Incinerator decision delayed (From Bucks Free Press)

SAVI-STOP Aylesbury Vale Incineration are delighted by the news that BCC have delayed, yet again, the decision to choose their preferred bidder for the building of a mass burn incineration plant in either North Buckinghamshire or Bedfordshire. We believe that this delay has been brought about as the campaign against the proposals in rural North Bucks has gathered huge momentum during the last few weeks. SAVI now number among its active supporters Lord Rothschild, Lord Verney, The Earl of Buckinghamshire and John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons and constituency MP for Buckingham. One of the issues that the group are so concerned about is that the proposal is to site a mass burn incinerator in the rural agricultural heartland of North Bucks close to a number of important environmental & wildlife sites, immediately adjacent to a grade II listed part thatched farmhouse known as Lower Greatmoor Farm, Edgcott, not at all on the Calvert landfill site as suggested. A series of four public information meetings held by the group have hosted a variety of expert speakers who have shared important information about the health and environmental concerns connected with mass burn incineration. The subject of the massively increased transport travelling from all around the county bringing waste into the site has revealed the strategy as flawed, the increased traffic would negate any suggested benefits that might be derived in the form of enegy harvesting. SAVI intend to continue the battle to persuade BCC that this strategy is flawed and there are other and better ways of dealing with the problem which we must all own of what on earth do we do with our waste? For more information about the group and to understand our campaign and the scientific research which underpins the campaign please go to our website, www.besavi.co.uk.

Will Councillor Tett kindly name the incinerators around which the rates of illness and of premature deaths at all ages have been examined at electoral ward level?

If no such studies have been carried out, how can he declare that there's a "negligible health risk"?

I suggest that Bucks residents check out infant mortality initiative by Dawn Shanin Saginaw County, Michigan, where the infant death rates have been mapped out at census tract level, ie equivalent to electoral ward level in UK.

Saginaw County infant mortality rate above state average
by Jill Armentrout | The Saginaw News
Monday April 27, 2009, 11:09 AM

Twenty-six babies died before their first birthdays in Saginaw County in 2007, equating to an infant mortality rate here that continues to surpass the state average.

The county's rate of infant deaths was 10.5 per 1,000 births, compared to a statewide rate of 8 deaths per 1,000 births. The national Healthy People 2010 goal is 4.5 deaths per 1,000 births.

"Infant deaths are a barometer for the health of the entire community," said Dawn Shanafelt, community health section supervisor for the Saginaw County Health Department. "If we can't protect our babies, we have a huge problem."

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

This is my letter printed in Western Mail, 17 Jun 2009:

The Western Mail: Incinerators linked to neonatal deaths
Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) - Wednesday, June 17, 2009
SIR - When I read about the mapping of infant death rates in Saginaw, Michigan, I wondered why no such initiative had been carried out here in the UK.

When I looked at the infant mortality rates in London's 625 electoral wards for 2002-07, I saw that 11 of the 16 wards which had very high infant death rates, ranging from 11.0 to 13.9 per 1,000 live births, were either wholly or partially within two miles of an incinerator .

Fourteen of London's electoral wards had zero infant deaths recorded in the same six-year period and none of these "zero infant death wards" were within two miles of any incinerator .

Dawn Shanafelt, of Saginaw County Health Department, summed everything up in the Saginaw News for April 27: " Infant deaths are a barometer for the health of the entire community." Shanafelt, a community health section supervisor, continued: "If we can't protect our babies, we have a huge problem." Our baby girl would have been 24 years old next month. If the above research had been carried out 30 years ago she might have been alive today instead of dying at 14 weeks.

MICHAEL RYAN Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury

the longer it takes the more it will cost us but still BCC it's only our money