GET IN TOUCH
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting WFNEWS to 80360 or email » »
WALTHAM FOREST: Three waste plants to be built
12:32pm Thursday 29th November 2007
Comments (19)THREE multi-million pound waste processing plants could be built in Waltham Forest.
Six new processing plants are needed in north London, and London Mayor Ken Livingstone has decided the borough should house half of them.
The proposed sites are Blackhorse Lane, Walthamstow, the Lea Bridge Gateway in Leyton and the Central Leaside Business area on the Chingford/Enfield border.
The North London Joint Waste Plan (NLJWP), which has been drawn up by seven boroughs, says the vast majority of London's waste sites are already located in north east London.
It adds the types of plants needed include a hazardous waste processing facility and an incinerator, as well as recycling centres.
Jenny Bates, for London-based campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "Communities across the UK are fighting vigorous campaigns to prevent incinerators being built in their area.
"They are deeply worried about the potential impact on their health and recognise that burning our waste is harmful to the environment.
"The Government must get to grips with this problem by calling a halt to new incinerators, reducing waste and dramatically improving our record on recycling.
"Incinerating anything that we can recycle or compost is a complete waste of resources. Incineration is also a climate change problem not a solution, emitting 33 per cent more fossil fuel derived CO2 than a gas-fired power station.
"Britain still languishes near the bottom of Europe's recycling table - we need to address this and make the most of our waste - not burn it."
Steve Lambert, of Waltham Forest and Redbridge Green Party, said: "Incineration and landfill sites are no longer acceptable options because of pollution of adjacent areas, waste of valuable resources and policies to tackle climate change.
"We believe there should be smaller and local sites to give everyone a better awareness of what happens to their waste and, with new cleaner technologies developing all the time, these are less likely to raise objections from residents."
Anna Carver, a gardener at Hoxton Manor Allotments in Chingford, said: "I don't like the idea of an incinerator being built in our area.
"It seems a bit of a lazy solution to the problem of landfill, and I am worried about the pollution as well. As a gardener I recycle and compost almost everything I can.
"Burning things seems such as waste, especially when there's lots of things we can recycle."
In August the Guardian reported how people were worried toxic fumes from an incinerator in Edmonton had led to abnormally high infant mortality rates in Chingford.
Michael Ryan's research showed that babies were more likely to die if they live close to and downwind of incinerators.
Cllr Terry Wheeler, the council's cabinet member for enterprise and investment, said he believed clean, modern waste management plants and biological plants were more likely. But as the plans have not yet gone to consultation, anything is possible.
A council spokesman said no decision had yet been taken on the type, scale or nature of the new plants.
"Waltham Forest Council will have a say in these decisions and will be working hard to ensure that any sites that are chosen - regardless of where they are - do not have a negative impact on residents' quality of life," he said.
He added that there will be a public consultation.
It will start on January 23 and residents will be able to request a copy by visiting www.nlwp.net or ringing the North London Waste Plan on 020 7974 5916.
Your Say YourEast London and West Essex Guardian Series
Turpin, Epping Forest says...
1:01pm Thu 29 Nov 07
You notice it's the Council who have the say - not the ratepayers.
Ken Livingstone seems to have done his homework though. The whole of London needs six new sites and Waltham Forest is to get three of them. It rather re-enforces the belief more and more of us share as to what the Council is full of.
Still, I'm sure we can get off to a good start by opening the first site with a book burning. The library service has still got a lot of stock waiting to be destroyed.
Turpin
G, Sydney, Australia says...
8:06pm Thu 29 Nov 07
Observer, says...
11:48pm Thu 29 Nov 07
G wrote:Shock horror! Despite every effort on my part I now appear to have something in common with Ken Livingstone!!
It's quite obvious to me that Mr.Livingstone dislikes Waltham Forest. Gerry Kirk.
Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS, Powys says...
10:27am Fri 30 Nov 07
Helen, E17 says...
10:50am Fri 30 Nov 07
David Lichfield, Chingford says...
12:37pm Fri 30 Nov 07
Jane, says...
1:46pm Fri 30 Nov 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
3:21pm Fri 30 Nov 07
Kensington & Chelsea hasn't an incinerator in an upwind Borough, unlike Waltham Forest and Newham Boroughs, and in Kensington & Chelsea in 2006 there were three infant deaths and 2,322 live births, ie an infant mortality rate of 1.3 per 1,000.
Incinerators are not "Best Available Tehcnique" and are also more expensive and far more harmful to health than plasma gasification, which is the best system and which FoE and others seem to ignore, just as FoE have failed to use their media muscle to highlight the infant mortality rates in wards around incinerators despite about a dozen articles in London papers regarding my research starting with Enfield Advertiser of 25 April 2007 and the Sunday Express on 29th April.
If anyone in Waltham Forest knows the whereabouts of Kathy Gosling, the former Councillor, please would they inform the Waltham Forest Guardian as she was convinced that Edmonton incinerator was to blame for much of the ill-health in Waltham Forest and I'd like her to be aware of the interest in this issue from others.
She knew she was right and yet she was ignored. Why was that?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Chuckles, Leyton says...
