• Home
• Commercial Sales
• PYO U-Pick
• Fruit Pickers
• Recipes
• Healthy Eating
• Location Map
• Has Picking Started ?
• Sales Outlets

Burning Issue in King’s Lynn

Norfolk County Council believes King’s Lynn should have a waste 170,000 tonne/year waste incinerator. 

 

In a letter The Environment Agency have stated, "The main pathway for human exposure to dioxins from incinerators is by deposition in areas used for growing food and the subsequent consumption of that food".

 

We are opposed to the building of a waste incinerator when there are safer and more cost effective options available. 

 

Please follow the link to the farmer's campaign www.farmerscampaign.org

 

UK regulations effectively ignore the smallest most toxic particles, only the more obvious smoke is controlled, giving the false impression emissions are clean and safe.  So called ‘modern’ incinerators are still found exceeding permitted levels of toxic pollution.

Because the UK Health Protection Agency has not commissioned its own independent research around incinerators, we must rely on others.  Studies from around the world, including America, Japan, Korea and UK Health Research www.ukhr.org have demonstrated ‘modern’ incinerators - like the one proposed for King’s Lynn - damage health.  Downwind populations suffer significantly higher incidences of diseases, including cancer, foetal abnormalities, asthma, heart attacks and strokes.  The harmfull effects are most pronounced within 16 miles of an incinerator but they are know to extend much further.

 

Aside from the direct health impacts, farming is particularly vulnerable to commercial damage.  Any benefit associated with ‘locally produced’ food is undermined by the threat of contamination.  After recent pollution on the Isle of Wight from a similar incinerator, there have been public calls for eggs to be tested for dioxin. How many times will this happen before crop assurance schemes insist upon dioxin testing?  Irrigation water is already required to be analysed, if future tests show heavy metals present from incinerator pollution, it need not reach ‘dangerous levels’ to damage customer confidence.  

 

  Livestock is most vulnerable because animals accumulate contamination both through what they eat and breathe. When any level of contamination is detected where previously it was not this will have an impact.  When milk produced downwind of an incinerator shows 5 times the dioxins compared to farms upwind the product becomes harder to sell and worth less.  Any premium attached to organic farming is undermined. 

 

During NCC briefings the Incinerator Presentation Team compare it to bonfire night or a little extra traffic on our roads.  If you take the trouble to research the subject, you will see what poor comparisons these are.  So called ‘official’ information does not stand up well to close scrutiny.  It would be better to compare incineration with smoking.  In the past smoking was regarded as harmless.  It took many decades and disputed evidence before legislation reflected the true extent of the problem. The tobacco industry delayed improvements in regulation, lobbying Governments and suppressing evidence, people paid for this with their lives and health.  The tobacco industry improved its image and products by adding filter tips to apparently make cigarettes safe.  Does anyone really believe putting a filter on a cigarette makes the smoke safe?  Why would anyone believe, filtering out the larger particles from an incinerator will somehow make the smaller ones safe?  The tobacco industry paid ‘experts’ generously to defend their products as being safe, even when there was a great deal of evidence to show they were not. 

 

Norfolk County Council and DEFRA have put a great deal of faith in a risk assessment prepared in 2006,  apparently protecting public health.   At face value the document looks impressive, but if you realised the author worked on behalf of the very industry he was meant to be investigating would you feel confident he was impartial?  In 1995 the same Professor/author was employed by the Tobacco industry and ‘surprisingly’ could not establish a link between their products and ill health.  Could this be the very reason he was asked to assess incinerator emissions? Would he be your first choice, to decide if the air you breathe is safe?

 

The comparison with cigarettes may appear a good one but there are some notable differences. With cigarettes you usually have a choice whether you wish to smoke, also it is unlikely you would accidentally burn nickel cadmium batteries or light bulbs containing mercury etc.  If the Council does construct their equivalent of a 170,000 tonne per year cigarette, upwind of King’s Lynn and keeps it burning for the next 25 years, it is hard to believe there will not be health consequences as a result. 

 

Please write to your elected representatives at all levels to look into this issue. If you are a member of a farming organisation please also raise this issue with them.  There are plans to build multiple incinerators across the UK this in not just a local issue.

 

Mike Knights BSc.

 

August 6th 2010 the Eastern Daily Press printed an article on page 36 allowing both sides of the argument to be heard.  On the same day an NCC employee circulated an email to interested parties challenging what was written.  In contrast to the NCC email the argument against incineration can and will be substantiated.   

 

July 20th 2010 Dr Dick van Steenis gave a presentation in King's Lynn explaining the problems associated with "modern" incinerators. 

During the meeting, Council resentatives were given the opportunity to respond.  It is unfortunate that immediately after the event Mr Allen a Council employee, made a false claim to the local paper.  NCC have been told they must either apologise or substantiate Mr Allen's assetion. Mr Allen's claim can not be substantiated, as an employee of NCC he must not be allowed to dodge responsibility by failing to respond.   

 If you would like to be kept informed about developments please send your contact detail and phone number (preferably land line) to: info"at"blueberrypicking.co.uk (please replace "at" with the @ symbol). 

Much of the information provided by Dr van Steenis is available from UK Health Research which is hosted by Michael Ryan, a civil engineer - a colleague of Dr van Steenis, and who has carried out research around incinerators. www.ukhr.org