Dr Dick Van Steenis influence
What influence has doctor Dick van Steenis had on the incineration debate?
Dr Dick Van Steenis - Will waste be the death of us? - A medical perspective.
Further reading on incineration of waste and alternatives to it.
Dr Dick van Steenis (often “Dr Dick Van Steenis”), a retired GP and anti-incineration campaigner, has had a noticeable influence on the public debate in the UK around incineration / energy-from-waste (EfW) plants — especially in raising health concerns, influencing public inquiries, and helping mobilise opposition in several cases. Below is a summary of his main contributions, claims, and how they’ve played out (strengths, criticisms, limits).
Who he was & what he claimed
- Van Steenis was a medical doctor with experience in toxicology.
- His activism focused on health risks of incinerators: emissions of particulates (especially PM2.5, PM1), heavy metals, dioxins, etc. He claimed these could contribute to increased rates of asthma, cancer, heart disease, infant mortality, lower IQs in children, and other health burdens.
- He argued that modern regulations weren’t stringent enough, especially in regard to the physical properties of emissions (particle size etc.) and their cumulative impacts.
- He promoted alternative technologies to incineration (or to “traditional/incumbent” EfW incineration), such as plasma arc gasification.
1. Public campaigns / local opposition
- He’s been involved in several local opposition movements. For instance, opposition to an incinerator at Javelin Park, near Haresfield: in a local meeting, he argued that proposed incinerator emissions were dangerously lax and that health risks were downplayed.
- In Oxfordshire / Ardley, he was quoted warning of increases in heart attacks, cancer, and children’s IQ being lowered.
- In Jersey (La Collette), he warned that breast cancer rates, infant mortality, asthma etc would likely go up.
2. Evidence / Public Inquiries
- He has given evidence to UK select committees and public inquiries on air quality and health.
- His submissions often emphasise that the public health burden is under-estimated, and that regulators don’t always take into account subtle or cumulative risk (including small particle sizes, or synergy between pollutants).
3. Shaping policy conversation
- His arguments have helped bring health risk issues more fully into planning debates. For example, local councils and planning authorities have had to respond to concerns about emissions, monitoring, health impact assessments, etc.
- He seems to have pushed for tighter regulation, more rigorous health impact assessments, more transparency, and scrutiny.
4. Mobilising public awareness & concern
- His speeches, letters, and appearances raise public awareness. The role of such “expert voices” is critical in shaping perceptions among communities considering incinerator projects.
- He’s frequently referenced by local media, campaign groups, action groups opposing incinerator proposals. So his influence is not purely academic but quite practical in activism.
Criticisms & Limitations
Van Steenis’ views are not universally accepted, and there are several criticisms / counterpoints that appear in the public debate:
- Others (industry, regulators, EfW proponents) argue that modern incinerators are well-regulated and that emissions are kept below harmful levels. They contend that the evidence van Steenis uses is not always peer-reviewed or is extrapolated beyond what the data supports.
- Sometimes local authorities or companies say that van Steenis presents worst-case or speculative risk rather than demonstrating proven health impact in situ.
- The regulatory framework in the UK and EU includes limits on key emissions (dioxins, particulates etc.), requirement for environmental/health impact assessments, monitoring. Proponents say that these mitigate many of the risks.
- Also, causal attribution is always difficult: proving that an incinerator causes specific health outcomes is hard, especially when effects may be small, over long time periods, and mixed with other pollution sources.
Overall Influence & Legacy
Putting it all together, Dr Van Steenis’ influence has been significant in these ways:
- Shifting the burden: He helped shift some of the burden of proof to incinerator proponents to more fully account for health risks, including longer-term and low-dose exposures.
- Raising regulatory/monitoring scrutiny: Because of his claims, planning decisions have sometimes been delayed, scrutinised more closely; public inquiries have had to address health evidence more carefully.
- Empowering community opposition: Local opposition groups have had a credible medical/health expert to call upon; this gives such groups more leverage.
- Framing alternative debate: By pushing alternatives (e.g. plasma gasification), by emphasising particle size and cumulative exposure, etc., he broadened public policy discussion beyond “incineration vs landfill” to include questions about technology, regulation, and health trade-offs.
- Legislative / policy framing: His evidence has featured in parliamentary reports and in debates over European directives (such as waste incineration directive, emission limits, etc.). For example, the House of Lords report on European Communities notes Dr van Steenis among several health-concerned witnesses.
Summary: What he didn’t do or couldn’t always do
- He did not generally succeed in proving universally that incinerators are unsafe in all cases — many planning permissions still go ahead; many incinerators get built.
- His evidence is sometimes disputed or countered by studies or experts with different conclusions.
- Regulatory change has been incremental; public health standards have improved, but many of the risks claimed (e.g. long-term cancer risk, lower IQs) remain contested or uncertain scientifically.