If the Region of Durham incineration project in Clarington is approved, and we all know how biased and incomplete the so-called "studies" have been, someday in the future we can be sure that the present Regional Chair and Regional Councillors will be held responsible for the increase in cancers and respiratory problems as well as many other consequences, beyond what the rates are today. We already have some of the worst air quality in the Province. They don't mind making it worse.They may not be held accountable or legally responsible in the courts (although that will remain to be seen), but certainly at the very least in the court of public opinion they will be. And mark my words, people won't forget and won't forget WHO was responsible for it. There are plenty of residents who will remind them.
There is an incredible amount of documentation from various authoritative and credible sources such as medical and scientific journals so that there is no excuse for them to still be sitting on the fence saying, "We want to be sure it is safe". Why is it that everyone else knows that the Precautionary Principle should be applied here, but the majority of the politicians are ignoring that fact.
Any credible level of government would always employ the precautionary principle, but for some reason, our governments seem more than willing to ignore it and plow ahead, even at the peril of its own residents. Repeated requests by residents to consider other (better) alternatives have gone unheeded.
Are they blind (can't see the documentation showing the high risk with MSW incinerators)? Or deaf (they can't or won't hear the pleas of their own residents, their own constituents)? Or are they just plain dumb? That remains to be seen.
I'll have to do some research, but I seem to recall a fairly recent court case in the USA where residents took their politicians to court over this same issue.
ReplyDelete"There is an incredible amount of documentation from various authoritative and credible sources such as medical and scientific journals"
ReplyDeleteMan, I love how blogs like this don't have to cite any of their sources. It's incredible, I wish I could have gotten away with that in highschool.
Haha. You're not in highschool, are you. High School students are smart enough to look things up for themselves or google it. Here is some help:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php
http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?list=type&type=104
http://www.ideaireland.org/incineration.htm
http://www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org/incineration_articles.htm
That is a start but there are hundreds more. Have a look for yourself. And guess what? I found all this stuff from some of the links on this blog. You didn't look very hard, did you? Or are you one of the proponents of incineration and don't want to know the health impacts? Let's just burn it all like the Region wants to do.
University Students are smart enough to know now to quote something unless it's a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Those aren't even trade journals or government sponsored studies.
ReplyDeleteI had a look at the Greenpeace article linked from this site and guess what, the majority of their sources are more than 10 years old.
You don't think there have been advancements in technology since then?
I can't dispute the health implications of inhaling some of the chemicals that can come out of burning materials but those emissions can be captured, stabilized and dealt with safely, and in the meantime we get electricity from the process.
Landfills don't provide any positive return.
If the concern is really just about dioxins then why not just lobby to ban PVC from being burned in the incinerator, if thats the major source of dioxins?
What Greenpeace article is that? I didn't give you a greenpeace article link, did I? Did you even bother to check out the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine or any of the doctor's journals or papers? Are you also saying that 40 or 50 or however many have spoken out against incineration Durham Region doctors are stupid and don't know what they're talking about but those people trying to make tons of money off building incinerators are infallible, especially on health concerns? My how smart you are.
ReplyDeleteWho has said the dangerous emissions can be captured safely, other then the industry proponents? How many health experts will guarantee that and in what peer reviewed medical journals?
The concern isn't just dioxins. Maybe the blogger thinks so but I don't and the medical community doesn't. There are a lot of chemical emissions from incinerators and even the newest technology can't capture them all. And what technology will Durham have? It will be mass-burn technology (cheapest) and not the newest or best.
Where will the ash from the incinerator go? No one will tell us that. Since this is a "made in durham" solution, does it go to the Brock landfill? That's where it should go since it is the only one still open in Durham, isn't it? And the toxic ash? Maybe Darlington will take it as it is hazardous waste?
Our air quality is already so bad here. Why would you want an incinerator to be built here?
Do some real homework and look for the information for yourself. And try to get it from somewhere other than the industry. Try to get it from someone who has nothing to gain from incineration. Try to find an unbiased source such as the doctors who have to treat people with respiratory and other illnesses.
I tried to help you out with some links but you didn't even bother to read any of them. There is plenty of NEW information against these incinerators. You didn't bother.
The greenpeace article linked from this blogs main page. In the list of links you referred me to.
ReplyDelete"How many health experts will guarantee that and in what peer reviewed medical journals?"
How many doctors do you know who also know how to build incinerators? WHY would a doctor know anything about incinerators? How could they possibly be an authority on technology? health problems associated with chemicals sure, but not the technology to reduce the emissions of those chemicals.
My whole reason for posting my comment was to suggest that everyone who is against the incinerator (and everyone who is for the incinerator) to enter into a CONVERSATION on the topic, not just name calling and "fact listing".
Seems like anti-incinerator folks are always saying that the pro-incinerator folks haven't got all the facts. And the Pro's are saying the same thing about the anti's. So who's right? Oh yeah, I guess you are.
If you REALLY don't want the incinerator you have to approach the fight from a different angle because clearly the way you've been going at it isn't working. It's time to try a new strategy.
Have you heard of Stabilized landfill? Maybe that's something Durham should be doing INSTEAD of incineration (see how I'm offering a reasonable alternative instead of just bashing the option they like?).
Just be smarter about this and don't make it so personal. You know they don't care about you, so it doesn't matter to them if it hurts you. Find a different approach. Both sides are waay too entrenched to reach consensus, or even compromise.
Duh. Stabilized landfill has been offered as an interim solution many times. The Region refuses to even consider it. What other solutions do you have up your sleeve? You try talking to the region as many residents have tried. They decided on "thermal treatment" years ago, long before the EA process began. They have no interest in a different solution and they, especially Mr. Anderson, have made that absolutely clear.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever gone to any council or committee meetings? If you had, you would see what a brick wall most of that council is. A few seem to want to listen, but most of them could care less. They have refused over and over and over again to consider any alternatives. Everything points toward incineration. The consultants were hired to guide the region through the EA process and to get the result they want - approval for their incinerator.
Doctors may not know much about engineering, but the engineers know little about health concerns. There are plenty of records of emissions from the "new technology" and doctors have revied them. It is a risk not worth taking.
I realize the politicians don't care about me. I don't expect them to. I expect them to care about my children and your children if you have any. I expect them to start being honest with themselves and with the public. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
I'm with Peg on this. There is a lot of information out there but some people prefer to choose only what will shore up their side and get the thing built.
Shouldn't we err on the side of safety? Shouldn't we use the precautionary principle as recommended by most scientists, health professionals, and even our government? Or should we go ahead and burn our resources instead of doing something really environmentally friendly?
I emailed Jennifer Stone (The Durham riding 08 blogger).
ReplyDeleteI asked if she could ask the candiates what their thoughts on the proposed incinerator.
After all, the Oshawa blogger asked the same thing of the Farmtech Energy, and all four came back negative.
Please forgive me...it is my very first blog. I am trying to navigate the posts to become more informed about how Clarington residence feel about the EFW site. I have been to Council and spoke against it but felt I was talking to the wall. Abernathey(sp?)not too interested in what we want. I am not certain about where the other councellors stood but most just sat there with really silly looks on their faces. I took information from David Suzuki(sp?-pardon me it was another late night with my very ill daughter)sent to me by his office absolutely against the whole EFW incinerator. That didn't matter...as I don't see myself as an expert but a very concerned person living within 5km of the proposed site #1. I am curious about the upcoming election and how people interested in this issue are planning to vote. I do know that the electorial system is flawed, but I still know that the only party interested in our dilemma is the Green Party. That is who I am supporting especially after watching Elizabeth May kick the other useless and untrustworthy politicians in the butt with her sharp wit and concrete background on the important issues. Well, I was just curious of what might happen if more people got off their lazy tooshies and actually voted with some education what this country could become and what we could actually do for our environment. I worry about leaving this mess to my children. Anyone else worried? Hope this is posted and I hope to learn to do this better next time. Thanks for your patience.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if this is good news or bad news.
ReplyDeleteBut yesterday, Jim Abernathy made a speech to the Clarington Board of Trade, calling Clarington the Energy Center of Ontario.
There's mention of the ENergy Park, the new nuclear plants, the Water Control Plant. But one thing not on that list.
NO incinerator metioned.
Now that's what Clarington this week said so I don't know if he said it or not.
Time for a new sign!!
ReplyDeleteAbernethy continues to take credit for Mutton's work. Tell me, besides the incinerator, what has Abe brought to Clarington?
ReplyDeleteMayor Abernethy has brought a loss of freedom of speech by residents. He has brought a new procedural by-law that severely limits the speech of both residents and councillors. He has brought ridicule to our Council. He is working hard to bring an air-polluting incinerator to Clarington.
ReplyDeleteShall I go on?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNo, enough already; show me to the vomitorium!
ReplyDelete