Dr Dick Van Steenis incineration of waste
19th July 2006 Brighthelm Centre - Dr Dick Van Steenis - Will waste be the death of us? - A medical perspective.
Further reading on incineration of waste and alternatives to it.
Will waste be the death of us?
As a retired NHS GP, Dr Dick Van Steenis was involved in research into health damage resulting from industrial air pollution from January 1995 up untll his death in 2013. See Tributes paid to Monmouth doctor and health campaigner.
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS highlighted the risks of particulates, especially PM2.5s which are small enough to get into people's breathing tubes, as well as PM2s which can reach into the bottom of people's lungs. He claimed that incineration of waste causes a shortening of lifespan in human-beings of up to 12 years, by increasing a range of diseases especially cancers. He also described a study in Belgium, which has monitored a 480% rise in cancer in the vicinity of an incinerator.
Concern about PM2.5 particulates was expressed too in the context of construction works going on now at Hollingdean Depot, with particular reference to the Hydrogen Peroxide (rocket fuel) being used to deal with diesel contamination on the site to form a sludge. Local residents at the meeting expressed concern about particulates in the dust on the site, which was being driven by the westerly winds towards their homes.
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS recommended three measures which concerned residents could take:
- 1. Move home
- 2. Acquire a Hepa Filter - There is a growing body of evidence that high-efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filtration can reduce indoor PM2.5 concentrations and deliver some health benefits via the reduction of exposure to PM.
- 3. Take Selenium tablets 200 mg (adequate selenium in your blood neutralises the metals to stop mutations from leading to birth defects and cancers). This webmaster stresses that the latter should not be tried before seeking the advice and guidance of your GP. In larger doses, Selenium is also a poison.
Dr van Steenis lamented the failure of any UK government agency to effectively measure the PM2.5s entering people's lungs. We were reminded that no such monitoring was taking place at Hollingdean Depot and that this may be the subject of a case which the Dump the Dump campaign is currently compiling, which it hopes to take to The High Court.
The medical doctor emphasised that The UK, unlike USA, refuses to measure what goes into your lungs namely PM2.5s to enable companies (like Veolia) to maximise profit.
He cited the downgrading of The Integrated Pollution & Prevention Control Law in 2000 by John Prescott to more or less "anything will do" status.
The UK Government's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affiars DEFRA as well as their Primary Care Trusts appear to have no problem with PM2.5s. DEFRA has much looser standards on this than The World Health Organisation. We may in fact have to look to European legislation to safeguard us from the current situation.
As a result of this Laisser-Faire attitude towards our health, Councils only measure irrelevant PM10s down to PM4s. The Environment Agency & Councils have been told not to bother much with air pollution.
The Environment Agency truthfully states that they know nothing about health. Far worse, the Health Protection Agency follows on from the Guy's Hospital unit director who said "Air pollution does not exist".
So without knowledge of toxicology or possessing adequate data they only heed government "spin" and "reviews" and "diktat", while admitting they really know nothing. The Primary Care Trust Public Health directors in the UK are also totally ignorant of the subject, so pressurised by conflicts of interest or political "spin", they are exposed as not having learnt the subject or checked data on their own computers or checked studies done worldwide.
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS concluded that it was up to us, the residents who are being subjected to these risks, to challenge the Primary Care Trust public health directors whom the General Medical Council say must know the subject and be up to date and listen to public and colleagues.
The Environment Agency cannot finally authorise any application (from companies such as Veolia) unless the Council and Primary Care Trust public health director have both passed it.
This gives us an insight in the kind of legal challenge which The Dump The Dump campaign are currently compiling. No doubt, Dr van Steenis's expertise will be a component of this challenge.
Dr Steenis's report to the Public Inquiry Re NEWHAVEN incinerator site.
The Newhaven Incinerator, handling 210,000 tonne-a-year, was initially granted planning permission in February 2007. A ten-day Public Inquiry opened on 12th November 2007
For full text, see Dr Van Steenis's REPORT for PUBLIC INQUIRY (19 November 2007 & amended 24 November at inspector’s request) regarding NEWHAVEN proposed incinerator site.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TEXT
Along with his colleague Michael Ryan, Dr Steenis has been mapping out childhood asthma incidence, infant mortality, suicides, cancer incidence, age-standardised mortality, low birth weight and other parameters mostly at electoral ward level using data from Office of National Statistics, Primary Care Trusts and individually obtained.
