Trafford Scientist Slams DEFRA over Air Pollution
The Breathe Clean Air Group, campaigning to stop the Barton Renewable Energy Plant in Davyhulme, Greater Manchester, is astounded that a Government Department recognises the danger of airborne pollution, yet does nothing to stop the burning of biomass.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) says about the effects of air pollution, “A variety of air pollutants have known, or suspected harmful effects on human health and the environment. In most areas of Europe these pollutants are principally the products of combustion from space heating, power generation or from motor vehicle traffic. Pollutants from these sources may not only prove a problem in the immediate vicinity of these sources, but can travel long distances.”
Materials Scientist Graham Cliff of Trafford, Greater Manchester has been analysing tiny particulates and nano-particles using electron microscopes for nearly 40 years. He says “the monitoring of air pollution does NOT extend to small enough particles. I believe that today we are seeing not just the familiar effects of inhaling particulates, namely respiratory disease and cardio-vascular effects, but we are perhaps also seeing particulates causing DNA disruption, aggravation of auto-immune conditions and even aggravation of dementia. DEFRA informed me that electron microscopy is not employed in evaluating airborne nano-particles and that there is no regulation in the UK for particles smaller than PM2.5.”
DEFRA says, “Generally, if you are young and in a good state of health, moderate air pollution levels are unlikely to have any serious short term effects. However, elevated levels and/or long term exposure to air pollution can lead to more serious symptoms and conditions affecting human health. This mainly affects the respiratory and inflammatory systems, but can also lead to more serious conditions such as heart disease and cancer.”
Chairman of the Breathe Clean Air Group, Pete Kilvert said, “We know that burning biomass produces masses of tiny particulates and nano-particles which are harmful to health. Not only are they not being measured at present, but the Government wants to stop monitoring all airborne pollutants as part of its Cutting Red Tape programme. Stopping biomass and waste incineration will cause a significant reduction of dangerous air pollution.”
From: Michael Ryan
4 September 2013
Dear Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council,
What evidence has been seen by any officers or Councillors of
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council that demonstrate beyond any
reasonable doubt that emissions from the proposed Peel biomass will
have no significant adverse impact on human health?
If no such evidence of “lack of harm” has been supplied to Trafford
Metropolitan Borough Council by Peel or by Peel’s consultants, the
Environment Agency, Trafford Primary Care Trust, Health Protection
Agency, Public Health England, or any advisor or consultant to the
above publicly-fuhnded bodies, then what consideration has been
given to demanding that the operating permit issued to Peel by the
Environment Agency be withdrawn or rescinded or otherwise annulled
in order to protect the health of the residents of and visitors to
Trafford and other Councils within the fallout zone of emissions?
Yours faithfully,
Michael Ryan
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_lack_of_harm_to_heal#comment-43382
Here’s my email to the Manchester Evening News, which may still be under consideration:
From: Michael Ryan
To: “newsdesk@men-news.co.uk”
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 14:16
Subject: Have you reported on the impact of biomass plant at Peel on the requirements of the Health & Social Care Act 2012? Heath
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_lack_of_harm_to_heal
Evidence of “lack of harm to health” caused by emissions from the proposed Peel biomass plant at Davyhulme
(4 September 2013)
Michael Ryan left an annotation (20 September 2013)
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 places an obligation on Councils to protect and improve the health of residents, eg:
“4. At the local level, the Act gives local authorities the responsibility for improving the health of their local populations. The Act says that local authorities must employ a
director of public health, and they will be supported by a new ring-fenced budget. The Act requires directors of public health to publish annual reports that can chart local progress.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy…
Trafford Council opposed the biomass proposal by Peel and yet the subsequent decision by the Secretary of State to allow the biomass pant will make it impossible for Trafford and
other Councils within the fallout zone of the biomass plant to properly comply with this Act:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio…
Yesterday’s Independent listed the Councils with highest and lowest life expectancy in England:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom…
Manchester is listed in the above article as having the lowest life expectancy of men and the second-lowest life expectancy of women. Emissions from the biomass plant,
which appears to have received permissions without any rigorous analysis of health effects, are unlikely to extend life expectancy – just as emissions from the SELCHP incinerator in
the London Borough of Lewisham haven’t extended live expectancy in Tower Hamlets or Newham.
Trafford is currently one of the healthiest Councils in Greater Manchester and that position will be compromised by Peel’s biomass plant.
Note that ONS data showed that the infant mortality rates in the London Boroughs of Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth were all falling at a similar rate prior to the
start-up of SELCHP incinerator in 1993. After SELCHP started, the infant death rates in the three Boroughs most exposed to emissions from SELCHP suddenly rose whilst the
rate in “upwind” Wandsworth continued to fall as seen in this graph:
http://ukhr.eu/incineration/selchp.htm
based on these ONS data:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/busi…
The Environment Agency’s current Chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, gave the following assurance to the South London Press for their article of 4 May 2004:
” But Chris Smith, of the Government’s Environmental Protection Directorate, said no permit would be issued to an incinerator operator if a health risk was likely.”
http://www.st-ig.co.uk/south_london_pres…
******************
Much of Owen Paterson’s constituency is downwind of the incinerator currently being built at Harlescott, Shrewsbury.
His department’s policy includes:
“Protecting and enhancing our urban and natural environment to improve public health and wellbeing”
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-enhancing-our-urban-and-natural-environment-to-improve-public-health-and-wellbeing
so you might think he’d be concerned about the incinerator issue.
Unfortunately, road traffic – rather than incineration of waste – is the key issue:
“Air pollution, for example from road transport, harms our health and wellbeing. It is estimated to have an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths each year and is expected to reduce the life expectancy of everyone in the UK by 6 months on average, at a cost of around £16 billion per year. Air pollution also damages biodiversity, reduces crop yields and contributes to climate change.”
The “good” news is:
“We’re working with local and national government, as well as internationally, to improve air quality by controlling:
emissions of harmful pollutants
concentrations of harmful pollutants in the environment”
The bad news is that the incineration & biomass bonanza will only worsen air quality.