Incineration Report

8/13/2019 Incineration Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/incineration-report 1/71



incineration (section &), the problems of ash (&.), radioactivity(section &.'), and the sections on monitoring (section 11), and riskassessment (section 1).

!e also highlight recent research which has demonstrated

the very high releases of dio$in that arise during startup and shutdown of incinerators (section 11). *his is especially worrying asmost assumptions about the safety of modern incinerators arebased only on emissions which occur during standard operatingconditions. +f eual concern is the likelihood that thesedangerously high emissions will not be detected by presentmonitoring systems for dio$ins.

2



Foreword to the 1st -dition

from Professor C. V. Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.

*he authors are to be congratulated on producing this report. *he reader willsoon understand that to come to a comprehensive understanding of thehealth problems associated with incineration it is essential to becomeacuainted with a large number of different disciplines ranging from aerosolphysics to endocrine disruption to long range transport of pollutants. #n mostmedical schools, to this day, virtually nothing is routinely taught to euip themedical graduate to approach these problems. *his has to change. !e needthe medical profession to be educated to health conseuences associatedwith current environmental degredation.

*here are no certainties in pinning specific health effects on incineration the

report makes that clear. /owever this is largely because of the comple$ity ofe$posure of the human race to many influences. *he fact that 0proof0 of causeand effect are hard to come by is the main defence used by those who preferthe status quo. /owever the weight of evidence, collected within this report, issufficient in the authors0 opinion to call for the phasing out of incineration as away of dealing with our waste. # agree with that.

*here is also the uestion of sustainability. !aste destroyed in an incineratorwill be replaced. *hat involves new raw materials, manufacture, transport,packaging etc etc. #n contrast, reduction, reuse and recycling represent a winwin strategy. #t has been shown in a number of different cities that high levels

of diversion of waste (24) can be achieved relatively uickly. !hen thathappens, there is not very much left to burn, but a number of the products leftwill be problematic, for e$ample 567. #ncineration, an end of pipe approach,sends the message 08o problem, we have a solution for disposal of yourproduct, carry on business as usual9. !hat should happen is a 0front endsolution0. Society should be able to say 0:our product is unsustainable and ahealth ha"ard ; stop making it<.

#ncineration destroys accountability and this encourages industries to go onmaking products that lead to problematic to$ic wastes. +nce the waste hasbeen reduced to ash who can say who made what= *he past 1' years has

seen a progressive 0to$ification0 of the waste stream with heavy metals,radionuclides and synthetic halogenated organic molecules. #t is time to startreversing that trend. !e won0t achieve that while we continue to incineratewaste.

6yvyan /oward >ecember '

5rofessor of ?ioimaging, 7entre for Molecular ?iosciences,@niversity of @lster, 7romore Aoad, 7oleraine, 7o. Bondonderry ?*' 1SC

&



ContentsExecutive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Emissions from Incinerators and other Combustion Sources 2.1 Particulates

2.2 Heavy metals

2.3 Nitroen oxides

2.! "ranic #ollutants

3. Health Effects of Pollutants 3.1 Particulates

3.2 Heavy metals

3.3 Nitroen oxides and "$one

3.! "ranic toxicants

3.% Effects on enetic material 3.& Effects on the immune system

3.' Syneristic effects

!. Increased (orbidity and (ortality near Incinerators !.1 Cancer

!.2 )irth defects

!.3 Ischemic heart disease

!.! Comment

%. *isease Incidence and Pollution %.1 Cancer

%.2 Neuroloical disease

%.3 (ental diseases %.! +iolence and crime

&. Hih ,is- rou#s &.1 /he foetus

&.2 /he breast0fed infant

&.3 Children

&.! /he chemically sensitive

'. Past (ista-es and the Precautionary Princi#le '.1 /he Precautionary Princi#le

'.2 earnin from #ast mista-es

. lternative 4aste /echnoloies .1 ,e0cyclin5 ,e0use and Com#ostin

.2 Producin ess 4aste

.3 6ero 4aste

.! /he Problem of Plastics

.% naerobic *iestion of "ranic (atter

.& (echanical )ioloical /reatment 7()/8

.' dvanced /hermal /echnoloies 7//8 and Plasma asification . reenhouse ases

9. /he Costs of Incineration 9.1 /he Costs of Incineration

9.2 Health Costs of Incineration 9.3 :inancial ains from ,educin Pollution

4



9.! "ther Studies of the Health Costs of Pollution

1;. "ther Considerations of Im#ortance 1;.1 /he Problem of sh

1;.2 Incinerators and ,adioactivity

1;.3 S#read of Pollutants

1;.! Cement <ilns11. (onitorin

12. ,is- ssessment

13. Public ,ihts and International /reaties

1!. Conclusions

1%. ,ecommendations

,eferences

'



Executive Summary

• (arge studies ha)e sho*n higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also

+irth defects around #unicipal *aste incinerators! the results are consistent*ith the associations +eing causal, $ nu#+er of s#aller epide#iologicalstudies support this interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses

produced +y incinerators #ay +e #uch *ider,

• Incinerator e#issions are a #a-or source of fine particulates. of to/ic #etalsand of #ore than 200 organic che#icals. including no*n carcinogens.#utagens. and hor#one disrupters, E#issions also contain other unidentifiedco#pounds *hose potential for har# is as yet unno*n. as *as once the case*ith dio/ins, Since the nature of *aste is continually changing. so is theche#ical nature of the incinerator e#issions and therefore the potential forad)erse health effects,

• 1resent safety #easures are designed to a)oid acute to/ic effects in thei##ediate neigh+ourhood. +ut ignore the fact that #any of the pollutants

+ioaccu#ulate. enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses o)er ti#eand o)er a #uch *ider geographical area, o official atte#pts ha)e +een#ade to assess the effects of e#issions on long3ter# health,

• Incinerators produce +otto# and fly ash *hich a#ount to 30-50% by volume

of the original waste if co#pacted5. and re6uire transportation to landfillsites, $+ate#ent e6uip#ent in #odern incinerators #erely transfers the to/icload. nota+ly that of dio/ins and hea)y #etals. fro# air+orne e#issions to thefly ash, This fly ash is light. readily *ind+orne and #ostly of lo* particle si7e,It represents a considera+le and poorly understood health ha7ard,

• T*o large cohort studies in $#erica ha)e sho*n that fine 1M2,'5 particulateair pollution causes increases in all3cause #ortality. cardio)ascular #ortalityand #ortality fro# lung cancer. after ad-ust#ent for other factors, $ #orerecent. *ell3designed study of #or+idity and #ortality in post#enopausal*o#en has confir#ed this. sho*ing a 89: increase in cardio)ascular and&: increase in cere+ro)ascular #ortality in *o#en e/posed to higher le)elsof fine particulates, These fine particulates are pri#arily produced +yco#+ustion processes and are e#itted in large 6uantities +y incinerators,

• Higher le)els of fine particulates ha)e +een associated *ith an increased pre)alence of asth#a and ;<1",

•=ine particulates for#ed in incinerators in the presence of to/ic #etals andorganic to/ins including those no*n to +e carcinogens5. adsor+ these

pollutants and carry the# into the +lood strea# and into the cells of the +ody,

• To/ic #etals accu#ulate in the +ody and ha)e +een i#plicated in a range ofe#otional and +eha)ioural pro+le#s in children including autis#. dysle/ia.attention deficit and hyperacti)ity disorder $"H"5. learning difficulties. anddelin6uency. and in pro+le#s in adults including )iolence. de#entia.depression and 1arinson>s disease, Increased rates of autis# and learningdisa+ilities ha)e +een noted to occur around sites that release #ercury into theen)iron#ent, To/ic #etals are uni)ersally present in incinerator e#issions and

present in high concentrations in the fly ash,

• Suscepti+ility to che#ical pollutants )aries. depending on genetic andac6uired factors. *ith the #a/i#u# i#pact +eing on the foetus, $cute

9



e/posure can lead to sensitisation of so#e indi)iduals. lea)ing the# *ith life3long lo* dose che#ical sensiti)ity,

• =e* che#ical co#+inations ha)e +een tested for to/icity. e)en thoughsynergistic effects ha)e +een de#onstrated in the #a-ority of cases *hen thistesting has +een done, This synergy could greatly increase the to/icity of the

pollutants e#itted. +ut this danger has not +een assessed,• Both cancer and asth#a ha)e increased relentlessly along *ith

industrialisation. and cancer rates ha)e +een sho*n to correlate geographically*ith +oth to/ic *aste treat#ent facilities and the presence of che#icalindustries. pointing to an urgent need to reduce our e/posure,

• In the ?@. so#e incinerators +urn radioacti)e #aterial producing radioacti)e particulates, Inhalation allo*s entry into the +ody of this radioacti)e #aterial*hich can su+se6uently e#it alpha or +eta radiation, These types of radiationha)e lo* danger outside the +ody +ut are highly destructi)e *ithin, o studiesha)e +een done to assess the danger to health of these radioacti)e e#issions,

• So#e che#ical pollutants such as polyaro#atic hydrocar+ons 1$Hs5 andhea)y #etals are no*n to cause genetic changes, This represents not only aris to present generations +ut to future generations,

• Monitoring of incinerators has +een unsatisfactory in the lac of rigor. theinfre6uency of #onitoring. the s#all nu#+er of co#pounds #easured. thele)els dee#ed accepta+le. and the a+sence of +iological #onitoring, $ppro)alof ne* installations has depended on #odelling data. supposed to +e scientific#easures of safety. e)en though the #ethod used has no #ore than a &0:accuracy of predicting pollutants le)els correctly and ignores the i#portant

pro+le#s of secondary particulates and che#ical interactions,

• It has +een clai#ed that #odern a+ate#ent procedures render the e#issions

fro# incinerators safe. +ut this is i#possi+le to esta+lish and *ould apply onlyto e#issions generated under standard operating conditions, <f #uch #oreconcern are non3standard operating conditions including start3up and shut3do*n *hen large )olu#es of pollutants are released *ithin a short period ofti#e, T*o of the #ost ha7ardous e#issions A fine particulates and hea)y#etals A are relati)ely resistant to re#o)al,

• The safety of ne* incinerator installations cannot +e esta+lished in ad)anceand. although rigorous independent health #onitoring #ight gi)e rise tosuspicions of ad)erse effects on the foetus and infant *ithin a fe* years. thistype of #onitoring has not +een put in place. and in the short ter# *ould notreach statistical significance for indi)idual installations, <ther effects. such as

adult cancers. could +e delayed for at least ten to t*enty years, It *ouldtherefore +e appropriate to apply the precautionary principle here,

• There are no* alternati)e #ethods of dealing *ith *aste *hich *ould a)oidthe #ain health ha7ards of incineration. *ould produce #ore energy and*ould +e far cheaper in real ter#s. if the health costs *ere taen into account,

• Incinerators presently contra)ene +asic hu#an rights as stated +y the ?nited ations ;o##ission on Hu#an Rights. in particular the Right to (ife underthe European Hu#an Rights ;on)ention. +ut also the Stochol# ;on)entionand the En)iron#ental 1rotection $ct of %0, The foetus. infant and childare #ost at ris fro# incinerator e#issions! their rights are therefore +eingignored and )iolated. *hich is not in eeping *ith the concept of a -ust

8



society, or is the present policy of locating incinerators in depri)ed areas*here their health effects *ill +e #a/i#al! this needs urgent re)ie*,

• Re)ie*ing the literature for the second edition has confir#ed our earlierconclusions, Recent research. including that relating to fine and ultrafine

particulates. the costs of incineration. together *ith research in)estigating non3

standard e#issions fro# incinerators. has de#onstrated that the ha7ards ofincineration are greater than pre)iously realised, The accu#ulated e)idence onthe health riss of incinerators is si#ply too strong to ignore and their usecannot +e -ustified no* that +etter. cheaper and far less ha7ardous #ethods of*aste disposal ha)e +eco#e a)aila+le, We therefore conclude that no #oreincinerators should +e appro)ed,

1. Introduction

Both the a#ount of *aste and its potential to/icity are increasing, $)aila+lelandfill sites are +eing used up and incineration is +eing seen increasingly as asolution to the *aste pro+le#, This report e/a#ines the literature concerning thehealth effects of incinerators,

Incinerators produce pollution in t*o *ays, =irstly. they discharge hundredsof pollutants into the at#osphere, $lthough so#e attention has +een paid to theconcentrations of the #a-or che#icals e#itted in an effort to a)oid acute local to/iceffects. this is only part of the pro+le#, Many of these che#icals are +oth to/ic and

+io3accu#ulati)e. +uilding up o)er ti#e in the +ody in an insidious fashion *ith theris of chronic effects at #uch lo*er e/posures, (ittle is no*n a+out the riss of#any of these pollutants. particularly *hen co#+ined, In addition. incineratorscon)ert so#e of the *aste into ash and so#e of this ash *ill contain highconcentrations of to/ic su+stances such as dio/ins and hea)y #etals. creating a #a-or

pollution pro+le# for future generations, 1ollutants fro# landfill ha)e already +eensho*n to seep do*n and pollute *ater sources, It is also i#portant to note thatincineration does not sol)e the landfill pro+le# +ecause of the large )olu#es of theash that are produced,

There ha)e +een relati)ely fe* studies of populations e/posed to incineratore#issions or of occupational e/posure to incinerators see section 45. +ut #ost sho*higher3than3e/pected le)els of cancer and +irth defects in the local population andincreased ischae#ic heart disease has +een reported in incinerator *orers, These

findings are distur+ing +ut. taen alone. they #ight only ser)e to alert the scientificco##unity to possi+le dangers +ut for t*o facts, The first is the acno*ledgeddifficulty of esta+lishing +eyond 6uestion the chronic effects associated *ith any sortof en)iron#ental e/posure, The second is the )olu#e of e)idence lining healtheffects *ith e/posure to the indi)idual co#+ustion products no*n to +e discharged

+y incinerators and other co#+ustion processes,The purpose of this report is to loo at all the e)idence and co#e to a

+alanced )ie* a+out the future dangers that *ould +e associated *ith the ne/tgeneration of *aste incinerators, There are good reasons for undertaing this re)ie*,The history of science sho*s that it often taes decades to identify the health effectsof to/ic e/posures +ut. *ith hindsight. early *arning signs *ere often present *hich

had gone unheeded, It is rare for the effects of en)iron#ental e/posures to ha)e +eenanticipated in ad)ance, =or instance it *as not anticipated that the older generation of



incinerators in the ?@ *ould pro)e to +e a #a-or source of conta#ination of the foodsupply *ith dio/ins, In assessing the e)idence *e shall also loo at data fro# anu#+er of other areas *hich *e +elie)e to +e rele)ant. including research on theincreased )ulnera+ility of the foetus to to/ic e/posures. and the ris of synergisticeffects +et*een che#icals. the higher riss to people #ore sensiti)e to che#ical

pollution. the difficulties of ha7ard assess#ent. the pro+le#s of #onitoring and thehealth costs of incineration,

2. Emissions from Incinerators and other Combustion

Sources

The e/act co#position of e#issions fro# incinerators *ill )ary *ith *hat*aste is +eing +urnt at any gi)en ti#e. the efficiency of the installation and the

pollution control #easures in place, $ #unicipal *aste incinerator *ill tae in a great)ariety of *aste conta#inated +y hea)y #etals and +y #an3#ade organic che#icals,

"uring incineration #ore to/ic for#s of so#e of these su+stances can +e created, Thethree #ost i#portant constituents of the e#issions. in ter#s of health effects. are

particulates. hea)y #etals and co#+ustion products of #an3#ade che#icalsC the lattert*o can +e adsor+ed onto the s#aller particulates #aing the# especially ha7ardous,The *ide range of che#icals no*n to +e products of co#+ustion include sulphurdio/ide. o/ides of nitrogen. o)er a hundred )olatile organic co#pounds D<;s5.dio/ins. polyaro#atic hydrocar+ons 1$Hs5. polychlorinated +iphenyls 1;Bs5 andfurans,

2.1 Particulates1articulates are tiny particles in the air that are classified +y si7e, 1M%0s ha)e a

dia#eter of less than %0 #icrons *hereas fine particulates 1M2,'s5 are less than 2,'#icrons and ultrafine particulates 1M0,%s5 are less than 0,% #icron, Incinerators

produce huge 6uantities of fine and ultrafine particulates, Incinerators are per#itted toe#it particulates at a rate of %0#g per cu+ic #etre of gaseous discharge, Theco##only3used +aghouse filters act lie a sie)e. effecti)ely allo*ing the s#allest

particulates to get through and +locing the less dangerous. larger particulates, <nly'3&0: of the 1M2,,'s *ill +e re#o)ed +y these filters and )irtually none of the 1M0,%s,In fact the #a-ority of particles e#itted +y incinerators are the #ost dangerousultrafine particulates%, The +aghouse filters are least effecti)e at re#o)ing the s#allest

particles. especially those of 0,2 to 0,& #icrons. and these *ill ha)e a considera+le

health i#pact, Health effects are deter#ined +y the nu#+er and si7e of particles andnot the *eight, Measure#ents of the particle si7e distri+ution by weight *ill gi)e afalse i#pression of safety due to the higher *eight of the larger particulates, 1ollutiona+ate#ent e6uip#ent. installed to reduce e#issions of nitrogen o/ides. #ay actuallyincrease e#issions of the 1M2,' particulates2, The a##onia used in this process reacts*ith sulphurous acid for#ed *hen stea# and sulphur dio/ide co#+ine as they tra)elup the stac. leading to the production of secondary particulates, These secondary

particulates are for#ed +eyond the filters and e#itted una+ated! they can easilydou+le the total )olu#e of particulates e#itted&, 1resent #odelling #ethods do nottae secondary particulates into account see section %25,

Studies ha)e sho*n that to/ic #etals accu#ulate on the s#allest particulates&

and that ': of polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons 1$Hs5 are associated *ith fine



particulates 1M& and +elo*5 '38, 1$Hs are to/ic and carcinogenic. and it has +eenesti#ated that these increase the lung cancer ris +y 8, ti#es,

2.2 Heavy (etals

Incinerators are allo*ed to e#it %0#g per cu+ic #etre of particulates and %#g per cu+ic #etre of #etals, The li#its #ean little as. e)en *ithin these li#its. the totala#ount of particulates and #etals e#itted *ill )ary *ith the )olu#e per second ofe#issions generated +y the incinerator and this can )ary hugely, $ further concern isthat there are no statutory a#+ient air 6uality standards for hea)y #etals apart fro#lead. *hich #eans the le)els of hea)y #etals in the surrounding air do not need to +e#onitored,

The proportion of #etals to particulates allo*ed to +e e#itted +y incineratorsis )ery high and #uch higher than found in e#issions fro# cars, $t the highte#peratures found in incinerators #etals are released fro# #etallic *aste. plasticsand #any other su+stances, Many of the hea)y #etals e#itted. such as cad#iu#. areto/ic at )ery lo* concentrations, The selecti)e attach#ent of hea)y #etals to thes#allest particulates e#itted fro# incinerators4 increases the to/icity of these

particulates, This fact is liely to #ae the particulates fro# incinerators #oredangerous than particulates fro# other sources such as fro# cars,

2.3 Nitroen "xidesRe#o)al of nitric o/ide +y incinerators is only a+out 90: effecti)e and the

nitric o/ide is then con)erted to nitrogen dio/ide to for# s#og and acid rain, Sunlightacts on nitrous o/ides and )olatile organic co#pounds D<;s5 to produce another

pollutant. o7one,

2.! "ranic Pollutants$ *ide range of organic pollutants are e#itted fro# incinerators, These

include 1$Hs polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons5. 1;Bs polychlorinated +iphenyls5.dio/ins. furans. phthalates. etones. aldehydes. organic acids and alenes,

The *aste +eing +urnt no* differs considera+ly fro# that +urnt in the past*ith a higher load of hea)y #etals and plastics producing far greater potential forhealth and en)iron#ental pro+le#s, $n e/a#ple of this is 1D; *hich is #ore than0: organic chlorine, It has +een used e/tensi)ely for doors and *indo*s and *ithan e/pected life of 40 years it is liely to appear in increasing 6uantities in the *astestrea#, This could easily raise the organic chlorine in the *aste strea# to o)er %:.*hich according to the European Waste "irecti)e *ould #ean the *aste *ould +eregarded as ha7ardous,

Many of the co#pounds are no*n to +e not only to/ic +ut +io3accu#ulati)eand persistent, They include co#pounds that ha)e +een reported to affect the i##unesyste#. attach to chro#oso#es%0. disrupt hor#one regulation%%. trigger cancer %2. alter

+eha)iour %&. and lo*er intelligence%4, The )ery li#ited to/icity data on #any of thesesu+stances is a #atter of concern%', The changing nature of *aste #eans ne*su+stances are liely to +e e#itted and created, =or e/a#ple poly+ro#inated diphenylethers 1B"Es5 are found in #any electrical goods and are increasingly finding their*ay into incinerator *aste, They ha)e +een found to affect +rain de)elop#ent and

affect the thyroid gland and cause +eha)ioural and learning defects in ani#als

%9.%8

,

%0



3. Health Effects of Pollutants

3.1 Particulates$ large and gro*ing +ody of literature has highlighted the dangers of

particulates to health, Darious studies ha)e confir#ed that the smaller the size of the

particles the more dangerous the health effects%32%, The data fro# the World Health<rganisation sho*n in the graph +elo* clearly illustrates that 1M2,' particles ha)e agreater effect on daily #ortality than the larger 1M%0s

%,

:iure 1. Increase in daily mortality as a function of P( concentration.

reproduced fro# ref %. =igure &,95

The s#aller particles are not filtered out +y the nose and +ronchioles and their#iniscule si7e allo*s the# to +e +reathed deeply into the lungs and to +e a+sor+eddirectly into the +lood strea# *here they can persist for hours22, They can then tra)elthrough the cell *alls and into the cell nucleus affecting the cell>s "$, The WH<state that there is no safe le)el of 1M2,'

%and health effects ha)e +een o+ser)ed atsurprisingly lo* concentrations *ith no threshold2&.24, The s#allest particulates.

particularly the ultrafine particulates 1M0,%5 are highly che#ically reacti)e. a property

of their s#all si7e and large surface area2', $ further danger of the s#allest particulates is that there are thousands #ore of the# per unit *eight, In incineratorshea)y #etals. dio/ins and other che#icals can adhere to their surface29 increasingtheir to/icity, The +ody does not ha)e efficient #echanis#s for clearing the deeper

part of the lung as only a tiny fraction of natural particles *ill +e as s#all as this,$s incinerators are effecti)ely particulate generators and produce

predo#inately the s#aller particulates that ha)e the +iggest effect on #ortality it isclear that incinerators ha)e considera+le lethal potential,

a8 E#idemioloical Studies of Particulate Pollutants

=ine particulates ha)e +een associated *ith +oth respiratory andcardio)ascular disease28 and *ith lung cancer %.2,

%%



T*o large cohort studies in the ?S$ sho*ed increasing #ortality *ithincreasing le)els of 1M2,' pollution, In the Si/ ;ity Study pu+lished in %&% . .%%%indi)iduals *ere follo*ed for %43%9 years %843%%5. in)ol)ing a total of %%%.089

person years. to e/a#ine the effect of air pollution. allo*ing for s#oing and otherindi)idual factors, $s e/pected. the greatest ris factor *as s#oing ad-usted

#ortality3rate ratio %,'5 +ut. after allo*ing for indi)idual factors. #ortality ratessho*ed highly significant associations p0,00'5 *ith the le)els of fine particles andsulphate particles in the cities. *ith the #ost polluted city gi)ing an ad-usted all3cause#ortality rate of %,29 co#pared to the least, This related to a 1M 2,' difference of%,9Fg per cu+ic #etre! cardiopul#onary #ortality *as increased +y &8: and lungcancer #ortality *as also &8: higher,

In the $#erican ;ancer Society study20. ''2.%& adults dra*n fro# the;ancer 1re)ention II study5 *ere follo*ed fro# %2 to % and deaths analysedagainst #ean concentrations of sulphate air pollution in %0 and the #edian fine

particulate concentration fro# %83%&. +oth o+tained for each participant>s area ofresidence fro# En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency E1$5 data, $gain. the strongest

correlation *as +et*een lung cancer and s#oing ad-usted #ortality ris ratio ,8&5. +ut +oth pollution #easures sho*ed highly significant association *ith all3cause#ortality and *ith cardiopul#onary #ortality! sulphates *ere also associated *ithlung cancer, $fter ad-usting for s#oing and other )aria+les. higher fine particulate

pollution *as associated *ith a %8: increase in all3cause #ortality and a &%:increase in cardiopul#onary #ortality for a 24,' Fg per cu+ic #etre difference in1M2,'s, These results are highly significant and led the E1$ to place regulatory li#itson 1M2,'s. esta+lishing the ational $#+ient $ir Guality Standards in %8, Theseregulations *ere challenged +y industry +ut ulti#ately upheld +y the ?S Supre#e;ourt2 after the data fro# all the studies had +een su+-ected to intense scrutinyincluding an e/tensi)e independent audit and a re3analysis of the original data&0,

The health +enefits of +ringing in these ne* regulations ha)e +een esti#atedas &2 +illion annually&% +ased on #ortality and chronic and acute health effects. anda White House report fro# the <ffice of Manage#ent and Budget in Septe#+er 200&calculated the +enefits in ter#s of reductions in hospitali7ations. pre#ature deaths andlost *oring days as +et*een %20 and %& +illion o)er the last %0 years see section,%5, $s this study looed at only three health indicators it is liely to underesti#atethe true +enefits,

It follo*s fro# this data that incinerators and all other #a-or sources of 1M2,'

particulates *ill generate su+stantial health costs as *ell as increasing #ortality,

b8 :urther Studies$n analysis pu+lished in 2002 of the ;ancer 1re)ention II study participantslined the indi)idual factors. pollution e/posures and #ortality data for appro/i#ately'00.000 adults as reported in the $;S study a+o)e. +ringing the follo*3up to % 2,The report dou+led the follo*3up period and reported triple the nu#+er of deaths. a*ider range of indi)idual factors and #ore pollution data. concentrating on fine

particles, S#oing re#ained the strongest factor associated *ith #ortality. +ut fine particulate pollution re#ained significantly associated *ith all3cause. andcardiopul#onary #ortality *ith a)erage ad-usted RRs of %,09 and %,0, In addition.after the longer follo*3up period. fine particulates *ere significantly associated *ithlung cancer #ortality *ith an ad-usted RR of %,%4, The authors reported that

e/posure to a %0Fg per cu+ic #etre higher le)el of 1M2,'s *as associated *ith a %4:increase in lung cancer and a : increase in cardiopul#onary disease2,

%2



c8 Cardiovascular *isease

Researchers *ere surprised to find that the increased cardiopul#onary

#ortality associated *ith particulate pollution *as pri#arily due to cardio)asculardisease, This *as found in +oth the Si/ ;ity and $;S studies *hen they *ere re3analysed&0, When the causes of death in the ;ancer 1re)ention II Study *ere looed atin #ore detail&2 to loo for clues to possi+le pathophysiological #echanis#s. the lin*as strongest *ith ischae#ic heart disease! a %0Fg per cu+ic #etre increase in 1M2,'s*as associated *ith an %: increase in deaths fro# ischae#ic heart disease 22: inne)er s#oers5, $ #ore recent prospecti)e study. the Wo#en>s Health Initiati)eWHI5. follo*ed 9'.& post#enopausal *o#en initially free of cardio)asculardisease5 o)er 9 years. to e/a#ine the effects of the fine particulate pollution in theneigh+ourhood of each participant on the first cardio)ascular or cere+ro)ascularincident and on #ortality, The results for #ortality and #or+idity *ere consistent,

Each increase of %0Fg per cu+ic #etre in fine particulate pollution *as associated*ith a 89: increase in deaths fro# cardio)ascular disease and an &: increase indeaths fro# cere+ro)ascular disease&&, The effect *as independent of other )aria+les

+ut o+ese *o#en and those *ho spent #ore ti#e outdoors *ere #ore )ulnera+le tothe effect, The WHI in)ol)ed a #ore ho#ogeneous study population and had anu#+er of other #ethodological ad)antages o)er the earlier studies. resulting ingreater sensiti)ity. and #ore relia+le esti#ates, Ho*e)er. part of the greater effect inthis study #ay +e due to gender! there has +een so#e e)idence in other studies that*o#en are #ore suscepti+le to the cardio)ascular effects of fine particulates than#en,

These results i#ply that the increase in fine particulate pollution associated*ith larger incinerators can +e e/pected to increase #ortality, It is pro+a+ly safe toe/trapolate fro# the WHI assu#ing that the effect on #ortality in the WHI *asgenuine for *o#en. and that the ris to #en *ould +e half as great, In that case. if theincinerator increased 1M2,' particulates +y as little as %Fg per cu+ic #etre.cardio)ascular #ortality *ould +e increased +y '3%0:. *ith si#ilarly increasedcere+ro)ascular #ortality,

$cute #yocardial infarctions ha)e +een found to rise during episodes of high particulate pollution. dou+ling *hen le)els of 1M2,'s *ere 2032'Fg per cu+ic #etrehigher &4, 1articulates also increased #ortality fro# stroe&'.&9, <ne study concludedthat %%: of stroes could +e attri+uted to outdoor air pollution&8, Episodes of

increased particulate pollution also increased ad#issions *ith heart disease&

, $recent study found that each %0Fg per cu+ic #etre rise in 1M%0 particulates *asassociated *ith a 80: increase in "DT ris,& Mortality fro# dia+etes28 andad#issions for dia+etic heart disease are also increased40 and these *ere dou+le thenon3dia+etic ;H" ad#issions. suggesting that dia+etics *ere particularly )ulnera+leto the effect of particulate pollution40, Higher le)els of particulates ha)e +eenassociated *ith life3threatening arrhyth#ias4% e/ercise3induced ischae#ia42. e/cess#ortality fro# heart failure&9.4& and thro#+otic disease&9,

d8 Effect on Children and the :oetus

1articulates carry )arious che#icals including polycyclic aro#atic

hydrocar+ons 1$Hs5 into the hu#an +ody, =rederica 1erera fro# the ;olu#+ia;enter for ;hildren>s En)iron#ental Health has found that the foetus is %0 ti#es

%&



#ore )ulnera+le to da#age +y these su+stances44, She also found that 1M2,'

particulates ha)e an ad)erse effect on the de)eloping foetus *ith significantreductions in *eight. length and head circu#ference and reiterated the i#portance ofreducing a#+ient fine particulate concentrations4', In addition further studies ha)esho*n an ad)erse effect on foetal de)elop#ent at le)els currently found in cities

today. such as e* or 49, $ir pollution has +een found to cause irre)ersi+le genetic#utations in #ice, Researchers found. in contrast. that if #ice +reathed air *hich had

