“No matter what is burned or incinerated, there will be products of combustion and products of incomplete combustion, that will render the air in the vicinity of the plant pretty undesirable to breathe, The major product of complete combustion is of course Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and incomplete combustion is Carbon Monoxide, (CO, is a very toxic and highly poisonous gas) as well as Sulphur Dioxides, Nitrogen Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen,ect,ect, but because there is no way of knowing just what chemical compounds are going to be burned, there will be a cocktail of extremely toxic and highly poisonous gasses that will be emitted through the exhaust system, gasses like Cyanide, Arsenic,Strychnine and a whole range of chemical compounds that change their chemical appearance's once heated or mixed with other chemical compounds that are exposed to heat. The filters used are an effective block to some hydrocarbon compounds that are freely available in today's "City Air", as diesel particulates forms readily in a "City Air" environment as with PM 10s that are part of diesel emmitted exhaust gasses, The people of Derby and Nottingham are running the gauntlet of everyday life with emissions from exhausts, and now incinerator plants that will make the environment even more hostile towards the human race seems inevitable, because of the elected empty heads who just wont listen to the people who live in the vicinity of the proposed plant and who simply dont want it there, my proposal would be to fill in the Opencast pits that have ceased working, when they have extracted all the coal, just put a couple of million tons of waste in the hole then re-cover it with the surface dirt stored when first extractions were started,and as there are more and more Opencast pits being planned throughout the country (as a result of Thatchers pits closures) to bolster our depleted indigenous coal stocks for our power stations on top of the 52 million tons imported last year.”

“@Andy - I'm puzzled as to why you would still be asking for alternatives to incineration when you've been given them.

Now one for you: can you explain why so many authorities that intitiated incineration contracts are now desperately trying to get out of them, and why so many authorities have put a stop on future incinerator development?

Quite apart from the huge environmental issues, the logic of the current development is that local authorities will be competing for each other's waste in an effort to avoid swingeing penalties if they come up short. Where's the incentive to reduce waste at source? The incinerator operators are placed in a 'win / win' situation on the back of tax-payers' investment.

My personal message to the local authority is clear: "You may not use my money for that purpose". Our council chamber has agreed by blocking planning permission. Now we see an undemocratic process, paid for by the tax-payer, to further a policy advocated by national political parties both of which are in the pay of the incinerator industry.”

“Andy,
Frankly this subject is far too important to be personal about other contributors and in particular a very valued stalwart in this campaign like Peter. However a constructive dialogue is always good but not taking the first opportunity to snipe at others.
It has now gone well past the stage for public meetings as we enter a four week period of a Public Inquiry where time is allowed for the public to give their own views.
The lead does need to come from top down in stopping wasteful manufacture, the wasting of finite resources like there is no tomorrow and reducing waste. That we are all responsible there is no doubt but building incinerators anywhere are not the answer either (this is not & never has been about siting it elsewhere) but you can be damned sure that they wouldn't of dared to have proposed an incinerator in the more affluent Derby Wards oh no. Incinerators only serve to perpetuate more waste (out of sight out of mind attitude) they are not the solution. It seems pretty obvious to me that the incinerator companies rely on us to produce more waste so that it can feed the gargantuan appetite of the incinerator. Some 200 lorry trips a day travelling from the County as well! So it would appear it is not in their (incinerator companies or governments) interest to encourage meaningful directives like the reduction, reuse and recycle philosophy unless someone knows different.

We have to continue to battle this one out and I haven¿t even mentioned the toxic filth it will be spewing out.”

“Andy,
Peter Ambler is a fine soldier in our fight against this proposal.
On the subject of a viable alternative Vital Earth is already a viable alternative producing an award winning compost from the waste of Derby and Derbyshire Dales. A number of county areas dont currently recycle food waste or plastics so the waste involved isnt even fully recycled but then it still wouldnt be fully recycled because some wont recycle ! would they do so if paid to do so via something like recycle bank ?
The councils of Derby and Derbyshire will benefit financially from this incineration plant through potential ROC payments and even maybe the sale of electricity which the new government has just granted councils the benefit of doing.
Waste reduction is an important aspect but just look at what the new government are doing. They are talking about zero waste which is great but what they actually mean is zero waste to landfill ie burning the rest for energy - this simply supports the throw away society we are currently in and does not address the real issue.”

“Yet more valid points everyone, but still none that offer a VIABLE alternative to dealing with the waste we ALL contribute to. NIMBYs, NIABYs - a new one to me mind but good! - or anyone else with a care, must encourage those charged with dealing with waste to come up with something better. Reducing the watse in the first place, making recycling easier and getting central Government to take a proper role in national waste management, rather than local non-expert councillors taking ill-advised decisions, may be a good way ahead.
So I urge all to gotot he public meetings and hear all sides of the argument. Don't invite Peter Rambler, Rams Fan and co though if you want something useful to come of them other tham more hot air vented to atmosphere!”

