Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Clarington GPA Committee on Friday 2007/06/08

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

(… or, “it is difficult to keep the Ship of State afloat if the importance of hull integrity is not being appreciated!”)

I - Introduction

Members of the Clarington GPA Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. The Clerk should note that I will forward a digital version of this presentation.

I have a Ph.D. in Physics. As a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

First however, I want to stress that I do not deny that we have to do something with our waste; like death and taxes, this is a reality that cannot be ignored. And addressing this cannot be without some consequences.

A solution must be identified on the basis of the optimization of certain variables, while not adversely impacting certain others, known as “fixed constraints”.

In particular, it is essential not to attempt to address the waste disposal issue in a way that will create new problems elsewhere, particularly in the public health area.

II – Concerns

Why am I concerned about the implications of what is currently being contemplated?

I am concerned because we appear to be “putting the cart before the horse”, namely we evaluate and debate potential locations without having prior examined the health implications of the proposed technology.

I am concerned because, with incineration, there will be unavoidable (and well-known) negative health and environmental consequences.

I am concerned because this goes against the sustainability of our agriculture, our environment and our health. Indeed, we are stewards of this world and we should always remember this Kenyan proverb:
“Take care of this Earth; your parents did not give it to you; your children lent it to you.”

I am concerned because there is now ample evidence on chemical burdening, increasing cancer rates and decreasing human fertility rates; this is not a speculative issue.

I am concerned because, as a resident of this country, I am ashamed of the inaction of our federal government in the critical matter of environmental protection; I want Durham Region to take an enlightened action, not compound the problem.

All of these are issues that should truly alarm all of us.

Moreover, I should state that, as a resident of the Region, I am concerned that I will UNWILLINGLY be contributing to the problem of what I suspect, if rationality prevails, will be an UNWILLING host.

III - Implications

“So what’s the fuss?”, one may ask. This technology will introduce two formidable enemies into the biosphere:
dioxins and furans, whose toxic concentrations are measured in pico-grammes, i.e. in billionth of a billionth of a gram (10**-12 g) or a billionth of a microgram;
nano-particulates, i.e. particles whose linear dimensions are of the order of the nanometre (10**-9 metre), that can readily migrate through membranes such as lung partitions and thus find their way into the blood stream and accumulate in organs (recall that visible light is in the 400 to 700 nm).

This is part of what we know as scientific FACTS.

For these substances, there are NO Safe Minimum Exposure levels and doses. Nano-particulates are known to migrate through partitions such as pulmonary walls and end up within the human organs. In dealing with such substances, we cannot adopt a “Solution by Dilution” approach.

It should be pointed out that incineration will not only have negative consequences on public health, but also on health care costs; this will no doubt be of interest to those interested in monetary matters.

IV – By-products

Incineration will NOT eliminate the need for landfill. In fact, it may exacerbate it, as the landfill requirements not fall into the hazardous by-products category.

Typically an incinerator leaves some 30% weight in terms of pit ashes and fly ashes; these must be disposed of in a secure landfill site. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this means 75kt/year ashes, or about 200 tons/day (calendar day).

With incineration, some 70% of the incinerated matter also go up the stack. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this corresponds to 175kt/year being sent in the atmosphere, or about 480 tons/day (calendar day).

This is also part of what we know as FACTS. Do I need to tell you where all of this is going to end up?


V – The Precautionary Principle

There are also FACTS whose long-term consequences are still speculative, i.e. we suspect them and they are yet not clear.

The literature is replete with instances of contamination on individuals who did not come in contact (or so they thought) with offending chemicals, i.e.
chemical burden on the human body (Federal Parliamentarians – Jan. 2006);
genetic damage and human fertility (W.H.O. conference speaker – Fall of 1999).

Even in the case of persons who did come in contact with a substance, compliance with the “accepted norm” is not a guarantee that the operation is safe, as such norms reflect the knowledge of the day.

For example, there is the tragic case of New Brunswick workers exposed decades ago to toxins and who are now suffering the consequences. Their exposure levels were, at the time, well within the “accepted norms”. There are numerous other instances with unexpected side effects, e.g. thalidomide, VIOX, radiation doses, lead piping, etc…

The fact that the exposure was, at one time, within legal limits now provides little solace to those whose health was irretrievably affected. In critical issues, a technology should NOT be accepted simply because it meets certain “standards” then in force.

In such instances, would it not be eminently reasonable not to jeopardize the single planet and the single life that we have by adopting a precautionary approach in the matter?


VI – Recommendations

For this and many other reasons, I hereby request the Clarington Council to clearly recognize the health aspects perils associated with the selection of any waste treatment technology.

It should adopt a position that Public Health and Environmental Concerns are primary issues that cannot, under any circumstances or any pretense, be compromised or sacrificed.

It should mandate its representatives to Regional Council to articulate this position.

It should acknowledge that good stewardship is good environmentalism which itself is good economics.
- - -

Executive Summary

Any waste disposal technology that has a negative impact on Public and Environmental Health should not be considered as suitable for waste management purposes.
= = =