+een freed of particulates +y filtration they de)eloped only +acground le)els ofgenetic #utations. confir#ing that particulates *ere causati)e48, $t the fourthMinisterial ;onference of En)iron#ent and Health in June 2004. the WH<announced that +et*een %, and 9,4: of deaths in the age group fro# 0 to 4 could +eattri+uted to air pollution4,

e8 cute ,es#iratory Incidents

Ele)ated particulate air pollution has +een associated *ith increased hospitalad#issions *ith asth#a24 and *ith ;<1"4. increases in respiratory sy#pto#s'0.'%.

higher incidence of asth#a'2. reduced i##unity'&.'4. higher rates of ear. nose andthroat infection'2. loss of ti#e fro# school in children through respiratory disease''.'9.and declines of respiratory function'83', $ sad aside to the a+o)e is that children *hodid #ore outdoor sport had greater declines in respiratory function', We are doing agreat disser)ice to our children if they cannot pursue healthy acti)ities *ithoutda#aging their health, f8 (ortality from Particulate Pollution

Episodes of increased particulate pollution ha)e +een associated *ithincreased cardio)ascular #ortality%.20.28.2.&9.4&.90 and increased respiratory #ortality4&.44,$+out %'0 ti#e3series studies around the *orld ha)e sho*n transient increases in#ortality *ith increases in particulates, ;ohort studies ha)e sho*n a long3ter# effecton #ortality%.20.2 see section &,%a5,

;an *e 6uantify this #ortality It has +een esti#ated that the increased#ortality *ors out as a+out a 0,'3%: increase in #ortality for each %0Fg per cu+ic#etre rise in 1M%0s

9% for acute e/posures and a &,': rise for chronic e/posures&%, =or1M2,'s the increase in #ortality is #uch greater. especially for cardiopul#onary#ortality see Ta+le5,

/able 1 Cardio#ulmonary (ortality and :ine Particulate Pollution

Study ,eference= >ear No ofPartici#ants :ollo? u# d@ustedexcess cA#

mortality

*ifferencein 1M2,,'s inBAm3

d@ustedexcess cA#

mortality for

rise of 1;BA

m3

Si/ ;ities %

%& .%%% %843%% &8: %,9 %,:

$;S;ancer1re)entionII

20

%'''2.%& %23% &%: 24,' %2,8:

;ancer

1re)entionII

2

2002

'00.000 %23% : %0 :

%4



Wo#en>HealthInitiati)e

&&

20089'.& %432002 89: %0 89:

When the data fro# the Si/ ;ities Study and the $;S study *ere su+-ect toaudit and re3analysis see section &,%a5 the cardiopul#onary deaths *ere separatedinto pul#onary and cardio)ascular &0, ?ne/pectedly #ost of the e/cess deaths due to

particulates had +een fro# cardio)ascular causes, This *as apparent in each of theanalyses perfor#ed gi)ing figures for the increase in cardio)ascular #ortality in theSi/ ;ities study of +et*een &': and 44: for an %,9 Fg per cu+ic #etre difference in1M2,'s and in the $;S study +et*een &&: and 48: for a 24,'Fg per cu+ic #etre,This *as #uch higher in each case than the increase in respiratory deaths of 8:, Inthe $;S data it *as later found that the e/cess cardio)ascular deaths *ere pri#arilydue to an %: increase in deaths fro# ischae#ic heart disease for each %0Fg per

cu+ic #etre rise in 1M2,'s&2

, The Wo#en>s Health Initiati)e study has de#onstratedan e)en stronger statistical relationship +et*een raised le)els of fine particulates andcardio)ascular deaths *ith a 89: increase in cardio)ascular #ortality for each %0Fg

per cu+ic #etre increase in 1M2,' particulates. and this depended not -ust on *hichcity a *o#an li)ed in +ut in *hich part of that city&&, This study. #ore than any other.de#onstrates the great dangers posed +y fine particulates and the highlights the urgentneed to re#o)e #a-or sources of these pollutants,

$s incinerators selecti)ely e#it s#aller particulates and cause a greater effecton le)els of 1M2,'s than 1M%0s. they *ould therefore +e e/pected to ha)e a significanti#pact on cardiopul#onary #ortality. especially cardio)ascular #ortality, This hasnot so far +een studied directly,

8 Studies Involvin ltrafine Particles

?ltrafine particles 0,%Fg per cu+ic #etre and +elo*5 are produced in greatnu#+ers +y incinerators%, They ha)e +een less studied than 1M2,' and 1M%0

particulates +ut there has +een enough data a)aila+le for the WH< to conclude thatthey produce health effects i##ediately. after a ti#e lag and in association *ithcu#ulati)e e/posure, They ha)e +een found to ha)e a #ore #ared effect oncardio)ascular #ortality than fine particulates. *ith a ti#e lag of 43' days 92, Stroe#ortality has +een positi)ely associated *ith current and pre)ious day le)els ofultrafine particulates and this has occurred in an area of lo* pollution suggesting there#ay +e no threshold for this effect9&, ?ltrafine particulates ha)e also +een reported to

+e #ore potent than other particulates on a per #ass +asis in inducing o/idati)e stressin cells94 and they ha)e the a+ility to cross the +lood3+rain +arrier and lodge in +raintissue9', They represent another largely unno*n and une/plored danger ofincineration,

h8 ssessment by the 4H" and "ther uthorities

Based on the World Health <rganisation $ir Guality Kuidelines99 *e ha)eesti#ated that a %Fg per cu+ic #etre increase in 1M2,,' particulates a )eryconser)ati)e esti#ate of the le)el of increase that *ould +e e/pected around largeincinerators5 *ould lead to a reduced life e/pectancy of 40 days per person o)er %'years this e6uals a reduction of life e/pectancy of %,% years for each %0Fg per cu+ic#etre increase in 1M2,' particulates5, $lthough this figure appears s#all they note that

%'



the pu+lic health i#plications are large and the effect on a typical population of2'0.000 surrounding an incinerator *ould +e a loss of 28.'00 years of life o)er a %'year ti#e period, This figure gi)es an indication of the liely loss of life fro# any#a-or source of 1M2,' particulates, In addition. incinerators nor#ally operate for #uchlonger periods than the %' years 6uoted here, ote that the esti#ated loss of life here

is liely to +e an underesti#ate as it is fro# particulates alone and not fro# otherto/ic su+stances,

The European Respiratory Society98 has pu+lished its concern a+out the#is#atch +et*een European ?nion policy and the +est scientific e)idence, They statethat a reduction in the yearly a)erage 1M2,' particulates to %'Fg per cu+ic #etre L*ould result in life e/pectancy gains. at age &0. of +et*een % #onth and 2 years,They point out that the +enefits of i#ple#enting stringent air pollution legislation*ould out*eigh the costs, These reco##endations are sensi+le and +ased on soundscience, $ progra##e of +uilding incinerators *ould unfortunately achie)e theopposite! they *ould increase particulate pollution. reduce life e/pectancy and *ould

+e at odds *ith the +est science,

State#ents +y leading researchers include the follo*ing! the magnitude ofthe association between fine particles and mortality suggests that controlling fine

particles would result in saving thousands of early deaths each year N Sch*art759%

and there is consistent evidence that fine particulates are associated with increased

all cause, cardiac and respiratory mortality. These findings strengthen the case for

controlling the levels of respiratory particulates in outdoor air N 90,

D /he National mbient ir uality Standard for P( 2.% #articulates ?as introduced into the

S in 199' ?ith a mean annual limit of 1%B #er cubic metre. /his had measurable health

benefits. n annual mean limit for P( 2.% #articulates is to be introduced into Scotland in 2;1;

and this ?ill be 12B #er cubic metre. n annual mean taret for P( 2.% #articulates is to be

introduced into the < in 2;2; and this ?ill be ?ill be 2%B #er cubic metre. (any ?ill ?onder?hy the difference is so vast ?hen the science is the same.

i8 Summary

In su##ary there is no* ro+ust scientific e)idence on the dangers to health offine particulates and of the su+stantial health costs in)ol)ed, Recent studies ha)esho*n the ris to +e considera+ly greater than pre)iously thought. =or these reasons itis i#possi+le to -ustify increasing le)els of these particulates still further +y +uildingincinerators or any other #a-or source of 1M2,' particulates, The data #aes it 6uiteclear that atte#pts should +e #ade to the reduce le)els of these particulates *hene)er

possi+le, Ho*e)er particulates are not the only reasons to +e concerned a+out

incinerators, There are other dangers!3

3.2 Heavy (etals 1ope reported that hospital ad#issions of children *ith respiratory disease

fell dra#atically in the ?tah )alley *hen a steel #ill *as closed for a year due to astrie, $ir pollution analysis sho*ed that the #etal content of particulates *as lo*erthat year and that the type of infla##ation found in the lungs *hile the steel #ill *as*oring could +e reproduced in +oth rat and hu#an lung tissue +y using air pollutantsof the type e#itted +y the steel #ill9.9, This is a )ery clear illustration of the dangersof pollution of the air *ith hea)y #etals, E/posure to inhaled #etals. si#ilar to thetype produced +y incinerators. ha)e +een sho*n to #ediate cardiopul#onary in-ury in

rats80 and s#all a#ounts of #etal %:5 in particulates are no*n to cause pul#onaryto/icity8%, Salts of hea)y #etals such as iron and copper act as catalysts for dio/in

%9



for#ation causing rapid rates of dio/in for#ation82 increasing the dangers fro# +urning #etals,

Incinerator e#issions to air and ash contain o)er &' #etals8&, Se)eral areno*n or suspected carcinogens, To/ic #etals accu#ulate in the +ody *ith increasingage84, Breathing in air containing to/ic #etals leads to +ioaccu#ulation in the hu#an

+ody, They can re#ain in the +ody for years! cad#iu# has a &0 year half3life,Incineration adds to the +urden of to/ic #etals and can lead to further da#age tohealth,

Mercury is a gas at incineration te#peratures and cannot +e re#o)ed +y thefilters, Incinerators ha)e +een a #a-or source of #ercury release into the en)iron#ent,In theory #ercury can +e re#o)ed using acti)ated car+on +ut in practice it is difficultto control and. e)en *hen effecti)e. the #ercury ends up in the fly ash to +elandfilled, Mercury is one of the #ost dangerous hea)y #etals, It is neuroto/ic andhas +een i#plicated in $l7hei#er>s disease8'388. learning disa+ilities andhyperacti)ity8.8, Recent studies ha)e found a significant increase in +oth autis# andin rates of special education students around sites *here #ercury is released into the

en)iron#ent0.%, Inhalation of hea)y #etals such as nicel. +erylliu#. chro#iu#. cad#iu#

and arsenic increases the ris of lung cancer %2. ;u#ulati)e e/posure to cad#iu# has +een correlated *ith lung cancer 2, Supporti)e e)idence co#es fro# Blot and=rau#eni *ho found an e/cess of lung cancer in ?S counties *here there *ass#elting and refining of non3ferrous #etals&, Inhaled cad#iu# also correlates *ithischae#ic heart disease4,

So *hat are the dangers caused +y to/ic #etals accu#ulating in the +odyThey ha)e +een i#plicated in a range of e#otional and +eha)ioural pro+le#s inchildren including autis#'. dysle/ia9. i#pulsi)e +eha)iour 8 attention deficit andhyperacti)ity disorder $"H"5. as *ell as learning difficulties%4.8.03&. lo*eredintelligence and delin6uency4.. although not e)ery study reached standardsignificance le)els, Many of these pro+le#s *ere noted in the study of the populationround the Sint ilaas incinerator ', E/posed adults ha)e also +een sho*n to +eaffected. sho*ing higher le)els of )iolence%&.9. de#entia83%0& and depression thannon3e/posed indi)iduals, Hea)y #etal to/icity has also +een i#plicated in1arinson>s disease%04,

Hea)y #etals e#itted fro# incinerators are usually #onitored at & to %2#onthly inter)als in the stac! this is clearly inade6uate for su+stances *ith thisdegree of to/icity,

3.3 Nitroen "xides and "$one itrogen dio/ide is another pollutant produced +y incinerators, It has caused a

)ariety of effects. pri#arily on the lung +ut also on the spleen. li)er and +lood inani#al studies, Both re)ersi+le and irre)ersi+le effects on the lung ha)e +een noted,;hildren +et*een the ages of ' and %2 years ha)e +een esti#ated to ha)e a 20:increase in respiratory sy#pto#s for each 2 Fg per cu+ic #etre increase in nitrogendio/ide, Studies in Japan sho*ed a higher incidence of asth#a *ith increasing < 2

le)els and that it synergistically increases lung cancer #ortality rates4%, It has also +een reported to aid the spread of tu#ours%0'.%09, Increases in <2 ha)e +eenassociated *ith rises in ad#issions *ith ;<1"%08. asth#a in children and in heartdisease in those o)er 9'%, <ther studies ha)e sho*n increases in asth#a ad#issions%0

and increased #ortality *ith rising <2 le)els%0,

%8



Rising o7one le)els ha)e led to increasing hospital ad#issions. asth#a andrespiratory infla##ation and ha)e +een reported to lo*er i##unity%%0, Higher le)elsha)e +een significantly associated *ith increased #ortality%%% and *ith cardio)asculardisease, Both o7one and nitrogen dio/ide are associated *ith increasing ad#issions*ith ;<1"%08,

When it co#es to incinerator e#issions the health effects of nitrous o/ides areliely to co#pound the negati)e health effects of particulates

3.! "ranic /oxicantsHundreds of che#ical co#pounds are released fro# incinerators, They include

a host of che#icals produced fro# the +urning of plastic and si#ilar su+stances andinclude polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons 1$Hs5. +ro#inated fla#e retardants.

polychlorinated +iphenols 1;Bs5. dio/ins. polychlorinated di+en7ofurans furans5,These su+stances are lipophilic and accu#ulate in fatty tissue and re#ain acti)e in theli)ing organis#s and the en)iron#ent for #any years, They ha)e +een lined *ithearly pu+erty%%2. endo#etriosis%%&. +reast cancer %%4.%%'. reduced sper# counts%%9 andother disorders of #ale reproducti)e tissues%%8. testicular cancer %% and thyroiddisruption%%, It has +een clai#ed that a+out %0: of #an3#ade che#icals arecarcinogenic see section ',%5. and #any are no* recognised as endocrine disrupters,Most of these health effects *ere not anticipated and are only no* +eing recognised,

o safety data e/ist on #any of the co#pounds released +y incinerators,1$Hs are an e/a#ple of organic to/icants, $lthough e#ission le)els are s#all

these su+stances are to/ic at parts per +illion or e)en parts per trillion8& as opposed to parts per #illion for #any other pollutants, They can cause cancer. i##une changes.lung and li)er da#age. retarded cogniti)e and #otor de)elop#ent. lo*ered +irth*eight and lo*ered gro*th rate8&,

a8 "ranochlorines

The #ost detailed analysis to date on incinerator e#issions has identifiedse)eral hundred products of inco#plete co#+ustion 1I;s5 including &organochlorines A +ut ': of the total #ass of 1I;s re#ained unidentified%%,<rganochlorines. *hich include dio/ins. furans and 1;Bs. deser)e special attention.

+ecause of their no*n to/icity. +ecause they +ioaccu#ulate. and +ecause of thelielihood that they *ill increase in the *aste strea#, Their #a-or precursor. 1D;.

presently #aes up 0: of organically +ound chlorine and the a#ount of 1D; in*aste is liely to increase significantly in the future%20, ;learly organochlorines *ill

+e an i#portant co#ponent of incinerator e#issions,

<rganochlorines as a group are associated *ith si/ distinct types of healthi#pact and these often occur at lo* concentrations, They are associated *ith %5reproducti)e i#pair#ent in #ales and fe#ales 25 de)elop#ental da#age &5 i#pairedcogniti)e a+ility and +eha)iour 45 neurological da#age '5 suppressed i##unity and95 hor#onal disruption and hor#onal cancers, Each of these si/ effects has +eende#onstrated in three separate fields! in hu#ans. in la+oratory ani#als and in*ildlife%2%, The $#erican 1u+ic Health $ssociation $1H$5 concluded )irtually allorganochlorines that ha)e +een studied e/hi+it at least one of a range of serious to/iceffects. such as endocrine disruption. de)elop#ental i#pair#ent. +irth defects.reproducti)e dysfunction and infertility. i##unosuppression and cancer. often ate/tre#ely lo* dosesN%22, <ther organohalogens such as +ro#ides and fluorides ha)e

#any si#ilar properties,

%



$ co##on #isconception is that these pollutants ha)e little effect if dispersedinto the en)iron#ent, This is *rong for se)eral reasons, =irstly they are persistent asthere is no #echanis# in the en)iron#ent to +rea the# do*n and so theyaccu#ulate, Secondly as they are fat solu+le they concentrate in li)ing #atter. oftendra#atically. at progressi)ely higher concentrations +ioaccu#ulation5, =or e/a#ple

dio/in has +een found in fish at le)els %'.000 ti#es that found in the *ater %2&C 1;Bsha)e +een found in orth 1acific "olphins at %& #illion ti#es the concentration in the*ater %24 and trichloroacetic acid is found in orth European conifers at &3%0.000ti#es that in the a#+ient air %2', Thirdly they are concentrated +y the foetus so a typical

polar +ear cu+ has a +ody +urden dou+le that of its #other %29 and at a le)el no*n tocause reproducti)e failure. altered +rain de)elop#ent and i##une suppression%28,=ourthly they are nearly all to/ic, In short the a+ility of ecosyste#s to assi#ilateorganochlorines and other persistent +ioaccu#ulati)e co#pounds is close to 7ero andthey should si#ply ne)er +e released into the en)iron#ent,

b8 *ioxins

"io/ins are the organochlorines co#pounds #ost associated *ith incineratorsand in)entories ha)e consistently sho*n that incinerators are the #a-or source ofe#issions of dio/ins into the air %23&0 though these are decreasingL, "io/in releaseso)er the last fe* decades ha)e caused *idespread conta#ination of food. significantto/ic +ody +urdens in nearly all hu#an +eings and se)ere pollution of the $rctic,

one of this *as foreseen, The da#age already done +y incinerators has +eenincalcula+le,

Eighteen separate assess#ents of dio/in>s carcinogenicity ha)e in)ol)ed fi)edifferent routes of e/posure. fi)e different species. lo* and high doses and long orshort e/posure ti#es, In every case dio/ins ha)e caused cancer. in)ol)ing ninedifferent types of cancer. including ly#pho#as. cancers of the lung. li)er. sin. softtissue and of the oral and nasal ca)ities%&%, The ational Institute of En)iron#entalHealth ha)e looed for. +ut +een una+le to find. any threshold for the to/icity ofdio/in, $t the lo*est detecta+le concentrations it can induce target genes and acti)atea cascade of intracellular #olecular effects and can pro#ote pre3#alignant li)ertu#ours and disrupt hor#ones%&2, E)en doses as lo* as 2,' parts per 6uadrillion canstop cultured cells fro# sho*ing changes characteristic of i##une responses%&&,

The ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency>s current esti#ate of dio/in>scarcinogenicity. deri)ed fro# ani#al studies. is that the a)erage person>s e/posure todio/in. *hich is &39 picogra# per ilogra# per dayLL gi)es a lifeti#e cancer ris of

+et*een '00 and %000 per #illion%&4, $n accepta+le cancer ris is considered to +e

+et*een % in a #illion and % in %00.0005, In co#parison. a Ker#an study%&'

. deri)edfro# hu#an dio/in e/posure. found that each additional unit dose of dio/in one picogra# per ilogra# of +ody *eight per day5 is associated *ith an increase inlifeti#e cancer ris of +et*een %000 and %0.000 per #illion,

The a)erage infant recei)es doses of dio/ins of 9030 picogra#sTEG5 per ilogra# per day%&9.%&8 *hich is %03 20 ti#es higher than those of thea)erage adult and e/ceeds +y a factor of 9 A %0.000 e)ery go)ern#ent in the *orld>saccepta+le daily intae,LLL This dio/in intae in the first year has +een calculated to

pose a cancer ris to the a)erage infant of %8 per #illion %8 ti#es the accepta+lele)el5%&,

$ll these figures de#onstrate that dio/ins already in the en)iron#ent are at

unaccepta+le le)els and are liely to +e causing up to 9: of all cancers and to +eha)ing a range of ad)erse i#pacts on health including su+tle effects,

%



Rats gi)en dio/in to produce a +ody +urden of dio/in at a+out half the a)erage inthe hu#an population had #ale offspring *hose sper# count *as reduced +y 2':%&

and rhesus #oneys gi)en dio/in e6ui)alent to t*ice the a)erage hu#an +ody +urdenhad increased foetal death in their offspring and cogniti)e i#pair#ent *hich *astransgenerational passed on to their offspring5 and a+nor#ally aggressi)e

+eha)iour %40.%4%, This data indicates that releasing e)en a s#all a#ount of dio/in intoan already o)erloaded en)iron#ent can si#ply not +e -ustified,

L$n assess#ent of dio/ins +y the European "io/in In)entory in 200' found that in the ?@. the +iggest single source of dio/ins in 2000 and in 200' pro-ected figure5 *as the incineration of#unicipal *aste. producing 20 ti#es as #uch dio/in as road transport%42,

LL a picogra# is %.000.000.000.000 gra#. ie, a +illionth of a gra# in the ?@. +ut #ore typicallydescri+ed in ?S literature as a trillionth of a gra#,LLL Tolera+le daily intae T"I5 is set at 0,009 picogra#sOg per day in the ?S and 2

picogra#sOg per day in the ?@,

3.% Effects on enetic (aterialBoth hea)y #etals and #any che#icals for# co)alent +onds *ith "$ called

"$ adducts, This can increase the ris of cancer +y acti)ating oncogenes and +locing anti3tu#our genes, This raises a )ery serious concern, This concern is that +y releasing che#icals into the en)iron#ent *e #ay not only +e poisoning thisgeneration +ut the ne/t, ;arcinogenesis fro# che#icals +eing passed on throughse)eral generations is not -ust a horrifying scenario +ut has +een de#onstrated tooccur in ani#als%4&.%44, Incinerator e#issions *ould greatly increase this ris,

"$ adducts to 1$Hs increase *ith e/posure to pollution and patients *ithlung cancer ha)e higher le)els of adducts see +elo*5, This is one de#onstration ofho* pollutants alter genes and predispose to cancer, <ther che#icals. such as )inylchloride interfere *ith "$ repair and yet others such as organochlorines are tu#our

pro#oters,

3.& Effects on the Immune SystemStarting in the late %0s a series of dra#atic #arine epide#ics illed off

thousands of dolphins. seals and porpoises, Many *ere found to ha)e +een affected +y a diste#per3lie )irus, $utopsies of the dead ani#als sho*ed *eaened i##unesyste#s and high le)els of pollutants including 1;Bs and synthetic che#icals, $)irologist. $l+ert <sterhaus and his co3*orers. de#onstrated that *hen seals *erefed conta#inated fish containing organochlorines *hich *ere. ho*e)er. consideredfit for hu#an consu#ption5 they de)eloped i##une suppression and *ere una+le tofight )iruses%4'38, Their natural iller cells *ere 203'0: +elo* nor#al and their T cell

response dropped +y 2'390:, The i##une suppression *as due to dio/in3lieche#icals. 1;Bs and synthetic che#icals, $n i##unologist Karet (ah)is foundi##unity in dolphins in the ?S$ dropped as 1;Bs and ""T increased in their

+lood%4, The i##une syste# appeared #ost )ulnera+le during prenatal de)elop#ent,This de#onstrates that the i##une syste# #ay +e da#aged +y e/posure to syntheticche#icals and that *e ha)e seriously underesti#ated the dangers of these che#icals,

$ni#al e/peri#ents ha)e sho*n i##unoto/icity *ith hea)y #etals.organochlorine pesticides and halogenated aro#atics%4 and accidental e/posure dataon hu#ans has sho*n i##unoto/icity *ith 1BBs. dio/ins and aldicar+, In fact *hole)olu#es ha)e +een *ritten on i##unoto/icity%'0, ote these are the type of pollutantsreleased +y incinerators, En)iron#ental to/ins ha)e +een sho*n to decrease T3

ly#phocyte helper3suppressor ratios in four different e/posed populations%'%, itrogendio/ide e/posure leads to a+nor#ally ele)ated i##une and allergic responses, 1M2,'

20



particulates the#sel)es can cause #utagenic and cytoto/ic effects and the s#allest particulates cause the greatest effects%'2,

In utero e/posure to dio/ins results in thy#us atrophy and *eaened i##unedefences%'&, When fe#ale rhesus #oneys *ere e/posed to 1;Bs at )ery lo* le)els

producing a +ody +urden typical of general hu#an population. their offspring>s a+ility

to #ount a defence against foreign proteins *as per#anently co#pro#ised%'4,In su##ary there is a+undant e)idence that a large nu#+er of the pollutants

e#itted +y incinerators can cause da#age to the i##une syste#%'', $s isde#onstrated in the ne/t section the co#+ination of these is liely to ha)e an e)en#ore potent and da#aging effect on i##unity than any one pollutant in isolation,

3.' Syneristic Effects Darious studies ha)e sho*n that a co#+ination of su+stances can causeto/icity e)en *hen the indi)idual che#icals are at a le)el nor#ally considered safe,The report Man>s I#pact on the Klo+al En)iron#entN +y the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology stated synergistic effects a#ong che#ical pollutants are #ore often

present than notN%'9, Testing has +een #ini#al and #ost of the synergistic effects areliely to re#ain unno*n, To/icologist 1rof Dy)yan Ho*ard has calculated that totest -ust the co##onest %.000 to/ic che#icals in uni6ue co#+inations of three *ouldre6uire %99 #illion different e/peri#ents and e)en this *ould disregard )aryingdoses%'8,

Synergy has +een de#onstrated *hen organic che#icals are co#+ined *ithhea)y #etals.%'.%' and *ith co#+inations of pesticides%90.%9% and food additi)es%92, Thelast study is of particular concern, Rats fed *ith one additi)e *ere unhar#ed, Thosefed t*o de)eloped a )ariety of sy#pto#s *hereas those fed all three all died *ithint*o *ees, In this case the che#icals appeared to a#plify each other>s to/icity in

logarith#ic fashion, In a recent e/peri#ent scientists dosed ani#als *ith a #i/ture of%9 organochlorine pesticides. lead and cad#iu# at safe le)elsN and found theyde)eloped i#paired i##une responses. altered thyroid function and altered +rainde)elop#ent%9&, $nother study in %9. pu+lished in Science. reported on the dangersof co#+inations of pesticides and their a+ility to #i#ic oestrogen, They found thatco#+inations could increase the to/icity +y '00 to %000 ti#es%94, Mice e/posed to 2'co##on ground*ater pollutants. all at le)els *ell +elo* those that produce anyeffects in isolation. de)eloped se)ere i##unosuppression%9', The le)el of concerna+out the #ultiplicity of pollutants released into the air +y incinerators is enhanced +ythe fact that e)en *hen the pro+a+le effects of the single pollutants in)ol)ed areno*n. no one has any idea *hat da#age the co#+inations can cause,

The population li)ing round an incinerator is +eing e/posed to #ultipleche#ical carcinogens. and to fine particulates. to carcinogenic hea)y #etals in

particular cad#iu#5 and in so#e cases to radioacti)e particles. all no*n to increaselung cancer, itrogen dio/ide has also +een sho*n to synergistically increase lungcancer, When all these are co#+ined. the effects are liely to +e #ore potent. and. infact. an increase in the incidence of lung cancer has +een reported around incineratorssee section 4,%5,

The potential for #ultiple pollutants to cause other serious health effects isillustrated +y the results of a ey study on rats e/posed to the dust. soil and air fro# alandfill site, These ani#als de)eloped a+nor#al changes in the li)er. thyroid andreproducti)e organs *ithin only t*o days of e/posure%99, $lthough effects in ani#als

do not al*ays #i#ic those in hu#ans. the authors concluded that present #ethods of

2%



calculating health riss underesti#ate the +iological effects, This has o+)iousrele)ance to the dangers of e/posing people to #ultiple pollutants fro# incinerators,

!. Increased (orbidity and (ortality near Incinerators

!.1 CancerThere ha)e +een a nu#+er of studies of the effect of incinerators on the

health of the surrounding population. #ainly concentrating on cancer incidence, In#ost studies. the incinerators *ere situated near other sources of pollution and oftenin areas of depri)ation. +oth liely to confound the findings since +oth are associated*ith higher cancer incidence, The study of an incinerator +urning ''.000 tonnes of

*aste a year and +uilt in %88 in the #iddle of a residential area of a to*n of %40.000*ith no hea)y industry Sint ilaas5 is scientifically unsatisfactory +ecause funds*ere not #ade a)aila+le for the study of controls', Ho*e)er. the in)estigators#apped a con)incing cluster of & cancer deaths i##ediately surrounding and tolee*ard of the incinerator. and this area also sho*ed high concentrations of dio/in insoil sa#ples *hen tested in %2, They noted that the cancer SMR for this to*n for%43%9 national statistics5 *as high %%2,0 for #ales and %0',&2 for fe#ales5.supporting the genuine nature of their findings,

In %9. Elliott et al, pu+lished a #a-or study%98 in *hich they co#pared thenu#+ers of registered cancer cases *ithin & # and *ithin 8,' # of the 82 #unicipal*aste incinerator sites in the ?@ *ith the nu#+er of cases e/pected, It in)ol)ed dataon o)er %4 #illion people for up to %& years, E/pected nu#+ers *ere calculated fro#national registrations. ad-usted for une#ploy#ent. o)ercro*ding and social class, oaccount *as taen of pre)ailing *inds. or of differences +et*een incinerators, Theyfirst studied a sa#ple of 20 of the incinerator sites. replicating the analysis later *iththe other '2, If the results of t*o sets lie this concur. it strengthens the data, In eachset there *as an e/cess of all cancers near the incinerators. and e/cesses separately ofsto#ach. colorectal. li)er and lung cancers. +ut not leuae#ias, The first set ga)ead-usted #ortality ratios for all cancers of %,0 for *ithin &# and %,0' *ithin 8,'#C for the second these *ere %,04 and %,02, These riss. representing an additionalris of : and ': for the first set and 4: and 2: for the second. see# s#all but

re#resented a total of over 115;;; extra cancer deaths near incinerators and *erehighly significant p 0,00% for each5,=or each of the #ain cancer sites the e/cesses *ere higher for those li)ing

