In Ringsend, the EPA air monitor on Sean Moore Road shows 7 exceedences of the PM10 limit in March. This equates to 84 per annum when the standard is 35 - a breach of 240%.

Check the graph at http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/data/d/rs/pm/#d.en.25629

This is not news to us since we drew the attention of the Chairperson at the EPA oral hearing to the fact the every AQ measurement campaign conducted in the area since 2002 has shown the air quality limits to be breached.

To add another burden of particulates from the proposed incinerator is wrong. In fact the Chairperson recommended that the incinerator be delayed until the air quality met standards but the board of the EPA rejected this recommendation and handed the air quality issue to the relevant authority.

Surprise, surprise, the relevant authority is none other than Dublin City Council who are compromised by their vested interest in the incinerator.

The council ought not be judge and jury in their own cause (cf the judgement of McKechnie J in the Panda case and the leaked reports into the DDDA’s activities).

—
J&V

just FYI - press release from Green Party on waste policy consultation process:

http://www.greenparty.ie/news/latest_news/gormley_sets_out_roadmap_to_new_waste_policy

FYI:

The Dutch newspaper Het Parool reported 900 to 1100 deaths per year in Amsterdam from air pollution particles, mainly caused by traffic (according to the Amsterdam equivalent of DCC).

Tussen de negenhonderd en elfhonderd Amsterdammers per jaar sterven vroegtijdig door fijnstof, goeddeels veroorzaakt door luchtvervuiling door het verkeer.

The paper reported the air in Amsterdam had not become cleaner in the past 7 years (1999-2006) in contrast to the rest on the Netherlands.

De lucht in Amsterdam is de afgelopen zeven jaar niet schoner geworden, blijkt uit recent onderzoek van de dienst, terwijl dat gemiddeld over heel Nederland wel het geval is.

Deaths in Amsterdam caused by fine particles are 30% higher than the NL median. Eighteen thousand people die in NL from fine particles (people die prematurely by months to up to 10 years prematurely). The same rate for the island of Ireland would translate into 6,000 premature deaths per year (about 20 times the car crash death rate).

De sterfte in Amsterdam door fijnstof is grofweg dertig procent hoger dan het landelijk gemiddelde. In Nederland sterven per jaar achttienduizend mensen aan die oorzaak, …

Fine particle and SO2 in A’dam have not fallen any more since 1999, despite cleaner vehicles.

The city council has no explanation.

De concentraties fijnstof en stikstofdioxide dalen volgens het luchtmeetnet van de GGD al sinds 1999 niet meer - ondanks de introductie van schonere auto’s. ”We hebben hier nog geen duidelijke verklaring voor”, zegt Fred Woudenberg, onderzoeker luchtkwaliteit van de GGD.

This also surprises Ronald Albers from the imperial institute for public health and environment.

Een ‘verrassende’ uitkomst, vindt ook onderzoeker Ronald Albers van het RIVM, dat landelijk luchtmetingen verricht. ”Het verbaast mij, want je ziet in heel Nederland een dalende trend voor fijnstof in de lucht. .

The article makes no observations about the large incinerator to the west of A’dam which fired up around 1999. That’s my observation and the reason for my question. Has the Amsterdam incinerator been ruled out as a cause for the 30% higher premature death rate in Amsterdam?

For the proposed Poolbeg Incinerator DCC/EPA has no plans to measure the number of fine particles, especially the dangerous PM2.5s and PM1.0s. All they propose to do is to weigh a ‘’sample” of PM10’s particles (how, when, how often not stated). Weight is misleading for PM2.5s and PM1.0s. The science is not yet understood.

EPA Ireland does NOT regulate for health effects. The responsibility is passed to the HSE or to some other agency. DCC will not do a base-line health study recommended by Dr/Professor Staines, (DCU or UCD). Something to hide?

==============

On ‘best available technology’: a Covanta engineer at a Jan 2010 open day explained multiple

fines at multiple Covanta incinerators as happening apparently because technology is not perfect

(sort of in a hey lets be real about this manner). …

Unless already addicted by one of the 200 compounds would you willingly use a best available

technology cigarette? Would you impose the solution on a city, or even on a village?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qdRqFPGZw2o/S7Qeb6Ef4KI/AAAAAAAACs4/acPvmcWZ3kQ/s200/Viceroy-Dentist-1.jpg

++++++++
DCC paid ESRI to do an independent report. Did they start from a neutral position? The McKechnie hudgement is relevent here too. Je n’acuse pas!

