| Planning Application |
Download the planning application here. (Very big - 150MB zipped file)
Click here for info on how to object.
Page 15 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Section 8.1.3 - Page 40 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 48 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 49 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 50 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 52 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 53 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
After all that, the report somehow manages to conclude that.....
Page 54 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
How can the writer draw this conclusion when it would only account for inhaled fumes and not consumed food which came from contaminated land etc etc
8.4.12 Levels of workplace exposure to incinerator emissions are several orders of
magnitude greater than the highest levels of exposure that might arise in local
communities. Any associated risk to health in local communities would therefore be
several orders of magnitude smaller than for plant workers.
Page 54 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 57 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Regarding the comment below - does anyone want to hazard a guess at the pollution record for the companies proposing operating this incinerator ?
Page 65 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Note below that arsenic is released from this plant. Osvaldo explicitly said that there would be no arsenic released. Note also that the plant will release these chemicals right at the limit of what is allowed !
Page 77 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 87/88 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 99 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 101 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 156 of 160 in the Health Impact/Health Risk Document
Page 11 of 25
Graham Bolton, speaking in Gilgood Lodge, specifically said there would be no plume
Page 14 of 25
Page 14 of 25
Page 16 of 25
Page 22 of 25
Page 25 of 25
Page 101 of 148
In table 2 of this document, we see a big list of all the
46 sites and they are rated on 6 different criteria. You would expect that
Glenavy must be fairly close to the top of this list, seeing as how we
'won'. There are in fact 26 sites which rate better than us as possible
targets and 5 which rank along side us ! So we are between 27th and 32nd
in a list of 46.