What data has been examined to determine no health risk from Hartlebury incinerator emissions?

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Worcestershire County Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Worcestershire County Council,

I should be grateful if you'd disclose the parameters that have been examined to determine whether or not emissions from the Hartlebury incinerator may have had an adverse impact on health.

There's a mistaken belief that incinerator emissions have a minimal adverse impact on health and yet ONS data consistently show rises in infant mortality rates (IMRs) in Councils exposed to incinerator emissions after they start operating.

Conversely, there's always a fall in IMRs in Councils, which had formerly been exposed to emissions from incinerators and other point-sources of industrial PM2.5 emissions as seen in:

Malvern Hills Council after the Swan Hanley incinerator closed in 1995.
Torfaen Council after the Pontypool incinerator closed in 2002.
Both Rhondda and Cynon Valley Councils after the Phurnacite plant in Abercwmboi closed in 1991.
Thanet Council after the Orimulsion-burning Power Station closed in 1996.
Telford & Wrekin Council after Ironbridge Power Station closed in 2015.

https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-...

The above incinerator study by SAHSU, which was mainly funded by Public Health England, adjusted data for deprivation, ethnicity and socioeconomic status before concluding that there was no link between incinerator emissions and infant mortality.

For the SAHSU rationale to hold, there'd have to have been major population shifts before and after incinerators started operating, with "the poor etc" leaving prior to the start-up to "explain" the then falling infant death rates and sudden returns after incinerators started operating to account for the rise in rates of baby deaths. These very location-specific and time-critical population shifts just didn't occur at council level, which SAHSU and other experts should have realised before submitting a flawed and misleading study for publication.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Ryan

Do not Reply - Worcestershire County Council, Worcestershire County Council

1 Attachment

Request For Information #839342

Dear Michael Ryan

Request for Information – Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 

Thank you for contacting Worcestershire County Council.  I acknowledge
receipt of your request.

Your request is being considered and we will contact you within the
statutory 20 working day timescale from the date of receipt .

Yours sincerely

Information Access Team

Corporate Information Management Unit (CIMU)
Worcestershire County Council
[Worcestershire County Council request email] 

This email address is not monitored , please do not reply

show quoted sections

 

Worcestershire County Council

4 Attachments

FOI Request Response

 
Dear Michael Ryan

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING:  I should
be grateful if you'd disclose the parameters that have been examined to
determine whether or not emissions from the Hartlebury incinerator may
have had an adverse impact on health.

There's a mistaken belief that incinerator emissions have a minimal
adverse impact on health and yet ONS data consistently show rises in
infant mortality rates (IMRs)  in Councils exposed to incinerator
emissions after they start operating.

Conversely, there's always a fall in IMRs in Councils, which had formerly
been exposed to  emissions from incinerators and other point-sources of
industrial PM2.5 emissions as seen in:

Malvern Hills Council after the Swan Hanley incinerator closed in 1995.
Torfaen Council after the Pontypool incinerator closed in 2002.
Both Rhondda and Cynon Valley Councils after the Phurnacite plant in
Abercwmboi closed in 1991.
Thanet Council after the Orimulsion-burning Power Station closed in 1996.
Telford & Wrekin Council after Ironbridge Power Station closed in 2015.

https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-...

The above incinerator study by SAHSU, which was mainly funded by Public
Health England, adjusted data for deprivation, ethnicity and socioeconomic
status before concluding that there was no link between incinerator
emissions and infant mortality.

For the SAHSU rationale to hold, there'd have to have been major
population shifts before and after incinerators started operating, with
"the poor etc" leaving prior to the start-up to "explain" the then falling
infant death rates and sudden returns after incinerators started operating
to account for the rise in rates of baby deaths. These very
location-specific and time-critical population shifts just didn't occur at
council level, which SAHSU and other experts should have realised before
submitting a flawed and misleading study for publication.

We have completed our response to this Freedom of Information Request,
please see the letter attached for further information.

Yours sincerely,
Linda Hirschhorn
 

Worcestershire County Council

This email address is not monitored , please do not reply

show quoted sections

 

Dear Worcestershire County Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Worcestershire County Council's handling of my FOI request 'What data has been examined to determine no health risk from Hartlebury incinerator emissions?'.

You have failed to name any health parameter that's been examined to determine whether or not there's been any adverse impact from emissions from the Hartlebury incinerator.

If you've not checked any relevant data, please just say so. If you have done so, please disclose what's been examined.

If you haven't checked any relevant data, you'll be in exactly the same position as the former Health Protection Agency who'd promised to check data around incinerators in August 2003, but failed to do so whilst still advising that incinerators pose no significant risk to human health.

After the SELCHP incinerator started in 1993 there were sudden post-incinerator rises in rates of infant mortality and low birthweight babies in Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Newham.

The asthma death rate [Standardised mortality ratios, 1990 to 2000: asthma (ICD9 493)] in Lewisham rose sharply after SELCHP started, according to the graph on page 51 of the June 2005 SELCHP Health Impact Assessment Report, which has the following on page 33:

"Perceptions of health and the effect of SELCHP
48. Following the review of the evidence base in the rapid HIA workshop, participants were asked about their perceptions of health in the local area and the ways in which it might be affected by the SELCHP plant. The issues which arose included:
• a perception of increasingly poor health related to
• poor air quality and heavy traffic; and
• a perception of SELCHP as a cause of pollution;
• wider concerns about environmental quality;
• a throwaway society;
• obtaining a balanced view of the evidence; and
• a lack of trust in “the authorities”.
These issues are discussed in more detail below, together with relevant findings from the survey of residents.
A perception of increasingly poor health
49. There is a perception that has been an increase in illness overall in the local area in recent years, particularly in relation to respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and asthma. However, there is uncertainty about what may have caused this, if the increase is a real one. Two factors were thought to be implicated: poor air quality due to traffic and the SELCHP plant as a creator of air pollution.
50. The survey asked about factors which people felt had an influence on their heath and Figure 17 shows the percentage of those saying that the various factors affected their health a lot.
51. For over a third of the respondents SELCHP is seen as having an influence on health, with almost 60% of respondents saying that they felt that the incinerator affected their personal health to some extent. It should be noted, however, that range of other issues also scored highly and that the numbers involved in the survey were small so that there are doubts about how representative their views are."

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Michael Ryan

Freedom of Information, Worcestershire County Council

Our ref: 839342

Dear Mr Ryan,

I have passed your complaint onto our Consumer Relations Unit for internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy

Jeremy Hanley-Keeley
Information Access Officer

Information Access Team
Corporate Information Management Unit
Worcestershire County Council
County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP
Tel: 01905 84 5571
Email: [Worcestershire County Council request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Ryan