“Let's not forget too that the best way of reducing waste is at source. So far, the government has taken a very passive role in introducing limitations on packaging, not just in supermarkets but across the board. However, the same Whitehall machine seems to have taken a rather less than passive stance on behalf of the incinerator industry, particularly when ex-cabinet ministers are drafted in to well paid positions chairing incinerator 'advisory boards'. Follow the money... this one stinks.”

“Andy,
Thanks for your comments.
I think you will find many of those fighting this proposal are not NIMBY's but infact NIABY's ie Not In Anyones Back Yard.
Those at the cutting edge of the battle to stop this proposal recognise that waste is a big issue - that is for the councils to address in the best way possible. Members of S.S.A.I.N have met with the city council to be told constant dioxin monitoring costs to much ! we have had contact with the HPA where we have found they have not done the research at local level around modern waste incineration plants to prove their claims such plants are safe and we have met with the Environment Agency and having met them we wouldnt trust them to monitor school milk (if they still have it) let alone a large waste incineration plant.
Vital Earth state that if all the organic wastes in the UK were composted potato farmers alone could use it all. This is the very waste people feel strongly should not be landfilled became of the methane threat. If this was done what would it leave? it would leave pretty inert materials which could still be safely landfilled. The UK is covered in coal mines, quarries, gravel pits, clay pits that will need in filling with something on closure. Incineration cannot be proven to be safe - there is to much that goes un monitored let alone the shambles on monitoring toxic dioxins 2-4 times per year !
Dont be fooled by claims of green energy from safe modern waste incineration plants - they used to tell us eating British Beef was safe - tell that to the families struck down with VCJD.”

“Andy, Derby, of course protesters are not experts in toxicology, they are ordinary people concerned about the damage to their health from having poisons and carcinogens discharged into the air they breathe. Nor are the councillors, council officers and incinerator contractors experts in toxicology, yet they have the power to impose this health-hazard on us.

If Derbyshire County Council (officers and councillors) were truly concerned about the residents¿ welfare, and want the truth to come out, they would bring independent toxicologists who have studied incinerator emissions to advise them and to speak and answer questions at public meetings. But they will not do this because their only concern is the commercial viability of the incinerator.

DCC has been forced by some ¿non-expert¿ residents to defer its plan to put an incinerator in Pye Bridge Industrial Estate. Although it claims to have followed correct procedure, many residents did not hear about the plan until they were informed by the AVAIN (Amber Valley Against Incinerators) campaign. Now DCC has to hear to the residents' views - whether it will listen to and protect those who it represents remains to be seen.

Of course NIMBYism comes into this. Would you be happy to have this in your backyard? I wonder how many of the councillors and council officers who are pushing this incinerator onto us, live within the most affected zone? I don¿t agree that poisoning people locally is an acceptable way to deal with waste or to impress the rest of the world.

It is unfair to blame customers for the changes in manufacturing and packaging by major companies. The problems of waste-disposal and landfill should be addressed at a more fundamental level by government; starting with the manufacture of packaging and the over-packaging of goods, especially the use of plastics which are produced from oil.

Medical experts do oppose the use of incineration as a means of waste-disposal because of the toxins emitted by incinerators. This is not just an issue requiring attention; it is a major argument against the use of incinerators.”

“The timetable for the Public inquiry as follows:
All members of the public are welcome to attend the PUBLIC INQUIRY during the whole period it is being held. Where? At the Conference Centre behind the Catalis Centre, London Road.
It is expected to last 16 days over a 4 week period as follows: Week 1 starts Tuesday 7 Sept 2010 @ 10am to 5pm and subsequently Wed 8 Sept; Thurs 9 Sept; Fri 10 Sept @ 9.30 to 5pm.

Week 2: Tues 14 @ 9.30 to 5pm at the same venue as above.

NB: Wednesday 15 & 16 September is the chance for members of the public to express their views on the incinerator to the Inspector, she wants to hear us. Where? At the Council Chamber, Derby Council House, Corporation Street, Derby starts @ 9.30 to 5pm.
And Thursday 16 September an evening session for those who cannot make the day session starts @ 6.30pm to 9pm at St Stephens Church Hall, Sinfin Lane, Derby.
Thursday 16 Sept day session resumes at the Conference Centre starts @ 9.30 to 5pm & again Friday 17 September. Followed by a week¿s break.
Week 3 resumes again at the Conference Centre on Tuesday 28 September @ 9.30 to 5pm and subsequently Wed 29 Sept; Thurs 30 Sept; Fri 1 October.
Week 4: Conference Centre Tues 5 Oct @ 9.30 to 5pm and subsequently Wed 6 Oct; Thurs 7 Oct & finally Fri 8 Oct, might finish earlier if good progress is made.”

“Oh, and what environmentally freindly option does Peter Rambler implement for the extra charge he applies when changing his very polluting 4 x 4 cars tyres?
A true supporter of the environment is the man who shods the least effiecient vehicles.”