Asesores de Energy Answers defienden su propuesta de una incineradora de basura en Arecibo

Unas simples preguntas con sus simples respuestas para comenzar a exponer las verdaeras razones de peso y reales sobre las que mienten los proponentes del MEGA TOXICO INCINERADOR EN ARECIBO:

Why Are We Against Incineration?

Public Health Hazards

Burning anything from wood to coal releases particles that enter the air we breathe. While most of the particles found in natural materials are harmless, there are serious health risks associated with burning solid waste. Dioxins, known to cause cancer, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be released over huge areas, posing moderate health risks for anyone within a 50-mile radius of a waste incinerator and serious health risks for anyone closer. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, incinerators are the leading source of dioxin into the global environment. Although there have been considerable improvements in the capture and containment of these materials, the fact remains that we’d be burning our trash at the expense of our health. The groundwater and the air will be affected, and so would cows and other animals in our local farms. Our food and milk could become contaminated with the cancer-causing dioxins, which get stored in the animals’ fat.

Why Are We Against Incineration?

It Wastes Energy

The amount of energy produced by so-called WTE incinerator is considerably less than the amount saved by recycling. See the chart from Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology, published by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Also see below:

Paper …

Manufacturing a ton of news paper from trees takes 11,699 kilowatt hours (kwh)1. If that ton of paper is burned, it can produce 1,875 kwh2 of electricity to sell. That’s a loss of 9,824 kwh. Incinerating paper wastes 9,824 kwh per ton! If that ton of paper is recycled, a new ton of paper can be made using only 6,442 kwh. That’s a savings of 5,257 kwh.

Plastics

Even plastics such as PET (soda bottles) that have a high heat content as fuel (10,250 btu/pound) produce only 2,403 kwh per ton when burned yet require 9,619 kwh/ton to make. That’s another loss of 7,216 kwh/ton. Incinerating sodbottles wastes 7,216 kwh per ton! If that ton of plastic is recycled, a new ton of plastic can be made using only 1,222 kwh. That’s a savings of 8,397 kwh.

Aluminum

It takes 62,512 kwh of power to manufacture a ton of aluminum. Most incinerators do not attempt to recover aluminum from the ash. Beverage cans and other thin aluminum with high surface-to-volume ratios are oxidized to ash. All of the energy invested in making the aluminum is wasted. Incinerating aluminum cans wastes 62,512 kwh per ton! If that ton of aluminum is recycled, a new ton can be made using only 4,865 kwh. That’s a savings of 57,647 kwh.

Food Scraps

To work efficiently a “WTE” incinerator must have fuel with an average heat content of 5000 to 5500 btu/pound. Food scraps have a heat content of only 2600 btu/pound. They actually dilute the fuel of an incinerator. Food scraps are another resource wasted by incineration! Food scraps, which make up 13% of our waste, can be composted to make a valuable soil amendment, replacing fertilizers made from fossil fuels.All the manufactured products that are used as fuel for an incinerator take a lot of energy to make. If they are recycled instead of burned, they save much, much more energy than is produced by an incinerator. Burning usable resources to make a meager amount of electricity is like burning your furniture to heat your house

El RESUMEN DEL MAS RECIENTE ESTUDIO DE LA SOCIEDAD BRITANICA DE MEDICINA AMBIENTAL LEE Y CITO:

The Health Effects ofWaste Incinerators4th Report of the British Society forEcological Medicine

Second EditionJune 2008

Moderators: Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor AnthonyPreface to Second Edition

Since the publication of this report, important new data hasbeen published strengthening the evidence that fine particulatepollution plays an important role in both cardiovascular andcerebrovascular mortality (see section 3.1) and demonstrating thatthe danger is greater than previously realised. More data has alsobeen released on the dangers to health of ultrafine particulatesand about the risks of other pollutants released from incinerators(see section 3.4). With each publication the hazards of incinerationare becoming more obvious and more difficult to ignore.In the light of this data and the discussion provoked by ourreport, we have extended several sections. In particular, thesection on alternative waste technologies (section 8) has beenextensively revised and enlarged, as has that on the costs of1incineration (section 9), the problems of ash (9.4), radioactivity(section 9.5), and the sections on monitoring (section 11), and riskassessment (section 12).We also highlight recent research which has demonstratedthe very high releases of dioxin that arise during start-up and shutdownof incinerators (section 11). This is especially worrying asmost assumptions about the safety of modern incinerators arebased only on emissions which occur during standard operatingconditions. Of equal concern is the likelihood that thesedangerously high emissions will not be detected by presentmonitoring systems for dioxins.2Foreword to the 1st Editionfrom Professor C. V. Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.The authors are to be congratulated on producing this report. The reader willsoon understand that to come to a comprehensive understanding of thehealth problems associated with incineration it is essential to becomeacquainted with a large number of different disciplines ranging from aerosolphysics to endocrine disruption to long range transport of pollutants. In mostmedical schools, to this day, virtually nothing is routinely taught to equip themedical graduate to approach these problems. This has to change. We needthe medical profession to be educated to health consequences associatedwith current environmental degredation.There are no certainties in pinning specific health effects on incineration: thereport makes that clear. However this is largely because of the complexity ofexposure of the human race to many influences. The fact that ‘proof’ of causeand effect are hard to come by is the main defence used by those who preferthe status quo. However the weight of evidence, collected within this report, issufficient in the authors’ opinion to call for the phasing out of incineration as away of dealing with our waste. I agree with that.There is also the question of sustainability. Waste destroyed in an incineratorwill be replaced. That involves new raw materials, manufacture, transport,packaging etc etc. In contrast, reduction, reuse and recycling represent a winwinstrategy. It has been shown in a number of different cities that high levelsof diversion of waste (>60%) can be achieved relatively quickly. When thathappens, there is not very much left to burn, but a number of the products leftwill be problematic, for example PVC. Incineration, an end of pipe approach,sends the message ‘No problem, we have a solution for disposal of yourproduct, carry on business as usual’. What should happen is a ‘front endsolution’. Society should be able to say ‘Your product is unsustainable and ahealth hazard ─ stop making it”.Incineration destroys accountability and this encourages industries to go onmaking products that lead to problematic toxic wastes. Once the waste hasbeen reduced to ash who can say who made what? The past 150 years hasseen a progressive ‘toxification’ of the waste stream with heavy metals,radionuclides and synthetic halogenated organic molecules. It is time to startreversing that trend. We won’t achieve that while we continue to incineratewaste.Vyvyan Howard December 2005Professor of Bioimaging, Centre for Molecular Biosciences,University of Ulster, Cromore Road, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry BT52 1SA35Executive Summary· Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and alsobirth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistentwith the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiologicalstudies support this interpretation and suggest that the range of illnessesproduced by incinerators may be much wider.· Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metalsand of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens,mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentifiedcompounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the casewith dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is thechemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential foradverse health effects.· Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in theimmediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutantsbioaccumulate, enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over timeand over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have beenmade to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.· Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash which amount to 30-50% by volumeof the original waste (if compacted), and require transportation to landfillsites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxicload, notably that of dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to thefly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size.It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.· Two large cohort studies in America have shown that fine (PM2.5) particulateair pollution causes increases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortalityand mortality from lung cancer, after adjustment for other factors. A morerecent, well-designed study of morbidity and mortality in postmenopausalwomen has confirmed this, showing a 76% increase in cardiovascular and83% increase in cerebrovascular mortality in women exposed to higher levelsof fine particulates. These fine particulates are primarily produced bycombustion processes and are emitted in large quantities by incinerators.· Higher levels of fine particulates have been associated with an increasedprevalence of asthma and COPD.· Fine particulates formed in incinerators in the presence of toxic metals andorganic toxins (including those known to be carcinogens), adsorb thesepollutants and carry them into the blood stream and into the cells of the body.· Toxic metals accumulate in the body and have been implicated in a range ofemotional and behavioural problems in children including autism, dyslexia,attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning difficulties, anddelinquency, and in problems in adults including violence, dementia,depression and Parkinson’s disease. Increased rates of autism and learningdisabilities have been noted to occur around sites that release mercury into theenvironment. Toxic metals are universally present in incinerator emissions andpresent in high concentrations in the fly ash.· Susceptibility to chemical pollutants varies, depending on genetic andacquired factors, with the maximum impact being on the foetus. Acute6exposure can lead to sensitisation of some individuals, leaving them with lifelonglow dose chemical sensitivity.· Few chemical combinations have been tested for toxicity, even thoughsynergistic effects have been demonstrated in the majority of cases when thistesting has been done. This synergy could greatly increase the toxicity of thepollutants emitted, but this danger has not been assessed.· Both cancer and asthma have increased relentlessly along withindustrialisation, and cancer rates have been shown to correlate geographicallywith both toxic waste treatment facilities and the presence of chemicalindustries, pointing to an urgent need to reduce our exposure.· In the UK, some incinerators burn radioactive material producing radioactiveparticulates. Inhalation allows entry into the body of this radioactive materialwhich can subsequently emit alpha or beta radiation. These types of radiationhave low danger outside the body but are highly destructive within. No studieshave been done to assess the danger to health of these radioactive emissions.· Some chemical pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) andheavy metals are known to cause genetic changes. This represents not only arisk to present generations but to future generations.· Monitoring of incinerators has been unsatisfactory in the lack of rigor, theinfrequency of monitoring, the small number of compounds measured, thelevels deemed acceptable, and the absence of biological monitoring. Approvalof new installations has depended on modelling data, supposed to be scientificmeasures of safety, even though the method used has no more than a 30%accuracy of predicting pollutants levels correctly and ignores the importantproblems of secondary particulates and chemical interactions.· It has been claimed that modern abatement procedures render the emissionsfrom incinerators safe, but this is impossible to establish and would apply onlyto emissions generated under standard operating conditions. Of much moreconcern are non-standard operating conditions including start-up and shutdownwhen large volumes of pollutants are released within a short period oftime. Two of the most hazardous emissions – fine particulates and heavymetals – are relatively resistant to removal.· The safety of new incinerator installations cannot be established in advanceand, although rigorous independent health monitoring might give rise tosuspicions of adverse effects on the foetus and infant within a few years, thistype of monitoring has not been put in place, and in the short term would notreach statistical significance for individual installations. Other effects, such asadult cancers, could be delayed for at least ten to twenty years. It wouldtherefore be appropriate to apply the precautionary principle here.· There are now alternative methods of dealing with waste which would avoidthe main health hazards of incineration, would produce more energy andwould be far cheaper in real terms, if the health costs were taken into account.· Incinerators presently contravene basic human rights as stated by the UnitedNations Commission on Human Rights, in particular the Right to Life underthe European Human Rights Convention, but also the Stockholm Conventionand the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. The foetus, infant and childare most at risk from incinerator emissions: their rights are therefore beingignored and violated, which is not in keeping with the concept of a just7society. Nor is the present policy of locating incinerators in deprived areaswhere their health effects will be maximal: this needs urgent review.· Reviewing the literature for the second edition has confirmed our earlierconclusions. Recent research, including that relating to fine and ultrafineparticulates, the costs of incineration, together with research investigating nonstandardemissions from incinerators, has demonstrated that the hazards ofincineration are greater than previously realised. The accumulated evidence onthe health risks of incinerators is simply too strong to ignore and their usecannot be justified now that better, cheaper and far less hazardous methods ofwaste disposal have become available. We therefore conclude that no moreincinerators should be approved.

.

La EPA conoce del grave problema que se sufre con las enfermedades respiratotias en Arecibo y PR. A esos efectos la Admiinistradore de EPA expuso la alarmante situacion. Le transcribimos el mensajito…

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the League of United Latin American Citizens National Convention and Exposition, As Prepared

07/15/2009

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of your 80th annual meeting. I’m here at LULAC, along with my colleague Nancy Sutley from the White House Council on Environmental Quality for one simple purpose: to extend a hand in partnership.As part of that partnership, we want to have a few long-overdue conversations, and get moving forward together on critical environmental issues. We’re doing that for a number of reasons, but let me just mention two. The first is that we know there is untapped energy in the Latino community for action to protect our health and preserve our environment. Last year, the Pew Center on Hispanics asked Latinos across America about the top agenda items for the Obama administration. More than 90 percent said that the environment was a priority, and more than 85 percent named energy policy. According to a separate survey by The Sierra Club, more than 80 percent of Hispanic voters believe that environmental issues impact their quality of life. They’re right – and that’s why I’m here. More than 75 percent believe that global warming is a real threat to our country. They’re right – and that’s why I’m here. 8 in 10 Latinos believe our nation’s energy supply and costs have a substantial impact on the environment and a majority believe in the potential for millions of jobs through a clean energy economy. They too are right – and that’s why I’m here.Finally more than 70 percent of Latinos surveyed said they would be willing to take political action on the environment. If that’s right, then I’m definitely glad I’m here.We saw a great example of this recently with the work that people have done – here and all over the country – to nominate El Yunque National Forest to the New 7 Wonders of the Natural World contest. That effort has moved El Yunque into the second round of 77 and is giving is giving it a great chance to be one of the final seven. And I wish you all luck in that. It’s a telling example of the potential to engage with these issues and shape this debate.A second reason we’re here is that we see all around us an extraordinary need for Latino voices to be heard.Let me share with you a few more numbers:Nearly nine in ten farm workers nationwide are Hispanic. They suffer a much higher exposure to dangerous pesticides and other chemicals. Among minority communities, Latino children have the highest rates of leukemia in the nation. Nearly 30 million Latinos – 72 percent of the US Latino population – live in places that don’t meet US air pollution standards. Nearly 29 million live in areas that don’t meet standards for ozone.That in many ways explains the struggles with asthma that face Latinos in America – something that the people here in Puerto Rico are all too familiar with. Puerto Rican’s have the highest asthma rates of any group in the US – 125 percent higher than non-Hispanic whites and 80 percent higher than African Americans. They face an asthma death rate that is 360 percent higher than non-Hispanic whites.These are the tragic consequences of being on the margins of this conversation. We see it in those broader trends, and we see it in examples like Vieques Island, where we need the continued involvement of the community.To channel the concerns and the needs of Latino communities into empowered action, we need to expand the idea of environmentalism. The inauguration of the first African American president, and my subsequent confirmation as the first African American Administrator of this Agency, has forever changed the face of environmentalism in this country. It sends a clear signal that environmentalism does not come in any one shape, any one size, or any one look. Or from any one region.We’re trying to make sure that the EPA and the environmental movement in general represents the full spectrum of voices and concerns from across the country.I often think back to when I finished graduate school. There was only one place for people who were talented, smart, and passionate about protecting the environment – and that was the EPA. We must return to that. I want to make sure we are building the best, the brightest, and the most diverse EPA ever. Our work is not just about protecting remote wilderness or saving the polar ice caps. As important as those things are, environmentalism must also be about protecting people in the places where they live, work, and raise families. It’s about making our urban and suburban neighborhoods safe and clean, about protecting children in their schools, and workers at their jobs. We have to meet people where they are, and talk to them about environmental issues in language that they understand and that they can respond to. In this case, we take that literally. EPA continues to make more and more of its materials available in translation. Our news releases, fact sheets, environmental health information and more are now published in Spanish. We even have a Twitter feed in Spanish.We also have an initiative call the Beyond Translation, which seeks meaningful dialogue with community leaders, small business owners, representatives from faith-based organizations and academia. We want to not only provide information, but help these communities use that information for action. Forums have been held in Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC. The bottom line is that we have to go to every community and impress upon them that the issues of environmental protection are their issues, that their work is our work, and that their struggles are our struggles. So we have a number of programs in place to do just that.To name some that are happening here in Puerto Rico, EPA is working with the University of Puerto Rico and the University of Turabo to train nearly 500 asthma instructors. They’ve now reached 10,000 asthma patients and conducted over 250 in-home visits. And I’m happy to report that between 2006 and 2007 the Puerto Rico Department of Health reported a significant decrease in lifetime asthma. Parents have reported a 50% increase in symptom-free days. As the mother of a son with asthma, I can tell you how much that means to those families.One hundred and sixty schools on the island have implemented EPA’s Indoor Air Quality “Tools for Schools.” Those schools have seen a 50% reduction in absences and a 50% increase in symptom-free days.Working with the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, the Department of Transportation, and other local officials, EPA has helped form the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Puerto Rico Committee to develop clean diesel projects. Not only does that clean the air, it also helps promote energy innovations and new jobs for local communities. On the national scale, EPA has been working on an environmental program with its Mexican counterpart SEMARNAT for over 17 years. We have taken concrete steps to produce environmental results benefiting more than 7 million residents along the southern border – including the 1.5 million who live without potable water and sanitation services, in colonias along US-Mexico border. Our National Center for Environmental Research has a variety of grant programs to encourage promising students in environmental fields. Since 2000, the Greater Research Opportunities Undergraduate Fellowship Program has awarded $3.5 million in fellowships to Hispanic students, helping them move into scientific careers.We are also, of course, working through the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and LULAC, which has provided a platform for us to improve our Hispanic outreach and education. I want to recognize Tex Gomez, who is here with us today. Tex spearheaded the work on this MOU, and has been an integral part of its success. Thank you, Tex. I’m proud to say that, building on the work of Tex and so many others, EPA and LULAC have extended our agreement through December 31, 2012. These are a start. But in this moment of exceptional challenge, there is much more to be done.We have a long list of urgent environmental issues to confront in the years ahead. For that, we need new advocates striving to protect the health of their communities. We have to bring forward new leaders to save our planet. And we need this community to play a role in the debate our nation is having right now. We want to ensure that Latinos are securing the green jobs of the clean energy future. We want to ensure that they are being heard when they call for cleaner land, air, and water, and the protections they need to safeguard the health of their children. As the leaders of the Latino community, I’m challenging you to carry the banner with us. There are powerful voices calling for change in our immigration policy, our health care system, and our economy. Help us raise those voices to call for change in our nation’s environmental and energy future.Help us broaden the idea of environmentalism to welcome and engage Latinos. Use the influence you have to shed light on the devastating health and environmental threats in your communities. Make that part of the mainstream discussion we’re having on environmental action. And help ensure that the EPA better reflects the communities we serve. Put us up front at those career fairs, and remind the people you know that EPA is eager to have their perspective and experience as part of our efforts. This is an important moment: EPA is once again guided by an ambitious vision of public health protection and environmental preservation. And Latinos in America are increasingly concerned about these issues. We need your help to connect the dots. I am here on behalf of President Obama to say that – on this and so many other issues – we’re asking for your partnership, and counting on your leadership. I look forward to working with you.