The poisoned cocktail
Across Britain local communities are fighting plans to
build new waste incinerators in their area. With the need to reduce the amount
of waste that is dumped in holes in the ground – landfill – the waste industry
and many local authorities see incinerators as an easy answer. BILL HOPWOOD, who
was involved in a successful four-year struggle in Newcastle to stop an
incinerator, reviews a recent government-funded report on incineration and
health.
THE RELEASE IN May of the report, Review of Environment and
Health Effects of Waste Management, gained significant news coverage. In an
article in The Guardian (7 May 2004) the environment minister, Elliot Morley,
used the report to justify his statement that "incinerating large quantities of
household waste has no detrimental effect on human health". This statement is
contrary to the evidence and the views of most of the public. Incineration is
deeply unpopular.
Britain sends most of its household waste, 78%, to landfill.
Landfilling mixed waste is bad for the environment and health. The organic
matter decomposes to produce a quarter of Britain’s release of methane, a
greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, adding to climate
change. Also the reactions in the landfill produce cancer causing gases and
water contaminated with harmful and toxic chemicals. There is evidence of
ill-health around mixed waste landfill sites. There is no disagreement from
environmentalists or community activists that mixed waste landfill sites should
stop.
The debate is what to do instead. The key change is to see
that waste is full of valuable resources. Almost everything that is thrown away
can be recycled or composted. Paper, glass, metals, plastics and textiles can be
recycled. The organic matter – food and garden waste and some paper – can be
composted to make clean soil. Recycling saves energy and raw materials and
reduces pollution. Compost can restore soil quality which is declining across
Europe. Farming is now an extractive industry destroying the soil with the
nutrients and organic matter ending up in landfill sites or washed out to sea.
Those who care about the future – environmentalists, community activists and
socialists – want an end to our throwaway society with its one-way flow from raw
materials to waste. Instead, we should reduce the waste produced and recover the
resources through reusing, recycling and composting.
The waste treatment industry and many local authorities,
under pressure from legislation and public opinion, accept they can no longer
simply dump waste into the ground. However, they still see the issue as one of
waste disposal rather than resource recovery. Being forced out of landfill they
are looking for the next easy option. The industry also likes hi-tech solutions
as there is more profit to be made. To them, incineration with its claim of
gaining energy from waste is the answer. Incineration means they can continue to
collect mixed waste and dispose of it. However they have been losing ground over
the last few years with massive opposition to any new incinerator.
The report, paid for by the government, has to be understood
as part of this debate around incineration. Morley claimed that incineration is
better than landfilling mixed waste. But, whether the statement is true or not,
landfilling mixed waste is not an option. The choice is not between landfill and
incineration. It is between a policy of low levels of recycling with
incineration, or high levels of recycling and compost with a small remainder of
waste for treatment. The press and the minister ignored the report’s findings
that, even with its weak methods, incinerators were only marginally better than
landfill while other treatments such as composting, recycling and anaerobic
digestion were much better than both.
The report, over 400 pages long, compares the health and
environmental effects of different waste treatment processes. However, in spite
of its length it is a weak document. It ignores the full life of products, so
does not recognise the avoided damages to health and environment due to
recycling or composting as compared to incineration. It makes somewhat
questionable assumptions about the health impacts of different processes. The
report was reviewed by members of the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy
of science, and heavily criticised for its weaknesses. Even after amendments the
Royal Society stated that "it is important that anyone using the data takes
adequate consideration of its inherent uncertainty".
Health studies
THE MAIN WAYS of studying the health impacts of processes
like incineration are either to estimate the amount of pollution and then the
impact on health of this pollution – dose/response – or to carry out studies of
the health of people around a plant – epidemiological studies.
Dose/burden studies are based on assumptions about the
average person’s response to a typical dose. This ignores that some people,
particularly the elderly and poor, are more at risk of ill-health. Also
different people already have higher levels of pollutants in their bodies,
depending on where they work and live as well as their own body’s reactions.
‘Average’ masks the varied vulnerability of individuals. Even more worryingly,
children’s bodies do not respond to chemicals and toxins in the same way as
adults. As they are growing and developing, their bodies are much more sensitive
to tiny chemical changes which can have significant long-term impacts on
development, intelligence and behaviour, and on the immune, reproductive and
hormone systems.
Epidemiology can show that there is a statistical link
between poor health and some factor, but alone it cannot prove that the factor
caused ill health. There may be other unconsidered factors also at work. One of
the longest fought over examples was the battle around the health impacts of
smoking. Many studies showed that people who smoked were more likely to get
cancer, but the studies alone were not proof. It took time to prove the link.
There is clear evidence that people living near old incinerators and landfill
sites have suffered poor health. What is debated is whether the incinerator or
landfill is the cause. One suggested alternative, which excuses waste handling,
is that as landfill sites and incinerators tend to be located in neighbourhoods
of poor people, then poverty is the cause.
Epidemiological studies rely on the passage of time so that
what are often small variations in health accumulate to a level that is clearly
measurable. The report states that they did not find a link between the current
generation of municipal solid waste incinerators and health effects. This is no
surprise as these have only been operating a few years which is not long enough
to produce any noticeable effects. There is well documented evidence of older
incinerators harming health.
A reasonable view would be that incinerators and landfill
sites release harmful chemicals and that as there is some evidence of harm from
these releases then action should lean towards caution. This is known as the
precautionary principle.
Health justice requires that precautionary action is based
on protecting the vulnerable rather than some notional ‘average’. Yet in a cruel
twist, incinerators and landfills are usually located in poor communities, with
a high number of vulnerable people. These people should not have a double burden
of health risk. If incinerators are safe, why are they mainly placed in poor
communities?
A further complication in understanding the health impacts
of incinerators is that they release a cocktail of many chemicals, well over 100
volatile organic chemicals alone. We know that some of these are harmful to
health, but there is little or no research on the combined harm of these
chemicals, the cocktail effect. The release of many of these chemicals from
incinerators is not even measured.
The report ignores completely the production of ultrafine
particles – no mention in 420 pages! The harmful health effects of particles of
around 10-2.5 microns has been established, but there is a growing awareness
that the very small ones are even more harmful. Ultrafine particles are
particles with a diameter of less than 01.micron. That is one ten thousandth of
a millimetre or one millionth of four inches. Very, very small!
Ultrafines are mainly a product of high temperature burning,
such as incinerators and car engines. Materials, that as larger particles are
harmless, at the size of ultrafines can be toxic. These tiny particles can pass
into the deepest parts of the lungs where the air is exchanged with the blood
system. Human bodies have no natural barriers to ultrafine particles, as in our
evolution we did not encounter such small particles. They are so small they can
pass from the lungs into the blood stream and then into the body’s organs or a
foetus. They can pass directly through the cell walls into the brain. They are
linked to lung cancer, coronary heart disease and strokes. At present there is
no legislation on the release of ultrafine particles, their releases are not
monitored and filters on incinerators do not capture them.
There is clear evidence of negative health impacts from
older incinerators. In a major study, the US National Research Council Committee
on Health Effects of Waste Incineration pointed to health problems and the need
for more research, yet this study is not even referred to. The report does refer
to a study by Farmer and Hjerp, 2001, which gained news coverage as it argued
that incinerators made only a very low contribution to pollution and have little
or no health effects. However, it was criticised for its weaknesses including a
lack of a thorough review of information, inaccuracies and factual errors, and
ignoring the precautionary principle, uncertainty and the likelihood of failures
in the incinerator process. This critique is ignored. A recent study in Cumbria
found negative health impacts around incinerators. A recent study in France
found "for the total of congenital malformations and the large categories of
minor and non-genetic malformations, a significant difference in incidence is
observed with a greater risk for the population exposed after the start of the
incinerators than before".
Dubious assumptions
THE REPORT MAKES a number of other dubious assumptions in
building up its case that incinerators are safe. The high temperature reactions
in incinerators inevitably produce a host of harmful chemicals. The safety of
incineration relies on the total effectiveness of the operator and all the many
controls. Yet, as we all know, machinery breaks down and companies cut corners.
Incinerators regularly breach their license with fires, burst filters and other
failures. The report however, while acknowledging some failures, dismisses
these: "Emissions above consented limits are not a significant issue for waste
incinerators. Also, an exceedance over a short period is not likely to have a
significant effect on emissions averaged over a long period such as a year".
(p71) Again the report hides behind a false ‘average’ concept.
Even if the filters work safely, the harmful chemicals are
not destroyed. They are captured as ‘fly ash’ in the filters that are then
disposed to landfill. The chemicals still escape into the environment, only on a
slower path via water, soil and air. The report largely ignores releases to soil
and water and assumes that landfill sites do not leak harmful chemicals.
One of the most worrying failures was the deliberate
spreading of 2,000 tonnes of toxic ash contaminated with ‘fly ash’ from the
Byker incinerator on footpaths and allotments. This resulted in soil with
"massive contamination with dioxins". Yet all the report says about this scandal
is: "A widely reported incident arose during which ash from the Byker
incinerator in Newcastle was re-used on footpaths, including those at nearby
allotments. In this case, the releases directly to land were greater than would
normally occur. This has been investigated by the Environment Agency and
Newcastle city council". (p78) To describe spreading toxic ash as ‘re-use’ shows
a strange use of the English language. The character of the entire report is
revealed in this utterly complacent paragraph.
In deciding whether to use incineration or not, the wider
environmental and health issues are as important as the direct impacts.
Incineration destroys valuable resources. The one claimed benefit is the
production of energy. However, recycling saves three to five times as much
energy as is generated from incineration. Incinerators are expensive and rely on
risky technology. The same money used for recycling and compost saves resources,
protects the environment and provides jobs. As Paul Connett put it, if
incineration is the answer we are asking the wrong questions.
In Newcastle, we had to battle against scientists and
experts like the authors of this report who select the evidence that suits their
case. It is one of the tragedies of science that too often it is used
selectively – such as in the debates over genetic engineering – to back the
needs of big business. However, BAN Waste was able to win because we were
determined, gained wide public support and produced strong evidence and
alternative policies that showed Newcastle did not need an incinerator.
Undoubtedly, this report will be used by the
pro-incineration lobby of business, some councils and some in the government.
For example, the strangely named, National Society for Clean Air, which produced
a pro-incineration report a couple of years ago, said: "We hope the report will
put an end to scaremongering over the health impacts of facilities like
incineration".
It is unlikely that this weak and one-sided report will end
the real concerns about incineration. The evidence is too well known to be
avoided. The battle against incineration and for waste minimisation and resource
recovery will continue.
Sources:
Review of Environment and Health Effects of Waste Management (full report)
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/health-effects/health-report.pdf
Review of Environment and Health Effects of Waste Management (Summary)
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/health-effects/health-summary.pdf
BAN Waste: Too Good to Waste
http://tyneside.sdf-eu.org/banwaste/uploads/TGtWfull.pdf
Other Reports at: www.banwaste.org.uk
Paul Connett’s critique of incinerating waste
http://www.cank.org.uk/connett1.html
|