*ithin & # than for all *ithin 8,' # %98.%9. suggesting that the incinerators hadcaused the e/cess, The authors dou+ted this and attri+uted the findings to additionalconfounding in spite of the fact that they had already ad-usted possi+ly o)er3ad-usted5 for une#ploy#ent. o)ercro*ding and social class. *hich gi)e a partialcorrection for pollution, Moreo)er. the effect on people li)ing to lee*ard of theincinerator *ould +e su+stantially higher than sho*n +y this study as the true nu#+erof people affected *as diluted +y those li)ing at the sa#e distance +ut a*ay fro# the*ind plu#e co#ing fro# the incinerator,

@no/ et al, looed at the data fro# 22.4' children *ho died of cancer +et*een %'& and %0 in the ?@ %9, =or each child they co#pared the distance of the

22



+irth and death addresses fro# the nearest source of pollution and found a consistentasy##etry! #ore had #o)ed a*ay fro# the nearest ha7ard than to*ards it %9, Theydeduced that the e/cess of #igrations a*ay fro# the ha7ard after allo*ing for socialfactors5 *as e)idence that the children had +een affected +y the cancer3causing

pollution +efore or shortly after +irth,

(ater they applied the #ethod to the set of incinerators studied +y Elliott et al,and again sho*ed the sa#e asy##etry in the children>s +irth and death addresses.indicating that the incinerators had posed a cancer ris to children%80, <f the .224children for *ho# they had found accurate +irth and death addresses. 4.&' childrenhad #o)ed at least 0,% #, Significantly. #ore children had #igrated a*ay fro#incinerators than to*ards, =or all those *ho had at least one address *ithin & # ofan incinerator. the ratio *as %,28, When they li#ited the analysis to children *ith oneaddress inside a ' # radius fro# the nearest incinerator and the other address outsidethis radius the ratio *as 2,0%C this indicated a dou+ling of cancer ris, Both thesefindings *ere highly significant p 0,00% for each5, The e/cess had only occurredduring the operational period of each incinerator and *as also noted round hospital

incinerators +ut not landfill sites, This is strong e)idence that the incinerators>e#issions contri+uted to the children>s cancer deaths,

Biggeri et al, in %9 co#pared 8'' lung cancer deaths in Trieste *ithcontrols in relation to s#oing. pro+a+le occupational e/posure to carcinogens and air

pollution #easured nearest to their ho#es5 and the distance of their ho#e fro# eachof four pollution sites, The city centre carried a ris of lung cancer +ut the strongestcorrelation *as *ith the incinerator *here they found a 9,8 e/cess of lung cancer afterallo*ing for indi)idual ris factors%8%,

?sing a spatial scan statistic. Diel et al 2000 looed at the incidence of softtissue sarco#a and non3Hodgin>s ly#pho#a fro# =rench ;ancer Registry data. int*o areas close to an incinerator *ith high e#ission of dio/in%82, They found highlysignificant clusters of soft tissue sarco#a RR %,445 and of non3Hodgins ly#pho#aRR %,285 +ut no clusters of Hodgins disease used as negati)e control5, This study*as interesting in that it *as designed to loo +oth in a focussed *ay at the arearound the incinerator. and to chec the association +y looing for space ti#erelationships *hich should +e present if the relationship *as causal, In addition theylooed in an unfocussed *ay for other clusters in the *ider area *hich containedother areas of depri)ation, Both the first t*o analyses *ere positi)e close to theincinerator 3 de#onstrating that a causal relationship *as liely 3 and since no otherclusters *ere found they concluded that depri)ation could +e )irtually e/cluded as afactor,

$ccording to <hta et al. Japan +uilt 8&: of all the #unicipal *asteincinerators in the *orld and +y %8 had +eco#e )ery concerned a+out their healtheffects! in the )illage of Shintone. 42: of all deaths +et*een %'3' in the area upto %,2 # to lee*ard of an incinerator +uilt in %8%5 *ere due to cancer. co#pared to20: further a*ay and 2': o)erall in the local prefecture %8&, Their data on soilconta#ination reinforced the i#portance of considering *ind directions in e)aluatingthe health effects of incinerators,

;o#+a found an increased incidence of soft tissue sarco#a in an Italian population li)ing *ithin 2 # of an incinerator %84, Pa#+on et al looed at cases ofsarco#a fro# a different perspecti)e, They calculated dio/in e/posure fro#incinerators and other industrial sources in patients *ith sarco#a using a dispersion

#odel and found the ris of sarco#a increased *ith the e/tent and duration ofe/posure to dio/in%8',

2&



In % Kusta)sson reported a t*ofold increase in lung cancer in incinerator*orers in S*eden co#pared to the e/pected local rate %89, In %& he reported a %,'fold increase in oesophageal cancer in co#+ustion *orers. including those *oringin incinerators%88,

!.2 )irth *efectsThere ha)e +een fi)e reports of increases in congenital a+nor#alities around

incinerators, The in)estigators at Sint ilaas noted #ultiple +irth defects to lee*ardof the incinerator ', <rofacial defects and other #idline defects *ere found to +e #orethan dou+led near an incinerator in Pee+urg. $#sterda#%8, Most of these defor#ed

+a+ies *ere +orn in an area corresponding to *ind3flo* fro# the incinerator andother defects included hypospadius and spina +ifida, In the eerland area. Belgiu#.there *as a 29: increase in congenital ano#alies in an area situated +et*een t*oincinerators%8, $ study of incinerators in =rance has sho*n chro#oso#al defects andother #a-or ano#alies facial clefts. #egacolon. renal dysplasias5%0, $ recent Britishstudy looed at +irths in ;u#+ria +et*een %'9 and %& and reported significantlyincreased lethal +irth defects around incinerators after ad-usting for year of +irth.social class. +irth order. and #ultiple +irths, The odds ratio for spina +ifida *as %,%8and that for heart defects %,%2, There *as also an increased ris of still+irth andanencephalus around cre#atoriu#s%%, The study pointed out that the figures for +irthdefects are liely to +e su+stantial underesti#ates since they do not includespontaneous or therapeutic a+ortions. +oth increased +y foetal ano#alies,

In addition. se)eral studies ha)e noted an increase in +irth defects near *astesites. particularly ha7ardous *aste sites, The pattern of a+nor#alities *as si#ilar to

the pattern found *ith incinerators. *ith neural tu+e defects often +eing the #ostfre6uent a+nor#ality found. *ith cardiac defects second%23', Har#ful che#icals arenor#ally stored in fatty tissue! in the foetus there is little or no fatty tissue e/cept forthat in the +rain and ner)ous syste#. *hich #ay e/plain the pattern of da#age, $re)ie* of this su+-ect stated the weight of evidence points to an association between

residential proimity to hazardous waste site and adverse reproductive outcomes.N%9

!.3 Ischaemic Heart *iseaseKusta)sson found an e/cess of ischae#ic heart disease%89 in incinerator

*orers *ho had +een e/posed for longer, We ha)e not found any epide#iologicalstudies of cardio)ascular disease in the neigh+ourhood of incinerators. +ut in )ie* of

the research on particulates see section &,%5 this should +e in)estigated,

!.! CommentThe authors of so#e of these reports did not consider that they had sufficient

grounds for concluding that the health effects round incinerators *ere caused +y pollution fro# the incinerators, Ho*e)er. statistically their findings *ere highlysignificant and. taing the studies together. it is difficult to +elie)e that all their resultscould ha)e +een due to unrecognised confounding )aria+les, This is e)en less liely*hen you consider the nature of the pollutants released fro# incinerators and thescientific e)idence for the health effects of those co#pounds see sections 2 and &5,The concordance of increased cancer incidence in local areas de#onstrated to +e #ore

polluted also points to a causal association. although it does not necessarily i#ply thatthe pollutant #easured contri+uted to the increase,

24



The studies #ay ha)e underesti#ated the riss, $t %& years. the follo*3up period of the large British study *as pro+a+ly too short! at Sint ilaas adult cancercases see#ed to increase fro# %& years on*ard although children>s cancers occurredearlier5. and in Japan. <hta noted that cancer caused 42: of all deaths in the lee ofincinerators fro# %4 to 24 years after the incinerator *as co##issioned %8&, The

reported riss *ere higher in the studies in *hich allo*ance *as #ade for thedirection of pre)ailing *inds. possi+ly +ecause of dilution else*here +y relati)elyune/posed persons,

The studies re)ie*ed apply to the older incinerators! ne*er incinerators #ayha)e +etter filters +ut fine particulates and #etals are inco#pletely re#o)ed, Sinceso#e of these pollutants. nota+ly fine particulates. do not appear to ha)e a safethreshold. it is clearly incorrect to clai# that incinerators are safe, The higher 6uantityof to/ic fly ash produced +y #odern incinerators. *hich is easily *ind3+orne.represents an additional ha7ard, E)en if incinerators *ere e6uipped *ith perfectfilters. their huge si7e and tendency to faults #eans that the ris of inter#ittent highle)els of pollution is a real concern,

Taing into account these results and the difficulty in identifying causes ofcancers and other chronic diseases. it is a #atter of considera+le concern thatincinerators ha)e +een introduced *ithout a co#prehensi)e syste# to study theirhealth effects. and that further incinerators are +eing planned *ithout co#prehensi)e#onitoring either of e#issions or of the health of the local population,

%. *isease Incidence and Pollution

%.1 CancerStudies lining cancer *ith incinerators cannot +e seen in isolation, It is

i#portant to o+tain an o)erall picture and loo at other studies *hich lin pollutants*ith cancer, $nd there is another aspect to this, Many types of cancer. including lung.

pancreatic and sto#ach cancer. ha)e a )ery poor prognosis and our only hope lies in pre)ention, 1re)ention #eans reducing our e/posure to carcinogenic su+stances and*e should tae e)ery opportunity to do this, ;ancer has sho*n an unrelenting rise o)er the last century. and is affectingyounger people, The rise has +een gradual. steady and real, ;ancer incidence has +eenincreasing +y %: per annu# *ith an age standardi7ed increase in #ortality of 4&:

+et*een %'0 and %%8, 1ut another *ay. the chance of dying fro# cancer at theturn of the 20th century *as % in &&, It is no* % in 4, WH< data has de#onstrated that

0: of cancers are due to en)iron#ental influences.%

and e)idence fro# #igrantstudies confir#s that it is #ainly the en)iron#ent rather than the genes that deter#inethe cancer ris %,

Many people ha)e noted that the rise in cancer has paralleled the rise in the production and use of synthetic che#icals. all the #ore re#ara+le since there has +een a si#ultaneous large drop in s#oing in #ales in #any countries, In the secondhalf of the t*entieth century synthetic che#ical production dou+led e)ery 8 to years*ith a %00 fold increase o)er the last 2 generations %, Many con)erging pieces ofe)idence lin che#icals to the relentless rise of cancer,

a8 in-s bet?een ex#osure to #ollutants and cancer in man

2'



• ;ancer is co##onest in industrialised countries *ith '0: of cases in theindustrialised 20: of the *orld%0 and the WH< has noted that cancerincidence rises *ith the K1 of a country,

• There is the sa#e correlation *ithin countries, The highest #ortality fro#cancer in the ?S$ is in areas of highest industrialised acti)ity, There is also a

correlation in the ?S$ +et*een cancer incidence and the nu#+er of *astesites in the county%%.%2, ;ounties *ith facilities for treating to/ic *aste ha)efour ti#es as #uch +reast cancer %&, ;ancer is also co##oner in counties *ithche#ical industries%4, 1u+lic "ata $ccess in the ?S$ sho*s a closecorrelation +et*een cancer #ortality and en)iron#ental conta#ination%',

• u#erous studies ha)e sho*n higher cancer incidence in +oth industrial*orers and in populations li)ing in polluted areas,%9.%8

• <ne of the three #ost rapidly rising cancers. non3Hodgin>s ly#pho#a. has +een clearly lined *ith e/posure to certain che#icals for instance pheno/yher+icides and chlorophenols5,%.%

b8 in-s bet?een ex#osure to #ollutants and cancer in animals

Three decades of studies of cancers in *ildlife ha)e sho*n that these areinti#ately associated *ith en)iron#ental conta#ination, This is particularlyi#portant as ani#als do not s#oe. drin or eat -un food and cannot +e accused ofli)ing in depri)ed areas, This strengthens the long3suspected lin +et*eenen)iron#ental pollution and cancer, In a recent study of out+reas of li)er cancer in%9 different species of fish at 2' different sites. cancers *ere al*ays associated *ithen)iron#ental conta#ination200, "ogs ha)e +een found to ha)e higher rates of +laddercancer in industrialised counties in the ?S$20%, It is inconcei)a+le that *e are notaffected in the sa#e *ay, =urther#ore cancer rates in ani#als rapidly decline *hen

the pollutants are re#o)ed sho*ing the critical i#portance of an unconta#inateden)iron#ent for good health,202

c8 are increases in cancer in certain tissues

Steep rises in cancer ha)e occurred in tissues directly e/posed to theen)iron#ent! the lung and sin, But so#e of the steepest rises ha)e occurred in partsof the +ody *ith high fat content. including cancers of the +rain. +reast. +one #arro*and li)er, This again points to to/ic che#icals *hich are predo#inantly stored in thefatty tissues,

d8 enetic mutation

Many che#icals are no*n to attach to "$ causing genetic change in thefor# of "$ adducts, The research of #olecular epide#iologist. "r =rederica 1erera.of ;olu#+ia ;entre for ;hildren>s En)iron#ental Health. has sho*n consistentassociations +et*een e/posures to pollution and "$ adduct for#ation on the onehand and adduct for#ation and cancer ris on the other 20&.204, 1erera found t*o tothree ti#es the le)el of "$ adducts to polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons in peoplein polluted areas and also found higher le)els of adducts in people *ith lung cancerthan in those *ithout, Mothers e/posed to pollution for# "$ adducts +ut their

+a+ies ha)e e)en higher adduct le)els potentially putting the# at increased ris ofcancer fro# +irth44,

e8 Cancers and Environmental #ollution

29



Se)eral studies ha)e already gi)en direct e)idence of a lin +et*eenen)iron#ental pollution and cancer, These include the (ong Island Study sho*ing alin +et*een air+orne carcinogens and +reast cancer 20'.209 and the ?pper ;ape Studysho*ing that tetrachloroethylene in the *ater *as associated *ith ele)ated rates ofse)eral types of cancer 2083, It is note*orthy that initial in)estigations *ere negati)e in

+oth these places and it *as only de#onstrated after detailed and sophisticated studies +y scientists fro# #any fields, u#erous other studies ha)e sho*n lins +et*eencancer and che#icals! these include associations +et*een )olatile organic che#icalsD<;s5 in the *ater and increases in leuae#ia in e* Jersey2%0. increases inly#pho#a in counties in Io*a *here drining *ater *as conta#inated *ithdieldrin2%%. ele)ated le)els of leuae#ia in children at Wo+urn. Massachusettscoinciding *ith a no*n period of *ater conta#ination *ith chlorinated sol)ents 2%2. acancer cluster lined to consu#ption of ri)er *ater conta#inated +y industrial andagricultural che#icals in Bynu#. orth ;arolina2%& and high rates of non3Hodgin>sly#pho#a fro# *ater conta#ination *ith chlorophenols in =inland2%4,

f8 S#read of cancer and #ollutants$ir+orne pollutants not only affect the chance of contracting cancer +ut #ay

also influence the chance of the cancer spreading, $ni#al studies sho*ed thatinhalation of a#+ient le)el nitrogen dio/ide. or polluted ur+an a#+ient air. facilitated

+lood3+orne cancer cell #etastasis%0',

8 evels of Carcinoens in the body

The reality a+out #ost che#icals is that their riss are largely unno*n, Thisis particularly true of che#icals ne* to the #aret, What *e do no* is that a+out 'to %0: are pro+a+le carcinogens, The International $gency for ;ancer Researchtested %000 che#icals in %& and found that %%0 *ere pro+a+le carcinogens2%', The

ational To/icity 1rogra# tested 400 che#icals in %' and found that '3%0: *erecarcinogenic2%9, <nly 200 of the 8'.000 synthetic che#icals in e/istence are regulatedas carcinogens *hereas. fro# this data. +et*een &.000 and 8.'00 #ight +e e/pected to

+e, We ha)e e)en less no*ledge a+out the carcinogenic potential of co#+inations ofto/ic che#icals +ut *hat e)idence *e do ha)e suggests co#+inations #ay +e #oredangerous and yet these are *hat *e are routinely e/posed to,

$lthough the ?@ figures are not a)aila+le *e no* that 2,29 +illion pounds ofto/ic che#icals *ere released in the ?S$ in %4! a+out %88 #illion pounds of these*ill ha)e +een suspected carcinogens, But *hat happens to all these che#icals Thereality is that #uch of this che#ical pollution ends up inside us, The e)idence for this

is as follo*s!3In a study. a group of #iddle aged $#ericans *ere found to ha)e %88organochlorine residues in their +odies,2%8.2% This is liely to +e an underesti#ate asE1$ scientists consider that the fatty tissues of the ?S general population containo)er 800 additional conta#inants that ha)e not yet +een che#ically characteri7ed2%,$ recent study +y the Mount Sinai School of Medicine #easured che#icals in the

+lood and urine of healthy )olunteers and found an a)erage of '2 carcinogens. 92che#icals to/ic to the +rain and ner)ous syste# and '' che#icals associated *ith

+irth defects220, They point out that these *ere che#icals that could +e #easured andthat there *ere #any #ore that could not. #aing this again a considera+leunderesti#ate, $ study of pollutants in a#niotic fluid found detecta+le le)els of 1;Bs

and pesticides at le)els e6ui)alent to the foetus>s o*n se/ hor#ones22%

, What thesestudies de#onstrate is that *hat *e put out into the *orld sooner or later co#es +ac

28



to us and *ill +e stored in our +odies. particularly the lipophilic. +ioaccu#ulati)eco#pounds *hich are particularly da#aging, This effect is slo*. insidious and real,To allo* carcinogens and other poisonous su+stances into our +odies in this *ay #ust

+e to ga#+le *ith our health, Incinerators e#it carcinogens, 1articulates the#sel)es are no*n to +e

carcinogenic. #any hea)y #etals are no*n or suspected carcinogens. up to %0: ofthe che#ical pollutants are carcinogenic and there is a+undant e)idence thatcarcinogens are far #ore dangerous *hen co#+ined than *hen in isolation,

;o##on sense dictates that it is recless to continue to pour #ore carcinogensinto the air at a ti#e *hen cancer is steadily increasing, Recent studies suggest that*e already ha)e to cope *ith 9' carcinogens in food. 40 carcinogens in *ater and 90carcinogens in the air *e +reathe222, They should not +e there at all, They shouldcertainly not +e increased, If *e seriously *ant to pre)ent cancer it is of para#ounti#portance that *e rapidly decrease the le)els of all carcinogens that *e are e/posedto,

%.2 Neuroloical *iseaseMost to/ic co#pounds are preferentially stored in fatty tissue and this includes

the +rain A #aing the +rain a ey target organ for pollutants, There is no*co#pelling e)idence that hea)y #etals and other co#pounds such as 1;Bs anddio/ins cause cogniti)e defects. learning pro+le#s and +eha)ioural distur+ances inchildren and these effects occur at le)els pre)iously thought to +e safe22&, It isinconcei)a+le that these sa#e pollutants ha)e no i#pact on adult +rain function, Infact. so#e organochlorines. especially those *ith to/ic #eta+olites and those thatdissol)e in the cell #e#+ranes are no*n to ill +rain cells, 224.22' We note also thea+ility of ultrafine particulates to carry pollutants across the +lood3+rain +arrier 9', If

neurones *ere lost at the undetecta+le rate of 0,%: annually this *ould lead to a#a-or decline in +rain function +y #iddle age229,<f great concern is the de)eloping crisis of $l7hei#er>s disease *hich no*

affects 4,' #illion patients in the ?S$ and nearly 800.000228 in the ?@, This is adisease *hich had ne)er +een diagnosed until %08 and in the ?@ had only reached%'0 cases +y %4, $t the present rate of increase . the nu#+ers *ill dou+le +y 20&0,These statistics are alar#ing +ut need to +e seen as part of an o)erall trend ofincreasing neurological disease, $ recent study has noted su+stantial increases inneurological diseases in the last t*o decades coupled *ith earlier onset of theseillnesses, Increases *ere noted in $l7hei#er>s disease. 1arinson>s disease and #otorneurone disease22, The increase in $l7hei#er>s disease *as found in al#ost all

de)eloped countries. and rises )aried across countries fro# 20: *hich *as definedas su+stantial5 to %200:, The paper suggested en)iron#ental factors *ere liely to +eresponsi+le,

It is nota+le that these diseases of older people ha)e increased at the sa#e ti#ethat diseases affecting the +rain including $"H". autis# and learning difficulties5ha)e also sho*n large increases at the other end of the age spectru#. to the order of2003%800:22, It is )ery liely that these diseases ha)e aetiological factors inco##on,

Hea)y #etal e/posure is no*n to correlate *ith +oth 1arinson>sdisease%0&.2&0 and $l7hei#er>s disease8'.89.3%02, Both diseases ha)e increaseddra#atically o)er the last &0 years, In addition *e ha)e already noted that the a)erage

person>s +ody contains at least 92 che#icals *hich are to/ic to the +rain and ner)oussyste#220, It is crucial to loo at e)ery possi+le *ay to pre)ent $l7hei#er>s +ecause of

2



its huge care costs ?S figures are 90 +illion annually5 and +ecause of its dire effecton +oth patients and carers,

$lthough #ultiple factors are pro+a+ly in)ol)ed in its causation. there ise)idence of a lin to hea)y #etal e/posure and it is therefore i#perati)e to reduce oure/posure to these to/ic #etals and other neuroto/ic che#icals +y all #eans possi+le,

To deli+erately increase our e/posure to these pollutants. at a ti#e *hen thesediseases are sho*ing huge increases. sho*s a *orrying lac of foresight,

%.3 (ental *iseasesMany pollutants pass straight fro# the nose to the +rain *here they affect

+rain function, $ir pollution correlates *ith inpatient ad#issions *ith organic +rainsyndro#e. schi7ophrenia. #a-or affecti)e disorders. neurosis. +eha)ioural disorder ofchildhood and adolescence. personality disorder and alcoholis#2&%, Increases in thetotal nu#+er of psychiatric e#ergency roo# )isits and in schi7ophrenia 2&2 ha)e +eennoted on days *hen air pollution has +een high, "epression has also +een lined toinhaled pollutants2&&.2&4, ;learly so#ething )ery profound occurs *hen *e pollute theair,

%.! +iolence and Crime $n increasing nu#+er of studies. including studies of #urderers 2&'. case3

control and correlation studies%&.4.2&9.2&8 and prospecti)e studies9.2& ha)e sho*n lins +et*een )iolence and hea)y #etals and these include lead. cad#iu# and #anganese,The #a-ority of the studies ha)e in)estigated lead, Diolence and cri#e ha)e +eenassociated *ith +oth increased +ody le)els of lead and *ith increased le)els of lead inthe air, =or instance "enno2& found early lead e/posure *as one of the #osti#portant predictors of disciplinary pro+le#s fro# ages %& to %4. delin6uency fro#

ages 8 to %8 and adult cri#inal offences. fro# ages % to 22, Stretesy found anassociation +et*een air lead le)els and #urder rates in ?S counties240, It is interestingthat air lead le)els *ere a #uch stronger predictor of +oth )iolent and property cri#ethan une#ploy#ent. *hich has often +een considered an i#portant cause for cri#e24%,The liely #echanis# is that these su+stances alter neurotrans#itters such asdopa#ine and serotonin and reduce i#pulse control,

This gro*ing literature should ser)e as a *arning a+out the dangers ofallo*ing hea)y #etals to +e e#itted into the en)iron#ent, ;ri#e. especially )iolentcri#e. can ha)e a dra#atic effect on people>s 6uality of life, We need to consider theeffect of incinerators. not only on health. +ut on education and on 6uality of life.including the i#pact of )iolence and cri#e,

&. Hih ,is- rou#s

9,% /he :oetusThe un+orn child is the #ost )ulnera+le #e#+er of the hu#an population, The

foetus is uni6uely suscepti+le to to/ic da#age and early e/posures can ha)e lifechanging conse6uences, Why is the foetus so )ulnera+le There are t*o #ain reasons,=irstly #ost of these che#icals are fat solu+le, The foetus has )irtually no protecti)efat stores until )ery late pregnancy so the che#icals are stored in the only fatty tissuesit has. na#ely its o*n ner)ous syste# and particularly the +rain, Secondly #any

pollutants are acti)ely transported across the placenta fro# the #other to the foetus,This occurs *ith hea)y #etals *hich the +ody #istaes for essential #inerals, This is

2



particularly critical for #ercury *here one tenth of *o#en already ha)e +ody storesof #ercury *hich can lead to neurode)elop#ental pro+le#s in the ne*+orn242, <therfactors that increase foetal suscepti+ility are higher rates of cell proliferation. lo*eri##unological co#petence and decreased capacity to deto/ify carcinogens and repair"$24&,

Safety li#its currently do not tae into account this increased ris to thefoetus, <nly 8: of high )olu#e che#icals ha)e +een tested for neurode)elop#entalto/icity244 and )ery fe* pollutants ha)e +een tested for teratogenicity,

"uring a narro* *indo* of ti#e. in the first %2 *ees in utero. the foetus>s +ody is affected +y #iniscule a#ounts of hor#one #easured in parts per trillion, Tinya#ounts of che#icals can upset this delicate +alance, It is no* generally accepted thatche#icals that are not to/ic to an adult can ha)e de)astating effects on the ne*+orn,1orterfield has sho*n that s#all a#ounts of che#icals such as dio/ins and 1;Bs. atdoses that are not nor#ally regarded as to/ic. can affect thyroid hor#ones andneurological de)elop#ent%%, $ single e/posure is enough and ti#ing is critical24',S#all doses of oestrogenic che#icals can alter se/ual de)elop#ent of the +rain and

the endocrine syste#249,It is esti#ated that ': of +a+ies +orn in the ?S$ ha)e +een e/posed to

sufficient pollutants to affect neurological de)elop#ent248, It has also +een sho*nthat e/posure to oestrogenic che#icals affects i##unity. reduces the i##uneresponse to )accines. and is associated *ith a high incidence of #iddle ear andrecurrent respiratory infections24, The a#ount of che#ical that the +a+y taes inrelates to the total persistent conta#inants that ha)e +uilt up in the #other>s fat o)erher lifeti#e24, This *ill increase in areas around incinerators, E/posure to fine

particulate pollution during pregnancy can ha)e an ad)erse effect on the de)elopingfoetus and lead to i#paired foetal gro*th84,

In July 200'. in a ground3+reaing study2'0. researchers at t*o #a-orla+oratories in the ?S$ looed at the +ody +urden in the foetus, They reported ana)erage of 200 industrial che#icals and pollutants out of 4%& tested5 in the u#+ilicalcord +lood of %0 rando#ly chosen +a+ies, These included %0 carcinogens. 2%8che#icals that are to/ic to the +rain and ner)ous syste# and 20 that can cause +irthdefects and a+nor#al de)elop#ent in ani#als, $ state#ent +y scientists and

paediatricians said that the report raised issues of su+stantial i#portance to pu+lichealth. sho*ed up gaping holes in the go)ern#ent>s safety net and pointed to the needfor #a-or refor# to the nation>s la*s that ai# to protect the pu+lic fro# che#icale/posures,

T*o #onths later. scientists at the ?ni)ersity of Kroningen. released the

results of a European study. co##issioned +y WW= and Kreenpeace. on the foetal +ody +urden, They tested for the presence of &' che#icals in the u#+ilical cord +loodof ne*+orns2'%, $t least fi)e ha7ardous che#icals *ere found in all +a+ies and so#ehad as #any as %4 different co#pounds, The report 6uestioned the *isdo# ofallo*ing the foetus to +e e/posed to a co#ple/ #i/ture of persistent. +io3accu#ulati)e and +ioacti)e che#icals at the #ost critical stage of life,

Incinerators can only ha)e the effect of increasing the foetal +ody +urden andtheir use is therefore a retrograde step for society, It is particularly i#portant to applythe precautionary principle in issues that affect the foetus. infant and child,

&.2 /he )reast0fed Infant

It is a #a-or concern that +reast #il. perhaps the greatest gift a #other cangi)e for the future health of her child. has no* +eco#e the #ost conta#inated food on

&0



the planet. in ter#s of persistent organic pollutants2'2, In the ?S$ studies of hu#an +reast #il ha)e sho*n that 0: of sa#ples contained a distur+ing &'0 che#icals,This *as higher in industrialised areas sho*ing that inhalation of these to/icsu+stances is an i#portant factor 2'&, The dose taen in +y a +reast3feeding +a+y is '0ti#es higher than that taen in +y an adult2'4,

The incinerator *ould add to the total load of che#icals in the #other>s fatand those to/ins accu#ulated o)er a lifeti#e +y the #other *ill then +e transferred tothe tiny +ody of her +a+y through her #il, Si/ #onths of +reast feeding *ill transfer20: of the #other>s lifeti#e accu#ulation of organochlorines to the child 2'', =ro#%8 one in four sa#ples of +reast #il ha)e +een found to +e o)er the legal li#it setfor 1;Bs in co##ercial feeds24 and these are no*n to i#pair intellectualde)elop#ent32'93, ;onta#ination *ith persistent organic pollutants 1<1s5 in +reast#il in ani#als has consistently sho*n structural. +eha)ioural and functional

pro+le#s in their offspring2', =or instance. in #oneys it has sho*n that it decreasestheir a+ility to learn29032, 1oly+ro#inated diphenyl ethers 1B"Es5 are to/ic che#icals*hich ha)e +een dou+ling in +reast #il e)ery fi)e years. and ha)e also +een rapidly

increasing in the *aste fed to incinerators as they are no* present in #any co##onelectrical and electronic goods, 1B"Es cause cancer. +irth defects. thyroiddysfunction and i##une suppression,29&.294 It is truly tragic that one of the fe* *aysof re#o)ing these conta#inants fro# the #other>s +ody is +y +reast3feeding,

&.3 ChildrenTo/ic and carcinogenic e/posures in early life. including prenatal e/posures.

are #ore liely to lead to cancer than si#ilar e/posures later 29'38, $t the =irstInternational Scientific ;onference of ;hildhood (euae#ia. held in Septe#+er 2004.1rofessor $lan 1reece suggested that pollutants crossing the placenta. *ere da#aging

the i##une syste# and could +e lined *ith soaring rates of leuae#ia. *hich *ere +eing initiated in utero, This the#e *as e/panded +y 1rofessor Keorge @no/ in hisrecent study *hich found that children born in F#ollution hots#otsG ?ere t?o to

four times more li-ely to die from childhood cancer. The hotspotsN included sitesof industrial co#+ustion. and sites *ith higher le)els of particulates. D<;s. nitrogendio/ides. dio/ins and +en7a5pyrenes A in other *ords -ust *hat *ould +e foundaround incinerators, He said that. in #ost cases. the #other had inhaled these to/icsu+stances and they *ere then passed on to the foetus through the placenta29, This issupported +y ani#al studies *hich ha)e already confir#ed that cancer in young can