>> @Galway Tent
“If you want accuse people, I suggest that you reveal your identity and report them to the appropriate authorities.”

You again put words in my mouth. Do I accuse (your word) or do I make a valid observation about a requirement for total confidence in regulators?

The observation on one of the EPA Directors is from a press release isued by a current government party, circa 2005, by the current Party Chair of that party. That is public domain information.

The CVs and Bios of the the other people are in the public domain (although its often not revealed in ‘expert’ reports and decisions). The BIO’s show jobs in EPA, and jobs in the incineration industry, as employees or as paid consultants. That is public domain information.

Are you comfortable with a fox guarding the hen house? Such a sensitive role demands there be no possible perception of bias, no matter how justified or unjustified the perception. Total confidence is required. Even a 5 year ban on transfer between the regulator and the regulated would be good. Surely that is most obvious now with the NAMA mess?

It is not my job to do your research for you. Go to http://www.rivm.nl/, search for fijnstof or vuilverbranding, and trawl through the material to discover what hypotheses have been tested and remain standing.

Alternatively, have a look at the ESRI and Eunomia reports to see what is expected to be emitted by the Poolbeg incinerator (which is 20 years younger than the Amsterdam one).

The problem with the financial regulators is they showed defference to these super stars of the banking world.

You again appear to avoid my question. I am asking a question.

Please do not re-word my question as a wild hypothesis (which is anyway a good approach to get started to a solution for known unknowns). It is a question and a valid possibility. Since when does asking an obvious question to be answered by peer-reviewed experts become transformed into a burden of proof by a non-expert questioner? It may be useful to refer to the 20th century tobacco industry stance requiring smokers to prove their health was damaged, an outrageous hypothesis at the time.

You avoided my question - what is a more likely reason? The wind blows over Amsterdam from the west; the incinerator is in the west.

Have the world class Dutch scientists definitely ruled out the incinerator as NOT contributing to the EXCESS death rate in Amsterdam since the incinerator fired up? Please provide peer reviewed references. That would be valuable. If you do not know please simply say so

>> … IPPC Licence …

Do you trust the EPA and its pieces of paper? Please refer to the chromium pollution of Cork Harbour, done on EPA’s watch.

At a Jan 2010 ‘Open Day’ the Covanta/RPS/DCC rep finally admitted after 20 minutes of trolling magnificently huge volumes thatIreland’s EPA has NOT YET decided what pollutants will be monitored. Never mind how often (every 60 seconds?). Nor how, nor how accurately, nor how credibly and at what cost.

Do you trust the EPA where the politically appointed Directors (condemned by current government party in 2005) make critical decisions such as approving the Poolbeg Incinerator just a few days after a politically influenced Bord Pleanála ruling (with ex-RPS employee on the Board), and months in advance of EPA Oral hearings? Do you trust the EPA with directors who hop between gigs in the incineration industry and in the regulator’s agency?

EPA scientists may be world class. But the EPA hierarchy and its pieces of paper do not inspire confidence. [Hint: same culture as financial regulator].

________________

You say these deaths in amsterdam is caused by air pollution and that the pollution level is higher there than in rotterdam etc. What type of air pollution has been detected?

Anyway if you don’t trust the EPA to regulate this incinerator why do you trust it to regulate the other activities that will be needed otherwise. I think the urgency is being exaggerated but we do need someone to deal with this waste

If you want to know what Dutch experts think is causing the high PM concentrations in Amsterdam, you could start at RIVM.

You may also want take a look the distribution of particulate matter and the location of incinerators in the Netherlands. That should rapidly dispel your fears.

Logic? Thanks for the kind advice. You may wish to consider that a proposed possibility is not ‘what I think’. It is a possibility to be scientifically examined.

Please do not place words in my mouth. I did not state anything was simple. Although it is interesting that some problems are only simple after they have been solved, not before, even for world class scientists.

You avoided my question - what is a more likely reason?

Have the Dutch experts definitely ruled out the incinerator as NOT contributing to the EXCESS death rate in Amsterdam since the incinerator fired up? Please provide peer reviewed references. That would be valuable.

When premature death levels have dropped across the rest of NL and across Europe a 30% higher premature death rate in Amsterdam is most odd (if my Dutch is not too much in need of rehab). What’s different in Rotterdam or in Delft?

