"Nema Europskog zakona koji bi spaljivanje otpada odobrio kao način za poboljšanje financijskih pokazatelja kod bilo koje spalionice ili suspalionice jer je poznato da taj postupak ima izravan i štetan utjecaj na zdravlje građana i okoliša."
Npr: u opširnoj studiji o zdravstvenim učincima spalionica otpada The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators u prvoj točki sumativnog zaključka stoji:
• Šire studije su pokazale više stope kancerogenih oboljenja kod odraslih i kod djece kao i više stope porođajnih deformacija u blizini spalionica komunalnog otpada. Rezultati konzistentno ukazuju na uzročno-posljedičnu vezu [ovih oboljenja i spalionica].
Brojne druge, manje epidemiološke studije dalje podržavaju ovu interpretaciju i sugeriraju da je opseg bolesti uzrokovan spalionicama i puno širi.
Da bi bilo koga zagađivači uvjerili u suprotno, nisu dovoljni članci u SD, posjete V.Britaniji, dijeljenje letaka, kao ni ispiranje mozga nesuvislim usporedbama tvorničkih dimnjaka sa kulinarskim specijalitetima (?!?!?!)…”
Doc. dr. sc. Zdeslav Hrepić
 

Zamjensko gorivo, alternativno gorivo, obnovljivo goriva, RDF, energetska oporaba, termička oporaba, gorivi dio otpada (GIO), zelena energija ... za, navodno, očuvanje radnih mjesta, klime, održivog razvoja, fosilnih goriva...,
a riječ je o SPALJIVANJU SMEĆA i OTPADA iz regionalnih centara za "gospodarenje" otpadom u cementarama!

DOKUMENTI CEMENTNE INDUSTRIJE PREŠUĆUJU DA SE CEMENT NE MOŽE PROIZVODITI NA ODRŽIV NAČIN


PROIZVODI KAO ODLAGALIŠTE ŠTETNIH TVARI


 

Tisuće lječnika angažira se u borbi protiv su/spaljivanja smeća.
U nastavku pismo koje su lječnici slali Europskoj komisiji kao prigovor prijedlogu zakona o otpadu Europske unije kojim bi se odobrilo su/spaljivanje smeća. (Sto je nažalost napravljeno.)

To su prilozi i podrška našem zalaganju protiv su/spaljivanju u Hrvatskoj, Kaštelima, Koromačnom, Našicama...

Appeal from the health and healthcare sector
against the reclassification of incineration in the WFD

11 June 2008

In view of the upcoming vote on the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) we, the undersigned physicians and Associations, would like to ask the plenary of the European Parliament to take into account health considerations when voting in the WFD and therefore oppose the reclassification of “efficient incineration” as recovery.

We are concerned the efficiency formula which reclassifies incineration only takes into account energy efficiency considerations and not health or environmental repercussions. The current proposal upgrades incineration, which we believe is the wrong signal to send to the European citizens.

More waste burnt means more man-made toxics in the ecosystems, more fine particles in the air and more bottom ash and fly ash in the ground.
We regret that we are going to see the amount of waste being incinerated increasing in the next years which would put even more fellow Europeans under risk.

Moreover, we are sadly surprised that the rapporteur of the Waste Framework Directive, Ms Caroline Jackson, claims that the health effects from incinerators are negligible.
(1) Several recent studies of wide samples of population continue to reveal the threat that incinerators pose to human health in Europe and around the world.
(2) Ultrafine particles emissions are still not monitored anywhere in Europe, even though the danger these particles pose is well documented.(3)(4)

We are also concerned about the image that the EU is giving to the rest of the world by being a resource-burning economy. We believe the current Waste Framework Directive falls short in ensuring that the waste will be properly separated and making sure the best waste management option will be applied.
Progressive recycling targets are needed to redirect waste away from incinerators into cleaner processes.

We therefore ask the European Parliament to reconsider its decision regarding the reclassification of incineration and stick to its first reading position, which we believe will do far more to preserve children’s health and the health of future European generations. We, the undersigned organisations, represent over 33,000 doctors.

Signed,

ISDE International Society of Doctors for the Environment, representing 30,000 doctors worldwide
President Professor C. Vyvyan Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.
Bioimaging Research Group - Centre for Molecular Bioscience University of Ulster - Cromore Road - Coleraine BT52 1SA

Italian physicians and healthcare associations
Dr. J.Andreas von Lutterotti - Ordine dei Medici della Provincia di Bolzano, Italy
Dott. Giuseppe Miserotti - Presidente Ordine dei Medici Piacenza
Dott. Giovanni Ghirgha Pediatra - Portavoce per il Lazio del Coordinamento Nazionale dei Medici per l’Ambiente e la Salute
Dott. Patrizia Gentilini Oncologo Portavoce per l’ Emilia Romagna del Coordinamento Nazionale dei Medici per l’ Ambiente e la Salute
Dott.ssa Gabriella Filippazzo Igenista Direttivo Nazionale Arcidonna Italia
Dott.ssa Laura Ridolfi Oncologo Forlě
Dott Valerio Gennaro Epidemiologo Genova
Dott. Giovanni Vantaggi GP Gubbio
Dott. Giuseppina Abbate Psichiatra Palermo
Dott. Celestino Panizza Medico del Lavoro Brescia
Dott. Michelangiolo Bolognini Igenista Pistoia
Dott Ruggero Ridolfi MD Oncologist, Endocrinologist - Medicina Democratica FB-Franco BORGHI Intn'l Trading & Consulting
Paolo Paolucci - Direttore Dipartimento Integrato Materno Infantile, Scuola di Specializzazione in Pediatria, U.O. di Ematologia, Oncologia e Trapianto di CSE. Azienda
Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Policlinico di Modena, Italy Prof Federico Valerio, Environmental Chemistry Lab. National Institute for Cancer Research, Genoa
Dott..sa Francesca Cigala Psichiatra Ferrara Medicina Democratica o.n.l.u.s
Dott Michelangiolo Bolognini - Medico Igenista - Piatoia
Mr Jerzy Ziaja – Chairman National Recycling Business Council (OIGR)

ARTAC - Association for Research and Treatments Against Cancer, France
Professor D. Belpomme MD. Oncologist, PhD. Paris.

Collectif des médecins de Clermont Ferrand - Coordination Nationale Médicale Santé Environnement (CNMSE), France - representing 3,000 doctors
Docteur Jean-Michel Calut

Association Santé Environnement Provence (ASEP), France – representing 400 doctors
Docteur Pierre Souvet



Haller Ärztinnen und Ärzte sprechen sich gegen eine Müllverbrennungsanlage

Lječnici u Njemačkoj protiv spalionice smeća


Müllverbrennung erhöht Krebsrisiko"Krebserkrankungen deutlich über Durchschnitt"

Das Krebsrisiko für Menschen, die in der Nähe von Müllverbrennungsanlagen leben, deutlich höher als für andere Personengruppen. Dies ergab eine Studie der französischen Universität Besancon, teilte die unabhängige Umweltgruppe CNIID (Centre national d'information independante sur les dechets) am Mittwoch in Paris mit.Untersucht worden ist das Krebsrisiko in der Umgebung der Müllverbrennungsanlage der ostfranzösischen Stadt Besancon. Werde das durchschnittliche Risiko einer Krebserkrankung mit dem Wert eins beziffert, steige dieser Risikofaktor im Umkreis der Anlage auf 1,44. Die Studie folgert aus den Werten, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Krebserkrankungen in der Nähe der anderen 250 französischen Müllverbrennungsanlagen ähnlich hoch ist. "Einige von ihnen weisen noch einen weitaus höheren Dioxin-Ausstoß auf als die Anlage von Besancon", hieß es in der Untersuchung. Dort stießen die Experten auf 75 bekannt gewordene Krebserkrankungen, was im Hinblick auf die Bevölkerungszahl "deutlich über dem Durchschnitt" liege


"Mi vjerujemo u struku i primjere iz europske prakse. CEMEX će kao i do sada ulagati u
zaštitu zdravlja i okoliša i unaprjđ ivati postupak proizvodnje klinkera
."
Branko Mozara, CEMEX, direktor odnosa s javnošću


Europska praksa:

Studija Umweltbundesamta pokazuje da se suspaljivanje otpada u cementare ispušta više štetnih tvari
nego pri spaljivanju u konvencionalnim spalionicama smeća.

umweltbundesamt.at


Dr Paul Connett talks Environmental Crime in Rugby


CEMEX Neighbors Find Mercury in their Dust

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Justice Department announced today that Cemex, Inc., one of the largest producers of Portland cement in the United States, has agreed to pay a $1.4 million penalty for Clean Air Act violations at its cement plant in Fairborn, Ohio
/www.futurismnow.com


Cementara u Trbovlju


 Alternatives, good examples

As envisaged by the Ronchi Law Decree of 1997, we should first of all: recycle, re-use, compost and reduce waste, and only incinerate what is left. There are 12 incinerators in Lombardy out of a total of 42 all over Italy. They are more than is needed, if we used existing viable and cost-effective alternatives.
In the USA, Canada and Australia the Zero Waste Option (changing production methods and reducing waste at source) is creating jobs and improving people’s quality of life.


What we have done

Collected and disseminated information (web site, leaflets, conferences)
A Petition against the Waste Plan and incineration of all waste in Merone (on-going)
Letters to and meetings with local political, health and environmental authorities.

What we have achieved
Brought waste incineration in Merone to the attention of the local press /local authorities 10.000 signatures against Province Waste Plan and incineration of all waste in Merone
Statements, Resolutions, Decisions approved by local authorities in opposition to the Plan
A modification to the Waste Plan – reference to environmental and health controls (not what we wanted, yet a first result).

Our goals (short term)
Prevent incineration of municipal and toxic waste in Merone’s cement kiln
Stop incineration of all waste (including industrial, non toxic waste) in Merone’s cement plant.
Promote waste sorting and collection of waste for recycling and composting

Our goals (long term)
Help prevent the creation of new incinerators or the expansion of existing ones in Lombardy and anywhere else
in Italy and Europe.
Promote waste prevention and clean production
Educate and inform, in order to bring about changes in people’s consumer patterns.

Actions and projects
Collection of health and environmental data
Awareness campaign towards both the public and the authorities
Monitoring environmental quality
Networking at a national and European level.



Municipal waste incineration
A poor solution for the twenty first century
Paul Connett's speech on incineration and waste reduction

Dr. Paul Connett is a full and tenured professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, where he has taught for 15 years. He obtained his undergraduate degree in natural sciences from Cambridge University and his Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College in the US. For the past 14 years he has researched waste management issues with a special emphasis on the dangers posed by incineration and the safer and more sustainable non-burn alternatives.
He has attended numerous international symposia on dioxin, and with his colleague Tom Webster has presented six papers at these symposia which have been subsequently published in Chemosphere. He has given over 1500 public presentations on these issues in 48 states in the US and 40 other countries. With his wife Ellen he edits the newsletter Waste Not, which is in its twelfth year of publication. With Roger Bailey, Professor of Fine Arts at St. Lawrence University, he has produced over 40 videotapes on waste management, dioxin and other environmental issues.

Executive Summary
Far from it being the universally proven technology claimed by its promoters, the incineration of municipal trash with energy recovery has been an experiment which after 20 years has left the citizens of industrialised countries with a legacy of unacceptably high levels of dioxins and related compounds in their food, their tissues, their babies and in wild life. The author argues that as the industry has struggled to make incineration safe, they have, like the nuclear power industry before them, priced themselves out of the market. Moreover, as they have sought air pollution control devices to capture the extremely toxic by-products of combustion, the resulting residues have become more problematic and costly to handle, dispose and contain. There are still remaining concerns about the safety of incinerators, especially as they are built in developing economies, which do not have the resources to build, operate or monitor them properly.
However, even if these concerns are overcome, as we move into the twenty first century, the role of trash incineration, with or without energy recovery, will become less and less viable, both economically and environmentally. Our future task will be dominated by a need to find sustainable ways of living on the planet. Those who have been preoccupied with making incineration safe have lavished their engineering ingenuity on the wrong question. Society's task is not to perfect the destruction of our waste, but to find ways to avoid making it. The argument that burning waste can be used to recover energy makes for good sales promotion, but the reality is that if saving energy is the goal, then more energy can be saved by society as a whole by reusing and recycling objects and materials than can be recovered by burning them. Municipal waste is a low-tech problem. It is made by mixing. It is unmade by separation.
Both problem and solution are at our fingertips, not on the drawing boards of Swiss or Swedish engineers. In the longer term, after the citizen has played his or her part by supporting source separation, reuse, recycling, composting and toxic removal, industry has to pay more attention to the way objects and materials are made and used. How an object is going to be reused or recycled has to be built into the initial design decisions

To recognise that it is overconsumption that is giving us both global warming and a waste disposal crisis, is to recognise that trash is the most concrete connection each individual has to the global crisis. More effort has to be put into resisting the largely post-war American philosophy that "the more one consumes the happier one becomes'", before it makes the planet uninhabitable. A way has to be found to tame the voracious appetites of the multinational corporations which plunder the world for short-term profit. This cannot be done until we as individuals find a way to resist the skilful advertising that traps us within a whole web of false needs. The antidote to overconsumption is community building. The fierce local arguments that ensue over the siting of both landfills and incinerators can be used to force these issues onto the political agenda.
Incineration might make sense if we had another planet to go to, but without that sci-fi escape, it must be resisted in favour of more down-to-earth solutions that we can live with, both within our local communities and on the planet as a whole. Both incineration and raw waste landfilling attempt to bury the evidence of an unacceptable throwaway lifestyle. Every incinerator built delays this fundamental discussion by at least 20 years.

VIŠE...


_ dioxinated babies, part 1
_ Interviste del blog beppegrillo.it: Paul Connett
_ Zero Rifiuti o Inceneritori: pensare con la tasta o con ...
_ Paul Connett e la strategia Zero Rifiuti: progetto possibile
_ Paul Connett a Mesero: la diosinna passa nel feto
_ Campaign Against the New Kiln
_ greenpeace_Report_Muellplattform.pdf
_ müllverbrennung und gesundheit
_ GAIA, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives/Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
_ Tomislav Mihotić: "80% to je iluzija..."
_ Federico Valerio: GLI INCENERITORI SONO UNA BUFALA
_ Effects of Cement Plant Pollution on the Santa Clara Valley
_ Cementare postaju spalionice smeća
_ Brilliant victory for passionate people working togethe






poruka  iz beča:
PROTIV SPALONICE IZBJEGAVANJEM STVARANJA SMEĆA

-
prekoračenja graničnih vrijednosti skoro svaki drugi dan -


EMISSION WATCH
A truly independant monitoring service that is currently watching particulate levels in the areas surrounding the Padeswood Hazardous Waste Co-Incinerator Browse the graphs and note, especially, the huge spikes seen, generally in the early hours and especially in Central Penyfordd and Spon Green: areas, historically, most affected by this plant.
Early Christmas Morning 2005 (around 5am) is particularly interesting!!

It's official - incineration is a violation of our human rights

CEMFUEL IS 'HAZARDOUS WASTE'
The purpose of this site is to provide an easy-to-access resource for some of the huge amounts of information that exists on a subject that may affect almost everyone living within miles of a cement kiln burning hazardous waste. Feel free to browse these pages and extensive links and build your own picture of how this kiln in North Wales, or a similar kiln near you,
could affect the your health and that of your family.

'The fundamental problem with cement kiln hazardous waste
incineration is that it has the effect of putting 100% of the toxic metals found in hazardous waste into the environment, either as clinker, cement kiln dust or air pollution.
Mercury control is particularly poor at cement kilns.'

Alex J. Sagady & Associates, US Environmental specialists

C.A.N.K. PO Box 3040, CHESTER, CH4 OWH


Links to many other web sites dealing with all aspects of this issue

spalionica - nedopustiva neodgovornost


Spalionice komunalnog otpada spadaju među brojne katastrofalne (i vrlo skupe) zablude čovječanstva. Poput uporabe azbesta, PCB-a te drugih štetnih tvari. Dobro je poznato da smrt kao posljedicu zabluda o azbestu samo u EU čeka 350000 ljudi. Koliko tisuća u Hrvatskoj, nije još nitko izračunao. Manje je poznato da je borba za zabranu azbesta trajala sto dvadeset godina, gotovo koliko i (donedavna legalna) uporaba. Spalionice otpada predstavljale bi tešku civilizacijsku zaostalost čak i kada ne bi bilo tragično štetnih zdravstvenih posljedica koje uzrokuju. Pozivati se na to da spalionica ima priličan broj i u civiliziranim zemljama jednako je glupo, promašeno i necivilizirano kao i tvrdnja da je u nas sve necivilizirano. Kao što je nepismeno i glupo ne vidjeti da korist od spalionica mogu imati samo određeni interesni lobiji koji ih prodaju - i nitko više. Ostalima ostaju samo troškovi i štete.

Kao što nijedna spalionica nije rješenje, (ponajmanje ekološko), problema otpada i smeća, tako to ne može biti niti zagrebačka, planirana za godišnje "spaljivanje" 430000 tona smeća, u Resniku, uz domove Resničana, ni šest kilometara od središta Zagreba.
Prvo, matematika, kemija i fizika neumoljive su: u "peć" ide 430000 tona smeća, iz "peći" izlazi najmanje trostruko više, efektivno i do milijun i po tona daleko štetnijeg, kemijskoga otpada (zapravo "smeća"). To je takvo "rješenje". Gotovo milijardu i pol prostornih metara dima iz spalionice, onečišćenog uz ostalo i dioksinima, najgorim otrovima stvorenim ljudskom rukom, ali i živom, talijem, kadmijem, arsenom, kromom i stotinama drugih otrova - očito jest kemijsko smeće. Nije to kraj: iz spalionice izlazi i 150000 tona otrovne šljake (onečišćene uz ostalo dioksinima i teškim metalima) i do dvadeset tisuća tona filtarskog pepela/ostataka iz filtara - dioksinskog superkoncentrata (i do pedeset tisuća više dioksina nego u nekim kemikalijama koje sadrže dioksine). Desetljeća koja dolaze: četiri i pol milijuna tona neuništivih, teško zatrovanih ostataka zagrebački "piromani" kane istresti u plodna, čista polja vrbovečke Dubrave, na užas tamošnjih seljaka. "Rješenje", nema sumnje.

Drugo, zagrebačka bi spalionica bila ujedno i velika spalionica kemijskog/opasnog otpada.Svi zdravstveno-ekološki rizici tada se neizbježno i strahovito povećavaju. "Piromani" nikad takve namjere nisu opovrgnuli, a više je nego izvjesno da im je to "najružičastiji" san. Koliko su takvi snovi povezani s novcem - tona kemijskog otpada spaljuje se za tisuću i pol ili više eura, možda će morati biti neka buduća, vrlo poticajna tema.

Treće, spalionica smeća (svaka) neprestano truje ljude i okoliš. Iz dimnjaka spalionice neprestano izlaze otrovi Ne postoji i nikada neće postojati pogon koji ne bi ispuštao, neprestano, otrovni dim. Ne postoji, niti će ikada postojati pogon koji bi stalno radio u deklariranom režimu - a i tada izlaze otrovi. Posebni problem pritom predstavljaju submikronske otrovne čestice (nosači otrova) kojih u prostornom metru dima može biti i znatno više od milijarde. Kada uđu u pluća, te čestice uglavnom više ne iziđu van. Opasno je i kada nema vjetra (bliži okoliš) i kada vjetar raznosi dim (i bliži i dalji okoliš), što uključuje i taloženje na tlu i poljodjelskim kulturama i livadama za ispašu (onečišćenje mlijeka). Ne postoji niti će ikad postojati spalionica smeća, koja neće imati zastoje pa i havarije (lani je u Trstu jedna sudski zbog toga zapečaćena, a u takvom slučaju još osam sati im je ostavljeno do isključenja!), iza koje neće ostati trećina vrlo otrovnih krutih ostataka.

Četvrto, ekološki, spalionica u Zagrebu značila bi također uništiti stotine tisuća tona vrijednih sirovina (papir, biognojivo, plastika etc.). To je neodgovorno, štetočinski i nedopustivo. Investicija od 4 milijarde kuna (kamate!), pogonski troškovi 4,5 milijardi, (150 000 000 kuna godišnje !) dobit nikakva. Ekološko rješenje zasnovano na odvojenom prikupljanju i recikliranju (uz primjereni sustav) bilo i do šest puta jeftinije, neškodljivo, donijelo bi mnoge koristi (ušteda deponijskog prostora, najmanje 600 kuna po toni, a mnogo više obzirom na činjenicu da Hrvatska još nema odlagalište opasnog otpada), sekundarne sirovine, mnogo više radnih mjesta). A time nisu iscrpljeni svi protivni razlozi.


Stanko Uršić, travanj 2008.

ODVOJENIM PRIKUPLJANJEM
SMANJUJEMO KOLIČINU OTPADA NA ODLAGALIŠTIMA, ŠTEDIMO SIROVINE,
VODU I ENERGIJU.
2003.........


"primjer ulaganja i poslovanja na načelima održivog razvoja"
snimke održivog krajobraznog razvoja na južim padinama Kozjaka
1990. god. 5500 zaposlenih,
2008. god. 700


HOME