+e initiated +y gi)ing carcinogens +efore conception to the #other5. in utero ordirectly to the neonate29.280,

"e)eloping syste#s are )ery delicate and in #any instances are not a+le torepair da#age done +y en)iron#ental to/icants28%, In one study there *as an age3related difference in neuroto/icity for all +ut t*o of &% su+stances testedC theseincluded hea)y #etals. pesticides and other che#icals282, ;hildren are not -ust a)ulnera+le group +ut the current inha+itants of a de)elop#ental stage through *hichall future generations #ust pass, This fact is recognised in the passage of the =oodGuality 1rotection $ct in the ?S$, It re6uires that pesticide standards are +ased

pri#arily on health considerations and that standards are set at le)els *hich *ill protect the health of children and infants,

"e)elop#ental disorders including autis# and attention deficit syndro#e are*idespread and affect &3: of children, The ?S ational $cade#y of Sciences

concluded in July 2000 that &: of all de)elop#ental disorders *ere a directconse6uence of to/ic en)iron#ental e/posures and another 2': are the result of

&%



interactions +et*een to/ic e/posures and indi)idual suscepti+ility, The causesincluded lead. #ercury. 1;Bs. certain pesticides and other en)iron#entalneuroto/icants28&. su+stances that are all discharged fro# incinerators

Recently associations ha)e +een reported in case control studies +et*een the +ody +urden of #ercury and the ris of autis#284, In other studies in Te/as.

associations ha)e +een found +et*een the a#ount of #ercury discharged into the airand *ater +y che#ical plants and the local incidence of autis#0 and an in)erserelationship +et*een the distances of schools fro# the plants discharging #ercury andautis# in their youngest pupils 4 years laterC this is the lag e/pected fro# the fact thatthe greatest sensiti)ity to neuroto/icity is seen +efore +irth and in neonates %, Thissuggests that #ercury could +e responsi+le +ut the contri+ution of other neuroto/ins*as not e/cluded,

The study of the Sint ilaas incinerator found a #ultitude of pro+le#s inchildren. including learning defects. hyperacti)ity. autis#. #ental retardation andallergies' and this is e/actly *hat *ould +e anticipated fro# the a+o)e and researchalready done on the health effects of hea)y #etals. 1;Bs and dio/ins on children,

$ni#al studies sho* si#ilarities. *ith a recent study de#onstrating autistic3lie +eha)ioural changes in rats *hose #others has +een e/posed to 1;Bs *hilst pregnantC they had de)eloped a+nor#al plasticity in the corte/ of the +rain28',

We need also to consider su+clinical to/icity, The pioneering *or of Her+ert eedle#an sho*ed that lead could cause decreases in intelligence and alteration of +eha)iour in the a+sence of clinically )isi+le signs of to/icity2, This has also +eensho*n to +e the case *ith 1;Bs289 and #ethyl #ercury8, These effects are all the#ore liely *hen children are e/posed to #ultiple pollutants. nota+ly the hea)y#etals. *hich *ill +e found in the coctail of che#icals released +y incinerators,

$lthough this has only #inor i#plications for an indi)idual it can ha)e #a-ori#plications for a population, =or instance a ' point drop of IG in the populationreduces +y '0: the nu#+er of gifted children IG a+o)e %205 and increases +y '0:the nu#+er *ith +orderline IG +elo* 05288, This can ha)e profound conse6uencesfor a society. especially if the drop in IG is acco#panied +y +eha)ioural changes,

&.! /he Chemically SensitiveIn the +oo. ;he#ical E/posures. (o* (e)els and High Staes +y 1rofessors

$shford and Miller %'%. the authors noted that a proportion of the population react toche#icals and pollutants at se)eral orders of #agnitude +elo* that nor#ally thoughtto +e to/ic, =or e/a#ple research has disco)ered indi)iduals *ho react to le)els ofto/ins pre)iously considered to +e safe, T*o e/a#ples are +en7ene28 and lead&, It

has +een de#onstrated that there is a tenfold difference +et*een different indi)idualsin the #eta+olis# of the carcinogenic 1$H +en7a5pyrene28,

$shford and Miller also noted that studies in +oth to/icology andepide#iology ha)e recognised that che#icals are har#ful at lo*er and lo*er dosesand that an increasing nu#+er of people are ha)ing pro+le#s, $ significant

percentage of the population ha)e +een found to react this *ay %' to &0: in se)eralsur)eys *ith ': ha)ing daily sy#pto#s5,%'% Research has sho*n %'0 to 4'0 fold)aria+ility in response to air+orne particles20, =ried#an has stated that en)iron#entalregulation re6uires the protection of these sensiti)e indi)iduals2%, This highlights thedangers of incinerators *hich e#it a #ultitude of che#ical co#pounds, ;he#icalsensiti)ity is typically triggered +y an acute e/posure after *hich sy#pto#s start to

occur at )ery lo* le)els of e/posure%'%, =aults are all too co##on *ith #odernincinerators leading to discharges of pollutants at le)els that endanger health A gi)ing

&2



a )ery real ris of long3ter# sensitisation, ;ertain suscepti+le indi)iduals *ill +ehighly affected +y these pollutants and these effects *ill +e difficult to anticipate, Inaddition. people affected this *ay are e/tre#ely difficult to treat,

'. Past (ista-es and /he Precautionary Princi#le

'.1 /he Precautionary Princi#leThe 1recautionary 1rinciple has no* +een introduced into national and

international la* including that of the European ?nion22, This principle in)ol)esacting in the face of uncertain no*ledge a+out riss fro# en)iron#ental e/posures,This #eans pu+lic health #easures should +e taen in response to li#ited. +ut

plausi+le and credi+le. e)idence of liely and su+stantial har#2&

, It is su##ed up inthe % Wingspread state#ent! When an acti)ity raises threats of har# to hu#anhealth or the en)iron#ent. precautionary #easures should +e taen e)en if so#ecause and effect relationships are not fully esta+lished scientifically, In this conte/t.the proponent of the acti)ity. rather than the pu+lic. should +ear the +urden of proof,NIn the case of incinerators a recent re)ie* of health effects found t*o thirds of studiessho*ed a positi)e e/posure3disease association *ith cancer #ortality. incidence and

pre)alence524 and so#e studies pointed to a positi)e association *ith congenital#alfor#ations, In addition *ithout e/act no*ledge of *hat pollutants are produced

+y incinerators. their 6uantities. their en)iron#ental fate or their health effects. it isi#possi+le to assure their safety, It is a+solutely clear fro# this and fro# the e)idence

presented here that +uilding #unicipal *aste incinerators )iolates the 1recautionary1rinciple and perhaps European (a*,

8,2 earnin from Past (ista-esTi#e and ti#e again it has +een found that *hat *e did not no* a+out

che#icals pro)ed to +e far #ore i#portant than *hat *e did no*, $s an incineratorgenerates hundreds of che#icals. including ne* co#pounds. *e can e/pect #anyunpleasant future surprises, Here are a fe* e/a#ples fro# the past!

• Chlorofluorocarbons 7C:Cs8 These che#icals *ere touted as the safestche#icals e)er in)ented *hen first synthesised in %2, Tho#as Midgeleyrecei)ed the highest a*ard fro# the che#ical industry for his disco)ery, $fter40 years on the #aret suspicion fell on the#, They *ere producing holes inthe o7one layer e/ceeding the *orst case scenario predicted +y scientists,

• Polychlorinated bi#henyls 7PC)s8 These che#icals *ere introduced in%2, To/icity tests at the ti#e sho*ed no ha7ardous effects, They *ere onthe #aret for &9 years +efore 6uestions arose, By that ti#e they *ere in the

+ody fat of e)ery li)ing creature in the planet and e)idence +egan to e#erge oftheir endocrine disrupting effects,

• Pesticides Early pesticides included arsenical co#pounds +ut these illedfar#ers as *ell as pests, They *ere replaced +y ""T, 1aul Muller *asa*arded the o+el 1ri7e for this disco)ery as it *as considered a #ilestone in

hu#an progress, But ""T +rought death in a different *ay and it *as anothert*o decades +efore it *as +anned, (ess persistent pesticides then ca#e onto

&&



the #aret +ut they had yet another unanticipated pro+le# A endocrinedisruption,

• /ributyl tin 7/)/8 In the early se)enties scientists noted irre)ersi+leda#age *as occurring to the reproducti)e syste# of fish and shellfish.especially cla#s. shri#ps. oysters. "o)er Sole and sal#on, It *as %% years

+efore the cause *as found and it *as found to +e due to +e tri+utyl tin. ache#ical added to paint to stop +arnacles gro*ing, Incredi+ly the da#age *asoccurring at a concentration of -ust fi)e parts per trillion, By the end of theeighties #ore than one hundred species of fish *ere no*n to ha)e +eenhar#ed,

This pattern of unanticipated disasters and long latent inter)als +efore theirdisco)ery characterises the history of #any to/ic che#icals and *arrants greatcaution in the use of ne* co#pounds, $ni#al studies al#ost ne)er *arn us of theuni6uely hu#an neuroto/ic effects on +eha)iour. language and thining, In the caseof lead. #ercury and 1;Bs the le)els of e/posure needed for these effects to occur

ha)e +een o)eresti#ated +y a factor of %00 to %0.0002', To 6uote Krand-ean2& !asteperiences show the costly conse"uences of disregarding early warnings about

environmental hazards. Today the need for applying the !recautionary !rinciple is

even greater than beforeN

. lternative 4aste /echnoloies

$n ideal *aste strategy *ould produce no to/ic e#issions. no to/ic +y3 products. no residues that need landfilling 7ero *aste5. good reco)ery of #aterialsand +e capa+le of dealing *ith all types of *aste, This #ight see# a tall order +ut

*ith a co#+ination of approaches. it is no* possi+le to co#e 6uite close to this goal,<nce this ai# is #ade clear then incineration +eco#es a poor choice, The

potentially dangerous e#issions to air. the high )olu#e of ash that needs landfillingand the )ery to/ic nature of the fly ash *ould rule it out, Si#ilarly pyrolysis producesto/ic +y3products and is +est a)oided,

The #ost i#portant co#ponent of an integrated strategy #ust +e so#e for#of separation and recycling, We #ust also loo at #ethods of dealing *ith residual*aste that produce no ash. such as Mechanical3Biological Treat#ent. $naero+ic"igestion and $d)anced Ther#al Technologies,

,% ,ecyclin5 ,e0use and Com#ostinBoth go)ern#ent guidance and the European ?nion Waste Hierarchy #ae it

clear that recycling and re3use are the highest priorities in *aste #anage#ent and thatthis should tae precedence o)er incineration and landfill, This hierarchy has +eendescri+ed as reduction. reuse. reco)ery and disposal, Many fine *ords ha)e +eenspoen. +ut the reality is. that *ithout incenti)es to support recycling. +oth theincrease in landfill ta/ and the European "irecti)es to reduce the a#ount of

+iodegrada+le *aste going to landfill are dri)ing *aste #anage#ent to*ards itslo*est priorities. principally incineration, This has no* +eco#ing the easiest optionfor local authorities, Waste policy is )eering a*ay fro# its stated highest priorities*ith their lo* en)iron#ental i#pact to*ards the least sustaina+le options *hich ha)ethe highest en)iron#ental i#pact,

The net effect of this is that incineration. *ith its large appetite for highcalorific recycla+le #aterials. is no* in direct co#petition *ith recycling and has

&4



+eco#e an o+stacle to sound *aste policy, This is an in)ersion of the WasteHierarchy and re#o)es the #oti)ation to re3use and recycle, <ne *ay for*ard *ould

+e to use the strategy already e#ployed +y se)eral countries such as S*eden and the etherlands. *here *aste cannot +e deli)ered to landfill or incinerators *ithoutha)ing undergone separation or treat#ent, In effect. this stops the sending of

recycla+le ite#s to landfill and incineration,$+out 49: of #unicipal *aste consists of paper. card+oard. fa+rics. glass

and #etals A all of *hich could +e recycled, Metals are +eco#ing #ore )alua+le andare already +eing #ined in du#ps in parts of the *orld, $+out &2: consists of gardenand food *aste *hich could +e co#posted, Se)eral co##entators ha)e e#phasisedthat. for recycling progra#s to *or successfully. it is i#portant to ha)e syste#s in

place that are easy to use, "oorstep collections of organic *aste are especiallyi#portant, $nother %&: of *aste is plastics *hich are discussed +elo*,

The ?@ presently recycles a+out 2&: of its *aste, Many other countriesrecycle a far higher proportion of their *aste *ith or*ay. $ustria and Hollandachie)ing o)er 40: and S*it7erland o)er '0:, St Ed#unds+ury in the ?@ has

reached '0:, Belo* is a ta+le sho*ing that #any areas ha)e achie)ed high rates of#unicipal *aste di)ersion recycling. re3use and co#posting5 and this de#onstratesthat di)ersion rates of '0380: are realistic targets,

Bocality >iversion Aate (percent)

Zabbaleen-served areas of 7airo, -gypt %'

+potiki >istrict, 8ew Dealand %'

Ea""o (5adua), #taly %1

*renton, +ntario F'

?ellusco (Milan), #taly F3

8etherlands F

8orthumberland 7ounty, +ntario, 7anada 2&Sidney, +ntario 2&

-ast 5rince, 5rince -dward #sland, 7anada 22?oothbay, Maine, @.SC 22

/alifa$, 7anada 2'

7hatham, 8ew Gersey, @.SC 2'

Halls 7hurch, 6irginia, @.SC 2'Ealway, #reland 23

?elleville, +ntario 23

7anberra, Custralia 21

?ellevue, !ashington, @.SC 2Euelph, +ntario, 7anada '%

Eisbome >istrict, 8ew Dealand 'F

7fifton, 8ew Gersey, @.SC '2

Boveland, 7olorado, @.SC '2

>enmaI '

?ergen 7ounty, 8ew Gersey, @.SC '

!orcester, Massachusetts, @.SC '

Beverett, Massachusetts, @.S.C. '3

Cnn Crbor, Michigan, @.S.C. '

7rockett, *e$as, @.S.C. '

>over, 8ew /ampshire, @.SC '

Jaikoura >istrict, 8ew Dealand 'Swit"erland '

8ova Scotia, 7anada '

5ortland, +regon, @.SC '

Madison, !isconsin, @.SC '

Hitchburg, !isconsin, @.SC '

6isalia, 7alifornia, @.SC '

&'



.2 Producin ess 4asteHo*e)er efficiently *e recycle. re3use and co#post. these cannot sol)e the

*aste pro+le# *ithout another )ital stepC na#ely producing less *aste in the first place, To e#phasise this point. the a#ount of #unicipal and +usiness *aste in the ?@

is still gro*ing29 in spite of higher rates of recycling,Darious solutions to this are gaining popularity, <ne is E/tended 1roduct

Responsi+ility E1R5 *here fir#s tae physical and financial responsi+ility for products e)en after they are sold. collecting their products and pacaging after use,This encourages fir#s not to produce non3recycla+le and non re3usa+le products, Ithas +een applied to pacaging. tyres. and electronics, E1R needs to +e e/tended +ut*here this is not practical. such as *here products are ha7ardous or non3recycla+le.then a product +an #ight +e appropriate, $ further solution *ould +e to ta/ non3recycla+le ite#s to discourage their production,

There is a further aside to this issue *hich has yet to +e addressed +ygo)ern#ents, The de)eloped *orld is producing. and disposing of. increasinga#ounts of goods of all inds. including large a#ounts of synthetic #aterialsunno*n a century ago, The rest of the *orld is not unnaturally *anting to share the

prosperity. +ut *e are rapidly reaching a point *here continuing e)en at the presentle)el *ill +eco#e i#possi+le +ecause *e are running out of +oth energy and ofessential #aterials. particularly oil,

We ha)e finite sources of oil fro# *hich so #any #aterials are #ade, We are pro+a+ly close to reaching pea production and this resource *ill di#inish o)er thene/t fe* decades at a ti#e *hen de#and is increasing internationally, atural gas*ill pea a decade or t*o later and then di#inish, The only other t*o #a-or sourcesof energy *ould +e coal and nuclear po*er, uclear energy. e)en in the unliely

e)ent that a safe *ay could +e found to deal *ith the radioacti)e *aste. *ould last +et*een 28 and %8 years 2 if it *as supplying 2032': of the *orld>s energy +ecause uraniu# is also a finite resource, Burning coal could cause a disastrousincrease in greenhouse gases, $gain it could not #ae up for the shortage of energyand *ould last less than a century2, $t present it appears that genuinely rene*a+lesources of energy could pro)ide. at the )ery #ost. 40: of our present energyre6uire#ents2, In reality it is liely to +e #uch less and it has +een esti#atedrene*a+le sources *ill produce 4Q : of total energy and 22: of electricity +y 2020in the ?@5,20 "ifferent e/perts *ill ha)e their o*n opinions on all of these figures.

+ut one thing is certain! 3 *e are running out of energy, We can anticipate a 20:reduction in energy fro# all sources in 40 years and a 40: reduction in 90 years 2,

(ong +efore this happens the price of energy and of goods #ade fro# oil *ill soar,There is only one possi+le solution to this pro+le# in the long ter# and that is

to reduce our use of energy *hich #eans reducing our production and consu#ption ofgoods. and preser)ing our resources. including the )alua+le co#ponents in our *aste,

.3 6ero 4astePero *aste. initially introduced in e* Pealand has +een taen up

successfully +y other regions and cities such as San =rancisco. The 1hilippines.=landers. ;an+erra. Bath and orth East So#erset, In the ?@. 8%: of councils ha)eco##itted to 7ero *aste as part of their plan, This #eans *oring to*ards a goal of

producing 7ero *aste and a)oiding disposal in landfill and incineration, The policy of

the European ?nion is already on the path to*ards 7ero *aste, 6ero ?aste andincineration are mutually incom#atible.

&9



There are so#e difficulties *ith 7ero *aste, <ne is that not all #aterials can +e recycled and there *ill +e so#e residual *aste. nota+ly plastics, <ther goodscontain #i/ed ingredients for e/a#ple en)elopes containing plastic *indo*s5 andcannot easily +e recycled, These could +e ta/ed or +anned, So#e areas such as=landers in Belgiu# ha)e recognised this pro+le# and ha)e inno)ati)ely set a target

for residual *aste. currently %'0g per capita per year ?@! 400g per capita peryear5, This is a useful idea and the policy sends out a strong signal to #anufacturers to

produce recycla+le products,

.! /he Problem of Plastics$ large a#ount of our *aste is plastics and related #aterials such as 1D;,

1resently only t*o types of plastics can +e recycled, The first ey 6uestion is *hat*ill *e do *ith these non3recycla+le plastics The second ey 6uestion is ho* do *e#ae chlorinated plastics safe for the future. taing into account that their highly

persistent and to/ic nature The third ey 6uestion is can *e use plastics as a futureresource These are not s#all issues, =or e/a#ple. *e use '00 +illion carrier +agseach year, They are used for an a)erage of 20 #inutes and are )irtually indestructi+le.lasting for centuries, Many end up as #icroscopic tilth in the oceans, They then findtheir *ay into the food chain )ia lug*or#s and +arnacles,

Incineration is a poor ans*er to these issues as #any plastics areorganochlorines and for# to/ic products. nota+ly dio/ins. *hen +urnt, In addition ani#portant resource is *asted, We use a+out &34: of our oil to produce these plasticsand it #aes no sense to si#ply +urn the#, The +est solution *ould +e to stop #aingchlorinated plastics in the first place in )ie* of their persistence and to/icity, Instead*e could #ae +iodegrada+le plastics +ut note these *ill +rea do*n to for# thegreenhouse gas #ethane5, $nother ans*er is plas#a gasification, 1las#a gasification.

unlie incineration can con)ert chlorine3+ased plastics +ac to their original starting#aterial. na#ely salt and *ater and synthesis gas car+on #ono/ide and hydrogen5,=urther procedures can +e used to con)ert synthesis gases into highly useful #aterials!fuels such as ethanol and =ischer3Tropsch diesel a cleaner for# of diesel5 or ethyleneto produce #ore plastics, It other *ords it could +e used to +oth deto/ify and refor#

plastics,

.% naerobic *iestion of "ranic (atterThe pro+le#s of landfills are threefold, <ne is the production of greenhouse

gases. principally #ethane, The second is the seeping of che#icals fro# landfill sitesinto a6uifers, The third is lac of space, The for#er is the #ost urgent pro+le# to

sol)e, The #ethane is produced +y organic *aste. in other *ords rotting organic#atter. +ut not +y plastics e/cept +io3degrada+le ones5 or #etals, $t present the#ethane is +urnt in a flare to*er or gas generator plant at the landfill site, Ho*e)erthis is )ery inefficient, $ far +etter option is to re#o)e the paper. plastics and #etalsand allo* the *aste to +rea do*n in an anaero+ic digester, The #ethane can then +e

+urnt in a co#+ined heat and po*er plant to produce electricity and heat, $s thisoccurs in a sealed unit the en)iron#ental i#pact is #uch less than a landfill gas

po*er plant, If this type of facility *as used for the #a-ority of agricultural *aste andse*age then it could supply &: of the ?@>s electricity and *ould also displacecar+on e#issions24,

.& (echanical )ioloical /reatment 7()/8

&8



This treat#ent is used e/tensi)ely in Ker#any. Italy and $ustria. has +een inuse for o)er %0 years and is due to +e introduced into the ?@, The process in)ol)es a#echanical stage in *hich the *aste is chopped up into frag#ents and then separated

+y +eing put through screens of )arious si7es and past #agnets, This process *illseparate the *aste into fractions *hich can +e used for different purposes, =or

instance #etals. #inerals and hard plastics can then +e recycled, 1aper. te/tiles andti#+er can also +e reco)ered, <rganic #atter can then +e +roen do*n +y co#posting

A this is the +iological treat#ent, This can +e achie)ed +y e/posing the *aste toat#ospheric o/ygen or it can +e +roen do*n in the a+sence of o/ygen anaero+icdigestion5, The re#aining ru++ish can then +e landfilled, This process is )irtually

pollution3free unless the remainin #ellets are burnt *ith all the riss this entails,With MBT #ost of the original goals are +eing #et, It fails on t*o counts only,=irstly there is so#e residue that needs landfilling A this is a #inor point +ut thesecond is #ore serious! MBT cannot cope *ith all types of *aste as it is not suita+lefor ha7ardous *aste, This is i#portant as the a#ount of ha7ardous *aste is liely toincrease, So MBT needs to +e part of a syste#,

ote that residues fro# MBT ha)e had the organic #atter re#o)ed. so they*ill not produce the pro+le#atic greenhouse gases, =or this reason *e +elie)e it is*rong that it incurs the full landfill ta/ as happens at present,

.' dvanced /hermal /echnoloies 7//8 and Plasma asificationIn contrast *ith non3ther#al #ethods. any ther#al #ethod of dealing *ith

*aste carries an inherent ris of causing fatalities, Because of this ther#al #ethodsshould only +e used for residual *aste after full separation of recycla+les has taen

place, If ther#al #ethods are used. these should al*ays +e the safest ones a)aila+le,In effect this #eans plas#a gasification or gasification using the Ther#oselect

process, Japan has #ore e/perience of incineration than any other country and hasstarted to use plas#a gasification as a safer alternati)e to incineration, 1las#agasification is also in use in ;anada,

1las#a gasification achie)es the final o+-ecti)e +y disposing of the residual*aste after separation and recycling and other separating technologies such as#echanical3+iological treat#ent, It can deal safely *ith the #ost ha7ardous types of*aste and can produce up to three ti#es as #uch energy as incineration,

Kasification has +een e#ployed +y the natural gas industry for o)er 0 years +ut has not. so far. +een used e/tensi)ely for dealing *ith *aste. although such plantsare no* in operation in Italy. S*it7erland. Ker#any and Japan, Kasification produceshigh te#peratures and can ther#ally deco#pose co#ple/ and ha7ardous organic

#olecules into gases and +enign si#ple su+stances, 1las#a refers to the gas *hen ithas +eco#e ioni7ed and this happens *hen an electric current is passed through thegas, very im#ortant distinction from incineration is that it does not #roduce

ash, The gas cleaning process can con)ert #any conta#inants into en)iron#entally +enign and useful +y3products, The a+ate#ent e6uip#ent of incinerators andgasification units is )ery different, If the a+ate#ent e6uip#ent in an incinerator fails.as is all too co##on. people do*n*ind fro# the installation *ill +e su+-ected todangerous pollution, If the a+ate#ent e6uip#ent in a gasification unit fails it *illcause serious da#age to the plant itself A so the plant has to +e +uilt to a #uch higher6uality,

In a plas#a gasification plant. the residual to/ic su+stances including #etals

+eco#e encapsulated in silicate *hich is lie +eing encased in stone, The plant *illre#o)e the to/ic and persistent co#pounds fro# plastics and other che#icals and

&



refor# the#, $ good 6uality plas#a gasification unit *ill not produce any ad)erseresidues or +y3products. only synthesis gas. silica. sulphur and salt, Synthesis gas is auseful +y3product *hich can +e used as a fuelC a #a-or financial ad)antage *hichallo*s the capital costs of the unit to +e paid *ithin a 8 year period, $lthough it is arelati)ely e/pensi)e process. it is far cheaper than incineration once the health costs

are taen into account see section ,%5, ote also that it *ould not incur costs underthe European ?nion E#issions Trading Sche#e. potentially sa)ing #illions of

pounds annually, $ recent re)ie* of plas#a gasification considered it to +e a pro#ising alternati)e to older technologies and that the present cli#ate fa)oured theadoption of ad)anced technologies for *aste treat#ent2%, If it is co#+ined *ith MBTand recycling. then only a s#all unit *ould +e needed,

It is i#portant to realise that gasification syste#s can )ary in 6uality andtherefore safety, It is crucial that there is a good gas cleaning syste# *hich goesthrough 8 or stages, It is also essential that te#peratures of %'00 ; are achie)ed 3enough to +rea do*n organochlorines and con)ert the# +ac to their original safefor#. salt and *ater,

<rganochlorines are pro+a+ly the #ost pro+le#atical group of che#icals onthe planet so a real +enefit of this technology is that this process re)erses of the chlor3alali process that produces organochlorines in the first place

. reenhouse asesIncineration has +een sold as a source of green energy and e)en #ore +i7arrely

as a source of rene*a+le energy, This is far fro# the truth, In a recent report.incineration *as found to +e second only to coal fired po*er stations as a producer ofgreenhouse gases,

Ho*e)er this is only part of the pro+le#, With incineration there are t*o

releases of greenhouse gases A once *hen the #aterial is +urnt and another *hen it isre3#anufactured, <nce *e add to the e6uation the car+on and other greenhouse gases produced *hen these products are re#ade. as opposed to +eing recycled. then it +eco#es o+)ious ho* *rong it *ould +e to regard incineration as a source of greenenergy, In fact. +et*een t*o to fi)e ti#es #ore energy goes into re#aing productsthan the energy reco)ered fro# incinerating the#22,

Recycling is far #ore energy efficient than incineration and has greatercar+on +enefits, With the high rates of #ethane capture assu#ed +y "E=R$. landfillhas si#ilar ;<2 e#issions to incinerators,

$ll incinerators should +e routinely assessed for their effect on glo+al*ar#ing,

9. /he Costs of Incineration

9.1 *irect and Indirect CostsIncineration has +een reported to +e #ore e/pensi)e than alternati)e *aste

strategies e)en *hen health costs are not considered, $ recent docu#ent fro# theScottish En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency esti#ated that the disposal costs to processa tonne of *aste *ould +e '030 for incineration co#pared to &0340 for aero+icdigestion, These costs include high transportation costs and the e6ui)alent figure forEngland *ould +e 203&0 lo*er per tonne #aing it appro/ 2'3'' per tonne for

incineration and ' per tonne for aero+ic digestion5, The capital costs of aero+icdigestion *ould +e a+out half that of incineration2&,

&



It is liely that the *aste industry *ill co#e under the European ?nionE#ission Trading Sche#e ETS5 *ithin the ne/t %0 years. in an effort to offset car+one#issions, This *ould greatly increase the cost of incineration, T*o tonnes of car+onare produced for e)ery tonne of *aste +urned, The present cost per tonne of car+on.under ETS. *ill +e around 20 and this cost *ill gradually increase. *hich *ould add

appro/i#ately &0 to each tonne of *aste +urned, ;ouncils *ill then +e co##itted to paying an escalating cost. starting at %2 #illion per annu# for a 400.000 tonne ayear incinerator5 for up to 2' yearsL, It is a tra)esty that this cost should fall on localta/payers su+-ected to this pollution *hich they did not as for and *hich could +e

putting their o*n health at ris, We +elie)e that #any councils #ay +e una*are of thei#plications of E#issions Trading Sche#e,

$nother consideration councils #ay +e una*are of is the financiali#pact of Rene*a+le <+ligation ;ertificates, Basically so#e *aste disposal syste#s*ill attract these certificates. *hilst others *ill not, The syste#s that attract R<;credits could produce )ery significant increases in inco#e, These *ould +e *orth#illions of pounds per annu# for the *aste co#panies operating such plants and for

council ta/payers in areas *here *aste co#panies operate such e6uip#ent on their +ehalf,

Incinerators generally attract no R<; pay#ents, $n e/ception to this is a ;H1co#+ined heat and po*er5 incinerator *hich attracts a pay#ent of % R<;. or afraction of an R<;. per #ega*att hour of po*er generated LL, 1las#a gasificationand anaero+ic digestion attract a pay#ent of 2 R<;s. or associated fraction. per#ega*att *att hour of po*er generated, These technologies are not only far safer +utthis pay#ent also #aes the# a #uch #ore attracti)e financial proposition,

The i#plication of this is that a 200.000 tonne per year incinerator *ouldattract no pay#ent +ut a 200.000 tonne per year plas#a gasification unit *ould attracta pay#ent of 4, #illion per annu# LLL, This *ould allo* the *aste co#pany tooffer a su+stantial reduction in their charge to the council for each tonne of *asterecei)ed, This *ould. in turn. lead to large sa)ings for +oth council ta/payers&,

