Davyhulme Incinerator Judgement Day

3 Responses

  1. Dr S Prokop says:

    There are many ways to skew population studies around incinerators.The previous Paul Elloitt studies used unexplained incinerator number additions, which had the effect of reducing cancer numbers.The plumes were counted as circular (they never are, more egg shaped) which undercounts exposed populations.Liver cancer was used as the marker, itself one of the rarest cancers, giving the EA the chance to say the effects were small.The rest of the numerous cancers were then explained by smoking, alcohol,social class and poverty….failing to mention the inequalities issues in pollution exposures.Reading those original papers would be an eye-opener for any trained readers.
    It was no surprise to me,then, that the agency he now heads (SAHSU) would be given the job of reassuring the public about all the small and big incinerators the vested interests want to build.Whilst current computer modelling techniques and the complexities of small area stats maths are far more advanced now, they are easily manipulatable and impenetrable to the lay person ( including me).I am awaiting the new study with interest,if only for all the wrong reasons..

  2. Michael Ryan says:

    I’m delighted to see the above post by Dr Stan Prokop.

    I wonder what explanatio Paul Elliott will offer for the failing infant death rates prior to 1993 and the subsequent rise in rates in the three Boroughs most exposed to incinerator emissions after the SELCHP incinerator started in that year?


    I’ve lost access to my hotmail account and should be grateful if Stan would contact me
    via http://www.ukhr.eu

    Kind regards,

    Michael Ryan

  3. Simon Bacon says:

    As someone who has been through all of this in Derby UK in recent times along with our Manchester court case I lend you my full support and wish you well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *