Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 13:11
Would like to register my outrage at plans to foist waste incinerator on Cornwall without recourse to public opinion (apologies if repeating previous posts). Public and press banned from the decision-making process according to WMN. Democratic? I think not.
Would the people of Cornwall, if given the choice, reduce their waste output by choosing products with less packaging and improve their recycling habits rather than have the toxin-spewing incinerator landed on them? I like to thing the answer is 'yes' but maybe I'm naive?
Any campaigns going? I'd like to join...
Mehitabel
Posts: 392
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 13:46
Whoever told you that because you lived in a state that called itself a democracy you could expect things to be democratic?
Posts: 928
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 14:02
Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 17:35
Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 17:47
Posts: 1347
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 17:55
Or take the packaging off in the shop and leave it there as a protest.
Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 17:56
Posts: 1347
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 18:24
I might try it next time I'm in the supermarket - it'd be brill if they asked me to leave. Trouble is I don't buy many groceries, I'd have to make a special trip
Posts: 928
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 18:34
Posts: 392
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 18:57
There was one I remember reading about which had 100% support when voted on in the hall for Cornwall
Do you think they will have you?
I would be interested where you got the following from. certainly from some councillors I have talked to they were certainly under the impression the alternative was landfill
All councils in Cornwall are definately trying to increase recycling if they were misled something needs to be seriously looked into.
Posts: 769
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 19:46
A question: What is the difference between capitalism and communism?
Answer: Capitalism is where man exploits man. Communism is the opposite.
.
.
Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 19:55
Where 'I got the following from' was me (The mooted 'choice' wasn't between landfill and incineration, it was between more recycling and incineration).
If you reread the first post you will see I was merely posing the question: if there was a choice, would the people of Cornwall work harder to recycle more if it meant we didn't have to have an incinerator. I'm not inventing waste management policies
Posts: 16
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 20:12
"The Government seems set on the massive expansion of incinerators across Britain. They've awarded over 60 contracts to subsidise new incinerators, one of the contracts is to make Britains biggest incinerator (Edmonton, north London) even bigger. Greenpeace thinks it should be shut down along with the 14 other municipal waste incinerators in Britain.
However you do it, burning rubbish produces a toxic cocktail of chemicals that are linked with cancer, asthma and birth defects. Acid gases, arsenic, lead, dioxins and particulates spew out of large incinerators chimneys at the rate of 80 wheelie bins per second. The thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are sent to landfill or spread over the country as aggregate for roads or buildings.
Burning resources does not provide the answer to our waste crisis. The solution is the intensive reuse, recyling and stabilisation of waste."
Posted from:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?ucidparam=20001006102858&Menupoint=D-D&CFID=3972663&CFTOKEN=48230284&MenuPoint=D-D
Posts: 1342
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 20:47
not yet they're not the WEEE regulation have been delayed yet again to latter this year
Posts: 1342
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 20:47
ahhhh greenpeace, must be true then
Posts: 392
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 20:50
We recycle everything that the Council will collect, the main content of what is left of our rubbish is plastics other than bottles, which at present there are no facillities for. I try to avoid it if possible but manufacturers ib the quest for a longer shelf life seem to use it more and more. My main concerns are when these are burned they produce chlorine, not a nice gas and a comment from a manufacturer of filters who says that in his experience companies try and save money by not replacing them as often as they should.
I admit when I go to United Downs to take the parts of my garden rubbish which is not domestically compostable, I get annoyed when I see people dumping into the mixed waste; which goes to landfill, glass bottles, wood, cardbard etc. when they are surrounded by separate recycling points for all of these materials. What can councils do when some people are too idle to sort their rubbish.
Posts: 928
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 21:00
This is why I said a "clean, modern" incinerator. Incinerators do not simply spew out their soot across the land: their output is filtered and cleaned these days. Modern incinerators also generate power which helps to reduce the global warming from electricity plants. It'd still be better if we (i) generated less rubbish and (ii) composted more.
Posts: 1342
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 21:08
Posts: 1347
Posted:
28.Jan 2006 - 23:37
Posts: 408
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 01:00
Cledry supports another new member...well done cledry
Posts: 789
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 02:43
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:00
it for that reason, but don't you think the government has an agenda too?' Something like that. It was a suggestion of somewhere to start, you know, if you were interested in learning some background. I don't think it's gospel, and I don't think that was implied in my wording, apologies if that's what you inferred.
Iskerrys: that quote from the Greenpeace website was published almost exactly four years ago. Do you think the technology has improved that much since then? Could you point me in the direction of the literature?
I've been trying to find actual figures in parts per million of the emission composition of the latest 'clean, modern' incinerators, but all I have found so far is corporate press releases and glossy corporate websites making fabulous claims about their products. I'm willing to be convinced, given the appropriate evidence. If incinceration is totally clean, then I'm for all for it, particularly if it generates electricity. I have asked the Analytical Chemistry professor at my old university if he can help me with finding this information - I'll let you know if I don't hear it from you first.
Also, the Greenpeace quote does not say the incinerators 'spew soot', it says they emit tonnes and tonnes of PARTICULATE matter. Diesel car engines emit particulates too. They're microscopic, and unless the engine's poorly maintained you can't see them either
And when you say 'Incinerators do not simply spew out their soot across the land: their output is filtered and cleaned these days' , I'd be interested to know what time frame you're referring to? Incinerators have had 'filters' of various sorts for years (10 years since I studied this at undergraduate level) by law, and I'm sure they're improving all the time with technology, but that doesn't mean they've improved enough to not be a threat to people's health. Perhaps I'm missing the point though. Perhaps all this blustering is merely to disguise a NIMBY tendency because you live down-wind of St Dennis??? :wink:
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:02
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:37
I think our councils ARE working hard on this, things have come on a lot in the last few years with kerbside recycling, but the appearence of effort and rapid change is partly because until relatively recently they were doing next to nothing - seems a bit like too little too late?!?
One area of relatively simple change which could have a major, major impact on the amount of waste we have to deal with would be composting. Allow me to quote Lucy Siegle in the Observer Magazine:
It's easy to see from the above figures that composting could make a HUGE difference. There are existing schemes in other parts of the country, including London, where you don't even need to have a garden to participate.
She goes on to make the point:
Simple but effective!
Posts: 928
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:38
How is it a Nimby tendency when I said I'm in favour?
How would you enforce recycling? Employ people to go through bin bags and fine homeowners who've put a paper envelope in the normal rubbish?
Posts: 1347
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:54
Well, it can be quite apparent by the amount of refuse some people put out that they aren't even attempting to recycle. We're like mehitabel, 1/2 to one bin bag per week for the whole family. Next door are the same - also ardent recyclers. However, you go past other poeples houses and their wheelie bins are overflowing. It's obvioulsy not going to be cost effective to employ someone to go through rubbish but perhaps if the refuse colectors could note who leaves out more than one bag a week they could get a visist from the a country recycling worker or summat?
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:55
I am first to admit that the notion of 'enforced' recycling poses some practical problems. But I read in the Evening Herald recently that they are proposing something along those lines in, I think, West Devon, so it's clearly not impossible.
Any advances on those figures Iyskerrys? I notice you haven't contributed anything constructive, merely reacted to throwaway asides. I shall leave them out in future!
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 09:57
Ah, sensible and constructive. That's more like it!
Posts: 928
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 10:35
Cheers, single-issue newbie. By constructive you mean an opinion that agrees with yours, I presume. Have you still not noticed that I wrote a CLEAN incinerator? Of course I don't want one that's harmful to the environment.
You say you've looked at Greenpeace and manufacturer's figures - well, surprise, surprise, one says they're terrible, the other that they are wonderful. Neither set of figures are unbiased. Until you get an investigation which is financed by a disinterested party (which is 99.9999999% unlikely to happen) you'll never get an unbiased set of figures which won't send people on the other side of the opinion fence off into a tizzy.
Reminds me of the MMR scare. There was only ever ONE study which showed a link with autism, and that has been discredited. ALL the other studies showed no link, but see what a fuss there was about it and how many millions of pounds were wasted on court cases, and worst of all, how many kids were left unvaccinated by worried parents.
When there is an unbiased analysis of emissions to compare to Greenpeace's, I'll look at the figures, but to date I don't think you'll find one.
Posts: 1347
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 10:37
Posts: 1342
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 11:05
Well said. Meth has fallen in to the old trap that because its some charity who has said something, then it must be true, because only governments have an agenda.
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 11:19
I joined the forum less than 24 hours ago. Give us a chance! But even if this is the only topic I ever start or contribute to, does that make it less important and less relevant to Cornwall?
I don't think asking to be presented with evidence (for or against the issue) can in any way be construed as seeking only opinions that agree with mine. I clearly stated that I'm willing to be convinced. If incineration is truly a clean way to dispose of waste and generate electricity it's bloody fantastic, and I'm all for it. So show me the evidence.
By constructive I mean not deriding, insulting or seizing on the most minor of asides, but responding to the core questions: is incineration as safe as 'they' say, have the alternatives been properly explored, practical and safe solutions to the problem etc etc. In short, a debate.
It stands to reason that Greenpeace and a manufacturer such as ALSTROM are at opposite ends of this argument. Duh!
As I know of no such investigation, it seems the obvious place to start informing myself about this issue would be to look at what both fors and againsts have to say and assume the 'working' truth lies roughly in the middle as a starting point, until I find the hard data, which I will do my utmost to do.
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 11:23
How on earth did you infer that from anything I've written? You have completely misunderstood. I believe I specifically referred to Greenpeace's agenda in an earlier post. Of COURSE they have an agenda - they're environmental activists for God's sake!
'Meth'
Posts: 928
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 12:04
Maybe so. Shake and start again, Meth?
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 12:08
. After all, we've both got Cornwall's best interests at heart, haven't we? Seems stupid to be fighting about it.I will try to post other stuff if I have something useful and/or interesting to say.
Posts: 928
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 12:28
Posts: 694
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 13:43
Posts: 1347
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 16:23
'Meth' - sorry
Those quotes came from the site I mentioned to you earlier. They have very knowledgeable people on there about all things environmental - they may have info/ideas/opinions about the types of incinerators you and lys were talking about.
Posts: 1342
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 20:38
Posts: 16
Posted:
29.Jan 2006 - 23:21
I forgive you. It's nice of you to admit it!
Stonefly - is that an emoticon for 'green with envy'?!
Posts: 43
Posted:
2.Feb 2006 - 21:39
Posts: 2305
Posted:
3.Feb 2006 - 03:49
Posts: 1347
Posted:
3.Feb 2006 - 09:48
Posts: 1342
Posted:
3.Feb 2006 - 10:21