Ho*e)er. calculation of the total costs of different #ethods of getting rid of*aste #ust not only include the set3up and running costs +ut also the en)iron#ental.hu#an and health costs, In the case of incineration. hu#an and health costs aresu+stantial +ut tend to +e o)erlooed +ecause they co#e out of another +udget,Ho*e)er the health costs *ill ha)e to +e paid for and #ust +e included in thee6uation, "ealing *ith the ash produced +y incinerators represents another #a-or costto society. *hich again *ill co#e out of so#eone else>s +udget, These are not s#allcosts and to gi)e so#e idea of the #agnitude of the costs in)ol)ed. it *as esti#ated

that in %2 the +ill for re#ediating all the conta#inated *aste sites in the ?S$ *as8'0 +illion24,L $lthough these charges *ill +e directed at the *aste producer. contract clauses protecting

the# *ill ensure these high costs are passed on,LL R<; pay#ents related to rene*a+le energy generated +y *aste facilities are +ased on the

percentage of feedstoc that can +e classed as rene*a+le, Waste is not a *holly rene*a+le su+stanceand is dee#ed +y <fge# to contain '0: rene*a+le content, Therefore. only half a #ega*att ofrene*a+le electricity *ill +e generated *hen one #ega*att o)erall is generated, $s a conse6uence ofthis. the #ega*att generated *ill only attract half an R<;,

LLL a 200.000 tonne per annu# plas#a gasification unit *ould +urn 24 tonnes per hour producing %4 #ega*atts per hour or %22.940 #ega*att hours per annu#, It is assu#ed that '0: ofthis fuel is rene*a+le and hence there *ill +e a re+ate of '0: on the %22.940 #ega*atts of electricity

produced 2 R<;s per MWh / 0,'5, Each #ega*att *ould attract a pay#ent of appro/i#ately 40,

This a#ounts to a sa)ing of 4, #illion pounds per annu#,

40



9.2 Health Costs of IncinerationThe health costs of incineration are huge, $ %9 report +y the European

;o##ission suggested that for e)ery tonne of *aste +urnt there *ould +e +et*een2% and %29 of health and en)iron#ental da#age. #eaning that a 400.000 tonnes peryear incinerator *ould cost the ta/3payer +et*een .000.000 and '8.000.000 per

year 2'! this figure *as +ased on earlier data *hen e#issions to air *ere so#e*hathigher so no* these costs *ould +e e/pected to +e less, Ho*e)er note thecorresponding increase in costs that is no* needed to #ae fly ash safe, The +etter the

pollution control the #ore to/ic the residues *ill +e and the #ore e/pensi)e they *ill +e to deal *ith,5

Studies that ha)e tried to esti#ate the co#+ination of all these costs ofincineration ha)e co#e up *ith astonishingly high figures, "E=R$>s report in 2004found that the health costs fro# 1M%0 particulates fro# incinerators alone. using acentral to high esti#ate. *ould +e &.24' per tonne of particulates e#itted B not

per tonne of *aste +urnt529, $ 400.000 tonne per year incinerator *ould producea+out 24.000g 24 tonnes5 of particulates per year and the "E=R$ esti#ate of healthcosts *ould +e 4%.000 per annu#,

Ho*e)er "E=R$ looed at %& studies of 1M2,' and 1M%0 particulates andnoted that the health costs ranged fro# 2.000 3 &00.000 per tonne for 1M2,'s and%.00 3 229.800 for 1M%0s, These esti#ates *ere +ased on #odelling data *hich forreasons descri+ed in section %2 are liely to underesti#ate particulate e#issions, In

particular they do not tae into account recent data de#onstrating high le)els of pollutants e#itted during start3up and shut3do*n, It is therefore reasona+le to assu#ethat the actual health costs *ould +e at the higher end of the range. *ith a cost of229.800 per tonne for 1M%0s and &00.000 per tonne for 1M2,'s gi)ing a total healthcost per annu# for particulates alone of 9,' #illion LLLL, To gi)e a realistic esti#ate

of the health costs of incineration. the additional costs fro# the other pollutants #ust +e added to this,In a re)ie* of health costs of incineration Eshet28 noted the co#ple/ity and

difficulty of these calculations. *ith esti#ates )arying +et*een %,& and %8% pertonne of *aste +urnt, $ study of British incinerators esti#ated the cost to +e +et*een2,42 and %&,%9 per tonne of *aste +urnt2, Most of these studies do not tae intoaccount the cost of ash. the cost of clean3up of accidents or *ater conta#ination or the#ore su+tle health effects such as +eha)ioural changes. reduction in IG. reproducti)eand hor#onal effects *hich ha)e +eco#e apparent in recent years *ith #any

pollutants such as lead and organochlorines, =or this reason it is liely the costs areconsidera+ly higher than esti#ated, Based on the findings of all these studies *e can

esti#ate that a 400.000 tonne a year incinerator *ill cause #illions of pounds *orthof health da#age annually, These large health costs alone clearly de#onstrate thatincinerators #ae a poor choice for *aste #anage#ent, When a single incinerator cangenerate health costs of #any #illions of pounds e)ery year. according to thego)ern#ent>s o*n data. it is a+surd to argue that incinerators are safe,

It is hard to see any -ustification for these huge health costs *hen other#ethods such as #echanical +iological treat#ent MBT5. aero+ic digestion and

plas#a gasification *ith lo* en)iron#ental and health costs see section 5 area)aila+le, These #ethods ha)e not +eing gi)en sufficient consideration in the ?@,MBT is relati)ely cheap +ut plas#a gasification is #ore e/pensi)e to install,Ho*e)er. if the health costs are taen into account plas#a gasification is )ery #uch

cheaper than incineration, It #aes no logical sense to use a #ethod of *aste disposal

4%



that has a total cost far in e/cess of other #ethods, $nd *e #ust as is it #orallyaccepta+le to no*ingly incur such high health costs,

LLLL This calculation is as follo*s, The Guality of ?r+an $ir Re)ie* Kroup has esti#ated

that the 1M2,' fraction of total particulates is +et*een 2: and %00:, (ea)ing aside the lielihood that

the 1M2,' fraction is higher fro# incinerator e#issions an a)erage figure of 90: 1M2,,'s *ould +eliely, This calculation therefore esti#ates that a 400.000 tonne incinerator *ould produce 24 tonnes of particulates. that 90: *ould +e 1M2,' particulates at a cost of 4,&2 #illion per annu# and 40: *ould +e at the lo*er cost for other 1M%0s costing 2,% #illion per annu#, The total cost in health da#agefro# particulates *ould therefore +e 9,' #illion per annu#,

9.3 :inancial ains from ,educin PollutionThe E; <opol report of %2 calculated that e)ery pound spent on

pollution a+ate#ent sa)ed 9 in health care costs and 4 in social security costs, $report fro# the ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency also reconed that e)ery dollarspent on a+ate#ent sa)ed %0 dollars in health costs,

In addition. a White House study +y the <ffice of Manage#ent and Budget in200& concluded that enforcing clean air regulations led to reductions inhospitalisations. e#ergency roo# )isits. pre#ature deaths and lost *ordays *hichled to a sa)ing of +et*een %20 and %& +illion +et*een <cto+er %2 andSepte#+er 2002, This is an underesti#ate as it did not loo at other health sa)ingssuch as prescription costs and pri#ary care costs, =e* other #easures today *ouldgi)e so dra#atic a health +enefit and such a large sa)ing in health costs&00,

9.! "ther Studies of the Health Costs of PollutionRecent studies ha)e dra*n attention to the huge unanticipated costs to society

of pollution fro# other sources, The International Joint ;o##ission>s Science

$d)isory Board. the Worgroup on Ecosyste# Health S$B3WKEH5 looed at aseries of health pro+le#s *here there *as hard e)idence for en)iron#ental causation,Reasoned argu#ents suggested that the contri+ution #ade +y to/ic su+stances tothese health pro+le#s *as +et*een %0 and '0:, =our health pro+le#s *hich theyconsidered concern us here. +ecause they in)ol)e pollutants si#ilar to those releasedfro# incinerators, These are neurode)elop#ental defects. hypothyroidis#. loss of 'IG points and 1arinson>s disease, The cu#ulati)e costs in the ?S$ for thesedisorders alone *ere considered to +e +et*een &80 and '20 +illion per year, E)enusing the lo*est esti#ate of en)iron#ental contri+ution %0:5. the costs due to

pollutants *as 40 +illion dollars annually&0%,The WW= in)estigated three conditions #ental retardation. cere+ral palsy

and autis# to assess the i#pact of che#ical pollution. and calculated the cost ofto/ic che#icals on children>s +rain de)elop#ent to +e appro/i#ately % +illionannually&02,

1;. "ther Considerations of Im#ortance

1;.1 /he Problem of shThe incineration of *aste produces a large a#ount of ash. a#ounting to &0:

of the *eight of the original *asteC 403'0: of the )olu#e of co#pacted *aste, Thisis i#portant as landfill sites are +eco#ing less and less a)aila+le so there is an urgent

need for a *ora+le alternati)e, It is clear that incineration *ill not sol)e the landfill pro+le# since it can only reduce the +ul +y -ust under half, (ittle thought has +een

42



gi)en to this and incinerator operators are still +eing gi)en 20 to &0 year contractscreating pro+le#s for the future,

Incinerators produce t*o types of ash. +otto# ash and fly ash. so#eti#escalled air pollution control $1;5 residues, The latter is highly to/ic and listed as ana+solute ha7ardous su+stance in the European Waste ;atalogue, It has high

concentration of hea)y #etals and dio/ins, Many su+stances such as #etals ha)e littleto/icity +efore incineration +ut +eco#e ha7ardous once con)erted to particulates orfine particles in the ash, In fact. the co#+ination of pollutants in the fly ash cana#plify the to/icity, ?sing a +iological test. researchers found that the to/icity in flyash *as fi)e ti#es greater than could +e accounted for +y the content of dio/ins.furans and 1;Bs&0&,

There is a +asic pro+le# *ith #odern incinerators, The less air pollution produced. the #ore to/ic the ash, Early incinerators e#itted large )olu#es of dio/ins,These e#issions ha)e +een significantly reduced. +ut at the cost of a correspondingincrease in the fly ash. *ith si#ilar increases in hea)y #etals and other to/icche#icals, $n incinerator +urning 400.000 tonnes of *aste annually for its 2' years

of operation *ould produce appro/i#ately half a #illion tonnes of highly to/ic flyash&, $part fro# )itrification. no ade6uate #ethod of disposing of fly ash has +eenfound, The E? ;o##ission ha)e stated that leaching fro# landfill sites #ay +e oneof the #ost i#portant sources of dio/ins in the future, Hea)y #etals are no*n toha)e high leacha+ility, The ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency considers that alllandfills e)entually leach through their liners, $s #ost of these pollutants are

persistent. pro+a+ly lasting for centuries. they *ill sooner or later threaten the *aterta+le and a6uifers *here their re#o)al *ould +e near i#possi+le, $llo*ing this totae place is an a+dication of our responsi+ility to future generations,

In spite of the #assi)e health riss associated *ith fly ash it is poorlyregulated, $t Byer. near e*castle3upon3Tyne. 2000 tonnes of fly ash laden *ithdio/ins *as spread o)er allot#ents. +ridle paths and footpaths for si/ years +et*een%4 and 2000, This ca)alier approach to #anaging to/ic *aste appears to ha)echanged little, In January 200. a recently per#itted ha7ardous *aste site at1ades*ood for storing fly ash fro# a ce#ent iln5 *as flooded, =ortunately noha7ardous *aste had +een stored at the ti#e other*ise it *ould ha)e carried the to/ic*aste into +roos and thence into the Ri)er $lyn fro# *here drining *ater ise/tracted,

Worers are often e/posed to this ash *ithout protecti)e gear, E)en today this#aterial has +een foolishly used for construction purposes ignoring its to/ic

properties and the potential for the release of pollutants during use and fro# ordinary

*ear and tear,=ly ash needs to +e transported a*ay fro# the incinerator and this can in)ol)elengthy -ourneys, These represent an i#portant ha7ard, $n accident could potentially#ae an area uninha+ita+le. as happened at Ti#es Beach. Missouri. due to dio/in3conta#inated oil, These potential costs ha)e yet to +e factored into the costcalculations of incinerators,

Botto# ash is a less se)ere ha7ard. +ut still contains significant 6uantities ofdio/ins. organohalogens and hea)y #etals, It is e/traordinary that *hereas regulationsha)e tightened in recent years to reduce dio/in e#issions to air. +otto# ash. *hichcontains 20 ti#es #ore dio/in. is unregulated and +i7arrely is regarded as inert *aste,This #isclassification had allo*ed it to +e charged at the lo*est rate at landfill sites,

We +elie)e this is *rong! it is not inert and should not +e classified as such, It should +e charged at a rate that is in eeping *ith its to/icity,

4&



The Stochol# ;on)ention #aes it clear that dio/ins and furans should +edestroyed. *hich currently #eans using )itrification, In Japan. this is doneresponsi+ly and #uch of the fly ash is no* treated +y plas#a gasification +ut thisessential safety step has +een neglected in the ?@, Because of the to/icity of +otto#and fly ash there should +e a full assess#ent of the cost of a clean3up operation for

+oth *ater and land conta#ination, En)iron#ental clean3up costs should +e sho*n as part of the cost of incineration. and. *hen rele)ant. of other *aste disposal strategies,

1;.2 ,adioactivity

a8 ssociated ?ith Incinerators

<)er thirty sites in the ?@ incinerate radioacti)e *aste, Most countriesconsider this too ha7ardous,

The #a-ority of radioacti)e *aste incinerated in the ?@ is alpha or +etae#itting radiation, These types of radiation are not )ery dangerous outside the hu#an

+ody due to their short range *ithin tissues this is #illi#etres for alpha particles andcenti#etres *ith +eta particles5. although +eta radiation can penetrate the sin, <nceincinerated this relati)ely safe #aterial is con)erted into a highly dangerous andsinister pollutant, "uring incineration. +illions of radioacti)e particulates *ill +efor#ed and e#itted into the air, These #ay +e inhaled +y anyone unfortunate enoughto +e do*n*ind at the *rong ti#e. and pass through the lungs and circulation andthen into the cells, <nce inside the +ody it *ill continue to e#it radiation, $lpharadiation has a )ery short range +ut great destructi)e po*er, Both alpha and +etaradiation *ill +e highly destructi)e and carcinogenic to near+y tissues, Each one ofthe +illions of radioacti)e particulates e#itted represents a )ery real danger, There can

+e no safe threshold for this #aterial, The ris fro# this policy is o+)ious,

Safety regulations +i7arrely #ae no distinction +et*een internal and e/ternalradiation e)en though these are #aredly different, =or instance Beral found that

prostate cancer *as higher in *orers in the nuclear industry, There *as nocorrelation *ith e/ternal radiation +ut a highly significant correlation *ith internalradiation&04, $ni#al studies #ae this e)en #ore clear and rats in-ected *ith 0,0%#Kyof Strontiu# 0 *ere found to ha)e pathological da#age e)en though the dose *as200 ti#es less than +acground radiation&0', <f #ore concern is the fact thattransgenerational effects ha)e also +een de#onstrated, Mice t*o generations fro# a#ale in-ected *ith this Strontiu# 0 suffered lethal genetic da#age. de#onstratingthat chro#oso#al da#age *as passed through the genes to the offspring of irradiated#ice&09,

Many people *ould +e surprised to no* -ust ho* s#all a dose of radiation isneeded to cause har#, $fter ;herno+yl sheep *ere #onitored for Strontiu# 0 andthe li#it set *as 0,000000000% gra#s per ilogra#s of #eat. so s#all it *ould +ein)isi+le&08, $nd yet regulations allo* +illions of particulates containing si#ilarly#inute 6uantities of radioacti)e #aterial to +e e#itted into the air fro# incinerators,In contrast. natural +acground radiation is. at #ost. a #inor ha7ard, =or instance$+erdeen has dou+le the le)el of natural +acground radiation +ut no increased risof leuae#ias or cancers,

b8 ssociated ?ith "ther Sites

Increased incidence of leuae#ias and cancers around sites releasing

radioacti)e #aterial are *ell docu#ented, $t Seascale a pu+lic health en6uiry foundchildren *ere #ore than ten ti#es #ore liely to get leuae#ia and three ti#es #ore

44



liely to get cancer &0.&0, The incidence of leuae#ias in children li)ing *ithin 'ilo#etres of the @ru##el and Koesthact nuclear installations in Ker#any is #uchhigher than in Ker#any as a *hole, Significantly. the first cases of leuae#ia onlyappeared fi)e years after @ru##el *as co##issioned, $t "ounreay there *as asi/fold increase in children>s leuae#ia&%0 and at $lder#aston there *as also an

increase in leuae#ias in the under fi)es&%%, Sharply rising leuae#ia rates *ere notedin fi)e neigh+ouring to*ns surrounding the 1ilgri# nuclear plant in Massachusetts inthe %0s, It *as thought to +e lined to radioacti)e releases fro# the 1ilgri# nuclear

plant ten years earlier *here there had +een a fuel rod pro+le#, UMeteorological datasho*ed that indi)iduals *ith the highest potential for e/posure to 1ilgri# e#issionshad al#ost four ti#es the ris of leuae#ia co#pared to those ha)ing the lo*est

potential for e/posure>&%2.&%&, $ recent #eta3analysis of %8 pu+lished reports thatco)ered %&9 nuclear sites across the *orld too a glo+al loo at the pro+le#, Theyfound death rates fro# leuae#ia in children under the age of *ere increased +y2%: and in those under 2' +y %0:&%4, They noted that discharges fro# these plantsha)e +een too lo* to account for the leuae#ias using standard criteria +ased on

single or inter#ittent high dose radiation5, The liely e/planation here is internalradiation *here a #inute dose taen internally *ould +e enough to trigger a cancer orleuae#ia, This should +e seen as a strong *arning a+out the danger of incineratingand dispersing radioacti)e #atter into the en)iron#ent,

The *eight of e)idence here strongly suggests that air+orne radioacti)ity is a potent carcinogen and liely to +e e/tre#ely ha7ardous, To allo* it at all is foolhardy +ut to co#+ine this *ith a coctail of other carcinogens is recless,

1;.3 S#read of PollutantsThe ational Research ;ouncil. an ar# of the ational $cade#y of Sciences.

that *as esta+lished to ad)ise the ?S go)ern#ent. concluded that it *as not only thehealth of *orers and local populations that *ould +e affected +y incinerators, Theyreported that populations li)ing #ore distantly are also liely to +e e/posed toincinerator pollutants, They stated !ersistent air pollutants, such as dioins, furans

and mercury can be dispersed over large regions # well beyond local areas and even

the countries from which the sources emanate. $ood contaminated by an incinerator

facility might be consumed by local people close to the facility or far away from it.

Thus, local deposition on food might result in some eposure of populations at great

distances, due to transport of food to marets. &owever, distant populations are liely

to be more eposed through long-range transport of pollutants and low-level

widespread deposition on food crops at locations remote from an incineration

facility.N&%'

They later co##ented that the incre#ental +urden fro# all incinerators

deser)es serious consideration +eyond a local le)el, This has o+)ious rele)ance to the present policy of pro#oting incinerators in the ?@, $n i#portant point is that the#ore to/ic s#aller particulates. *hich typically ha)e #ore to/ic che#icals andcarcinogens attached. *ill tra)el the furthest,&%9

Most che#ical pollutants are lipophilic and are therefore not easily *asheda*ay +y the rain after they settle, When they land on crops they enter the food chain*here they +ioaccu#ulate, It has already +een ad#itted that #ost dio/in in food todayin the ?@ ca#e fro# the older generation of incinerators, $ll che#icals capa+le ofentering the food chain *ill sooner or later reach their highest concentration in the

foetus or +reast fed infant,

4'



$ striing e/a#ple of the unforeseen and tragic conse6uences of releasing pollutants into the air has +een seen in una)ut. in the far orth of ;anada in the1olar Regions, The Inuit #others here ha)e t*ice the le)el of dio/ins in their +reast#il as ;anadians li)ing in the South. although there is no source of dio/in *ithin&00 #iles, $t the centre of Biology of atural Syste#s in Gueen>s ;ollege. e*

or. "r ;o##oner and his tea# used a co#puter progra##e to trac e#issionsfro# 44.000 sources of dio/in in orth $#erica, This syste# co#+ined data on to/icreleases and #eteorological records, $#ong the leading contri+utors to the pollutionin una)ut *ere three #unicipal incinerators in the ?S$&%8.&%,

1;.! Cement <ilns$lthough this report is pri#arily a+out incinerators it is useful to co#pare

incinerators *ith ce#ent ilns, Both produce to/ic e#issions of a si#ilar type and#uch of the report is rele)ant to +oth, ;e#ent ilns con)ert ground li#estone. shaleor clay into ce#ent, They re6uire large 6uantities of fuel to produce the highte#peratures needed and this lends itself to the use of non3traditional fuels such astyres. refuse3deri)ed fuel and industrial and ha7ardous *astes )ariously called;e#fuel. secondary li6uid fuel S(=5 and recycled li6uid fuel R(=5,

Ho*e)er. pollution and planning controls are significantly *eaer than thosefor ha7ardous *aste incinerators, ;e#ent ilns produce a nu#+er of to/ic e#issionssi#ilar to incinerators, Burning tyres produces e#issions *ith dio/ins and 7inc and

+urning petroleu# coe produces )anadiu# and nicel, Releases of #ercury andarsenic are uncontrolled as these are )apourised, The ris fro# dio/ins is considera+lygreater as #ost ce#ent ilns do not ha)e the acti)ated charcoal needed to re#o)ethe#,

The ris fro# 1M2,' particulates is e/tre#ely serious, The li#it set for the

*eight of all particulates e#itted +y incinerators is %0#g per cu+ic #etre, Ho*e)erce#ent ilns are allo*ed to e#it &03'0 #g per cu+ic #etre, This *ould +e e/cessi)e +y itself +ut the )olu#es of e#issions fro# ce#ent ilns can +e up to fi)e ti#esgreater than incinerators, Therefore so#e ce#ent ilns can produce e#issions of

particulates and other to/ic su+stances *hich are in e/cess of 20 ti#es that ofincinerators under nor#al operating conditions, Worse still they ha)e poorera+ate#ent e6uip#ent and usually lac the acti)ated charcoal needed to reducee#issions of #etals and dio/ins,

The electrostatic precipitators need to +e shut off *hen car+on #ono/idele)els +uild up due to the ris of e/plosion, This leads to una+ated e#issions, This hashappened 400 ti#es a year in one plant, The 6uantities of particulates released at these

ti#es are i##ense reaching 20.000#g per cu+ic #etre *hich are the highest le)elthat can +e #easured, Recent research has de#onstrated une6ui)ocally that s#allincreases in 1M2,' particulates *ill increase cardio)ascular and cere+ro)ascular#ortality. so to allo* releases of this order therefore +orders on the negligent,Incredi+ly 1M2,' particulates are not routinely #easured,

Independently3audited #onitoring +y a registered charity at one ce#ent iln inthe ?@ has continuously recorded le)els of particulates. using %' #inute a)eragereadings&%, They ha)e found e/tre#ely high surges of particulates. typically *ith

pea readings occurring at night. so#eti#es se)eral ti#es a *ee. *ith #a/i#u#1M%0 particulates reaching le)els of o)er 4'00 Fg per cu+ic #etre and #a/i#u#1M2,' reaching o)er %80Fg per cu+ic #etre, ;urrent scientific no*ledge on

particulates suggests that these le)els *ould +e e/pected to cause cardio)asculardeaths and the findings de#onstrate the urgent need for independent #onitoring

49



around all ce#ent ilns, This #onitoring has e/posed #a-or deficiencies in the present #onitoring and regulatory syste#,

Ther#al treat#ent of ha7ardous *aste is al*ays a highly dangerous acti)ityand the )ery +est a)aila+le technology needs to +e used, ;e#ent ilns are effecti)ely

+eing used to +urn ha7ardous *aste on the cheap, Sadly ha7ardous *aste typically

finds its *ay to the least regulated and cheapest disposal #ethods. in practise thosethat create the #ost health riss and the #ost en)iron#ental da#age,

;e#ent iln technology has re#ained )irtually unchanged since the turn of thet*entieth century, They can only +e refitted or retrofitted to a #ini#al degree toi#pro)e efficiency and to/ic *aste destruction, The Select ;o##ittee for theen)iron#ent reco##ended studies on the safety of ce#ent ilns o)er %0 years agoand this has +een ignored, Why

;e#ent ilns are therefore capa+le of e/tre#ely serious health conse6uences,Incredi+ly so#e of these ce#ent ilns ha)e +een sited in the #iddle of to*ns *herethey *ould +e e/pected to ha)e a #a-or effect on the health of the local population,The fact that they are allo*ed at all is astonishing. for the #a/i#u# i#pact *ill

ine)ita+ly +e on the #ost )ulnera+le #e#+ers of society. and in particular the un+ornchild,

11. (onitorin$t the heart of the pro+le#s *ith incineration is the poor 6uality and

unsatisfactory nature of #onitoring at these installations. unsatisfactory in the *ay itis done. the co#pounds #onitored. and the le)els dee#ed accepta+le. and the lac of#onitoring of +ody +urdens in the local population, The pro+le#s are as follo*s!

+ery :e? Pollutants are bein measured

<ut of the hundreds of che#icals released fro# an incinerator only a tiny proportion are #easured, <n current data. the three #ost i#portant pollutants released +y incinerators are dio/ins. hea)y #etals and 1M2,' particulates, Incredi+ly these are)irtually un#onitored, <nly half a do7en pollutants are #easured continuously in thestac and a+out another half do7en are #easured occasionally usually 9 #onthly forthe first year and then yearly5 +y spot #onitoring A these include hea)y #etals anddio/ins, This is clearly unsatisfactory and since *aste operators are *arned inad)ance of a )isit. they are handed an opportunity to change to +urning cleaner *aste*hich is unrepresentati)e of the to/ic ris. #aing the e/ercise largely pointless,

/he (ost *anerous Pollutants are hardly bein (onitored

$ccidental +y3passing of pollution control de)ices +y incinerators present )eryreal dangers to people li)ing in the )icinity of incinerators and this danger isco#pounded +y the near a+sence of #onitoring of dio/ins, T*o episodes ser)e toillustrate this, $ #odern state of the art incinerator in Rotterda# *as found to +e +y3

passing its pollution control de)ices %0: of the ti#e e#itting dio/ins e6ui)alent to 'ti#es the national li#it o)er the city, In orfol. Dirginia a si#ilar incident led todio/in e#issions greater than the allo*a+le co#+ined li#its for traffic. incineratorsand industry for S*eden. Ker#any and the etherlands co#+ined, This *ould cause*idespread pollution of an area *ith dio/in and other persistent pollutants that couldlast for decades. if not centuries. putting #any generations at ris,

Start3ups and shut do*ns of incinerators gi)e rise to a si#ilar danger, $ recentstudy found that a single incinerator start3up *ould. on a)erage. generate. over a '(

hour period . 90: of the total annual dio/in e#issions produced during steady state

48



conditions A in other *ords 8 #onths *orth of dio/in release *ithin 2 days of atypical start3up, They also found that the le)els of dio/ins produced +y start3ups atso#e of the incinerators they studied could +e t*ice the annual dio/in e#issionsunder steady state conditions this is the e6ui)alent of 24 #onths of dio/in release*ithin 2 days5&20, The danger to people li)ing in the area is o+)ious and serious, High

le)els of dio/ins can also +e produced during shut3do*ns and during co##issioning*hen they are not #onitored5,

"io/ins are only #onitored at &3%2 #onth inter)als and then only for a fe*hours, This #eans that dio/ins are not #onitored : of the ti#e, It could therefore

+e #any #onths +efore high le)els of dio/in e#issions *ere detected perhapsallo*ing enough dio/in to +e released to threaten the health of a *hole co##unityand render far#s in the )icinity unfit for gro*ing )egeta+les or rearing li)estoc, Infact. the operator and the pu+lic #ight ne)er find out and then steps *ould ne)er +etaen to deal *ith the conse6uences,

$n added pro+le# is that spot #onitoring as is used currently5 has +eensho*n in a recent study to +e unrepresentati)e and to underesti#ate dio/in le)els +y

&03'0 ti#es&2%, The situation is no +etter *ith hea)y #etals, (ie dio/ins. they areun#onitored for : of the ti#e,

;learly. continuous dio/in #onitoring is essential and *ithout such#onitoring. incinerators #ust +e regarded as unsafe and a ha7ard to anyone li)ing inthe area, ;ontinuous dio/in #onitoring should +e #andatory as is the case in so#eother European countries. ;urrently. #onitoring of the three #ost i#portant anddangerous pollutants. na#ely dio/ins. hea)y #etals and 1M2,' particulates is )irtuallynon3e/istent in the ?@, In the case of 1M2,' particulates they are not #onitored at all Aonly the far less rele)ant 1M%0 particulates,

Independent #onitoring of ce#ent ilns has already de#onstrated )ery high particulate e#issions that could seriously endanger health&%, These releases ha)e +eenfre6uent so#eti#es & ti#es a *ee5. dangerous reaching 4'00Fg per cu+ic #etre of1M%0 particulates5 and ha)e escaped detection +y the regulatory authorities, ;learly.the present regulatory syste# is not protecting the pu+lic,

/he Standard of (onitorin on the round is also nacce#table

In addition to #onitoring in the stac. there is a re6uire#ent to #onitor pollutants in the surrounding air, This is nor#ally done +y the local council *ith#onitors at ground le)el, Ho*e)er this is also unsatisfactory, =or instance to #onitorfor safe le)els of particulates it *ould re6uire at least 24 #onitors placed at strategic

points around an incinerator assu#ing the *ind is distri+uted e)enly5 to achie)e a

2': sa#pling rate. *hich is the #ini#u# that can +e considered accepta+le&

,Typically. there are less than three #onitors around #ost incinerators today,Measure#ent of hea)y #etals in the surrounding air. *ith the e/ception of lead. is note)en re6uired,

No (onitorin of Pollutants ?hich have accumulated in the Neihbourhood

Measuring concentration of pollutants released in the stac gi)es noinfor#ation a+out the le)els of to/ic #aterial that ha)e accu#ulated in the )icinity,When the rate of discharge of pollutants into the en)iron#ent is greater than thea+ility of the ecosyste#s to +rea the# do*n then they #ust accu#ulate, We alreadyno* that #any do not +rea do*n for centuries, The e/cretion rates of #any

pollutants fro# the hu#an +ody are also )ery poor. for e/a#ple the half life ofcad#iu# in the +ody is &0 years and for 1;Bs it is 8' years, Many pollutants. +eing

