Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Lumley Castle Hotel
Sponsored by
Chester-le-Street, www.lumleycastle.com
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009

Rubbish incinerator won't be coming here, vows council boss

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
21 February 2008
THE leader of South Tyneside Council today personally vowed to fight any plans for a waste incinerator in the borough.
Coun Paul Waggott has moved to quash rumours that an incinerator is being planned as part of the South Tyneside, Gateshead and Sunderland Waste Partnership.

And green campaigners have warned that such a plan would increase the risk of toxic ash polluting the atmosphere.

Coun Waggott told the Gazette: "While I accept that the waste partnership has had to use illustrative models to develop a business case to secure Government funding, I must make my personal position clear.

"I am not in favour of an incinerator, even if it ends up being the technology that seems to offer the best value for money on paper."

Pressures are increasing on all three councils to find efficient and cost-effective ways of dealing with waste management, at a time of rocketing landfill costs.

Coun Waggott added: "I am absolutely clear that any decision on the location and technology used for waste disposal will be a political decision.

"The time for that decision will be when we have agreement in principle to funding and have seen what potential solutions partners could offer."

Coun Waggott's pledge has been welcomed by Bryan Atkinson, South Tyneside spokesman for Friends of the Earth (FoE).

He said: "I'm delighted Paul Waggott is opposed to a waste incinerator in South Tyneside and I hope he extends that opposition to other areas as well.

"FoE is absolutely opposed to incineration, which doesn't do away with the need for landfill and only creates a highly toxic ash from fairly innocuous waste.

"We believe that all the potential sites being looked at for a waste incinerator are council-owned.

"What South Tyneside Council should be aiming for is zero waste, by changing public attitudes towards waste.

"For example, a third of all food is thrown out, which is clearly unacceptable."

Coun Waggott added that more emphasis should be placed on "creative alternative solutions" to waste management, such as South Tyneside's highly successful recycling village.

He said: "We must all do more to tackle this growing problem, but incineration is not the solution."

A decade ago, Coun Waggott fought proposals for a clinical waste facility in neighbouring Follingsby, Gateshead.

"I will run another campaign if there is any proposal to build an incinerator as part of our joint solution to find a cost-effective, sustainable solution to waste disposal in our area," Coun Waggott added.

The full article contains 421 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 February 2008 9:04 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: South Shields
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 21/02/2008 10:54:46
If South Tyneside Councillors examine the infant mortality rates in the electoral wards around existing incinerators in England & Wales, they'll find that the wards that are downwind of the incinerators have higher infant mortality rates than those upwind.

When I checked the positions of the five electoral wards in Coventry with the highest 2003-6 infant mortality rates, I saw that they were in a single group immediately downwind of the municipal incinerator in Bar Road.

The two Coventry wards with the lowest infant mortality rates also formed a single group, but that group is immediately upwind of Cheylesmore ward, where the incinerator is sited.

I've mapped out the above at:

http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/coventrymap.pdf

and also shown four of Warwick's electoral wards which also had zero infant deaths in 2003-6, which are along the line of the incoming prevailing SW wind.

I'd say that fifty infant deaths in the five Coventry downwind wards shown on the above map and zero infant deaths in the six upwind wards during 2003-6 is a significant difference, but perhaps incinerator promoters think otherwise?

The Scotsman, of 20 Feb 2008 reported the fact that elevated rates of infant deaths are associated with incinerators:

http://news.scotsman.com/health/39Super39-incinerator-risks-lives-of.3795172.jp

and I suggest that South Tynside Councillors invite Dr Dick van Steenis to explain the science at a public meeting where the incinerator promoters can try and field a speaker who will dare to try and prove the opposite of the truth.

More information on incinerators at www.ukhr.org

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.