There are pros and cons regarding incineration, and we only seem to have been provided with the pros, to date. It is time to consider some of the cons as well.Health concerns must be at the top of the list, especially if the incinerator is to be placed in our community. 4 of the 5 sites on the short list are within Clarington (one is in York Region). None in the rest of Durham Region - all Clarington, and all 4 are located between Hwy 401 and the lake. 2 are near Courtice Road and 2 near Bennett Road.
Here is an excerpt from "Ontario's Waste Management Challenge - Is Incineration an Option?" - a new report just released by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP). You can download the full report here.
In 2005, the British Society for Ecological Medicine released its report on the "Health Effects of Waste Incinerators". This report drew a number of conclusions suggesting that even incinerators employing more modern technologies may have adverse health effects, including the following:
• Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this
interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider.
• Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is the chemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential for adverse health effects. A March 2006 report by the BC Lung Association found that even relatively low levels of fine particles (2.5 microns and smaller) have the potential to affect human health.
• Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in the immediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutants bioaccumulate, can enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over time and over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have been made to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.
• Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash that represent 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), requiring transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of
dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.These studies offer many contradictions and leave a number of uncertainties about the health effects of these technologies. Prior to introducing more incinerators in Ontario we would need to be sure that technologies have improved and don’t offer undue risks to human and environmental health. The MOE should again review the health implications of these technologies to update its 1999 assessment.
No one wants another landfill as we all know the problems with that. And we know something
must be done with all the garbage before the 2010 closing of the Michigan border to our garbage. But is incineration the answer? It well may be, but there are also disadvantages that must be seriously considered, especially when planning to plunk an incinerator so close to populated areas. Why plan to locate it so close to residents? They would prefer to locate it closer to where most of the waste is produced, and also close to major highways so that cost of transporting it will be reduced. Is that cost a valid trade-off for possible health concerns of residents? We must also look at traffic congestion and wear and tear on roads with all the heavy truck traffic this will generate. What about future development in the area?Jobs? There will be very few jobs produced by this incinerator since it is mostly an automated process. It is projected that fewer than 40 or 50 jobs will be required to run the incinerator. Could the space be better used to improve our industrial/commercial tax base by having more commercial/industrial development on these lands by companies requiring more workers?
While more and more people and businesses in Durham Region are working hard to reduce, reuse and recycle, will the introduction of an incinerator reduce the priority placed on municipal waste diversion? Any negative impact on this priority would be a huge step backward as recycling leads to lower energy consumption and environmental burdens than waste disposal.
The short list of sites seems to put costs and convenience above other concerns such as health, traffic, infrastructure degradation and other problems we could see with an incinerator placed locally. It is something our regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) must consider seriously, but we are afraid that even if they decide to push to have the preferred site be the one in York Region, Anderson, Regional Chair, will be pushing to have it located in Durham Region, as will many of the regional councillors from the other lakeshore municipalities since they will have the convenience, lower costs, but not the problems inherent with siting an incinerator within their own municipalities. We have only 3 votes. Our local municipal council is not really consulted on this. It is the Region, once again, that makes the decision, and will most likely convince our 3 representatives that it's a good thing for Clarington residents anyway.
Will they listen to residents on this issue? Why change their spots now? They can make a big show of public consultation (which is required, not by choice of our council), but as usual they will do what they decide in spite of public input.
Please contact your mayor and council with your views on this important issue. A public meeting is set for April 12 at the Beech Centre in Bowmanville, 7 - 9 pm. Another meeting is scheduled for Saturday morning, April 14 at Town Hall in Bowmanville from 9:30 - 11:30 am. Please try to attend.
Let us face it: incineration is just an mindset which reflects "out-of-sight, out-of-mind".
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, our society relied on landfills to achieve this "invisibility", actually not caring much about the associated perils, such as ground water contamination.
Now, we are running of landfill sites and we are forced to consider alternatives. Consideration is actually being given to a perpetuation of the same traditional function of "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" by now replacing landfills with energy for waste gasification and getting rid of the (immense) waste by-products by relying on the atmosphere as an ultimate disposal site.
"Same old, same old" and the consequences are equally unacceptable.
Our society should recognize that it has to deal with reality or reality will deal with it.