4



fat solu+le. *ill +io3accu#ulate in li)ing #atter at far high concentrations than in thea#+ient air, $ ?S E1$ #e#o ad#itted that the ris fro# accu#ulation of dio/in infar# ani#als could result in unaccepta+le health rissN, ?sing a type of risassess#ent called screening analysis&22 they calculated that dio/in *ould accu#ulatein cattle do*n*ind fro# an incinerator and that the ris fro# +eef and #il

consu#ption *ould +e 40.000 ti#es the ris fro# inhalation, This is a #assi)eincrease in ris and is in eeping *ith *hat *e already no* a+out +ioaccu#ulationin other species see Section &,45, Monitoring of dio/ins in cattle and other far#ani#als regularly is essential for these reasons, Regretta+ly it is not +eing done andtherefore consu#ers of these products are +eing put at ris, ;hecs for pollutants indust. )egetation and in the +odies of local inha+itants are also necessary,

It is so#eti#es argued that these pollutants don>t #atter as they *ill +e carrieda*ay in the *ind and +e so#eone else>s pro+le#, Sadly this is partly true and that isthe reason there is so #uch pollution in the fragile ecosyste# in the $rctic *here#uch of the to/ic #aterial ulti#ately ends up,

(onitorin relies on Safety *ata derived from nimal Studies$ni#al studies co##only underesti#ate hu#an )ulnera+ility +ecause of the

o+)ious difficulty in testing cogniti)e. +eha)ioural and language deficiencies andconditions such as fatigue, In the case of lead. #ercury and 1;Bs. ani#al studies ha)eunderesti#ated the neuroto/ic effect on hu#ans +y a factor of %00 to %0.000 ti#es 2',

(onitorin ives ittle Protection to the :oetus $)erage le)els or spot #onitoring ignores e/posures at critical ti#es, The

ti#ing of the e/posure is often #ore i#portant than the concentration, E/posures atcritical ti#es during foetal gro*th or infancy are no*n to produce #ore seriouseffects than si#ilar e/posures in adulthood and this da#age can +e per#anent, This is*ell recognised. especially *ith lead. #ercury and 1;Bs, one of the safety li#itshas +een de#onstrated to protect against foetal da#age, We no* fro# ani#al andhu#an studies that to/ins ha)e the greatest i#pact on the foetus and young child, The#ost )ulnera+le #e#+ers of the co##unity are liely to +ear the +runt of these to/icreleases,

(any Pollutants have No Safe /hreshold or sho? o? *ose /oxicity

So#e pollutants such as 1M2,' particulates. lead and dio/in ha)e no safethresholds, Most organochlorines are endocrine disruptors and thresholds #ay note/ist for these effects, Monitoring gi)es little or no protection in these situations,

So#eti#es lo* dose studies ha)e sho*n to/ic effects at le)els far +elo* the noeffectN le)el in high dose studies, $n e/a#ple of this is +isphenol $. a plastici7er,Studies sho*ed health effects at le)els 2.'00 ti#es lo*er than $#erican E1$>slo*est o+ser)ed effect. *ith ad)erse outco#es including aggressi)e +eha)iour. early

pu+erty and a+nor#al +reast gro*th220, 1erchlorate produces changes in the si7e of parts of the +rain at 0,0% #gOgOday +ut not at &0#g220, $ldicar+ *as found tosuppress the i##une syste# #ore at % pp+ than it did at %000pp+, <ther che#icalsalso produce different effects at lo* dose to *hat they do at high dose, This sho*sho* )ery little *e no* a+out the dangers of e/posing *hole populations to che#ical

pollution,

Pollution "ffences are Common#lace and ,eulation is Poor

4



Ten incinerators in the ?@ co##itted ''& pollution offences in a t*o year period. docu#ented in Kreenpeace>s $ Re)ie* of the 1erfor#ance of MunicipalIncinerators in the ?@N, This appalling record led to only one prosecution +y theEn)iron#ent $gency, There is little point in tighter regulations if they are notenforced, =ines recei)ed for pollution offences ha)e +een co#pared to a person on a

'0.000 salary recei)ing a 20 paring fine, This clearly gi)es *aste co#panies agreen light to ignore regulations and pollute *ith little fear of the conse6uences, Thea+o)e data *as +ased on self assess#ent +y the co#panies concerned,

(e)els of e#issions achie)ed under test conditions or *hen inspections occur +y prior arrange#ents are liely to +e far lo*er than under real life conditions, This*as de#onstrated in the ?nited States in %0 *hen the E1$ and <ccupationalSafety and Health $d#inistration conducted 92 unannounced )isits and no less than9: of inspections led to su##ons for )iolations of regulations&2&, In the ?@inspections are +y prior arrange#ent5, This #aes a strong case for #aing all )isitsunannounced,

When an en)iron#ental group in)estigated an incinerator in Indianapolis the

situation *as e)en *orse, They found it had )iolated its per#its 9.000 ti#es in t*oyears and +ypassed its o*n air control pollution de)ices % ti#es,

In effect. incinerators present inherent and una)oida+le ha7ards to pu+licsafety +ut the e/tent of the ha7ards depends on ho* *ell incinerators are run, Thee)idence is strong that they are often run +adly, The situation is #ade *orse +y *earegulators *ith little appetite for enforcing pu+lic safety,

12. ,is- ssessment<ne #ight reasona+ly e/pect that. *hen the decision to +uild an incinerator is

#ade. all the a+o)e infor#ation *ould +e carefully taen into account, Sadly this is

not necessarily the case, "irectors of 1u+lic Health. *ho usually ha)e littleno*ledge of en)iron#ental health. are ased to *rite an I11; Integrated 1ollution1re)ention and ;ontrol5 $pplication Report and gi)e their opinion on the health rissfro# the proposed incinerator, Typically this decision is +ased on an ine/act #ethodcalled ris assess#ent, They tend to rely al#ost e/clusi)ely on this type of assess#entand often ha)e little understanding of its li#itations,

Ris assess#ent is a #ethod de)eloped for engineering +ut is )ery poor forassessing the co#ple/ities of hu#an health, Typically it in)ol)es esti#ating the risto health of -ust 20 out of the hundreds of different pollutants e#itted +y incinerators,It #as6uerades as a scientific #easure +ut has all the hall#ars of pseudoscience, By

pseudoscience *e #ean assu#ptions +ased on false pre#ises!

%5 It ma-es the assum#tion that any substance emitted but not assessed 7this

means 99 of all #ollutants8 should be treated as if they have $ero ris- ,This assu#ption is o+)iously untrue,

25 It assumes ?ronly that all #ollutants have thresholds belo? ?hich they

are safe. Science contradicts this, Many pollutants. including dio/ins. lead andradioacti)e particulates do not ha)e thresholds and so#e #ay e)en +e #oredangerous at lo*er concentrations see section %%5, $n international #eetingof neurologists and endocrinologists concluded ;he#ical challenges in earlylife can lead to profound and irre)ersi+le a+nor#alities in +rain de)elop#entat e/posure le)els that do not produce per#anent effects in an adultC there #ay

not +e defina+le thresholds for response to endocrine disruptorsN&24, The

'0



ational Research ;ouncil concluded in %2 that the assu#ption ofthresholds for neuroto/icity *as +iologically indefensi+leN22',

We #ight also note that the accepted thresholds for #any pollutants ha)e +een progressi)ely reduced o)er the last fe* decades including )inylchloride. ethylene dichloride and si/ chlorinated sol)ents5 *ith reductions to

+et*een one half and one tenth of the original li#its, We can e/pect furtherreductions as science progresses,

&5 It assumes ?ronly that only air emissions need to be considered and

bioaccumulation in food can be inored. Ho*e)er air e#issions #ay +eonly the tip of the ice+erg, Most food today is conta#inated *ith dio/ins.

predo#inantly fro# past incinerator e#issions, $s noted in section %%. aleaed report in %& fro# the ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gencycalculated that dio/in *ould accu#ulate in cattle in a far# do*n*ind of anincinerator in <hio posing a ris to the fre6uent +eef consu#er *hich *as40.000 ti#es higher than fro# inhalation alone, If the incinerator operated for&0 years the cancer ris fro# eating this +eef regularly *as calculated to +e a

#assi)e %.200 per #illion. far +eyond accepta+le ris &22, We can assu#e thissort of ris fro# food produced near #ost incinerators occurs routinely and yetit is +eing sold to the pu+lic and regulators are turning a +lind eye to thedanger,

45 It misconstrues lac- of evidence on the daner of #ollutants as evidence of

safety, The to/ic effects of 30: of che#icals and pollutants areunno*n&2', It is i#possi+le to assess the ris of su+stances *e +arelyunderstand, This is particularly true in relationship to +irth and de)elop#entaldefects, Many pollutants ha)e not e)en +een characterised. let alone assessedfor ris,

'5 It assumes that health effects such as infertility5 immune su##ression5

altered behaviour and reduced intellectual ca#acity ?hich are not

included in the ris- assessment can be inored, Ho*e)er there is a#ple andincreasing e)idence that #any pollutants ha)e -ust these i#pacts,

95 It assumes ?ronly that ecosystems have the ability to absorb and

derade all environmental #ollutants, $gain science contradicts this! #any pollutants are no*n to +e persistent and +ioaccu#ulati)e, In fact. if the rateof input. ho*e)er s#all. is greater than the rate at *hich they +rea do*n they#ust accu#ulate, It is e6ui)alent to filling up a +ucet under a slo* drippingtap! sooner or later the *ater *ill o)erflo* unless the source of *ater isstopped,

85 It assumes ?ronly that the ha$ard #osed by each individual com#oundtested out of context and in isolation can #redict the ha$ard of com#lex

mixtures of chemicals. In the real *orld pollutants typically occur inco#+inations and a+undant e)idence no* e/ists that increased to/icity isco##on *ith #ultiple e/posures,

5 It assumes ?ronly that the cumulative #ollution burden of all the

emissions #roduced by all these facilities can safely be inored and each

facility can be considered in isolation. It is this type of li#ited thining thathas led to the conta#ination of entire ecosyste#s such as the Kreat (aes.Baltic Sea. Mediterranean and $rctic, These pollutants pose glo+al and#ultigenerational threats to health and ecosyste#s,

5 It assumes ?ronly that ?e have a com#rehensive understandin of thecom#lexity of bioloical #rocesses and chemical toxicity ?hen in reality

'%



there are vast information a#s. This is *hy *e ha)e +een constantlysurprised +y unpleasant disco)eries lie endocrine disruption and high +ody

+urdens in ne*+orns,%05 It ?ronly assumes all #eo#le ?ill react in the same ?ay to pollutants and

in particular ignores the fact that the foetus is at far greater ris,

Hidden *ithin this type of assess#ent is a )alue -udge#ent a+out *hat is anaccepta+le le)el of ris &29 and this is not #ade e/plicit, =or instance *hat is anaccepta+le nu#+er of +irth defects and *ho is it accepta+le to $ cancer ris of % per#illion is typically considered accepta+le +ut #ay not +e accepta+le to the personaffected +y the cancer,

Ris assess#ent usually in)ol)es #odellingNC A dispersion #odels use anesti#ation of e/posure data. rather than actual e/posure data. to assess the i#pacts of

pollutants and their liely distri+ution, These reports are typically produced +y the polluter, The #odels are not accurate 3 #odelling has a &0: confidence le)el A this#eans this techni6ue has only a &0: chance of accurately predicting the ground le)el

concentrations of pollutants 3 in other *ords less accurate than tossing a coin, <nlya+out half the predictions are *ithin a factor of t*o of actual o+ser)ed5concentrations and the rest are e)en less accurate, The #odels atte#pt to predict a*orst case scenario +ut the #odels cannot accurately represent real *orse casescenarios *hich typically occur *hen there is little or no *ind leading to a +uild3up of

pollutants, This #eans real *orst case scenarios can +e #uch *orse than predicted&28,"ifferent #odels can gi)e )ery different results,

In addition. present #odelling #ethods are not only inaccurate in esti#atingground le)el pollutant concentration once e#itted +ut they also seriouslyunderesti#ate the 6uantities of pollutants e#itted, In particular. #odelling al#ostne)er taes into account secondary particulates for#ed as the products of co#+ustionrise up the stac, These secondary particulates can dou+le the total )olu#e of

particulates see section 2,%5,Modelling produces the illusion of a scientific no*ledge and a certainty that is

entirely un-ustified +y the i#precise nature of #odelling and it is +ased on su+stantialscientific uncertainty and li#ited scientific data, It produces a #ass of co#ple/#athe#atical data. *hich i#plies un-ustified precision. and it is difficult for people notfa#iliar *ith the #athe#atics to disentangle the inaccuracies, This *as su##ed up +ythe head of the E1$ ;arcinogen $ssess#ent Kroup. Roy $l+ert. *hen he saidIndi)iduals *ith )ery different institutional loyalties can produce )ery different risassess#ents fro# the sa#e #aterials. *here large uncertainties e/ist,N In other *ords

it is )ery easy to +ias it to*ards the *aste operator, It is often treated +y regulators&2

and "irectors of 1u+lic Health as if it *as an accurate assess#ent, In spite of thesese)ere li#itations it is e/tensi)ely used,

These riss assess#ents ha)e al#ost al*ays concluded that incinerators aresafe *hich flies in the face of epide#iological data *hich sho*s the opposite, It alsoflies in the face of the history of che#ical use, The latter is littered *ith e/a#ples ofche#icals once said to +e safe *hich *ere later found to ha)e de)astating andunanticipated effects. often +eyond the *orst case scenario eg ""T. 1;Bs. ;=;s5see section 8,25,

13. Public ,ihts and International /reaties

'2



In 200% the ?nited ations ;o##ission on Hu#an Rights stated thateveryone has the right to live in a world free from toic pollution and environmental

degradationN,It is unethical that people should die fro# the e#issions fro# incinerators

*hen safe alternati)es are a)aila+le and for this reason incineration )iolates $rticle 2

of the European Hu#an Rights ;on)ention. the Right to (ife,The Stochol# ;on)ention. agreed to +y o)er %00 countries including Britain.

in 200%. co##its countries to eli#inating persistent organic pollutants. including1;B. dio/ins and furans. calling for countries to pre)ent not -ust the release of these

pollutants +ut also their formation, The for#ation of these su+stances is an ine)ita+leconse6uence of the use of incinerators, The ;on)ention also re6uires parties to tae#easures to reduce the total releases of these su+stances *hich includes releases tofly ash5, It identifies incinerators as pri#ary sources of these co#pounds, Incinerationis. in all these *ays. a flagrant )iolation of the Stochol# con)ention,

Incineration is also a )iolation of the En)iron#ental 1rotection $ct of %0*hich states that the ?@ #ust pre)ent e#issions fro# har#ing hu#an health,

1!. Conclusions

%5 Incineration does not remove ?aste, It si#ply con)erts it into another for# gas. particulates. ash5 and these ne* for#s are typically #ore ha7ardous though less)isi+le than in the original for#,

25 are e#idemioloical studies have sho?n hiher rates of adult and

childhood cancers and of birth defects around incinerators, S#aller studies anda large +ody of related research support these findings. point to a causalrelationship. and suggest that a #uch *ider range of illnesses #ay +e in)ol)ed,

&5 ,ecent research has confirmed that #articulate #ollution5 es#ecially the fine particulate 7P(2.%8 #ollution5 ?hich is ty#ical of incinerator emissions5 is an

im#ortant contributor to heart disease, lung cancer 5 and an assortment of

other diseases5 and causes a linear increase in mortality. The latest research hasfound there is a #uch greater effect on #ortality than pre)iously thought andi#plies that incinerators *ill cause increases in cardio)ascular andcere+ro)ascular #or+idity and #ortality *ith +oth short3ter# and long3ter#e/posure, 1articulates fro# incinerators *ill +e especially ha7ardous due to theto/ic che#icals attached to the#,

45 <ther pollutants e#itted +y incinerators include hea)y #etals and a large )arietyof organic che#icals, /hese substances include -no?n carcinoens5 endocrine

disru#tors5 and substances that can attach to enes5 alter behaviour5 damae

the immune system and decrease intellience. There appears to +e no thresholdfor so#e of these effects. such as endocrine disruption, The dangers of these areself3e)ident, So#e of these co#pounds ha)e +een detected hundreds to thousandsof #iles a*ay fro# their source,

'5 The danger of incinerating radioacti)e *aste deser)es special #ention,Incineration con)erts radioacti)e *aste into +illions of radioacti)e particulates,These particulates #ae a near perfect deli)ery syste# for introducing theradioacti)e #atter into the hu#an +ody. *here it can then act as an internale#itter of alpha or +eta radiation, /his ty#e of radiation is ualitatively

different5 far more danerous and far more sinister5 than bac-round

'&



radiation. There can +e no -ustification for using this #ethod of dealing *ithradioacti)e *aste,

95 (odern incinerators #roduce fly ash ?hich is much more toxic than in the

#ast5 containing large 6uantities of dio/in3rich #aterial for *hich there is no safe#ethod of disposal. e/cept )itrification. a #ethod not +eing used in the ?@,

"isposal of incinerator ash to landfill sites is associated *ith long3ter# threats toa6uifers and *ater ta+les and the potential for accidents serious enough to re6uiree)acuation of an area,

85 /he ris-s to local #eo#le that occur ?hen incinerators o#erate under non0

standard ?or-in conditions have not been addressed5 particularly thee#issions at start3up and shutdo*n *hich #ay +e associated *ith the release.*ithin 2 days. of #ore dio/in than o)er 9 #onths of *oring under standardconditions,

5 /he reatest concern is the long-term effects of incinerator emissions on the

develo#in embryo and infant5 and the real #ossibility that enetic chanes

?ill occur and be #assed on to succeedin enerations. =ar greater )ulnera+ility

to to/ins has +een docu#ented for the )ery young. particularly foetuses. *ith rissof cancer. spontaneous a+ortion. +irth defects or per#anent cogniti)e da#age, $*orryingly high +ody +urden of pollutants has recently +een reported in t*ostudies of cord +lood fro# ne*3+orn +a+ies,

5 4aste incineration is #rohibitively expensive ?hen health costs are ta-en into

account. $ )ariety of studies. including that fro# the go)ern#ent. indicate that asingle large incinerator could cost the ta/ payer #any #illion of pounds perannu# in health costs, 1ut si#ply. the go)ern#ent>s o*n data is de#onstratingthat incinerators are a #a-or health ha7ard, With the predicted inclusion of the*aste industry *ithin the E? European E#issions Trading Sche#e. localta/payers. in areas *ith incinerators. *ill not only ha)e to li)e *ithin a pollutedarea +ut *ill +e saddled *ith costs. under ETS. of #illions of pounds per annu#to pay for it,

%05 4aste incineration is un@ust because its maximum toxic im#act is on the most

vulnerable members of our society5 the unborn child5 children5 the #oor and

the chemically sensitive. It contra)enes the ?nited ations ;o##ission onHu#an Rights. the European Hu#an Rights ;on)ention the Right to (ife5. andthe Stochol# ;on)ention. and )iolates the En)iron#ental 1rotection $ct of %0*hich states that the ?@ #ust pre)ent e#issions fro# har#ing hu#an health,

1%. ,ecommendations

%5 The safest #ethods of *aste disposal should +e used,

25 Health costs should +e routinely taen into account *hen deciding on *astedisposal strategies,

&5 The present li#ited #ethod of ris assess#ent +y *hich the safety of proposedinstallations is -udged. is inade6uate. can easily +e +iased to*ards the *aste operator.cannot +e relied on. and should +e re)ie*ed,

45 Tacling the pro+le#s of +oth the a#ount and the nature of *aste generated is of

critical i#portance. *ith the e#phasis on reducing the production of *aste. and onrecycling,

'4



'5 The serious health conse6uences of fine particulate pollution ha)e +eco#e apparentin the last ten years! incinerators are a significant source and. for this reason alone. inour considered opinion. incineration is the least preferred option for getting rid of*aste, Taing into consideration all the infor#ation a)aila+le. including researchindicating that there are no safe le)els for fine particulates. the increasing a#ount of

plastic and related su+stances in the *aste strea# and the highly to/ic ash produced +y #odern incinerators. *e can see no reason to +elie)e that the ne/t generation ofincinerators *ould +e su+stantially safer than the pre)ious ones,

95 :ar safer alternative methods are no? available including recycling. #echanical +iological treat#ent. aero+ic digestion and plas#a gasification! a co#+ination ofthese *ould +e safer. *ould produce #ore energy. *ould +e cheaper than incinerationin the long run and *ould +e #uch cheaper *hen health costs are taen into account,Ther#al #ethods should only +e used for residual. non3recycla+le *aste and thesafest ther#al #ethod should +e chosen! currently this is plas#a gasification, This notonly produces #ore energy +ut can use plastics as a resource, These #ore ad)anced

#ethods should +e e#ployed,

85 /his re#ort dra?s attention to the many deficiencies and #oor uality of the

#resent monitorin #rocedures. We reco##end the introduction of a far stricter and#ore co#prehensi)e syste# for the #onitoring of all *aste3+urning plants +y a fullyindependent +ody. including rando# unannounced )isits! the #onitoring shouldinclude!

a5 Continuous monitorin of dioxins J this is an absolute essential and5 not

sur#risinly5 is mandatory in some countries. This )ital step is essential +ecause of the e/tre#ely to/ic nature of the pollution e#itted *hen

incinerator pollution control de)ices are +y3passed, The ?@ should not ha)ethe second rate safety standards that they ha)e at present,

+5 ;ontinuous #onitoring of 1M2,' particulates and #onitoring of 1B"Es,

c5 $ co#prehensi)e syste# of #onitors set up +y ;ouncils around allincinerators to #easure particulates and hea)y #etals,

d5 (onitorin of dioxin in all livestoc- ?ithin a % mile radius of incinerators

due to the -no?n and serious ris- from bioaccumulation in food,

e5 1eriodic #onitoring of the hea)y #etals and dio/ins in the fly ash

f5 $ progra##e of #onitoring the +ody +urdens of so#e ey pollutants in localinha+itants,

g5 1eriodic #onitoring of the content of dust in ho#es in the locality

5 It is particularly i#portant that incinerators should not +e sited in depri)ed areas orareas *ith high rates of #ortality *here their health i#pact is liely to +e greatest,This can only add to health ine6ualities, B, 1resently out of %4 incinerators ha)e

+een +uilt in the #ost depri)ed 20: of *ards&25,

5 The present su+sidies and ta/ ad)antages. *hich fa)our incineration. should +ere#o)ed, $ +an or ta/ on recycla+le #aterial going to incinerators or landfill deser)es

''



serious consideration, It is nonsense to regard +otto# ash. *ith its significant dio/incontent. as an inert su+stance and it should incur landfill ta/ at a higher rate,

%08 4e recommend that no further ?aste incinerators be built,

,eferencesK

Section 2. Emissions from Incinerators and other Combustion Sources

2.1 Particulates%5 E; %5 1roposal for a ;ouncil "irecti)e on the incineration of *aste, Brussels 08,%0,%

;<M %5 ''final, O02 S5,25 Ho*ard ; D 20005 )n Health I#pacts of Waste Manage#ent 1olicies, Hippocrates

=oundation. @os. Kreece %23%4 o) %, $cade#ic 1u+lishers,&5 1ersonal co##unication. 1eter Rossington BSc Hon5. MRS;. ;he#ical ;onsultant, 200',45 Espinosa $J. Rodri6ue7 MT. Barragan de la Rosa =J et al, Si7e distri+ution of #etals in ur+an

aerosols in Se)ille Spain5, $t#os En)iron 200%C &'! 2''3290%,'5 Bae S<. =ield R$. Koldstone ME et al, $ re)ie* of at#ospheric polycyclic aro#atic

hydrocar+ons! sources. fate and +eha)iour, Water. $ir Soil 1ollution. %%C 90! 283&00,95 1istiopoulos 1. Mascelet 1. Mou)ier K, $ receptor #odel adapted to reacti)e species A

polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons 3 e)aluation of source contri+utions in an open ur+an site,$t#os En)iron $3Ken %0C 24! %%38,

85 Denatara#an ;. =riedlander S@, Source resolution of fine particulate polycyclic aro#atichydrocar+ons A using a receptor #odel #odified for reacti)ity, J $ir Waste Manage#entC

%4C 44! %%0&30,5 P#irou ". Masclet 1. Boudet ;. "echenau/ J, 1ersonal e/posure to at#ospheric polycyclichydrocar+ons in a general adult population and lung cancer assess#ent, J <ccup En)ironMed 2000C 4225! %2%39,

2.! "ranic Pollutants5 @er)liet I, I##unoto/icology of dio/ins and related co#pounds, )n Schecter. "io/ins and

Health p %322',%05 Whyatt RM. Santella RM. Jedrycho*si W et al, Relationship +et*een a#+ient air pollution

and "$ da#age in 1olish #others and ne*+orns, En)iron Health 1erspect. %C %09Suppl &! 2%39

%%5 1orterfield S1, Dulnera+ility of the de)eloping +rain to thyroid a+nor#alities anden)iron#ental insults to the thyroid syste#, En)iron Health 1erspect %4C %02 Supp 2!

%2'3&0,%25 1eters JM. Tho#as ". =al H et al, ;ontri+ution of #etals to respiratory cancer, En)iron

Health 1erspect %9C80! 8%3&,%&5 Kottscal ($. Re+ello T. Buchs+au# MS et al, $+nor#alities in hair trace ele#ents as

indicators of a+errant +eha)iour, ;o#p 1yschiatry %%C &2 &5! 223&8,%45 Tong S. Baghurst 1. McMichael $ et al, (ifeti#e e/posure to en)iron#ental lead and

children>s intelligence at %% A %& years! the 1ort 1irie ;ohort Study, BMJ %9C &%2 80495!%'938',

%'5 Sed#an RM. Espar7a JR, E)aluation of the pu+lic health riss associated *ith se#i)olatile#etal and dio/in e#issions fro# ha7ardous *aste incinerators, En)iron Health 1erspect%%C 4! %%38,

%95 Ericsson 1. Jao+sson E. =redrisson $, Bro#inated fla#e retardants! $ no)el class of

de)elop#ental neuroto/icants in our en)iron#ent En)iron Health 1erspect. 200%C %0%5!0&30,

'9



%85 <lsson 13E. Borg B. Brunstro# B. Haansson H. @lasson3Wehler E, Endocrine disruptingsu+stances, ISB %392034'38. S*edish E1$. Stochol# %,

Section 3. Health effects of Pollutants

3.1 Particulates%5 WH< $ir Guality Kuidelines. %. ;hapter &,%5 "ocery "W. 1ope ;a &rd. Vu V et al, $n association +et*een air pollution and #ortality in

si/ ?S cities, Eng J Med %&C &2245! %8'&3,205 1ope ;$. Thun MJ. a#+oodiri MM et al, 1articulate air pollution as a predictor of

#ortality in a prospecti)e study of ?S adults, $# J Respir ;rit ;are Med %'C %'% & pt %5!99384,

2%5 de Hartog JJ. Hoe K. 1eters $. et al, Effects of fine and ultrafine particles oncardiorespiratory sy#pto#s in elderly su+-ects *ith coronary heart disease! the ?(TR$Study, $# J Epide#iology 200&C %'885! 9%&32&,

225 e##ar $. Hoet 1H. Dan6uicen+orne B et al, 1assage of inhaled particles into the +loodcirculation in hu#ans, ;irculation 2002C %0'45! 4%%34,

2&5 Maynard R(. Ho*ard ;D. $ir 1ollution and Health. (ondon! $cade#ic 1ress %! 98&380',245 1ona $. Dirtanen M, $sth#a and air pollution in Helsini, J Epide#iol ;o##unity Health

%9C '0 Suppl %! s'392,2'5 1articulate Matter! 1roperties and Effects upon Health. BI<S Scientific 1u+lishers (td.

</ford p 9&34,295 $ir+orne 1articulate Matter in the ?nited @ingdo#, Third Report of the Guality of $ir

Re)ie* Kroup G?$RK5 May %9. ISB 0 '2088% & 2,285 Kold+erg MS. Burnett RT. Bailar J; et al, The association +et*een daily #ortality and

a#+ient air particle pollution in Montreal. Gue+ec, 2, ;ause3specific #ortality, En)iron Res200%! 9%5! 293&9,

25 1ope ;$. Burnett RT. Thun MJ. et al, (ung cancer. cardiopul#onary #ortality. and long3ter# e/posure to fine particulate air pollution, J$M$ 2002C 285! %%&234%,

25 Whit#an ) $#erican Trucing $ssoc Inc '&2 ?S 4'8 200%5,&05 Re3analysis of the Har)ard Si/ ;ities Study and the $#erican ;ancer Society Study of

1articulate $ir 1ollution and Mortality! Special Report, ;a#+ridge. Mass! Health EffectsInstitute July 2000. led +y "r "aniel @re*esi,

&%5 <stro B. ;hestnut (, $ssessing the +enefits of reducing particulate #atter and pollution in the?nited States, En)iron Res %C 8925! 43%09,

&25 1ope ;$. Bu#ett RT. Thurston K" et al, ;ardio)ascular Mortality and (ong3Ter#E/posure to 1articulate $ir 1ollution! Epide#iological E)idence of Keneral1athophysiological 1ath*ays of "isease, ;irculation 2004C %0! 8%388.