4:08pm Fri 30 Nov 07
Doesn't take a supergenius to work out that kids in a deprived area like this might be worse off than those born in Chelsea, does it?
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
7:14pm Fri 30 Nov 07
Some electoral wards in Barking & Dagenham and Havering and in Redbridge have had zero infant deaths in 2003-6 and yet they are deprived areas.
Chuckles is guessing and he'll lose hands down on this issue as Dothill ward, which is a deprived ward in Telford hasn't had an infant death in 14 years.
Harrow is a wealthy Borough and yet they had the highest infant mortality rate in London in 2005 at 9.7 per 1,000 live births, ie 28 infant deaths and 2872 live births.
For most of 2006, Colnbrook incinerator has been out of action and so the infant mortality rate in Harrow has dropped to 4.8 per 1,000, ie 14 infant deaths and 2924 live births. Does Chuckles think that Harrow residents suddenly got richer in 2006? THink again as the new Colnbrook incinerator has a much higher stack and will send PM2.5s much further than before.
If you live in an area that is deprived of clean air, you can expect to have high premature death rates at all ages and also higher rates of stillbirth and higher percentages of babies born of low birthweight.
I've spent six months analysing London data as I thought that there must be at least one Londoner who is bright enough to understand. Blimey, there seemed to be plenty of bright, mouthy people when I lived there for about twenty years. What's happened to the bright folk? All moved away or what?
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Simon Munk, Walthamstow says...
5:26pm Mon 3 Dec 07
Consultation round here means you get three choices: the terrible one, the OK one, the weird one. Surprise - most people given that choice pick the OK option. See Blackhorse Lane, Walthamstow town centre etc.
This council does not consult us in any real way. We'd all pick a "clean" incinerator and a couple of biomass plants if the alternatives were worse. But we never get to pick "none of the above".
Brian, says...
2:38pm Mon 10 Dec 07
Download a copy of the London Health Observatories recent report: Born Equal? Inequalities in Infant Mortality in London. It will provide you with a more informed opinion.
Rob Whittle, Norfolk says...
8:06pm Sun 16 Dec 07
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
12:19pm Thu 27 Dec 07
The LHO concluded that deprivation was the cause and yet The Times of 18 December 2007, page 18, reported: "The wide variations in death rates remain largely unexplained. Deprivation cannot be the only cause. Some networks in areas with high levels of deprivation also have some of the lowest death rates."
The LHO have written to me enclosing copies of e-mail correspondence they had with the BBC and they have also criticised me for looking at electoral ward level data as being too localised. If Brian looks carefully at the LHO report, he'll see that the LHO have looked at "super output areas" which are sub-ward level and therefore have much smaller populations.
Enfield Borough has four electoral wards which have 2003-6 infant mortality rates greater than 9.0 per 1,000 live births and three of these wards have the word "Edmonton" in them: Upper Edmonton, Lower Edmonton, and Edmonton Green. Ponders End is the other Enfield ward with very high infant death rates and if you look at the electoral ward map for Enfield, you'll see that the above wards are on the eastern boundary of Enfield and also that Ponders End shares a boundary with Chingford Green ward, in Waltham Forest.
The association between industrial PM2.5 air pollution and infant deaths is well-known in medical literature and yet here in the UK, many people think that it's "deprivation".
The infant death rate in Newham Borough was falling until SELCHP incinerator started. Was the incinerator to blame for the reversal in the infant mortality trend or did the inhabitants of Newham suddenly get more deprived?
Ken Livingstone is a shrewd politician and that's why I've been banned from posting comments on Mayorwatch website and his correspondence officer, Dave Turner, has written to tell me that they have no resources to examine the association between incinerators and infant mortality rates in electoral wards.
There were a total of fifty-two infant deaths recorded in the four Enfield wards in 2003-6 and yet Chingford Green had a higher infant mortality rate than all of them at 15.6 per 1,000 live births, which is three times the national average.
It's not just incinerators that emit PM2.5s. I've examined the rates around power stations, oil refineries, a cement works and also a foundry and seen the same pattern in every case.
There's no possibility that these varitaions are chance events and if Brian, or anyne else had a ward map of London in front of them plus the data for each electoral ward, they'd see that the incinerators affected parts of London are the major cause of infant deaths and that the high infant death wards will have high premature death rates at all ages and also high rates of a range of illnesses as described by Dr Dick van Steenis in his reports listed at the botoom of the home page at www.countrydoctor.co
.uk
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Sam, Blackhorse Lane says...
6:23pm Sat 23 Feb 08
six questions
The proposed waste facilities are to be run by private companies and they have not ruled out a new incinerator. Come on E17 get involved now or you'll end up with all sorts of things you don't want on your doorstep and be told you were consulted
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
11:43am Thu 28 Feb 08
Dr Burn's letter of 17 January 2008 continues "It might also be argued that were major problems be caused by PM2.5 particulates this might affect people throughout the life course, giving rise to excess/earlier deaths from e.g. respiratory disease or cancers."
Note that Dr Burns failed to mention heart disease or that Waltham Forest has had the highest rate of heart disease in London.