Have Dutch scientists examined Amsterdam cadavers for the chemical signatures of PM 1.0 particulates, for instance? Or gases from Schipol mixing with pesticides from the flower business with non-understand reactions related to micro-particles or nano-particles escaping from the incinerator? Or any other possibility?

Is there any chance that budgetary effects would impact the science?

What are the top-3 or even top-10 possibilities being examined by the NL experts?

Please stick to the point, use an objective scientific mind-set and please avoid personalisations.

The particulates situation in Amsterdam is not quite understood, but no one local or in the know blames the incinerator. The reason is that incinerators are point sources: easily monitored and with a distinct fingerprint. If the reason were so simple as you think it is, the problem would have been solved a long time ago, as Dutch environmental scientists and engineers are world class.

GPS phone, not GSM phone.

[Galway Tent Says: April 1st, 2010 at 12:02 pm ]

>> @Galway Tent
“You may want to brush up your Dutch. The copied article does not refer to incineration at all.”

Exactly my point. Nobody knows the reason. So what about the big elephant in the room, the huge incinerator opened and expanded in Amsterdam/Westerpoort in the 90’s. A condition-change that appears not to apply to other cities. Incineration can not be ruled out. What is a more likely reason?

>> “The incinerator has an IPPC license, so that you and anyone can look up their emission limits.”

Is that a quote from the financial regulator’s little brother, now in the green industry?

Unregulated limits are a red herring. Do you mean ‘look it up’ as in instant Google Goggling (see below)? Or by trying to interpret deliberately obfuscated and deliberately cryptic “data”. Something Dublin City Council (DCC) would never do of course.

Which Irish institutions do you trust? And are there any you trust to robustly regulate pollution and human health?

Alternately do you trust a commercial operator with huge debts? Do you trust self-regulated reporting by a company with huge debts ($3 billion) and laughable profits ($0.1 Billion)? And a history of pollution fines.

At a Jan 2010 ‘Open Day’ the Covanta/RPS/DCC rep finally admitted after 20 minutes of trolling magnificently huge volumes that Ireland’s EPA has NOT YET decided what pollutants will be monitored. Never mind how often (every 60 seconds?). Nor how, nor how accurately, nor how credibly and at what cost.

Imagine: simply point your GSM enabled camera phone at a Convanta chimney stack and instantly get sophisticated visualisations for deadly particulates, PM 1.0, PM 2.5, furans, dioxins, toxic metals. That’s called Goggling Convanta.

Another iPhone App could keep a running total for all pollution fines paid by Covanta.

_____________
The EU’s limits for PM pollution are far less robust than California or WHO standards. EU limits seem to be controlled by the German chemicals industry. Do you trust German chemical companies?

The USA governmental site referenced by Covantas engineer for a Covanta Maryland incinerator is God’s gift to deliberate obfuscation. Though the site does report how many African Americans are employed. And Homeland Security will check you out (posing as Governer O’Malley’s office).

This large modern incinerator has not been ruled out as an explanation for the excess Amsterdam deaths.

Deaths in Amsterdam from air-pollution are thirty percent above the Dutch average. Based on the November 2006 article in the respected Het Parool national newspaper (see below), it appears 300 extra deaths occur in Amsterdam annually from the higher pollution. As Amsterdam’s population is similar in size to Dublins it’s valid to ask the responsible government department to determine whether the Poolbeg Incinerator will prematurely kill up to 300 people annually. The Environment Minister basically said he was not responsible for environmental matters. Whether his reply was accompanied by the use of two fingers, or just one, is unknown.

Can an Environment Minister not be responsible for managing the impact of environmental air pollution on people? How about even an honest effort to research the issue?

By rejecting the Dail Question from the Dublin TD in early 2007, Ireland’s Environment Minister Dick Roach passively confirmed the Poolbeg Incinerator will prematurely kill up to 300 Dubliners annually.

————————————

http://www.davdigital.com/weblog/?article=839

Amsterdammers sterven vroegtijdig door fijnstof

FREEK SCHRAVESANDE © Het Parool, 11-11-2006, 12:23 uur

AMSTERDAM - Tussen de negenhonderd en elfhonderd Amsterdammers per jaar sterven vroegtijdig door fijnstof, goeddeels veroorzaakt door luchtvervuiling door het verkeer. Tot die conclusie komt de Amsterdamse GGD na eigen onderzoek.