Do we want more filth in our atmosphere?
Do we want more pulmonary health issues, including those associated with airborne micro-particulates?
Do we want more cancers in our populations?
We've been told that incineration is "very clean" with no negatives, and we should welcome an incinerator into Durham Region (eg. Clarington). Once again we're not getting the whole truth from our regional chair or our council.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot overlook our responsibilities for our own garbage. For us, incineration is probably the best route we can take. the only reason why we are now faced with the prospect of having an incinerator in our back yards is due to the people of Michigan who finally had enough of our garbage. Suck it up Clarington and lead the way to an inovative way to rid ourselves of the garbage we produce!
ReplyDeleteSure, we have a responsibility for our own garbage, but saying incineration is "probably" the best route we can take just isn't good enough. And we'll not only be responsible for our own garbage, but for all of Durham Region's, York Region's and then possibly Peterborough, Toronto, or whoever will fill up our capacity in the incinerator. If it runs only at 1/4 to 1/2 capacity taking Durham and York's garbage, we will need to go elsewhere to attract more. Is that really what we want? Is that the reason for building in so much capacity? Those airborne microparticulates will affect Clarington, not the far-flung regions also sending their garbage to us.
ReplyDeleteHow about all the truck traffic, noise, damage to roads, health concerns? Where do you live, anonymous? Would you want it in your backyard? I'll bet you don't live in south Courtice or even south Bowmanville anywhere near the proposed sites. Easy to be so condescending when it won't have much of an effect on you.
ReplyDeleteAnd why do all the sites fall within Clarington? Doesn't the rest of Durham Region have any responsibility too?
I was watching the Regional Council meeting today and the only person who asked any questions regarding the incineration was Oshawa Councillor Brian Nicholson.
ReplyDeleteHe asked why Clarington residents were not consulted before being chosen as the location for the incinerator? He wanted to know what would happen if Clarington residents said no to incineration?
The answer was that Regional Council would decide but the incinerator would be the only option available in the time frame.
Not one of our Regional Council representatives did anything to oppose this plan, although Mayor Abernethy did say he seek a public meeting, maybe on a Saturday.
In the election, our Mayor and Councillor campaigned like Tigers. Since the election, they have turned into sheep.
Not at all what we voted for.
I watched the meeting on TV today too. Mayor Parish from Ajax also questioned whether Clarington would be forced if not a willing host. He also questioned the "partnership" with York, with York Region having only one site that would most likely not end up being chosen, yet we would be taking all their garbage with no responsibility for them. This seemed to be the feeling right fromt he start, 2 years ago too, but nobody listened. Also 2 years ago residents said it would end up in Durham, and most probably in Clarington, and within Clarington, in Courtice. Looks like the residents are smarter than all the public officials. But we already knew that!
ReplyDeleteNovak got up and spoke briefly too, just to clarify that there were 12 sites on the longer list, not only 5. She seems to be supporting the entire process as well as Clarington being host for the incinerator. Why should be be surprised. She's never made a decision that was in the best interests of Clarington or Courtice. She is always on the WRONG side of issues. Nothing has changed.
ReplyDeleteMayor Abernethy isn't in charge of the public meeting - it is being done by the York-Durham committee that is pushing the incinerator, isn't it? Besides, he and council will only listen to what they want to hear. If they don't hear what they want, they'll ignore it. If they get a lot of people who want the incinerator (although why WOULD they?), then they'll listen as that is already their position. Just like with the hospital funding. Wait until you find someone to say what you want to hear. Great article by Jennifer Stone in today's Canadian Statesman!!!
ReplyDeleteOf course the residents are smarter than Council. But Council won't listen to them. Not really. They've already proven that with the Regional Chair public meeting denial and the silly but expensive phone poll on hospital funding that they are ignoring, along with all those delegations on both subjects.
ReplyDeleteThat Statesman article is right. They wait to get the response that agrees with the decision they have already made and then make their public decision. Or they stop people from giving their opinions when they know they won't like what they have to say.
The people have been right more often than our public leaders. Why won't they listen to us or take us seriously? Egos?