Not dying of cancer isn't much of a consolation if you've already died of a heart attack is it & there are plenty of items on this website for heart attack .
Dr Burns' letter also mentioned North Chingford Community Council being lectured on infant mortality on 14 January 2008. I wonder how many people were convinced that the Edmonton incinerator has played no part in health and life expectancy in Waltham Forest.
Cllr Kathy Gosling thoought that Edmonton incinerator was responsible for a range of adverse health effects and the evidence suggests that she was quite right.
Pity she's no longer a Councillor as she'd be the ideal person to publicise this issue.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Campaign Co-ordinator for Safe Waste in Shropshire
Dubious, Nottinghamshire says...
4:16pm Fri 29 Feb 08
"Incineration of wastes CAUSES a shortening of lifepan upto 12 years"
And then follows a list of ailments, with no qualification:
"DNA mutation will occur due to heavy metals"
"Diabetes type 2 and sometimes type 1"
"Multiple chemical senstivity and arthritis"
"Cornonary heart disease, hearts attacks (sic) strokes, arteriosclerosis, SADS"
Now, it doesn't actually say that the incinerator will cause all of these, it's just a list of ailments. Possible effects of the incinerator? I assume it's implied, but it doesn't actually say so. Now, Dr Van Steenis, retired GP and "polution expert" has gleaned all of this from a study of inhaler use in children? That's pretty incredible stuff. And I've been looking for the supporting study that makes the leap from a child's puffer to sudden adult death (SAD). But I can't find it. So, like the last leaflet that said the incinerator would be like 10 million cars / hour passing my house, or that I would have tonnes of cadmium deposited on my roof each year (I don't think the roof beams have been rated for that amount of wind borne deposit, so I'm worried) I am just wondering if indeed this is a bit of scaremongering. So come on Michael and Dick, show me (or point me to) the definitive study which backs your claims that people WILL die (not might, or probably but WILL) because of this incinerator. Then maybe I'll be able to take your claims seriously. I live here, so I do have a vested interest in my health, but I don't like this type of misinformation being pushed through my door. Can you properly and fully qualify your claims?
Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury says...
2:11pm Thu 6 Mar 08
The headline was alarmist and should have read that the emissions from the proposed incinerator will maim and kill, because that's exactly what will happen and analysis of health and mortality data around any industrial source of PM2.5s always shows that to be true.
You'll not be able to get electoral ward data for births & deaths off the internet but your PCT will get the data every year and you should ask for a set.
I checked the infant death rates in every electoral ward in Notts in 2003-6 and out of the 176 or so wards, 94 had zero infant deaths.
When I mapped out the zero wards and the non-zero infant death wards, I noticed a wedge-shaped group of wards with high infant death rates downwind of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.
Aaron Brooks was jailed Dec 2007 for allegedly shaking his baby to death and he lived in St Anns ward which is part of above high infant death zone.
When you watch Panorama next Monday about Keran Henderson who was also jailed for shaking a baby to death, you should ask why her defence team didn't bother to check that Baby Maeve's home was next to Slough crematorium and als downwind of the CHP incinerator in Slough, ie not Colnbrook and that he baby would have had massive exposure to mercury via the air and also via her mother. Alan Yurko was wrongly jailed for shaking his son to death and he's now free.
Baby Maeve lived in a ward with high infant death rates.
Sally Clark's electoral ward in Knutsford still has high infant death rates.
Professor Sir Roy Meadow failed to check the infant mortality data at electoral ward level but just guessed that mothers were killing their babies and had them jailed on his say-so.
I've examined infant mortality rates in the electoral wards around over thirty industrial sources of PM2,5s and always found elevated rates in the downwind zones. Not just once or twice, but in every case.
Here in Shropshire, DR van Steenis and I have found correlation with nine health parameters that are either high or low depending on exposure to PM2.5s from Ironbridge power station which has a stack of 670 feet so the PM2.5s easily reach Gnosall, Stone, Stafford, Brocton etc leaving a trail of suicides & deaths from asthma, infant deaths, heart attacks, cancers etc.
Dr Richard Weisler of University of North Carolina plotted suicides on a map and observed clustering around a paper mill and an asphalt plant.
He published in 2005 and the UK press missed it and is still missing the link between suicide and industrial PM2,5 air pollution.
Cllr Kathy Gosling was correct in her fears but she's left Waltham Forest and she should be told that the PCT and Council should have listened to her.
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
In this section
- WOODFORD GRN: Devoted gran speaks of 10-year battle for answers into grandson's health
- STH WOODFORD: Charity shop targeted by thieves
- WOODFORD BRIDGE: Bogus gardener swipes £500 from pensioner
- REDBRIDGE: Parents could face legal action at swine flu schools
- ILFORD: Valentines Park is young artist's inspiration
- LEYTON/WANSTEAD: Clarification regarding Harry Cohen MP
- WALTHAM FOREST: Fake DVD gang convicted
- WANSTEAD: Jury dismissed in trucker's child rape case
- WALTHAMSTOW: Murder police examine link with two more sex attacks
- REDBRIDGE: Send us your celebrity look-alike pets
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Observer, says...
1:00pm Thu 29 Nov 07