Brent Cross Cricklewood developer denies incinerator part of plans

Times Series: Expert questions claims Brent Cross plans include incinerator Expert questions claims Brent Cross plans include incinerator

A LEADING international expert on waste disposal claims a planned waste disposal station for the Brent Cross Cricklewood development is effectively an incinerator.

Professor Paul Connett, who has battled against the building of incinerators across the world for 25 years said the technology does not yet exist to make the plans safe.

Developers of the £4.5bn project say the facility, which they call a waste handling plant, will turn rubbish into a gas which will then be used to fuel a power station.

However, Brent residents are upset about the plant being situated on the site of the current Bestway store in the Edgware Road, which they claim will impact on their health.

The retired professor of environmental chemistry said: “It's preposterous turning a suburban area into a dump town.

“The technology does not yet exist to do the kinds of things they are claiming. They say it's a gasification plant not an incinerator, but when you burn the gas you get many of the problems associated with incineration.

“Nano-particles, which are extremely small and very difficult to capture, are created and these can pass right through into the bloodstream and into the lungs and other organs and cause major health problems.”

Related links

However, Jonathan Joseph from the Brent Cross Cricklewood Development Partners, said the claims amounted to "scaremongering".

‘It is simply untrue and scaremongering to claim that this technology is unproven when it is already being successfully used in Japan and Europe.

"There are five gasification facilities in Norway alone, a number in Germany, and in fact several are already up and running very successfully in the UK.

"Far from being unregulated, any emissions from such facilities are subject to the strictest regulation at both European and UK levels to ensure there is absolutely no risk of harm to the health of local people.

"We will need to fully satisfy all the relevant authorities before we are able to proceed. Once again let me categorically state that we will not be building an incinerator and we have not sought planning permission for one."

The plans are set to be decided on by Barnet Council's planning committee at a special meeting next Tuesday, October 20.

For more on the Brent Cross Cricklewood debate click the link below to click our dedicated news section.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:28pm Thu 15 Oct 09

Ali H. says...

Jonathan Joseph is being disingenuous when he claims that all emissions from gasifying incinerators, such as the one proposed for Brent Cross, are subject to strict controls. Nano particle emissions aren't clearly regulated.

And, the burning of waste is in itself, wasteful. Once it's destroyed, it's gone forever: another finite resource lost.

It's a pity Mr Joseph wasn't at the professor's excellent presentation to Brent residents last week. It would have been interesting to hear his justification for these appalling plans.
Jonathan Joseph is being disingenuous when he claims that all emissions from gasifying incinerators, such as the one proposed for Brent Cross, are subject to strict controls. Nano particle emissions aren't clearly regulated. And, the burning of waste is in itself, wasteful. Once it's destroyed, it's gone forever: another finite resource lost. It's a pity Mr Joseph wasn't at the professor's excellent presentation to Brent residents last week. It would have been interesting to hear his justification for these appalling plans. Ali H.

3:10pm Thu 15 Oct 09

SAC says...

Professor Paul Connet has spent whole of his life studying and indentifying problems for human being by pointing out incinrators/waste dispoal unit etc. where as Mr Jonathan Joseph perhaps spent his whole life making money how? it is his right if he says I have no objection. However in this project searious health and other issues are being raised therefor it is now depend upon Authorities of Barnet and Brent and specially general public to consider who side they should take. For me Professor is the right choice.
Professor Paul Connet has spent whole of his life studying and indentifying problems for human being by pointing out incinrators/waste dispoal unit etc. where as Mr Jonathan Joseph perhaps spent his whole life making money how? it is his right if he says I have no objection. However in this project searious health and other issues are being raised therefor it is now depend upon Authorities of Barnet and Brent and specially general public to consider who side they should take. For me Professor is the right choice. SAC

3:40pm Thu 15 Oct 09

Michael Ryan says...

If Professor Paul Connett looked at the infant mortality rates in London's 625 electoral wards aggregated for the six-year period 2002-2007, he'd see that the 14 wards which each had zero infant deaths recorded by ONS in the above 6-year period "just happen to be" where there's minimal exposure to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators.

Barnet's wards show clearly that Brunswick Park is free from emissions from Edmonton incinerator to the east and from St Mark's Hospital incinerator to the west and that's why there's been zero infant deaths in that ward.

Colindale ward is a different case as it's close to St Mark's Hospital incinerator at Northwick Park & is also subject to PM2.5s from incinerators at Hillingdon Hospital and Colnbrook. There were 1602 live births and fifteen infant deaths recorded in Colindale ward during 2002-2007, ie an infant mortality rate of 9.4 per 1,000 live births and Colindale is part of a cluster of other high infant death wards such as Eastcote & East Ruislip (13.9 per 1,000), Queensbury (12.9), Harrow Weald (12.6), Northwick Park (12.0), Fryent (10.2), Headstone North (9.4), Pinner (9.0) etc.

There are other similar clusters around incinerators all around the country and also around oil refineries, power stations, foundries etc. but no academic has the guts to look at the data and challenge the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency over their failure to protect our health.

Plasma gasification is the cheapest & safest method of waste disposal and so it's likely that the UK will be the last in the world to adopt it.