&&5 Miller @$. Sisco)ic "S. Sheppard(. et al, (ong ter# e/posure to air pollution and incidenceof cardio)ascular e)ents in *o#en, Eng J Med 2008. &'9!44834'

&45 1eters $. "ocery "W. Muller JE et al, Increased particulate air pollution and the triggeringof #yocardial infarction, ;irculation 200%C %0& 2&5! 2%03',&'5 Hong ;. (ee JT. @i# H. @*on HJ, $ir pollution! a ne* ris factor in ische#ic stroe

#ortality, Stroe 2002C &&5! 2%9'3,&95 Hoe K. Brunereef B. =ischer 1 et al, The association +et*een air pollution and heart

failure. arrhyth#ia. e#+olis#. thro#+osis and other cardio)ascular causes of death in a ti#eseries, Epide#iology 200%C %2&5! &''38,

&85 Mahes*aran R. Haining R1. Brindley 1 et al, <utdoor air pollution and Stroe in Sheffield.?nited @ingdo#. S#all3$rea Keographical Study, Stroe 200'C &925! 2&34&,

&5 Sch*art7 J, $ir pollution and hospital ad#issions for heart disease in eight ?S counties,Epide#iology %C %0%5! %8322,

&5 Baccerelli $. Martinelli I. Pano+etti $ et al, E/posure to particulate air pollution and ris of

deep )enous thro#+osis, $rch Int Med 200C %95!2038

'8



405 Pano+etti $. Sch*art7 J, ;ardio)ascular da#age +y air+orne particles! are dia+etics #oresuscepti+le Epide#iology 2002C %&'5! '32,

4%5 1eters $. (iu E. Derrier R( et al, $ir pollution and incidence of cardiac arrhyth#ia,Epide#iology 2000C %%%5! %%38,

425 1eanen J. 1eters $. Hoe K. et al, 1articulate air pollution and ris of ST seg#entdepression during su+#a/i#al e/ercise tests a#ong su+-ects *ith coronary heart disease! theE/posure and Ris $ssess#ent for =ine and ?ltrafine 1articles in $#+ient $ir ?(TR$5study, ;irculation 2002C %09! &&3&,

4&5 Kold+erg MS. Burnett RT. Bailar J; &rd et al, Identification of persons *ithcardiorespiratory conditions *ho are at ris of dying fro# the acute effects of a#+ient air

particles, En)iron Health 1erspect 200%C %0 Supp 4! 4834,445 1erera =1. Tang ". Tu H et al, Bio#arers in #aternal and ne*+orn +lood indicate

heightened fetal suscepti+ility to procarcinogenic "$ da#age, En)iron Health 1erspect2004C %%2%05! %%&&39,

4'5 Jedrycho*si W. Bendo*sa I. =la E et al, Esti#ated ris for altered fetal gro*th resultingfro# e/posure to fine particles during pregnancy! an epide#iologic prospecti)e cohort studyin 1oland, En)iron Health 1erspect 2004C %%2%45! %&3%402,

495 1erera =1. Rauh D. Whyatt RM et al, Molecular e)idence of an interaction +et*een prenatalen)iron#ental e/posures and +irth outco#es in a #ultiethnic population, En)iron Health1erspect 2004C %%2'5! 9293&0,

485 So#ers ;M. Mc;arry BE. Male = et al, Reduction of particulate air pollution lo*ers theris of herita+le #utations in #ice, Science 2004C &04'98&5! %003%0,

45 Burden of disease attri+uta+le to selected en)iron#ental factors and in-ury a#ong childrenand adolescents in Europe no authors listed5, ;hild ;are Health "e) 2004C &095! 8&%38&2,

45 Morgan K. ;or+ett S. Wlodarc7y J, $ir pollution and hospital ad#issions in Sydney.$ustralia. %03%4, $# J 1u+lic Health %C %25! %89%390,

'05 Dichit3Dadaan . <stro B". ;hestnut (K et al, $ir pollution and respiratory sy#pto#s!result fro# three panel studies in Bango. Thailand, En)iron Health 1erspect 200%C %0Supp&! &%38,

'%5 "ocery "W. Spei7er =E. Stra# "< et al, Effects of inhala+le particles on respiratory healthof children, $# Re) Respir "is %C %&&5! '834,

'25 Brauer M. Hoe K Dan Dliet 1 et al. $ir pollution fro# traffic and the de)elop#ent ofrespiratory infections and asth#atic and allergic sy#pto#s in children, $# J Respir ;rit;are 2002C %995! %023,

'&5 Seaton $. Macee W. "onaldson @ et al, 1articulate air pollution and acute health effects,(ancet %'C &4'4&5! %893,

'45 Boe7en HM. )an der Pee S;. 1ost#a "S et al, Effects of a#+ient air pollution on upper andlo*er respiratory sy#pto#s and pea e/piratory flo* in children, (ancet %C &'& %'95!843,

''5 Killiland =". Berhane @. Rappaport EB et al, The effects of a#+ient air pollution on schoola+senteeis# due to respiratory illness, Epide#iology 200%! %2%5! 4&3'4,

'95 1eters $. "ocery "W. Heinrich J. Wich#ann HE, Short ter# effects of particulate air pollution on respiratory #or+idity in asth#atic children, Eur Respir J %8C %045! 823,

'85 Kauder#an WJ. Mc;onnell R. Killiland = et al, $ssociation +et*een air pollution and lungfunction gro*th in Southern ;alifornian children, $# J Respir ;rit ;are Med 2000C %92 41t %5C %&&30,

'5 Brunereef B. Hoe K, The relationship +et*een lo*3le)el air pollution and short3ter#changes in lung function in "utch children, J E/po $nal En)iron Epide#iol %&C & Suppl %!%%832,

'5 Kauder#an WJ. Killiland K=. Dora H. et al, $ssociation +et*een air pollution and lungfunction gro*th in Southern ;alifornian children! results fro# a second cohort, $# J Respir;rit ;are Med 2002C %99%5! 8934,

905 Sa#et JM. "o#inici =. ;urriero =; et al, =ine particulate air pollution and #ortality in 20?S cities %83%4, Eng J Med 2000C &4&245! %8423,

'



9%5 Sch*art7 J. (aden =. Pano+etti $, The concentration3response relation +et*een 1M2,' anddaily deaths, En)iron Health 1erspect 2002C %%0%05! %02'3,

925 Stol7el M. Breitner S ;yrys J et al, "aily #ortality and particulate #atter in different si7eclasses in Erfurt. Ker#any, J E/po Sci En)iron Epide#iol,Research. 2008C %8'5! 4'398

9&5 @ettunen J. (ani T. Tiittanen 1 et al, $ssociations of fine and ultrafine particulate air pollution *ith stroe #ortality in an area of lo* pollution le)els, Stroe. 2008C &&5! %322

945 (i . Sioutas ;. ;ho $ et al, ?ltrafine particulate pollutants induce o/idati)e stress and#itochondrial da#age,En)iron Health 1erspect 200&.%%%!4''3490

9'5 <+erdorster K. Sharp P $tudorei D et al, Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the +rain,Inhalation To/icology. 2004. %9!4&8344'

995 $ir Guality Kuidelines for Europe. Section 8,& p%. Second Edition. World Regional1u+lications. Regional European Series o %. World Health <rganisation. Regional <fficefor Europe. ;openhagen,

985 $nnesi3Maesano I. =orastiere =. @un7li et al, 1artciculate #atter. Science and E? 1olicy,Eur Resp J 2008C 2! 4234&%

3.2 Heavy (etals95 1roceedings of the Third ;ollo6uiu# on 1articulate $ir 1ollution and Hu#an Health 93 June

%. "urha#. orth ;arolina. Ir)ine. ;$! $ir 1ollution Effects (a+oratory. ?ni)ersity of;alifornia.%. %%O2&,

95 1ope ;$ &rd, Respiratory disease associated *ith co##unity air pollution and a steel #ill.?tah Dalley, $# J 1u+lic Health. %. 8'5! 92&3,

805 ;osta "(. "reher @(, Bioa)aila+le transition #etals in particulate #atter #ediatecardiopul#onary in-ury in healthy and co#pro#ised ani#al #odels, En)iron Health 1erspect%8C%0' suppl '5! %0'&390

8%5 "ye J$. (eh#ann JR. McKee J@ et al, $cute pul#onary to/icity of particulate #atter filtere/tracts in rats! ;oherence *ith epide#iologic studies in ?tah Dalley,En)iron Health 1erspect 200%C %0 Suppl &! &'340&,

825 Hut7inger <. =ielder H, =or#ation of "io/ins and Related ;o#pounds in Industrial1rocesses, 1ilot Study of International Infor#ation E/change on "io/ins and Related

;o#ponds, o %8&, Brussels! $T< ;o##ittee on ;hallenges to Modern Science. %8&5 Ro*at S;, Incinerator to/ic e#issions! a +rief su##ary of hu#an health effects *ith a note

on regulatory control, Med Hypotheses %C '2'5! &39,845 ;asdorph R. Waler M, To/ic Metal Syndro#e. e* or! $)ery 1u+lishing Kroup %',8'5 Eh#ann W". Mares+ery WR. $lauddin M et al, Brain trace ele#ents in $l7hei#er>s

disease, euroto/icology %9C 8 %5! %'3209,895 Tho#pson ;M. Mares+ery WR. Eh#ann W" et al, Regional trace3ele#ent studies in

$l7hei#er>s disease, euroto/icology %C %5! %38,885 Wenstrup ". Eh#ann W". Mares+ery WR, Trace ele#ent i#+alances in isolated su+cellular

fractions of $l7hei#er>s disease +rains, Brain Res %0C '&&%5! %2'3&%,85 Schettler T, To/ic threats to neurological de)elop#ent of children, En)iron Health 1erspect

200%C %0 Suppl 95! %&39,85 Krand-ean 1. Weihe 1. White R= et al, ;ogniti)e deficit in 83year old children *ith prenatal

e/posure to #ethyl #ercury, euroto/icol Teratol %8C %95! 4%832,05 1al#er R=. Blanchard S. Stein P et al, En)iron#ental #ercury release. special education rates.

and autis# disorder! an ecological study of Te/as, Health 1lace. 2009C%225! 20&3%5 1al#er R=. Blanchard S. Wood R, 1ro/i#ity to point sources of en)iron#ental #ercury

release as a predictor of autis# pre)alence, Health 1lace. 200Cdoi!%0,%0%9O-,healthplace,200,02,00%

25 Thun MJ. Schnorr TM. S#ith $B. et al, Mortality a#ong a cohort of ?S cad#iu# production*orers A an update, J atl ;ancer Inst %'C 8425! &2'3&&,

&5 Blot WJ. =rau#eni J= Jnr, $rsenical air pollution and lung cancer, (ancet %8'C 28295!%4234,

45 Se)ers R. Whitehead (. (ane R, $ir 6uality correlates of chronic disease #ortality! Harris;ounty. Te/as %938%, Te/ Rep Biol Med %8C &9! %934,

'



'5 Wecer (. Miller SB. ;ochran SR et al, Trace ele#ent concentration in hair fro# $utistic;hildren, J Ment "efic Res %'! 2 pt %5! %'322,

95 ;apel I". 1innoc MH. "orrell HM. et al, ;o#parison of concentrations of so#e trace. +ul.and to/ic #etals in the hair of nor#al and dysle/ic children, ;linic ;he# %%! 2895!83%,

85 Brocel BJ. ;ory3Slechta "$, (ead. attention. and i#pulsi)e +eha)iour! changes in a fi/ed*aiting3for3re*ard paradig#, 1har#acol Bioche# Beha) %! 9025! '4'3'2,

5 "a)id <J. Hoff#an S1. S)erd J. et al, (ead and hyperacti)ity! Beha)ioural response tochelation, $# J 1sych %89C %&&%05! %%''3,

5 Masters R", Biology and politics! lining nature *ith nurture, $nn Re) 1olit Sci 200%C 4!&4'39',

05 (e)iton $. Bellinger ". $llred E et al, 1re and postnatal lo*3le)el lead e/posure andchildren>s dysfunction in school, En)iron Res %&! 90%5! &034&,

%5 Eppright T". Sanfacon J$. Hor*it7 =$, $ttention deficit hyperacti)ity disorder. infantileautis# and ele)ated +lood lead! a possi+le relationship, Mol Med %9! &&5! %&93,

25 eedle#an H(. Kunnoe ;. (e)iton $ et al, "eficits in psychologic and classroo# perfor#ance in children *ith ele)ated dentine lead le)els, Eng J Med %4C &&%%&5!

93',&5 Bellinger ". (e)iton $. Waternau/ ;. et al, (ongitudinal analyses of prenatal and postnatallead e/posure and early cogniti)e de)elop#ent, Eng J Med %8C &%9 %85! %0&834&,

45 eedle#an H(. Riess J$. To+in MJ. et al, Bone lead le)els and delin6uent +eha)iour,J$M$ %9C 28' '5C &9&3,

'5 Mispelstraat! (i)ing under the s#oe of a *aste incinerator, Report on the health i#pact ofthe MIW$ *aste incinerator in Sint ilaas. Belgiu#, ***,#ilieuge7ondheid,

95 Schauss $K, ;o#parati)e hair3#ineral analysis results of 2% ele#ents in a rando# selected +eha)iourally nor#alN %3' year old population and )iolent adult cri#inal offenders, Int JBiosoc Res %%C %! 2%34%,

85 Bo*dler ;. Beasley "S. =rit7e E; et al, Beha)ioural effects of alu#iniu# ingestion onani#al and hu#an su+-ects, 1har#acol Bioche# Beha) %8! %045! '023%2,

5 Trapp K$. Miner KH. Pi##er#an R( et al, $lu#iniu# le)els in the +rain in $l7hei#er>sdisease, Biol 1yschiatry %8C %&95! 803%,

5 Multhaup K, $#yloid precursor protein. copper and $l7hei#er>s disease, Bio#ed1har#ocother %8! '%&5! %0'3%%,

%005 Papatero M". Karcia de Jalon $. 1ascual =. et al, Seru# alu#iniu# le)els in $l7hei#er>sdisease and other senile de#entias, Biol Trace Ele# Res %'C 48 %3&5!

2&'340,%0%5 Martyn ;. Barer "J. <s#ond ; et al, Keographical relationship +et*een $l7hei#er>s

disease and alu#iniu# in drining *ater, (ancet %C %89&5! '392,%025 ;rapper "R. @rishnan SS. "alton $J et al, Brain alu#iniu# distri+ution in $l7hei#er>s

disease and e/peri#ental neurofi+rillary degeneration, Science %8&! %0'5! '%%3&,%0&5 eri (;. He*itt ", $l7hei#er>s disease and drining *ater, (ancet %%C && 89&5! &0,

%045 Payed J. "ucic S. ;a#panella K. et al, En)iron#ental factors in the etiology of 1arinson>sdisease, ;an J eurol Sci %0! %8&5! 293%,

3.3 Nitrous "xides%0'5 Richters $. Richters D, $ ne* relationship +et*een air pollutant inhalation and cancer, $rch

En)iron Health %&C &25! 938',%095 Ruaslahti E, Ho* cancer spreads, Scientific $#erican Sept %9! 82388,%085 $ndersen HR. Spi/ ;. Medina S. et al, $ir pollution and daily ad#issions for chronic

o+structi)e pul#onary disease in 9 European cities! results fro# the $1HE$ pro-ect, EurResp J %8C %0'5! %09438%,

%05 Sunyer J. Spi/ ;. Guenel 1. et al, ?r+an air pollution and e#ergency ad#issions for asth#ain four European cities! the $1HE$ 1ro-ect, Thora/ %8C '25! 8903',

%05 <stro B". Broad*in R. (ipsett MJ, ;oarse and fine particles and daily #ortality in the;oachella Dalley. ;alifornia! a follo*3up study, J E/p $nal En)iron Epide#iol 2000C %0'5!4%23,

90



%%05 Breslin @, The i#pact of o7one, En) Health 1erspecti)es %'C %0&835! 99034,%%%5 Hoe K. Sch*art7 J". Kroot B. Eilers 1, Effects of a#+ient particulate #atter and o7one on

daily #ortality in Rotterda#. The etherlands, $rch En)iron Health %8C '295! 4''39&,

3.! "ranic /oxicants%%25 "en Hond E. Roels H$. Hoppen+rou*ers @ et al, Se/ual #aturation in relationship to

polychlorinated aro#atic hydrocar+ons! Shape and Sae+ae>s hypothesis re)isited,En)iron Health 1erspect 2002C %%05! 88%39,%%&5 Esena7i B. Mocarelli 1. Warner M et al, Seru# dio/in concentrations and endo#etriosis! a

cohort study in Se)enso. Italy, En)iron Health 1erspect 2002C %%085! 923&4,%%45 Wolff MS. Weston $, Breast cancer ris and en)iron#ental e/posures, En)iron Health

1erspect %8C %0'Suppl 45! %39,%%'5 Hoyer $1. Kran-ean 1. Jorgensen T et al, <rganochlorine e/posure and the ris of +reast

cancer, (ancet %C &'2 %4&5! %%9320,%%95 <li)a $. Spira $. Multigner ( et al, ;ontri+ution of en)iron#ental factors to the ris of #ale

infertility, Hu# Reprod 200%C %95! %89389,%%85 Sultan ;. Balaguer 1. Terouanne B et al, En)iron#ental /enoestogens. antiandrogens and

disorders of #ale se/ual differentiation, Mol ;ell Endocrinol 200%C %8 %325! 3%0',

%%5 Hardell (. )an Ba)el B. (indstro# K et al, Increased concentrations of polychlorinated +iphenyls. he/achloro+en7ene and chlordanes in #others of #en *ith testicular cancer,En)iron Health 1erspect 200&C %%% 85! &034,

a8 "ranochlorines%%5 Jay @. Stieglit7 (, Identification and 6uantification of )olatile organic co#ponents in

e#issions of *aste incineration plants, ;he#osphere %'C &0! %243%290%205 Ecocyle ;o##ission of the Ko)ern#ent of S*eden, 1D;! $ 1lan to 1re)ent En)iron#ental

I#pact, Stochol#! Ecocycle ;o##ission %4%2%5 $#erican 1u+lic Health $ssociation, Resolution &04! Recogni7ing and addressing the

en)iron#ental and occupational health pro+le#s posed +y chlorinated organic che#icals, $#J 1u+lic Health %4C 4!'%43'

%225 Thornton J. 1andora>s 1oison. 2000. MIT 1ress. ;a#+ridge. Massachusetts (ondon

%2&5 ?S Eniron#ental 1rotection $gency, Esti#ating e/posure to 2.&.8. T;"", al Re)ie*"raft, Washington ";! ?S E1$. <ffice of Research and "e)elop#entE1$O9003933008$5. %

%245 Tatsua*a R. Tana+e S, =ate and +ioaccu#ulation of persistent organochlorine co#poundsin the #arine en)iron#ent, In! Bau#gartner "J. "udall IM. eds, <ceanic 1rocesses in Marine1ollution. Dolu#e 9. Mala+ar =(! @reiger. %0!&3''

%2'5 =ran H. oroorpi SchollH et al, Trichloroacetate le)els in the at#osphere and in coniferneedles in ;entral and orthern Europe, <rganohalogen ;o#pounds %&.%4!&083

%295 orsto# R. Muir ";K, ;hlorinated hydrocar+on conta#inants in arctic #arine #a##als,Science of the Total En)iron#ent. %4C %'4!%083%2

%285 $rctic Monitoring and $ssess#ent 1rogra##e, $rctic 1ollution Issues! $ state of the $rcticEn)iron#ent Report, <slo!$M$1 "irectorate. %8

b8 *ioxins%25 Br7u7y(1. Hites R$, Klo+al #ass +alance of polychlorinated di+en7o3p3dio/ins and

di+en7ofurans, En)iron#ental Science and Technology. %9. &0!%883%04%25 ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency, The In)entory of sources of dio/in in the ?nited

States Re)ie* "raft5, Washington ";! ?S E1$ <ffice of Research and "e)elop#ent E1$O900Op33002a5. %

%&05 Tho#as D. Shapiro ;, $n esti#ation of dio/in e#issions in the ?nited States, To/icologyand En)iron#ental ;he#istrty. %'C '0!%3&8

%&%5 "a)is "(. "inse KE. Hoel "K, "ecreasing cardio)ascular disease and increasing cancera#ong *hites in the ?nited States fro# %8& through %8, J$M$. %4C 28%!4&%34&8

%&25 Tritscher $M. ;lar KS. (ucier KW, "ose3response effects of dio/ins!Species co#parison

and i#plications for ris assess#ent, In! Schecter $. "io/ins and Health, e* or!plenu#.%4!228324%&05

9%



%&&5 eu+ert R. Jaco+3Muller ?. Helge H et al, 1olyhalogenated di+en7o3p3dio/ins anddi+en7ofurans and the i##une syste#! In )itro effects of 2.&.8. tetrachlorodi+en7o3p3dio/inT;""5 on ly#phocytes of )enous +lood fro# a #an and a non3hu#an pri#ate, $rchi)es ofTo/icology %%C9'!2%&3

%&45 ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency, Health $ssess#ent "ocu#ent for 2.&.8. A tetrachlorodi+en7o3p3dio/in and Related ;o#pounds. Dolu#es %3&. Re)ie* "raft,Washington ";!?S E1$ <ffice of Research and "e)elop#ent E1$O900OB132300%5.%4

%&'5 Becher H. Steindorf @. =lesch3Janys ", Guantitati)e cancer ris assess#ent of dio/ins usingan occupational cohort, En) Health 1erspect %C %09Suppl 25! 99&3980

%&95 1ape <, 1;""O=!Hu#an +acground data fro# Ker#any. a %0 year e/perience, En) Health1erspect. %C %09 Suppl 25! 82&3&%

%&85 Schecter $. Startin J. Wright ; et al, ;ongener3specific le)els of dio/ins and di+en7ofuransin ?S food and esti#ated daily dio/in to/ic e6ui)alent intae, En) Health 1erspect %4C%02! 92399

%&5 Schecter $. Kasie*ic7 T, Health ha7ard assess#ent of chlorinated dio/ins and di+en7ofuranscontained in hu#an #il, ;he#osphere %8C %9!2%483'4

%&5 Kray (E. <st+y JS. @elce WR, $ dose3response analysis of the reproducti)e effects of a

single gestational dose of 2.&.8. tetrachlorodi+en7o3p3dio/in in #ale (ong E)ens hooded ratoffspring, To/icology and $pplied phar#acology. %8C %49! %%320%405 Theo+ald HM. 1eterson RE, "e)elop#ental and reproducti)e to/icity of dio/ins and other

$h receptor agonists, In! Schecter $. ed, "io/ins and Health, e* or! 1lenu#,%4!&0349

%4%5 Seegal R=. Schant7 S(, euroche#ical and +eha)ioural se6uelae of e/posure to do/ins and1;Bs, In! Schecter $. ed, "io/ins and Health, e* or! 1lenu#, %4!40344

%425 Guass ?. =er#ann M. Broer K. European "io/in In)entary Dolu#e &. $ssess#ent ofdio/in e#issions until 200'., 1repared +y orth Rhine Westphalia# State En)iron#ental$gency on +ehalf of the European ;o##ission. "irectorate Keneral for En)iron#ent "KED5

3.% Effects on enetic (aterial

%4&5 To#atis (, Transplacental ;arcinogenesis, (yon. International $gency for Research on;ancer. I$R; Scientific 1u+lications o 4 pp%003%%%,

%445 To#atis (. Koodall ;M, The occurrence of tu#ours in =%. =2 and =& descendants of pregnant #ice in-ected *ith 8.%2 di#ethyl+en7a5anthracene, Int J ;ancer %9C 425!2%32',

3.& Effects on Immune System%4'5 Ross 1. de S*art. Disser I. et al, Relati)e i##unoco#petence of the ne*+orn har+or seal.

1hoca )itulina, Deterinary I##unology and I##unopathology %4C 42&345! &&%34,%495 Ross 1. de S*art R. Rei-nders 1. et al, ;onta#inant3related suppression of delayed3type

hypersensiti)ity and anti+ody responses in har+or seals fed herring fro# the Baltic Sea, En)Health 1erspect %'C %0& 25! %9238,

%485 "e S*art R, I#paired i##unity in seals e/posed to +ioaccu#ulated en)iron#entalconta#inants. 1h" Thesis. Eras#us ?ni)ersity. Rotterda#. etherlands. %',

%45 (ah)is K. Wells RS. @uehl "W et al, "ecreased ly#phocyte response in free3ranging +ottle3nosed dolphins Tursiops truncatus5 are associated *ith increased concentration of1;Bs and ""T in peripheral +lood, En) Health 1erspect %'C %0&45! 98382,

%45 ;one JE.Harrison R. Reiter R, 1atients *ith #ultiple che#ical sensiti)ities! clinicaldiagnostic su+sets a#ong an occupational health clinic population, )n ;ullen M ed5 Worers*ith Multiple ;he#ical Sensiti)ities. <ccupational Medicine! State of the $rt Re)ie* %8C245!82%38& ,

%'05 Shar#a R, I##unological ;onsiderations in To/icology. Dols % and 2 %%5. ;R; 1ress.Boca Raton. =(,

%'%5 $shford . Miller ;, ;he#ical E/posures! (o* (e)els and High Staes, John Wiley

Sons %,

92



%'25 Massolo (. Muller $. Tueros M. et al, $ssess#ent of #utagenicity and to/icity of different3si7e fractions of air particles fro# (a 1lata. $rgentina. and (eip7ig. Ker#any, En)ironTo/icol 2002C %8&5! 2%3&%,

%'&5 @er)liet I, I##unoto/icity of dio/ins and related che#icals, In! Schecter $. ed, "io/insand Health, e* or! 1lenu#%4!%32%8

%'45 Tryphonas H, I##unoto/icity of 1;Bs $roclors5 in relation to Kreat (aes, En)iron Health1erspect. %'C %0& Suppl 5!&'349

%''5 Hilla# R1. Bice "E. Hahn ==. Scni7elein ;T, Effects of acute nitrogen dio/ide e/posure oncellular i##unity after lung i##uni7ation, En)iron Res %&C &%%5! 20%3%%,

3.' Syneristic Effects%'95 ;arroll Wilson, Man>s Klo+al I#pact on the En)iron#ent! $ Study of ;ritical

En)iron#ental 1ro+le#s. MIT 1ress. ;a#+ridge. Mass %8%,%'85 Mohi+er R, The Ecologist %C 225! '83,%'5 Harrison 1T. Heath J;, $pparent synergy in lung carcinogenesis! interactions +et*een 3

nitroshepta#ethylenei#ine. particulate cad#iu# and crocidolite as+estos fi+res in rats,;arcinogenesis %9C 8%%5! %0&3,

%'5 Wade MK. =oster WK. ounglai ED. et al, Effects of su+chronic e/posure to a co#ple/

#i/ture of persistent conta#inants in #ale rats! syste#ic. i##une and reproducti)e effects,To/icol Sci 2002C 98%5! %&%34&,

%905 Soto $M. ;hung @(. Sonnenschein ;, The pesticides endosulphan. to/aphene and dieldrinha)e estrogenic effects on hu#an estrogen3sensiti)e cells, En)iron Health 1erspect %4C%0245! &03&,

%9%5 $+ou3"onia MB. Wil#arth @R. Jensen @= et al, euroto/icity resulting fro# co3e/posureto pyridostig#ine +ro#ide. "EET and per#ethrin! I#plications of Kulf War che#icale/posures, J To/icol En) Health %9C 4%5! &'3'9,

%925 Ershoff BH, Synergistic to/icity of food additi)es in rats fed a diet lo* in dietary fi+re, J=ood Sci %89C 4%! 43'%,

%9&5 Wade MK. 1arent S. =innson @W. et al, Thyroid To/icity due to a su+chronic e/posure to aco#ple/ #i/ture of %9 organochlorines. lead. and cad#iu#, To/icol Sci 2002C 9825! 2083%,

%945 $rnold S=. @lot7 "M. ;ollins BM. et al, Synergistic acti)ation of estrogen receptors *ithco#+inations of en)iron#ental che#icals, Science %9C 282 '2985! %432,

%9'5 Ker#olec "R. ang RSH. $cer#ann M1 et al, To/icology studies of a che#ical #i/ture of2' ground*ater conta#inants! I##unosuppression in B9;&= #ice, =unda#ental and$pplied To/icology %%C%&! &883&8

%995 (i MH. Hansen (K, En7y#e induction and acute endocrine effects in prepu+ertal fe#ale ratsrecei)ing en)iron#ental 1;BO1;"=O1;"" #i/tures, En)iron Health 1erspect %9C%0485! 8%2322,

Section !. Increased (orbidity and (ortality near Incinerators

!.1 Cancer%985 Elliot 1. Shaddic K. @leinsch#idt I etal. ;ancer incidence near #unicipal solid *asteincinerators in Kreat Britain, Brit J ;ancer %9C 8&'5! 8023%0,

%95 Elliot 1. Eaton . Shaddic K et al, ;ancer incidence near #unicipal *aste incinerators inKreat Britain, 1art 2! Histopathological and case note re)ie* of pri#ary li)er cancer cases,British J ;ancer 2000C 2'5! %%0&39,

%95 @no/ EK. Kil#an E$, Migration patterns of children *ith cancer in Britain, JEpide#iology ;o##unity Health %C '2%%5! 8%9329,

%805 @no/ EK, ;hildhood cancers. +irthplaces. incinerators and landfill sites, Int JEpide#iology 2000C 2 &5! &%38,

%8%5! Biggeri $. Bar+one =. (aga7io ;. et al, $ir pollution and lung cancer in Trieste. Italy!Spatial analysis of ris as a function of distance fro# sources, En)iron Health 1erspect %9C

%04 85! 8'034,

9&



%825 Diel J=. $r)eu/ 1. Ba)erel J. et al, Soft tissue sarco#a and non Hodgin>s ly#pho#aclusters around #unicipal solid *aste incinerators *ith high dio/in e#ission le)els, $# JEpide#iology 2000C %'2%5! %&3%,

%8&5 <hta S. @uriya#a S. aao et al, (e)els of 1;""s. 1;"=s and non3ortho coplanar 1;Bs insoil collected fro# high cancer3causing area close to +atch3type #unicipal solid *asteincinerator in Japan, <rganohalogen ;o#pounds %8C &2! %''390,

%845 ;o#+a 1. $scoll D. Belli S et al Ris of soft tissue sarco#as and residence in theneigh+ourhood of an incinerator of industrial *astes, <ccup En)iron Med 200&C 905! 903&

%8'5 Pa#+on 1. Ricci 1. Bo)o E et al, Sarco#a ris and dio/in e#issions fro# incinerators andindustrial plants! a population3+ased case3control study Italy5, En)iron Health 2008C 9!

%895 Kusta)sson 1, Mortality a#ong *orers at a #unicipal *aste incinerator, $# J Ind Med%C %'&5! 24'3'&,

%885 Kusta)sson 1. E)anoff B. Hogstedt ;, Increased ris of esophageal cancer a#ong *orerse/posed to co#+ustion products, $rchi)es En)iron Med %&C 445! 24&3',

!.2 )irth *efects%85 ten Tusscher KW. Sta# K$. @oppe JK, <pen che#ical co#+usting resulting in a localised

increased incidence of orofacial clefts, ;he#osphere 2000C 403%%5! %29&380,

%85 Dan (ore+ee , Health effects of a household *aste incinerator near Wilri-. Belgiu#, )nHealth I#pacts of Waste Manage#ent 1olicies. Hippocrates =oundation. @os. Kreece. 2000,

%05 ;ordier S. ;he)rier ;. Ro+ert3Knansia E et al, Ris of congenital ano#alies in the )icinityof #unicipal solid *aste incinerators, <ccup En)iron Med 2004! 9%%5! 3%',

%%5 "u##er TJ. "icinson H<. 1arer (, $d)erse pregnancy outco#es around incinerators andcre#atoriu#s in ;u#+ria. orth3*est England. %'93&, J Epide#iol ;o##unity Health200&! '895! 4'939%,

%25 "ol H. Dri-held M. $r#strong B et al, Ris of congenital ano#alies near ha7ardous3*astelandfill sites in Europe! the E?R<H$P;< study, (ancet. %C &'2%295! 42&38,

%&5Elliot 1. Briggs ". Morris S et al, Ris of ad)erse +irth outco#es in populations li)ing nearlandfill sites, BMJ. 200%C &2&8&05! &9&3,

%45 ;roen ($. Sha* KM. San+on#atsu ( et al, Maternal residential pro/i#ity to ha7ardous

*aste sites and ris for selected congenital #alfor#ations, Epide#iology %8C 45! &483'4,%'5 <rr M. Bo)e =. @aye W et al, Ele)ated +irth defects in racial or ethnic #inority children of

*o#en li)ing near ha7ardous *aste sites, Int J Hyg En)iron Health. 2002C 20'%325! %328,%95 Johnson B(, $ re)ie* of the effects of the effects of ha7ardous *aste on reproducti)e health,

$# J of <+stetrics and Kynecology %C %%! S%23S%9,

Section %. *isease Incidence and Pollution

%.1 Cancer%85 ;I. %%! ;ancer Statistics Re)ie* %8&3N. IH 1u+lications o %328,%5 To#atis (. ;ancer. ;auses. <ccurrence and ;ontrol. I$R; Scientific pu+lications %00.

