After questioning Prof.
Howard, the committee agreed to:
- Issue a report on the issue of incineration of waste, and request a Plenary debate.
- Write to the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development to ask him to consider the weight of support for this petition when considering the committee's letter calling for the Cardiff Incinerator plans to be called in.
- Write to those who have given evidence to Committee on this subject to seek their views on the modeling used to inform decisions in relation to Incinerators".
His central argument
was that official estimates of 'risk' from incinerator pollutants are
flawed, giving single numbers when there is a wide envelope of
uncertainty. The government relies on epidemiology, which is a "very blunt instrument". The research has not been carried out – both the
hazard characterisation and exposures are very uncertain. Those who present "unparameterised" modelling express an "opinion dressed up in numbers". He
explained exposures may be 100 times higher than estimates by comparing the Viridor claim for Cardiff of 0.24% of PM2.5 expected to come from
their incinerator with the 17-32% actually measured in a small
Swedish town due to a modern incinerator (meeting Euro-standards). The hazard of average incinerator PM2.5 may be many times
worse than a power station's because of the toxic chemicals in waste
and produced in burning. The very smallest (nanoparticles) fraction of PM2.5 are
a worry as little can be done to filter them out and the volumes of
emissions are very large.
[PM2.5 means particles smaller than 2.5micrometres, or 2500 nanometres, which humans breathe into their lungs.
Nanoparticles means particles in the 10-100 nanometre range]
[PM2.5 means particles smaller than 2.5micrometres, or 2500 nanometres, which humans breathe into their lungs.
Nanoparticles means particles in the 10-100 nanometre range]