These prove that downwind of PM2.5 emitting sites, such as incinerators, incidence of a large list of diseases and premature deaths at all ages are very much higher than upwind.
Our findings plus surveys in USA, France, Belgium & Scotland back up proof by the Health Effects Institute report of May 2000 that it is PM2.5 inhalation that causes this health damage and deaths NOT deprivation, passive smoking or other wild unsubstantiated allegations (“spin”) made by the UK government spokespeople.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
As there will not be any PM2.5 monitoring downwind of the Newhaven incinerator, levels could be extremely high where grounding occurs. Burning of coal with waste produces PM2.2 emissions but burning oils PM2.0 and burning of bitumen mixes PM1 emissions. It is the varied very toxic content of PM2.5s from incinerators that makes the effects of inhalation worse. PM2.5s & PM1s get through the abatement equipment, which include vaporised heavy metals, PAHs, dioxins etc. etc. many of which cause mutations leading to birth defects & cancers. The evidence of my colleague & myself prove that these modern incinerator emissions are very deadly causing maiming and killing.
The St. Niklaas Belgian incinerator operating under the same EC directives reduced lifespan by 12 years including a rise in cancers over a 20 year span of 470% above the national rise.
In Slough Primary Care Trust area the Standardised Mortality Ratio rose from 88 to 121 during the first 11 years of the Colnbrook incinerator (1990-2001) while asthma, heart deaths, lung cancer & probably diabetes soared to highest incidence in the south-east.
A letter from the Sussex Downs & Weald Primary Care Trust dated 10 February 2006 gave consent for this Newhaven incinerator to the Environment Agency. Neither that letter, nor the 2 relevant Health Protection Agency reports, nor the DEFRA statement (challenged by Royal Society for lack of data) has a single proper journal reference or any health or PM2.5 data. They comprise SPIN!!!! Even DEFRA now admit in their 16 July 2007 report - See (subsequent report on Fine Particulate Matter PM2.5 in the United Kingdom 1.3.1 Health effects of PM2.5 on p12) - that PM2.5s cause premature deaths and illnesses including cardiovascular & respiratory. On 12 September 2003 I was present as observer at a meeting of 5 public health directors plus 2 Health Protection Agency doctors. Not a single one knew the subject or had tried to be up to date.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Harvard studies published in 1996 and others at St. Helens and a Porton Down study, all based on measurements, revealed that for every 100 foot of chimney height PM2.5s ground at enough concentration to have health effects within 7 miles. Hence those downwind of Newhaven are at real risk of being maimed or killed at up to 15 miles. My map is in my summary report. The highest risk is halfway namely Lewes with a frequent SE wind.
Likely Downwind Areas affected by Newhaven incinerator
- South Heighton: This village lies immediately east-southeast of Newhaven and is well within the area where emissions typically disperse, especially when winds blow from the north or northwest. Given its proximity, it is often downwind.
- Seaford: A bit further along the coast to the east, Seaford is also likely to be impacted during favourable wind conditions.
- Lewes and Eastbourne: Though further along the coast, both towns have been noted in local commentary as being downwind of the Newhaven incinerator. Lewes is particularly relevant, as residents and local commentators pointed out that Lewes and Eastbourne lie downwind of the facility. Eastbourne is the third worst town in the UK for PM2.5s, particulates 2.5 microns across that penetrate deep into our respiratory systems, and seventh worst for the larger PM10 pollution, according to a new database by the World Health Organisation.
The infant mortality rates for Eastbourne and Lewes in 2013 were zero and 1.1 per 1,000 live births. In 2019, when infant mortality rates for England and Wales were 4 per 1,000 live births, the corresponding figures in Eastbourne and Lewes were 8.7 and 7.9. In real life this corresponds to six infant deaths in Lewes.
| Area/Town/Village | Direction from Newhaven | Downwind Likelihood |
| South Heighton | East-southeast | Very likely |
| Seaford | East | Likely |
| Lewes | Inland (north) | Occasionally |
| Eastbourne | East further along the coast | Occasionally |
Written evidence - Dr Dick Van Steenis
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee :
Air quality: A follow up report.
Further reading on the incineration of waste and alternatives to it
See also:
- Going for the burn [The Guardian 22-02-2006] on the harm done through the incineration of waste. "Incinerators basically turn rubbish into ash, particulate matter and poisonous fumes. These poisons are spewed into the atmosphere, which we breathe. Over 35% of the waste remains. Some of this becomes contaminated with toxins, including dioxins and heavy metals, and has to be landfilled in a toxic waste landfill site."