(yon. =rance. I$R; %95 2%,%5 Kraphs of che#ical production! =ro# International Trade ;o##ission. Washington ";,%05 "a)ies "(. Hoel ". =o/-. (ope7 $, International trends in cancer #ortality in =rance. West

Ker#any. Italy. Japan. England and Wales and the ?S$, (ancet %0C &&9 8%&5! 4843%,%%5 1icle (W. Mason TJ. =rau#eni J= Jr, The ne* ?nited States ;ancer $tlas, Recent Results

;ancer Res. %C %%4! %93208,%25 a-e# KR. (ouria "B. (a)enhar M$ et al, ;lusters of cancer #ortality in e* Jersey

#unicipalities. *ith special reference to che#ical to/ic *aste disposal sites and per capita

inco#e, Int J Epide#iol %'C %445! '23&8,%&5 a-e# KR. Kreer W, =e#ale reproducti)e organs and +reast cancer #ortality in e*

Jersey ;ounties and the relationship *ith certain en)iron#ental )aria+les, 1re) Med %'!%4'5! 9203&',

%45 Hoo)er R. =rau#eni J= Jr, ;ancer #ortality in ?S counties *ith che#ical industries,En)iron Res %8'C 25! %93208,

94



%'5 Kold#an B$, The Truth $+out Where ou (i)e! $n $tlas for $ction on To/ins andMortality, e* or! Rando# House %%,

%95 Pah# SH. Blair $, ;ancer a#ong #igrant and seasonal far#ers! an epide#iologic re)ie*and research agenda, $# J of Ind Med %&C 2495! 8'&399,

%85 Tornling K. Kusta)sson 1. Hogstedt ;, Mortality and cancer incidence a#ong Stochol#fire fighters, $#er J Industrial Med %4! 2'25! 2%32,

%5 Pah# SH. Weisen+urger "". Ba++itt 1$ et al, $ case control study of non3Hodgin>s(y#pho#a and the Her+icide 2.4 "ichloropheno/yacetic acid 2.43"5 in Eastern e+rasa,Epide#iology %0C %'5! &43'9,

%5 Hardell (. Erisson M. (enner 1 et al, Malignant ly#pho#a and e/posure to che#icals.especially organic sol)ents. chlorophenols and pheno/y acids! a case control study, Brit J;ancer %%C 4&25! %9389,

2005 Harsh+arger J; and ;lar JB, Epi7ootiology of neoplas#s in +ony fish of orth $#erica,Sci Total En)iron %0C 4%325! %3&2,

20%5 Hayes HM Jr. Hoo)er R. Tarone RE, Bladder cancer in pet dogs! a sentinel foren)iron#ental cancer, $# J Epide#iol %%C %%425! 223&&,

2025 Bau#ann 1;. Harsh+argerJ;, "ecline in li)er neoplas#s in *ild +ro*n +ullhead catfish

after coing plant closes and en)iron#ental 1$Hs plu##et, En)iron health 1erspect %'C%0&! %9380,20&5 1erera =,1. He##ini @. Kry7+o*sa E et al, Molecular and Kenetic "a#age in Hu#ans

fro# En)iron#ental 1ollution in 1oland, ature %2C &90 940%5! 2'93',2045 1erera =1. Mooney ($. Sta#fer M et al, $ssociations +et*een carcinogen3"$ da#age.

glutathione S transferase genotypes. and ris of lung cancer in the prospecti)e 1hysician>sHealth ;ohort Study, ;arcinogenesis 2002C 2&%05! %94%39,

20'5 (e*is3Michl E(. Melius JM. @allen+ach (R et al, Breast cancer ris and residence nearindustry or traffic in assau and Suffol ;ounties. (ong Island. e* or, $rch En)ironHealth %9C '%45! 2''39',

2095 The (ong island Breast ;ancer Study Reports %3& %305. e* or State "epart#ent ofHealth. "epart#ent of ;o##unity and 1re)entati)e Medicine. assau ;ounty "epart#ent of

Health and Suffol ;ounty "epart#ent of Health Ser)ices,2085 $schengrou $. <7onoff "M, ?pper ;ape ;ancer Incidence Study! =inal Report, Boston!

Mass, "epts of 1u+lic Health and En)iron#ent 1rotection %%,205 $schengrau $. <7onoff ". 1aulu ; et al, ;ancer ris and tetrachloroethylene3containing

drining *ater in Massachusetts, $rch En)iron Health %'C 4'5! 2432,205 Mc@el)ey W. Brody JK. $schengrau $ et al, $ssociation +et*een residence on ;ape ;od.

Massachusetts. and +reast cancer, $nn Epide#iol 2004C %425! 34,2%05 =agliano J. Berry M. Boye = et al, "rining *ater conta#ination and the incidence of

leuae#ia!an ecologic study, $# J 1u+lic Health %0C 0 %05! %203%2,2%%5 ;antor @1 et al,. Water 1ollution )n Schottenfeld " and =rau#eni J= Jr eds,5. ;ancer

Epide#iology and 1re)ention. 2nd ed, </ford! </ford ?ni) 1ress %9,2%25 (agaos S,W et al, $n analysis of conta#inated *ell *ater and health effects in Wo+urn.

Massachusetts, J $#er Stat $ssoc %9! &'! '&39,2%&5 <s+orne J,S. Shy ;M. @aplan BH, Epide#iologic analysis of a reported cancer case cluster

in a s#all rural population, $# J Epide#iol %0C %&2 Supp %5! S83',2%45 (a#pi 1. Haulinen T. (uostarinen et al, ;ancer incidence follo*ing chlorophenol

e/posure in a co##unity in Southern =inland, $rch En)iron Health %2C 48&5! %9838',2%'5 I$R; Monographs on E)aluation of ;arcinogenic Riss to Hu#ans Suppl 8 (yon. =rance!

I$R; %85,2%95 ?S,"HHS Se)enth $nnual Report on ;arcinogens. Research Triangle 1ar. ;!us,

"epart#ent of Health and Hu#an Ser)ices. %0,2%85 Hol7#an ", Baning on tissues, En)iron Health 1erspect %9C %0495! 9093%0,2%5 Moses M. Johnson ES. $nger W@ et al, En)iron#ental e6uity and pesticide e/posure,

To/icol Ind Health %&C '5! %&3',

9'



2%5 <nstot J. $yling R. Stanley J, ;haracteri7ation of HRK;OMS ?nidentified 1eas fro# the$nalysis of Hu#an $dipose tissue, Dolu#e %! Technical approach, Washington ";! ?SEn)iron#ental 1rotection $gency <ffice of To/ic Su+stances '90O9383002a5. %8

2205 Body Burden! E/ecuti)e Su##ary. 200&. En)iron#ental Woring Kroup. Mount SinaiSchool of Medicine and ;o##on*eal, ***,e*g,orgOreportsO+ody+urdenO

22%5 =oster W. ;han S. 1latt (. Hughes ;, "etection of endocrine disrupting che#icals insa#ples of second tri#ester hu#an a#niotic fluid, J ;linic Endocrinol Meta+ol 2000C '5!2'438,

2225 Pieger M, Bio#arers! The clues to genetic suscepti+ility, En)iron Health 1erspecti)es %4C%02%5! '038,

%.2 Neuroloical *isease22&5 Rodier 1M, "e)eloping +rain as a target of to/icity, En)iron Health 1erspect %'! %0&

Suppl 9! 8&39,2245 Hattis ". Klo*a J Tilson H et al, Ris assess#ent for neuro+eha)ioural to/icity! SK<MSE;

-oint report, En) Health 1erspect %9C%04 Suppl 25! 2438%22'5 (andrign 1J. Kraha# "K. $nger W@ et al, En)iron#ental to/icology, Washington ";!

ational $cade#y 1ress.%2,

2295 WeissB,Ris assess#ent! The insidious nature of neuroto/icity and the aging +rain, euroto/icology %0C%%!&0'3%4

2285 @napp et al, "e#entia ?@! Report to the $l7hei#er>s Society. @ing>s ;ollege. (ondon and(ondon School of Econo#ics and 1olitical Science. 2008

225 1ritchard ;. Bald*in ". Mayers $, ;hanging patterns of adult neurological deaths 4'384years5 in the #a-or *estern *orld countries %83%85, 1u+lic Health 2004C %%45!293&,

225 Taylor B. Miller E. =arrington ;1 et al, $utis# and #easles. #u#ps and ru+ella )accine! noepide#iological e)idence for a causal association, (ancet %C &'&%95! 20293,

2&05 Ry+ici R$. Johnson ;;. ?#an J. Korrell JM, 1arinson>s disease #ortality and theindustrial use of hea)y #etals in Michigan, Mo) "isord %&C %5! 832,

%.3 (ental *isease

2&%5 Strahile)it7 M. Strahile)it7 $. Miller JE, $ir pollutants and the ad#ission rate of psychiatric patients, $# J 1sychiatry %8C %&925! 20'38,

2&25 Briere J. "o*nes $. Spensley J, $, su##er in the city! ur+an *eather conditions and psychiatric e#ergency roo# )isits, J $+nor# 1yschol %&C 2%5! 8830,

2&&5 Morro* ($. @a#is H. Hodgson MJ, 1sychiatric sy#pto#atology in persons *ith organicsol)ent e/posure, J ;onsult ;linic 1yschol %&C 9%%5! %8%34,

2&45 Morro* ($. Stein (. Scott $ et al, europsychological assess#ent. depression and paste/posure to organic sol)ents, $pplied europyschol 200%C 25! 9'38&,

%.! +iolence and Crime2&'5 Hall RW, $ study of #ass #urder! e)idence of underlying cad#iu# and lead poisoning and

+rain3in)ol)ed i##unoreacti)ity, Int J Bioscoc Med Res %C %%! %443'2,2&95 Marlo*e M. Schneider HK. Bliss (B, Hair #ineral analysis in e#otionally distur+ed and

)iolence prone children, Int J Biosoc Med Res %%C %&! %938,2&85 1ihl R<. Er)in =, (ead and cad#iu# le)els in )iolent cri#inals, 1yschol Rep %0C 99&1t

%5! &344,2&5 "enno "W, Kender. cri#e and the cri#inal la* defences, J ;ri# (a* ;ri#inol %4C '!

03%0,2&5 "e+orah "enno, Biology and Diolence! =ro# Birth to $dulthood, ;a#+ridge ?ni)ersity

1ress. %0,2405 Stretesy 1B. (ynch MJ, The relationship +et*een lead e/posure and ho#icide, $rch 1ed

$dolesc Med 200%C %'''5! '832,24%5 Stretesy 1B. (ynch MJ, The relationship +et*een lead and cri#e, J Health Soc Beha)

2004C 4'25! 2%432,

&. Hih ,is- rou#s

99

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/




&.1 /he :oetus2425 ;enters for "isease ;ontrol, Blood and hair #ercury le)els in young children and *o#en of

child+earing age, ?nited States % Mor+idity and Mortality Report. 200%C '0! %4034&,24&5 $nderson (M. "i*an B$. =ear T. Ro#an E, ;ritical *indo*s of e/posure for children>s

health! cancer in hu#an epide#iological studies and neoplas#s in e/peri#ental ani#al#odels, En)iron Health 1erspect 2000C %0 suppl &! '8&34,2445 ?S En)iron#ental 1rotection $gency. <ffice of 1ollution 1rotection and To/ic Su+stances.

;he#ical Ha7ard "ata $)aila+ility Study! What do *e really no* a+out high production)olu#e che#icals ?SE1$! Washington ";.%,

24'5 Sonnenschein ;. Soto $M, $n ?pdated re)ie* of en)iron#ental estrogen and androgen#i#ics and antagonists, J Steroid Bioche# Mol Biol %C 9' %395! %4&3'0,

2495 Marey ;M. ;oo#+s M$. Sonnenschein ;. Soto $M, Ma##alian de)elop#ent in achanging en)iron#ent! e/posure to endocrine disruptors re)eals the de)elop#ental plasticityof steroid3hor#one target organs, E)ol "e) 200&C '%5! 9838',

2485 Tilson H$. Jaco+son J(. Rogan WJ, 1olychlorinated +iphenyls and the de)eloping ner)oussyste#! cross species co#parisons, euroto/icol Teratol %0C %2 &5! 2&34,

245 Weisgals3@uperas . 1atandin S. Ber+ers K$. et al, I##unological effects of +acgrounde/posure to polychlorinated +iphenyls and dio/ins in "utch preschool children, En)ironHealth 1erspect 2000C %0%25! %20&38,

245 Rogan WJ. Kladen B;. Mc@inney J". et al, 1olychlorinated +iphenyls 1;Bs5 anddichlorodiphenyldichloroethene ""E5 in hu#an #il! effects of #aternal factor and

pre)ious lactation, $# J 1u+lic Health %9C 8925! %8238,2'05 Body Burden! The 1ollution in e*+orns! E/ecuti)e Su##ary. July 200'. En)iron#ental

Woring Kroup. Mount Sinai School of Medicine and;o##on*eal,***,e*g,orgOreportsO+ody+urden2Oe/ecsu##,php

2'%5 $ 1resent for (ife! Ha7ardous che#icals in u#+ilical cord +lood, WW=OKreenpeace.Septe#+er 200',***,greenpeace,orgOra*OcontentOinternationalOpressOreportsOu#+ilicalcordreport,pdf

&.2 /he )reast0fed Infant2'25 Jensen $$. Slorach S$, $ssess#ent of infant intae of che#icals )ia +reast #il in

;he#ical ;onta#inants in Hu#an Mil, Boca Raton! ;R; 1ress %%, pp2%'322,2'&5 @oop#an3Esse+oo# ;. Huis#an M. Weisglas3@uperus . et al, "io/in and 1;B le)els in

+lood and hu#an #il in relation to li)ing in the etherlands, ;he#osphere %4C 2 3%%5!2&283&,

2'45 1atandin S. "agnelie 1;. Mulder 1K. et al, "ietary e/posure to polychlorinated +iphenylsand dio/ins fro# infancy until adulthood! a co#parison +et*een +reast3feeding. toddler andlong3ter# e/posure, En)iron Health 1erspect %C %08%5! 4'3'%,

2''5 Rogan WJ. Bagnie*sa $. "a#stra T, 1ollutants in +reast #il, Engl J Med %0C&02295! %4'03&,

2'95 Jaco+son J(. Jaco+son SW, 1renatal e/posure to polychlorinated +iphenyls and attention atschool age, J 1aediatr 200&C %4&95! 803,

2'85 Jaco+son J(. Jaco+son SW, $ssociation of prenatal e/posure to an en)iron#entalconta#inant *ith intellectual function in childhood, J To/icol ;lin To/icol 2002C 4045!49838',

2'5 Jaco+son J(. Jaco+son SW, Intellectual i#pair#ent in children e/posed to polychlorinated +iphenyls in utero, Eng J Med %9C &&'%%5! 8&3,

2'5 @in+rough R", To/icological i#plications of hu#an #il residues as indicated +yto/icological and epide#iological studies in Jensen $$ Slorach S$! ;he#ical;onta#inants in Hu#an Mil. %0 pp28%3&,

2905 Rice ";, Beha)ioural i#pair#ent produced +y lo*3le)el postnatal 1;B e/posure in#oneys, En) Res %C 02 1t 25! S%%&3S%2%,

29%5 Rice ";, Effects of postnatal e/posure of #oneys to a 1;B #i/ture on spatialdiscri#ination re)ersal and "R( perfor#ance, euroto/icol Teratol %C 2045! &%3400,

98


http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/umbilicalcordreport.pdf


http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/umbilicalcordreport.pdf



2925 Rice ";. Hay*ard S, Effects of postnatal e/posure to a 1;B #i/ture in #oneys on non3spatial discri#ination re)ersal and delayed alternation perfor#ance, euroto/icology %8C%25! 4834,

29&5 Hallgren S. Sin-ari T. Haansson H. "arnerud 1<, Effects of poly+ro#inated diphenylethers 1B"Es5 and polychlorinated +iphenyls 1;Bs5 on thyroid hor#one and )ita#in $le)els in rats and #ice, $rch To/icol 200%C 8'45! 2003,

2945 Hooper @. Mc"onald T$, The 1B"Es! an e#erging en)iron#ental challenge and anotherreason for +reast #il #onitoring progra#s, En) Health 1erspect 2000C %0'5! &832,

&.3 Children29'5 Moolga)ar SH. Den7on "J, T*o3e)ent #odel for carcinogenesis! incidence of cur)es for

childhood and adult tu#ours, Maths Biosci %8C 48! ''388,2995 Rodier 1M, ;hronology of neuron de)elop#ent! ani#al studies and their clinical

i#plications, "e) Med ;hild eurol %0C 2245! '2'34',2985 E+o# $. Hsieh ;;. (ip*orth (. et al, Intrauterine en)iron#ent and +reast cancer ris in

*o#en! a population3+ased study, J atl ;ancer Inst %8C %5! 8%39,295 @no/ EK, ;hildhood cancers and at#ospheric carcinogens, J Epide#iol ;o##unity

Health 200'C '25! %0%3',

295 To#atis (. <)er)ie* of perinatal and #ultigeneration carcinogenesis, $R; Sci 1u+l %C9! %3%',

2805 $nderson (M. "ono)an 1J. Rice JM. Ris assess#ent for transplacental carcinogenesis, )n e* $pproaches in To/icity Testing and their $pplication in Hu#an Ris $ssess#ent ed (i$15, %' pp%83202,

28%5 (andrigan 1J. Karg $, ;hronic effects of to/ic en)iron#ental e/posures in children>shealth, J To/icol ;linical To/icol 2002C 4045! 443'9,

2825 ;ala+rese E,J, $ge and Suscepti+ility to To/ic Su+stances, e* or. John Wiley Sons%9,

28&5 ational $cade#y of Sciences, Scientific =rontiers in "e)elop#ental To/icology and Ris$ssess#ent, ational $cade#y 1ress. Washington "; 2000,

2845 Windha# K;. Phang (. Kunier R et al, $utis# spectru# disorders in relation to distri+ution

of ha7ardous air pollutants in the San =rancisco +ay area, En)iron Health 1erspect2009C%%45! %4&344

28'5 @enet T et al, 1erinatal e/posure to a noncoplanar polychlorinated +iphenyl alters tonotopy.recepti)e fields and plasticity in rat pri#ary auditory corte/, 1roc atl $cad Sci ?S$ 2008C%04 %5!89493'%

2895 Jaco+son J(. Jaco+son SW. Hu#phrey HE, Effects of in utero e/posure to polychlorinated +iphenyls and related conta#inants on cogniti)e functioning in young children, J 1aediatr%0C %%9%5! &34',

2885 eedle#an H(. (e)iton $. Bellinger ", (ead3associated intellectual deficit, Eng J Med%2C &0995! &98,

&.! /he Chemically Sensitive285 Rinsy R$ et al, Ben7ene and leue#ia! an epide#iologic ris assess#ent, Eng J Med

%8C &%9%85! %0443'0,285 1elonenn <, ;o#parison of acti)ities of drug3#eta+oli7ing en7y#es in hu#an fetal and

adult li)ers, ;linic 1har#acol Ther %8&C %4'5! 4039,205 Hattis ". Russ $. Ko+le R. et al, Hu#an interindi)idual )aria+ility in suscepti+ility to

air+orne particles, Ris $nal 200%C 2%45! ''3,2%5 =ried#an R, Sensiti)e 1opulations and En)iron#ental Standards, The ;onser)ati)e

=oundation. Washington "; %%5,

Section '. Past (ista-es and the Precautionary Princi#le

'.1 /he Precautionary Princi#le

9



225 European ;o##ission 2000, ;o##unications fro# the ;o##ission on the 1recautionary1rinciple ;<M 20005 %5 Brussels, ?R(!http!OOeuropa,eu,intOco##,OdgsOhealthXconsu#erOli+raryOpu+Opu+08Xen,pdf accessed &0

o)e#+er 200&5,2&5 Krand-ean 1. Bailar J;. Kee ". et al, I#plications of the precautionary principle in research

and policy3#aing, $# J Ind Med 2004C 4'45! &23',245 =ranchini M. Rial M. Buiatti E. Bianchi =, Health effects of e/posure to *aste incinerator

e#issions! a re)ie* of the epide#iological studies, $nn Ist Super Sanita. 2004C 40%5!%0%3%',

'.2 earnin from Past (ista-es2'5 Rice ";. E)angelista de "uffard $M. "uffard R et al, (essons for neuroto/icology fro#

selected #odel co#pounds SK<MSE; -oint report, En) Health 1erspect %9C %04 Supp 25!20'3%',

Section . lternative 4aste /echnoloies

.2 Producin ess 4aste

295 "epart#ent of =ood. En)iron#ent and Rural $ffairs 20095C Re)ie* of England>s WasteStrategy! $ ;onsultation "ocu#ent. (ondon. "efra,

285 Energy Kreen 1aper. To*ards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy. European;o##ission.200%, http!OOeuropa,eu,intOco##OenergyXtransportOdoc3principalOpu+finalXen,pdf

25 World Energy <utloo 200%. 200% Insights. International Energy $gencyIE$5 and the<rganisation for Econo#ic ;o3operation and "e)elop#ent 5E;"5. 200%,http!OOli+rary,iea,orgOd+t*3*pdOTe/t+aseOnpoldOnpoldXpdfO*eo200%,pdf

25 Mo++s 1. Energy +eyond <il. ;ron*ell 1ress (td. 200'.Tro*+ridge. ?@ 205 ;a#+ridge Econo#etrics. ?@ Energy and the En)iron#ent, March 200.' davanced /hermal /echnoloies 7//8 and Plasma asification

2%5 Ko#e7 E. $#utha Rani ". ;hees#an ;R et al, Theral plas#a technology for the treat#entof *astes! $ critical re)ie*. 200. Journal of ha7ardous Materials.doi!%0,%0%9O-,ha7#at,200,4,0%8!%3%&

. reenhouse ases225 White 1. =rane M. Hindle 1, Integrated Solid Waste Manage#ent! $ (ifestyle In)entory.

%4. Blacie $cade#ic $nd 1rofessional

Section 9. Costs of Incineration

9.1 *irect and Indirect Costs

2&5 1u+lic ;onsultation on Waste #anage#ent <ptions. Scottish En)iron#ental 1rotection$gency. Western Isles Strategy $rea. o) 200%

245 Russell M. ;olgla7ier W. Tonn BE, The ?S ha7ardous *aste legacy, En)iron#ent. %2C

&495! %&3&9.2 Health costs of Incineration

2'5 Energy Technology Support ?nit ETS?5. %9. Econo#ic E)aluation of the draftincinerator "irecti)e. European ;o##ission

295 =inal report for "E=R$ +y En)iros ;onsulting (td in association *ith ETE;! Daluation ofthe E/ternal ;osts and Benefits to Health and En)iron#ent of Waste Manage#ent <ptions,"ec 2004

285 Eshet T. $yalon <. Schecter M, $ ;ritical Re)ie* of Econo#ic E)aluation Studies ofE/ternalities fro# Incineration and landfilling, Waste #anage#ent Res. 200'C 2&!483'04

25 Miranda M(. Hale B, Waste not. *ant not. the pri)ate and social cost of energy production,Energy 1olicy. %8C 2'!'83900

9.3 :inancial ains from reducin Pollution

25 Wulf3Schna+el J. (ohse J, Econo#ic e)aluation of dust a+ate#ent techni6ues in theEuropean ;e#ent Industry, $ report produced for the European ;o##ission. May %,

9

http://library.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/npold/npold_pdf/weo2001.pdf

http://library.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/npold/npold_pdf/weo2001.pdf



&005 1ianin E, Study finds et Kain fro# 1ollution rules, Washington 1ost. Sept 28th. 200&,9.! "ther Studies of the Health Costs of Pollution

&0%5 Muir T. Pegarac M, Societal ;osts of E/posure to To/ic Su+stances! Econo#ic and health;osts of =our ;ase studies that are ;andinates for En)iron#ental ;ausation, En) Health1erspect 200%C %0 Suppl 95! '0&

&025 World Wildlife =und Report! ;o#pro#ising <ur ;hildren! ;he#ical I#pacts on ;hildren>sintelligence and Beha)iour. June 2004, ***,**f,org,uOche#icals

Section 1;. "ther Considerations of Im#ortance

1;.1 /he Problem of sh&0&5 Marus T. Behnisch 1. Hagen#aier H et al, "io/inlie co#ponents in incinerator fly ash! $

co#parison +et*een che#ical analysis data and results fro# a cell culture +ioassay, En)ironHealth 1erspect %8C %0'%25! 48'3%

1;.2 ,adioactivity&045 Beral D. Rooney ;.Maconochie et al, ;ase control study of prostatic cancer in E#ployees

of the ?nited @ingdo# $to#ic Energy$uthority, BMJ.%&C &08! %&%38

&0'5 Stoe T. <ftedal 1. 1appas $, Effects of a s#all doses of radioacti)e strontiu# on the rat +one #arro*, $cta Radiologica %9! 8!&2%3

&095 (uning @K. =rolen H. elson $, Kenetic effects of Strontiu# 0 in-ected into #ale #ice, ature %9&C %8!&043'

&085 Bus+y ;. Wings of "eath! uclear 1ollution and Hu#an Health. %'. Kreen $udit Wales5(td. $+eryst*yth

&05 Berd D et al eds,5. ;hildhood ;ancer and uclear Installations (ondon. BMJ 1u+lishingKroup %&5,

&05 Kardner MJ, ;hildhood leuae#ia around the Sellafield nuclear plant, )n 1 Elliot et al eds,5Keographical and En)iron#ental Epide#iology! Methods for S#all $rea Studies, </ford.</ford ?ni)ersity 1ress %2. pp2%3&0,

&%05 Heas#an M$. @e#p IW. ?r6uart J". Blac R, ;hildhood cancer in orthern Scotland,(ancet %9C % 48'5! 299,

&%%5 Ro#an E. Watson $. Beral D. et al, ;ase control study of leue#ia and on3Hodginly#pho#a a#ong children aged 034 ears li)ing in West Bershire and orth Ha#pshirehealth districts, BMJ %&C &09985! 9%'32%,

&%25 Morris MS. @norr RS, $dult leue#ia and pro/i#ity3+ased surrogates for e/posure to1ilgri# plant>s nuclear e#issions, $rch En)iron Health %9C '%45! 299384,

&%&5 ;lapp RW et al, (euae#ia near Massachusetts nuclear po*er plant, (ancet %8C2'8%5! %&243',

&%45 Baer 1J. Hoel "K, Meta3analysis of standardi7ed incidence and #ortality rates of childhoodleuae#ia in pro/i#ity to nuclear facilities, Eur J ;ancer ;are. 2008C%9! &''39&

1;.3 /he S#read of Pollutants&%'5 ational Research ;ouncil 20005! Waste Incineration and 1u+lic Health ISB!

03&0309&8%3V.Washington ";. ational $cade#y 1ress,&%95 Mittal $@. Dan Krieen R. Ra)indra,, Health ris assess#ent of ur+an suspended particulate

#atter *ith special reference to polycyclic aro#atic hydrocar+ons! a re)ie*, Re) En)ironHealth 200%C %9 1t &5! %93,

&%85 =inal report to the orth $#erican ;o##ission for En)iron#ental ;ooperation =lushing. ,,! ;entre for the Biology of atural syste#s. Gueens ;ollege. ;?. 20005,

&%5 Raloff =J, E)en una)ut gets plenty of dio/in, Science e*s 2000C %' ! 2&0,

1;.! Cement <ilns&%5 1ersonal ;o##unication. ;hristine Hall. E#ission3Watch. ;hester

***,e#ission3*atch,co#

80

http://www.wwwf.org.uk/chemicals

http://www.wwwf.org.uk/chemicals



Section 11. (onitorin

&205 Wang (. His H ;hang J et al, Influence of start3up on 1;""O= e#ission of incinerators,;he#osphere. 2008C 98! %&493'&&2%5 "e =re and We)ers, ?nderesti#ation of "io/in e#ission in)entories,%! <rganohalogen

;o#pounds &9!%8320&225 =arland W. (or+er M. ;le)ely ", WTI Screening le)el analysis, Washington ";! ?SEn)iron#ental 1rotection $gency <ffice of Research and "e)elop#ent. =e+ruary . %&,

&2&5 Wates J, The on3Ko)ern#ental <rgani7ation and Manage#ent of Ha7ardous Waste inIreland. %4. Earth*atch. European En)iron#ental Bureau

Section 12. ,is- ssessment

&245 $lle)a E. Broc J. Brou*er $ et al, State#ent fro# the *or session on en)iron#entalendocrine3disrupting che#icals! eural. endocrine and +eha)ioural effects, Erice. Italy!Ettore Ma-orana ;entre for Scientific ;ulture. %',

&2'5 ational Research ;ouncil R;5, To/icity Testing! Strategies to "eter#ine eeds and

1riorities %45. ational $cade#y 1ress. Washington. ",;,&295 Moore ;=, Silent Scourge! ;hildren. 1ollution and Why Scientists "isagree, </ford

?ni)ersity 1ress. 200&. </ford&285 Bostoc $, Waste Incineration and its I#pact upon Health. the En)iron#ent and

Sustaina+ility. 200'. $cro (ogic&25 Schettler T. Solo#on K. Dalenti M and Huddle $, Kenerations at Ris! Reproducti)e Health

and the En)iron#ent. %. MIT 1ress. ;a#+ridge. Massachusetts. (ondon,

Section 1%. ,ecommendations

&25 =riends of the Earth Briefing, Incinerators and "epri)ation. Jan 2004,

(This article is also available as a booklet. For a copy please contact BS!"

Documents

Incineration Report