Trafford Scientist Slams DEFRA over Air Pollution

3 Responses

  1. Michael Ryan says:

    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    Environment Agency be withdrawn or rescinded or otherwise annulled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

  2. Michael Ryan says:

    Here’s my email to the Manchester Evening News, which may still be under consideration:

    From: Michael Ryan
    To: “”
    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

    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.”

    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:

    Yesterday’s Independent listed the Councils with highest and lowest life expectancy in England:

    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:

    based on these ONS data:

    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.”

  3. Michael Ryan says:

    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”

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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