European Magical Mystery Tour

Incinerators are an unsustainable and obsolete method for dealing with waste. As global opposition to incineration continues to grow, innovative philosophies and practices for sustainable management of discards are being developed and adopted around the world.1 Except in Durham Region, where the soupe du jour is INCINERATION.

So sad that on a day when the world is celebrating "Live Earth" on 7 continents, our Durham politicians and staff are in Europe trying to find justification for their blind commitment to burning our garbage and sending it into the air instead of into the ground. I wonder if they have caught any of the Live Earth concert promos or messages regarding global warming and greenhouse gasses. It's big in Europe...

Again, the image of "retrograde council" comes to mind. Whether dealing with greenbelt or greenhouse gasses, it's an apt description of the majority (so far) of our Regional representatives, and especially our 3 Clarington reps. They pretend to care but then go ahead and promote incineration, finding all the excuses they can to tell residents that it is safe, clean, and there are no other options. It is good to know that they could find consultants to promote their cause, and that they are unburdened by accuracy or integrity when spewing the magic bullet solution to the rest of us.

Our Durham Pols keep telling us we must have a "Made in Durham" solution, and not send our garbage outside of our borders. Hmmmm. How do they plan on containing it when they send it into the air (emissions)?

“The latest scheme masquerading as a rational and responsible alternative to landfills is a nationwide — and worldwide — move to drastically increase the use of incineration...The principal consequence of incineration is thus the transporting of the community’s garbage — in gaseous form, through the air — to neighboring communities, across state lines, and indeed, to the atmosphere of the entire globe, where it will linger for many years to come. In effect, we have discovered yet another group of powerless people upon whom we can dump the consequences of our own waste: those who live in the future and cannot hold us accountable. It is still basically a Yard-a-Pult approach. [‘The Yard-a-Pult, invented for a “commercial” on the U.S. television comedy show Saturday Night Live, invites disposal of waste by catapulting it over the back fence into the yards of nearby neighbors.’]”
— then U.S. Senator Al Gore, 1992

The Durham Regional Council promised that they would not employ any technology that would cause any harm to residents. Yet they seem to feel it is unreasonable for us to hold them accountable for their actions. WE DO hold them accountable. For this unnecessary trip (not the first "incinerator tour" for some of them, with us paying the freight yet again). For continuing to spend dollars on a solution we don't want and that WILL cause harm to all of us, but more so to our children and their children. They could easily have gotten much more information on incineration from medical journals and scientific texts available on-line. What will they see in Europe? Emissions are invisible to the naked eye. I guess out of sight, out of mind.

"A meeting was scheduled with the director of the German Waste Association and they toured an EFW facility in Zurich, Germany." I hope they found it alright, since I always thought Zurich was in Switzerland. They must have been late for that meeting - could be still looking...

Our Regional Rocket Scientists "...poked around neighbouring homes and talked to some residents. Mr. Anderson said people had clothes out on the line next door to the incinerator, a reflection of the low level of concern over the facility. "

Oh gosh, that makes me feel so much better! And from a Metroland News article:

In Copenhagen, there was a townhouse complex within 200 metres of the EFW facility. They met with a man who had lived there for 30 years and another who had just moved in.
"We asked about depreciation of property values and if there was odour," Mr. Anderson said. "They didn't have any concerns about it. It is just the accepted way of dealing with waste here."

Oh my. The science is staggering. Incineration MUST be safe. And not only does the EFW project continue to roll on toward Clarington, but since York has backed out of the deal, Durham Region is soliciting other municipalities outside of Durham for their garbage, since we need enough to fill this oversized garbage burner. We won't send our garbage outside of Durham Region (except by air emissions), but we will welcome garbage from Peterborough, Northumberland, York, etc.

And why is Clarington being targeted? Well, because we have become known as a "politically weak community". There are many good reasons to stop this insanity it in its tracks. The main one is "emissions".

Builders and engineers of incinerators often respond to questions about pollution by asserting that “air emissions are under control” in the newest generation of “state of the art” waste burners. Underlying their claims are three unsupportable assumptions. First is the assumption that there are acceptable emissions levels for all the pollutants released by incinerators; second, that incinerator air emissions are now being accurately measured; and third, that emissions, even as currently measured, are within the limits currently defined as “acceptable.”
(1Waste Incineration, A Dying Technology; also see GAIA - Global Anti- Incinerator Alliance AND Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives)

Look at the Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment that has just been done for this incinerator project. Full of "assumptions". All it is is assumptions. Are you willing to risk your health and your family's health on unproven and unprovable assumptions? I'm not.

CHALLENGE to Clarington Councillors/Mayor who took the trip: Since we are paying for the "incineratourists", I would think that taxpayers are entitled to have these our Councillors (not staff - COUNCILLORS/Mayor) produce a "compte-rendu" of their findings, not something filled with typical platitudes but something substantial. If they say that they cannot, then how do they have the intellectual capabilities to assess what they saw?