- Why oppose incineration? The United Kingdom Without Incinerator Network (UKWIN). Incineration harms recycling, exacerbates climate change, and is a barrier to the circular economy. The UK already faces incineration overcapacity. Incinerators harm air quality and are bad neighbours.
- The story of the Sint-Niklaas (Belgium) waste incinerator - 1977-2009 responsible for a rise in cancers over a 20 year span of 470% above the national rise .
- Concerns rise over incinerator emissions - Slough UK. The data provides evidence of worsening health associated with incinerator emissions in downwind primary care trusts such as Hillingdon, Hounslow, Harrow, etc, as well as Slough. Being "downwind of PM2.5 emitting sites" means being in the path of polluted air carried from a source, where you're exposed to higher concentrations of particulate matter, especially if you are within 50–100 km of the source.
- Michael Ryan's birth defect report. Michael Ryan stated: “I’m appalled that birth defect data has been collected on government instruction since January 1964, yet nobody appears to have analysed it to identify avoidable environmental causes. It’s as though teams of civil servants at Office of National Statistics and the Department of Health have been ‘asleep on the job’ for over 40 years. It’s a worse public health scandal than the Thalidomide one that led to the collection of birth defect data in the first place.”
Note that “Bexley, which has two incinerators inside the Borough - one authorised to burn radioactive waste, also receives toxic PM2.5 emissions from the Lewisham incinerator [SELCHP]. Islington is upwind of the three incinerators affecting Bexley residents and has a birth defect rate that is at least 15 times lower than Bexley.” - Newhaven Incinerator within air quality limits. "Defenders of the Ouse Valley and Estuary" (DOVE) refers to the campaign group, which opposed the construction of the Veolia incinerator in Newhaven, East Sussex involving two chimneys over 230 feet high and a main building over 100 feet high. The group, supported by Friends of the Earth, raised significant local opposition, with over 15,000 letters of objection and a petition, and pursued legal challenges against the project's approval. The incinerator was eventually granted planning permission and became operational.
- Study of ambient air quality at Newhaven Report 23 August 2012 – 13 March 2013.
- Alternatives to the incineration of waste include reducing, reusing, and recycling waste to minimise its generation, along with more advanced techniques like composting, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and gasification to convert waste into valuable resources like biogas, fertiliser, and fuel. Other non-incineration methods include mechanical biological treatment (MBT), which sorts waste and processes it biologically, and autoclaving, specifically for sterilising medical waste using high-pressure steam.
- Jane Wilde - Community Composting
Jane Wilde concluded that the very worst thing that we could do with food waste is to incinerate it together with other black bag waste. For example, the incineration of 3000 tons of food waste requires 870 tonnes of water - water which could be saved for far better uses.
- Food waste collections and Hollingdean Waste Transfer Station
2025 residents' concerns.
The "Integrated Pollution & Prevention Control" (IPPC) law refers to the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Directive 2008/1/EC) established to regulate major industrial and agricultural activities to minimize pollution by an integrated approach that considers all environmental impacts together. This directive, implemented in the UK through the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, requires industrial installations to obtain a permit, which is granted only if they use Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent or reduce pollution. While the IPPC Directive was later replaced by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the core principles of integrated pollution control and the use of BAT remain central to regulating industrial pollution in the European Union and the UK.
Background to the Meeting
The meeting at the Brighthelm Centre was held by Dump the Dump campaign on 19th July 2006 to publicise their campaign's commitment to a more sustainable Waste Local Plan. Together with other groups in the city, they are demanding:
* a rejection of the current Waste Local Plan – with its dependence on waste-bulking and incineration for waste disposal
* the re-negotiation of the £1 billion 25 year Integrated Waste Contract with Veolia Environmental Services – to deliver technology that is fit for the future in Brighton & Hove and East Sussex
* that the Council should follow the lead of other authorities - who are developing more sustainable alternatives for dealing with their waste.
Norman Baker, the MP for Lewes, reminded those present that "waste is money". He lamented the irresponsibility of the two Local Authorities which signed the 25-year contract with Veolia, and the low priority given to environmental health in the failure of the Councils to do a proper study of the alternatives to incineration, or even to write the transportation of domestic waste by rail into such a foolishly long contract.