Are we a "willing host"? Will it even matter or will Roger Anderson and his sycophants force the incinerator on Clarington in spite of what the municipality decides or the residents want? Anderson could care less about Clarington. He's shown that over and over again. And our councillors don't even get it. But why would they listen to us anyway?
ReplyDeleteI'm very angry and concerned right now because our air and health and quality of life are being compromised and leveraged by the very people who were elected to safeguard it.
ReplyDeleteWe may need incineration, but it should not be located so close to populated areas, even if it means shipping the garbage a little farther. Recycling must also be kept on the front burner and not let slide because it's easier to dump it all at the incinerator. This kill the province's incentive to get serious about recycling.
ReplyDeleteUnder new Provincial regulations, environmental assessments are no longer required for small pilot projects for "new waste technologies," such as energy-from-waste incinerators.
ReplyDeleteNo environmental assessments? You've got to be kidding!
Will they do it on the cheap or get the very best technology? Why put it so close to a populated area? For convenience? Health is not a fair trade-off for convenience or price. This technology is not as clean as we are being lead to believe. Do some research on it.
ReplyDeleteAnd do we want Toronto's garbage being trucked here? Traffic gridlock. Infrastructure degradation. Safety (trucks and kids). Dioxins in the air. Plenty more. Do your homework
Clearly we need more information before agreeing to this. Durham Region has a history of jumping in and making foolish decisions first, then asking questions later. It is very much driven by the regional chair. That includes the Pickering Airport which he is clearly trying to push forward, against the wishes of the majority of residents both within and outside of Pickering. Does he ever listen? No, not until the media gets involved and rakes him and regional council over the coals. "Retrograde Council" is an apt description.
ReplyDelete"Please contact your mayor and council with your views on this important issue."
ReplyDeleteWhy bother? They only pretend to listen anyway.
Contact Willie Woo or Ron Hooper. They are the only ones who actually appear to listen to residents or care what people think. Not condescending or know-it-all and they follow through with what they say they will do.
ReplyDeleteIn my earlier post on the incineration disposal proposal, I failed to stress the critical buzz word repeatedly and consistently now used by incineration advocates to make their suggestion more acceptable by the general population.
ReplyDeleteThis buzz word is "waste-to-energy".
Using a buzz word is something that any propagandist or any marketer readily knows: one has to use a certain minimal dose of carefully selected words in order to promote even the most wacky concept.
For example, in the case of the 407 extension, the key word is "Transportation", although this can be clearly demonstrated that this is certainly not a "Transportation" issue. I could on with other similar examples...
In the case of the waste disposal issue, an apparently desirable outcome, i.e. the conversion of waste to energy, is thus associated with incineration in order to "sugar-coat" the concept.
The fact of the matter is that the energy density present in waste is simply INSUFFICIENT to provide any semblance of combustion, let alone a contribution to the energy grid. Combustion, which is required to achieve reduction in the solid waste volumes, can only be achieved if external energy is added. And a large portion of the previously solid waste component ends up in the atmosphere.
In other words, the waste itself is not a self-sufficient in terms of intrinsic energy and one cannot attempt to convert it to electricity without adding an external energy contribution.
Anyone who doubts this should try lighting up a pile of garbage!!!
Those who claim that incineration is the way to go should be put on the spot to declare the NET energy balance that they expect from incineration. This balance is in fact NEGATIVE. If we want to have anything which resembles some combustion, and hence some waste volume reduction, we have so add external energy to the toxic brew and use the atmosphere to disperse part of what was previously garbage.
This provides some semblance of "invisibility" for the effluents, while disposing of the wastes. The sad reality is that, unless there is a complex (and overly complex) scrubber system, the effluents end up in the atmosphere, where they are out-of-sight and out-of-mind, but not out of respiratory systems.
Too many politicians do not care about what they consider "subtle" irrelevancies, such as adverse health consequences, as these do not impact their short-term political concerns.
We should however remember, and we should do everything to make sure that this is the case, that "one can fool some of the people some of the time, but one cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
I do not consider my health a "subtle" irrelevancy, but no doubt it will be spun by the proponents of this incinerator and those who would allow it to be built locally, to appear to be a good thing for Clarington. And no doubt most of our politicians will buy into it. To date their record has been unsatisfactory and it appears to be continuing the downhill slide.
ReplyDelete