De lucht in Amsterdam is de afgelopen zeven jaar niet schoner geworden, blijkt uit recent onderzoek van de dienst, terwijl dat gemiddeld over heel Nederland wel het geval is.

De sterfte in Amsterdam door fijnstof is grofweg dertig procent hoger dan het landelijk gemiddelde. In Nederland sterven per jaar achttienduizend mensen aan die oorzaak, blijkt uit gegevens van het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). De slachtoffers – veelal mensen die al met ademhalingsproblemen kampten - sterven naar schatting enkele maanden tot tien jaar eerder dan wanneer zij geen fijnstof binnen zouden hebben gekregen. Deskundigen wijzen er wel op dat fijnstof in steden ‘nu eenmaal’ meer voorkomt dan elders.

De concentraties fijnstof en stikstofdioxide dalen volgens het luchtmeetnet van de GGD al sinds 1999 niet meer - ondanks de introductie van schonere auto’s. ”We hebben hier nog geen duidelijke verklaring voor”, zegt Fred Woudenberg, onderzoeker luchtkwaliteit van de GGD. ”Op de snelwegen rond Amsterdam is wel sprake van een dalende trend, maar binnen de bebouwde kom blijven de concentraties nagenoeg gelijk”.

Een ‘verrassende’ uitkomst, vindt ook onderzoeker Ronald Albers van het RIVM, dat landelijk luchtmetingen verricht. ”Het verbaast mij, want je ziet in heel Nederland een dalende trend voor fijnstof in de lucht. Ook bij onze meetstations aan straten in de Rijnmond, Eindhoven en Utrecht nemen deze concentraties af. Dat geldt eigenlijk voor heel Europa”.

The Irish Times is again publishing massaged stories dressed up as “expert”.

The spin is possibly again taken directly from the PR officer of the incinerator promoters (who apparently don’t answer the phone), an apparent Irish Times practice at the oral hearings.

Irish Times April Fools Day Headline:

Policy on waste management in crisis, says expert
The Irish Times - Thursday, April 1, 2010. TIM O’BRIEN.

The newspaper makes no critical observations on the article’s curious one-sided claims on behalf of an organisation whose expert-employee was adjudicated to have massaged the truth and to have used undue influence in a public process (Judge McKechnie on DCC’s Twomey).

For instance, Mr Rudden of RPS seems to make uncontested claims about the financial viability of incineration.
Covanta loudly proclaims the awesome effectiveness of filters on its stacks, but seems to refuse to publish a list of pollutants with quantities. The promoters refuse to produce a clear diagram, claiming its impossible. Does Covanta always blame-shift to house-persons when explosions occur as in a Covanta facility in USA in March 2010? Their engineer at the open day in Dublin in January 2010 pointed liability at residents instead of at absurd industry gaurantees of no health-damaging air pollution.

Curiously Mr Rudden’s April Fools Day article totally omits any mention of the health costs imposed on future generations from premature deaths in polluted Poolbeg. Poolbeg is already above legal limits: the incinerator itself and the 200 trucks per day will push the burden possibly past a critical tipping point.

The US EPA prices a human life at $8 million. Mr Rudden’s RPS and other ‘consultants’ have been paid €25 million to spin for incineration. It is quite likely there is a lucrative construction-phase bonus and a completion bonus on offer. After that it is well known that Covanta fully legally hires people after they retire from their old public service jobs.

What is the cost of 100 premature deaths per year for each of twenty five years? Twenty Billion? Nobody knows. Except for people paid by DCC to claim there is not any risk to health. What did the bankers say about risk?

________

Is the Irish Times revenue still controlled by the galway tent cabal? The property boom kept the paper in business, a boom the patriotic paper did not meaningfully investigate. The cost to Ireland is €80 Billion (€80,000,000,000).

We indeed use the latest projections of economic growth. Some things have turned out better than we expected, and some things are worse. There will updated projections later in the year.

@Richard.
Is the ERSI still predicting 5% GDP growth from 2012 to 2015, in light of the massive debt burden the economy took on yesterday?

I’m usually only a voyeur to the economics arguments on this website as i have no formal training at economics, but maybe i should start since my own feelings about GDP and waste growth seem to out perform the analysis of best brains in the EPA and ERSI combined

Very odd indeed

Very odd indeed, as it would require you to assume that climate policy will have no impact on consumption.

Your comment that “Waste policy has little to do with climate policy.” seems to me like a very very odd thing to say.

Waste policy has little to do with climate policy.