Those who support FoE and Greenpeace should ask them why they haven't done what I've done & examine the rates of infant deaths in the electoral wards around incinerators and start to get the media aware of the provable adverse health effects.

More on incineration at www.ukhr.org

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
If
If Professor Paul Connett looked at the infant mortality rates in London's 625 electoral wards aggregated for the six-year period 2002-2007, he'd see that the 14 wards which each had zero infant deaths recorded by ONS in the above 6-year period "just happen to be" where there's minimal exposure to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators. Barnet's wards show clearly that Brunswick Park is free from emissions from Edmonton incinerator to the east and from St Mark's Hospital incinerator to the west and that's why there's been zero infant deaths in that ward. Colindale ward is a different case as it's close to St Mark's Hospital incinerator at Northwick Park & is also subject to PM2.5s from incinerators at Hillingdon Hospital and Colnbrook. There were 1602 live births and fifteen infant deaths recorded in Colindale ward during 2002-2007, ie an infant mortality rate of 9.4 per 1,000 live births and Colindale is part of a cluster of other high infant death wards such as Eastcote & East Ruislip (13.9 per 1,000), Queensbury (12.9), Harrow Weald (12.6), Northwick Park (12.0), Fryent (10.2), Headstone North (9.4), Pinner (9.0) etc. There are other similar clusters around incinerators all around the country and also around oil refineries, power stations, foundries etc. but no academic has the guts to look at the data and challenge the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency over their failure to protect our health. Plasma gasification is the cheapest & safest method of waste disposal and so it's likely that the UK will be the last in the world to adopt it. Those who support FoE and Greenpeace should ask them why they haven't done what I've done & examine the rates of infant deaths in the electoral wards around incinerators and start to get the media aware of the provable adverse health effects. More on incineration at www.ukhr.org Kind regards, Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury If Michael Ryan

6:29pm Thu 15 Oct 09

VivFoE says...

Mr Joseph choses his words carefully when talking about incineration. Funny he still hasn’t bothered to apply for an environment permit for this misnamed endeavour. Or grace us with his presence at Willesden Area Forum last week when invited to debate with the Professor. Last time he attended the forum in January, accompanied by a technical consultant from a PR company, he admitted dioxins would be produced by the plant.

The only way he can get away with getting his ‘outline’ plans passed is to keep it vague, not call it incinerator, but energy-for-waste, gasification etc instead. And substitute PR spin for full details. But as it clearly falls within EU Waste Incineration Directive it IS a form of incineration - the leading world expert named it as a ‘gasifying incinerator’.

Many groups are critical of the so called ‘strict’ EU and UK regulations – toxic dioxins are only required to be monitored twice a year, and chloro brominated dioxins not at all. Tiny nano particles are so small they can’t be filtered out, yet can go straight to the blood stream according to the expert.

Who would you believe – the developer whose main goal is profit, or a professor who has 25 years expert experience on the dangers of these technologies?

As for facilities in Norway, are they exactly the same technologies he is proposing for Brent Cross? I doubt he could answer that as he hasn’t provided a full specification, without which the full environmental impact cannot be assessed.

Of course there is a risk to local people – no one can guarantee that emissions won’t leak due to human error. The point about incineration is that it takes perfectly ‘innocent’ waste and turns it into hazardous waste, which still has to be disposed of – very carefully. We should be very wary indeed.

For more information see
http://brentfoe.com/
brent_cross.html
Mr Joseph choses his words carefully when talking about incineration. Funny he still hasn’t bothered to apply for an environment permit for this misnamed endeavour. Or grace us with his presence at Willesden Area Forum last week when invited to debate with the Professor. Last time he attended the forum in January, accompanied by a technical consultant from a PR company, he admitted dioxins would be produced by the plant. The only way he can get away with getting his ‘outline’ plans passed is to keep it vague, not call it incinerator, but energy-for-waste, gasification etc instead. And substitute PR spin for full details. But as it clearly falls within EU Waste Incineration Directive it IS a form of incineration - the leading world expert named it as a ‘gasifying incinerator’. Many groups are critical of the so called ‘strict’ EU and UK regulations – toxic dioxins are only required to be monitored twice a year, and chloro brominated dioxins not at all. Tiny nano particles are so small they can’t be filtered out, yet can go straight to the blood stream according to the expert. Who would you believe – the developer whose main goal is profit, or a professor who has 25 years expert experience on the dangers of these technologies? As for facilities in Norway, are they exactly the same technologies he is proposing for Brent Cross? I doubt he could answer that as he hasn’t provided a full specification, without which the full environmental impact cannot be assessed. Of course there is a risk to local people – no one can guarantee that emissions won’t leak due to human error. The point about incineration is that it takes perfectly ‘innocent’ waste and turns it into hazardous waste, which still has to be disposed of – very carefully. We should be very wary indeed. For more information see http://brentfoe.com/ brent_cross.html VivFoE

6:13pm Fri 16 Oct 09

Lia C says...

This technology is only proven with coal and wood, not with municipal waste. Incinerators of this type in Australia and Germany had to both be closed within 3-6 years. The money would be better spent by NLWA on promoting zero waste.
This technology is only proven with coal and wood, not with municipal waste. Incinerators of this type in Australia and Germany had to both be closed within 3-6 years. The money would be better spent by NLWA on promoting zero waste. Lia C

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree