Chester Chronicle letters

Oct 15 2004

THINKING I should glance through the Police Authority's recent freebie booklet Your Policing before tidying it away, I then found a smaller document tucked inside, with the back facing outward, showing an address label to Cheshire Household Waste Management Strategy.

Oh dear, another boring survey, it seems. However, I turned it over, only to be shocked by the glaring headlines The Need for an Energy from Waste Facility and Important Public Consultation. Have Your Say.

Not many people know this, but 'Energy from Waste Facility' usually means 'incinerator'. In fact, this booklet (available at www.cheshire.gov.uk/waste) argues throughout that the only practical way to deal with our rubbish is to use some form of incineration. All of the five options you are supposed to choose from involve some type of incineration.

I moved to Chester five years ago, hoping to find a more rational, civilised society, with less pollution and better policies on waste disposal etc, and so far the track record has been good. The recycling facilities are immeasurably better than where I moved from and there is far less chemical pollution.

Where I previously lived, I was tired of campaigning against ever more incinerators, while seeing the many hundreds of scientific studies which show the harm that pollution from incinerators can cause, especially to the unborn child.

Even the cleanest, most modern incinerators have been proved to still emit an amount of dioxins and other products of incomplete combustion (PICs).

Dioxins and similar compounds affect the many ways in which hormones regulate development in the womb and early childhood, with effects which can last throughout the child's life.

These effects can range from an increased likelihood of respiratory problems or allergies, to reduced IQ, less efficient kidneys, reproductive problems or a higher probability of contracting cancer.'

This is quite apart from the major issue of the unsustainable use of resources if waste is incinerated or landfilled. Incineration does not reduce the bulk of municipal waste as much is assumed. At least 30% by weight remains as ash, which needs disposal anyway.

Cheshire's booklet says 'most of the residue from 'energy from waste' facilities can be put to good use'. However, they don't tell you that the proposed good uses include incorporating the bottom ash into house bricks or using it in road building.

Nor that the energy produced by the incinerators is far less than the energy saved by using recycled goods instead of producing new goods from often scarce raw materials.

There is a sixth option - a Zero Waste policy, but they don't even mention it. The concept of Zero Waste may sound impractical, but many local authorities worldwide, including some in the UK, are starting to adopt Zero Waste policies, and Cheshire should do the same.

Strong emphasis should be focused on waste minimisation, followed by reuse, rather than concentrating wholly on the debate over how to dispose of waste.

California, Toronto, Canberra, and half of New Zealand have already adopted a Zero Waste policy. An Internet search reveals many sources of further information, such as http://www.zerowaste.org/, the website of the US zero-waste alliance.

In summary, do reply to the consultation, but do not be suckered into selecting the least bad option from those presented in this extremely flawed consultation booklet, or you will find you have unwittingly agreed to incineration in one form or another.

Cheshire County Council is also holding various public meetings, including one in Chester Town Hall at 6.30pm on October 25.

If you would like more information on the science of hormone disruption, please ring 0151 794 5957 weekdays from 10am-5pm.
VIV MOUNTFORD, Chester.

FOLLOWING the generous coverage I received with my letter about Chester Station, I have received a letter pointing out that I have been unfair to Virgin Trains and that the services to London from Chester, Flint and Llandudno have improved and that with any new technology there will be teething troubles.

The writer told me I should complain about the 'disgraceful external state of our historic station built by the famous civil engineer, Thomas Brassey, in1858' to John Armitt (CEO) Network Rail, and complaints about information screens, etc, should be made to the franchisee boss Peter Strachan (CEO) Arriva Trains Wales.

The state of the station is symptomatic of what is wrong with Labour's transport policy. They are throwing £4 billion annually at the railways but do not consider the plight of passengers arriving or waiting for trains at stations.

It is possibly because Government ministers are so used to being met by at least two Jags at their destination.

The taking of huge swathes of countryside for the M6 Toll Road is the same - it may help get one from A to B a bit quicker but it isn't much use if one lands up in a traffic jam and then there is nowhere to park.

In Chester we have little and expensive parking largely driven by the council and Government policies. The bus arrangements are the same, long distance buses arrive by St John's Church where there are no proper lavatories and waiting facilities and the passengers have a long walk in all weathers to the cover of the Rows.

The proposed bus station in the Northgate Development has been shoe-horned into the design and will probably be noisy with reversing horns sounding and exhaust fumes filling an enclosed environment.

Transport policy is controlled by Labour in Chester. The Liberal Democrats, although the largest party on the city council, rely on Labour for their power.
PETER MOORE DUTTON, Tushingham Hall, Malpas.