year. And who will pay? Not the polluter. It will be Slough PCT
and Slough Council and hence the tax-payer who will find themselves paying millions
of pounds in extra costs.
Comment: It is little short of tragic that whilst the USA are introducing and
enforcing clean air regulations and seeing massive health and financial benefits,
in the UK the ailing and cash-strapped NHS is being further compromised by developments
which are guaranteed to cause huge health costs and to undermine the health
service further.
A European Commission report in 1999 found that every pound spent on pollution
abatement saved £6 in health care costs and £4 in social security
costs. A report from the Environmental Protection Agency (US regulatory body)
found the same 10:1 benefit.
ALREADY OVER THE LIMIT
Pollution is known to be over the statutory limit for both PM10s and nitrous
oxides in the Colnbrook area. This limit on PM10s, which was designed to protect
health, is considered by the government to be inadequate and is due to be reduced
from 40mcg/m3 to 20 mcg/m3 in 2010. The Primary Care Trust have recognised that
this is a problem area for pollution and have asked for it to be designated
an Air Quality Management Zone but perversely did not state the obvious: that
this was no place for one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. It is glaringly
obvious that pollution is seriously threatening health in this area and needs
to be reduced.
The area around Heathrow was declared an Air Quality Management Zone in 2001
due to the high levels of pollution. Yet the dominant wind direction will be
from these incinerators into this area carrying the pollutants with it. It is
unbelievable that this is being allowed.
In addition the M40 motorway is being widened in this area and eventually there
may be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Both will increase particulates and nitrous
oxides still further. Major studies now show that each 1 mcg/m3 increase in
PM2.5 particulates (a tiny increase) leads to a 1 to 2 % increase in lung cancers
and a 1 to 2% increase in deaths from heart disease. It is clearly unacceptable
to add to this by building these incinerators.
The Environment Agency have not given an adequate explanation of why these incinerators
are being built in such a polluted area, nether mind in an area that should
be an Air Quality Management Zone. It is beyond doubt that it will be a death
sentence to many. Why are government guidelines for health being ignored and
trampled over?
BANNED IN IRELAND
Clinical Incinerators have been banned in Eire and Northern Ireland because of their serious health effects. They are now exporting some of their hazardous waste to England. How can it be that a clinical incinerator that is considered unsafe for the people of Ireland is considered safe for the people of Slough. Are we to conclude that the people in Slough are considered to be more expendable than those in Ireland?
10,000 EXCESS DEATHS A YEAR
Dr Dick Van Steenis, an authority on air pollution who has lectured widely
on the subject, calculated that the BP refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland was
leading to 15,000 deaths annually, mainly around Glasgow, Edinburgh and central
Scotland. This was investigated by the Scottish Assembly and a Professor of
General Practice. Dr Van Steenis ’s figures were accepted and steps have
been taken this year to reduce emissions.
I have spoken to him about this development in Slough. He calculates that the
size of chimney will lead to a 17 mile spread of pollutants. As this is a highly
populated area the effect on mortality will be large and he considers it will
cause 10,000 excess deaths a year. The figure will rise with time as the cancer
deaths start to take effect. This figure does not apply just to Slough but to
the wider area involved. As the predominant wind is westerly the maximum effect
will be to the east of the incinerators i.e the densely populated area to the
West of London.
Another way of estimating this problem is to look at the number of years of
life lost. At Sint Niklaas the number of years lost for the average person was
12 years. This would only apply to people living in the immediate vicinity of
the incinerators, so this would be an overestimate. The WHO data suggests that
long term exposure to PM is associated with a reduction of life expectancy of
2 to 3 years. Alternatively you could take the figure of 1.5 years loss of life
for a 10 mcg/m3 increase in PM2.5s. These figures however only look at one element
of the toxic cocktail so they would be an underestimate. Putting these figures
together we would be looking at a half a million years of life lost in Slough
and Langley alone (pop 200,000). However Slough is only one of the many nearby
towns that will be affected. So by this estimation millions of years of life
lost will be lost.
Even the parliamentary report to the government by the Public Interest Consultants
(DSW 56) estimated that these new incinerators would cause a significant loss
of life and would not be lawful in respect of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 and the Waste Framework Directive and may infringe the European Convention
on Human Rights.
The conservative spokesman Damian Green stated that the new generation of incinerators
would cause 349 deaths per year.
SECOND RATE TECHNOLOGY
At the Public Enquiry at Hull it was found that gasification was the Best
Available Technology. The reason for this was that it produced far less pollutants,
and emitted much lower levels of heavy metals and particulates. The long term
cost was equivalent to incineration. This conclusion (that gasification is the
best option) is still valid and applies to every other site. It is particularly
relevant to this area where there is a high background level of pollution and
a vulnerable population.
The only argument for incineration appears to be short term financial benefit
for the waste industry. It is quite unacceptable that people should have to
die to save the waste industry money.
This incinerator does not compare with the best incinerators in Europe and is
using second rate technology even though this will lead to greater loss of life.
It uses the semi-dry scrubbing system for removing carcinogens and other pollutants.
This gives a poor performance compared with the wet scrubbing system used in
the best European incinerators. Yet again people’s lives are being put
at risk to save money for Grundons.
Even though nitrous oxides are over the limits in this area, Grundon intend
to use the cheaper and less effective SNCR (selective non-catalytic reduction)
method for nitrous oxide abatement rather than the more effective SCR (selective
catalytic reduction) even though the latter is considered best practice in Europe.
Incredibly Grundons have the gall to call their incinerator a state of the art
incinerator. They have cynically put money before human lives.
SLOUGH PCT’s REPORT
Slough PCT responded on 19th September with an IPPC Application Report on
the clinical incinerator. They did not do a report on the waste to energy incinerator
even though this is to be one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. The Environment
Agency later accepted the report on the clinical incinerator as a combined report
for both incinerators. The Primary Care Trust took advice from the Division
of Chemical Hazards and Poisons in London who issued a CIRS report. This is
an organisation part-funded by the polluting industries. The report by this
organisation was simply a rehash of Grundon’s own Environmental Impact
Assessment report.
They used a dubious methodology known as risk assessment. This means estimating
the effects of only 20 toxic substances on health (out of several hundred).
The history of risk assessment over the last 20 years shows that this type of
assessment has virtually always found incinerators 100% safe. However this flies
in the face of the accumulating epidemiological data which shows exactly the
opposite. There are a host of problems with risk assessment including lack of
toxicological data on the danger of most toxic chemicals, the fact that no consideration
is given to the dangers to the foetus and children, the fact that many people
react to low doses of pollutants and lack of data on combinations of pollutants.
Even at the meeting of the PCT it was admitted that their assessment was a guesstimate
and that the report said nothing about the hundreds of other substances produced
by incinerators. In addition they relied on modelling data from the company
even though it is known that modelling data has a 30% confidence level. In other
words less accurate than tossing a coin.
In their report to the Environment Agency the Slough PCT expressed concerns
about synergistic affects of the various toxic compounds and the effects of
heavy metals on health. (Heavy metals accumulation has been linked with behavioural
disturbance, decreased intelligence, learning problems, hyperactivity and autism
in children and violent behaviour, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s
disease in adults).
Slough PCT also suggested, in their report, that this area should be designated
an Air Quality Management Zone. In other words hardly a place for one incinerator,
never mind two. The Environment Agency passed the application without consulting
the PCT further. They failed to answer crucial questions put forward by the
PCT on synergistic effects of multiple carcinogens, especially when combined
with radioactive waste. They have notably failed to answer the question in Slough
PCT’s report asking how they would reach the new government limit for
PM10 particulates of 20mcg/m3 per annum in 2010.
Incredibly the Environment Agency have falsely stated three times in their report
that Slough PCT said there would be no health effects from the incinerator.
The statement from the report actually said “based on current knowledge
(based on the company’s modelling data) there would appear to be no health
effects but monitoring would provide better information on actual health effects.
(their underlining). Slough PCT would not have asked for longitudinal studies
to monitor the health impact if they were assured of its safety.
Slough PCT have also asked for PM2.5 monitoring which is obviously essential
in a population with such a high rate of heart disease.
In reality the PCT can not even begin to assess the health effects of these
incinerators until PM2.5 monitoring becomes available because they lack crucial
data on air quality.
Comments
Notice how the decision to allow this incinerator has been based on highly dubious methods (modelling and risk assessment) all from vested interests, whilst robust scientific evidence such as on research on particulates (which came under great scrutiny in the US Supreme Court) and toxicological data has been totally ignored. Notice how both the CIRS report and the IPPC report are both largely a rehash of Grundon’s own data – hardly objective. It seems incredible to me that a decision that will cost the PCT millions of pounds every year and cause untold misery has been made in this cavalier way.
SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS
Small amounts of a toxic substance at levels considered to be safe can become toxic if combined with other substances. In the report “Man’s Impact on the Global Environment” by the Massachusett’s Institute of Technology it was stated that synergistic effects are more often present than not with chemical pollutants A study published in Science, the conservative voice of modern science, found that combining several toxic chemicals increased the toxicity by 500 to 1000 times. This study was by no means unique. This synergistic effect is highly likely to occur with incinerator emissions which contain hundreds of toxic substances. For instance incinerators emit carcinogenic heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrogen oxides and in this case radioactivity. All these can cause lung cancer but their synergistic effect will be much greater. At the meeting of the Slough PCT it was accepted that synergistic effects were likely to occur.
INADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES
All you need to produce a state of toxicity is to accumulate pollutants faster
than you eliminate them. If you breathe in cadmium it can take 20 years to clear,
for PCBs it takes 75 years. So people will be subjected to continuous low-level
poisoning. The only way to know how they are being affected is to look at the
level of pollutants in people’s bodies. Unbelievably this basic precautionary
step has never been undertaken (though studies near waste sites in America confirm
increased levels of chemicals in the bodies of people living nearby). Present
safety measures consist of measuring a handful of pollutants in the stack and
giving bland reassurances.
Of the hundreds of toxic substances emitted from incinerators only half a dozen
are monitored on a continuous basis. Another half dozen, including such dangerous
poisons as dioxins and heavy metals are measured on an intermittent basis (that
is 3 monthly for the first year and then annually). Incredibly the waste producers
are warned in advance. Surely no one could believe this is in any way adequate.
Safety estimates are based on animal studies but this is poor science. Recent
studies on lead, mercury and PCBs have shown that animal studies have underestimated
their neurotoxic effect on children by a factor of 100 to 10,000 times.
The safety standards on also based on pollutants in isolation, but combinations
can increase the toxicity another 1000 fold.
Safety standards are based on standards for adults but children are more sensitive.
The foetus is exquisitely sensitive to toxic chemicals and safety standards
tragically ignore this.
Even though these safety standards are totally inadequate they are routinely
broken. Greenpeace noted 553 pollution offences, all criminal offences, from
10 incinerators over a 2 year period. The fact that this only led to one prosecution
means that waste companies have, in effect, been given a green light to pollute.
In summary the present system is unsafe, largely unmonitored and virtually unregulated.
PROBLEMS OF LANDFILL
Landfill sites are being used up rapidly and few sites will be available after 2011. Incineration is sometimes seen by the uninformed as a solution to the landfill problem. In fact incineration produces large amounts of ash (20 to 30% of all waste burned). Worse still, this ash takes up 50% of the space that this same waste would use up if it was compacted. This is one of the reasons the Japanese became worried about incineration – it was rapidly using up their landfill sites. They also became concerned about the amount of fly ash being produced and its health risks (15% of all ash will be fly ash). Fly ash is incredibly toxic and contains high concentrations of dioxins and heavy metals. Fifty tankers of this would leave Grundons each week and an accident would cause an environmental and health disaster. In addition it will be a nightmare for future generations and its regulation by the EA has been irresponsible. (It was used for allotment paths at Byker).
Alternatives
The tragedy of this situation is that incineration with all its problems is
unnecessary as safe alternatives are becoming more and more available. Mechanical
Biological Treatment (MBT) is in common use in Europe and is planned for this
country (Lancashire and Dorset). This is safe as long as the pellets are not
incinerated. It is cheaper than incineration and also does not have the huge
hidden costs for the Council and Health Authorities (see above).
Japan is now changing to plasma gasification (which produces no ash) and has
found this to be highly successful and is expanding this program rapidly. There
is now a general move away from incineration in many countries as the true health
and financial costs are becoming obvious to all. Recent work has shown that
the one of the best methods of waste disposal is plasma gasification with recycling
and anaerobic digestion. Although the capital costs are higher, this pays for
itself within 10 years and is far more profitable for the waste producer. It
is a situation of everybody wins.
References:
Key Study 1:- Knox – Childhood Cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and
landfill sites International Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 29(3):391-7
Key Study 2:- Mispelstraat:living under the smoke of a waste incinerator –
Report on the health impact of the MIWA waste incinerator in Sint Niklaas, Belgium.
Available on www.milieugezondheid.be
Key Study 3:- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long-term Exposure
to Fine Particulate Air Pollution – Pope III, Burnett, Thun, Calle, Krewski,
Kazuhiko and Thurston JAMA 2002; 287(9):1132-41
Key Study 4:- Increased Particulate Air Pollution and the Triggering of Myocardial
Infarction – Peters, Dockery, Muller and Mittleman Circulation 2001;103(23):2810-18
Key Study 5:- Dummer, Dickinson and Parker - Adverse pregnancy outcomes around
incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria – J Epidemiol Community Health
2003; 57(6):456-61
Key Study 6:- Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Installations (London, BMJ Publishing
Group 1993)
Key Study 7:- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artcicles/A7586-2003Sep26.html
See also Ostro and Chestnut, Environ Res 1998;76(2):94-106
Also see WHO Air Quality Guidelines:
www.who.int/environmental_information/Air/Guidelines/Chapter3.htm
Science 1996;272:1489-92 on synergistic effects
www.org.reports/bodyburden/findings.php on carcinogens already in the body
Env Health Perspect 1994;102(1):50-7 on carcinogens in the air, food and water
Env Health Perspect 1995;104 (Supp 2):205-15 Animal studies underestimate dangers
WHO Air Quality Guidelines
.