Help us SAVE LIVES and stop this environmental disaster from happening.

Please DONATE to the legal challenge. Donate Button 1

The South London Incinerator is being built on protected land in the corner of a country park. It will burn rubbish 24 hours a day, every day for the next 25 years.

It will destroy the quality of life for those living close by and will pollute the air for the rest of us.

This incinerator will kill people.  It must be stopped.

Find out all you need to know about the South London Incinerator, why burning rubbish is dangerous, the alternatives to incineration and much more on our FAQ page.

See what it will mean for the local wildlife and what you can do to help.

Keep up with the latest news on the campaign by joining our facebook group and following us on twitter.    facebook icon twitter icon

Click on the poster below to find out what comes out of the incinerator and what happens when these emissions breach ‘safe’ limits.dirty truth final



  • http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=193 Dr. S. Prokop

    The problem understanding the VERY WIDE RANGING effects of air pollution (lorries and chimneys) comes from lack of understanding and publicity about the recent explosion in knowledge of the immune system. One of the outstanding features is the issue of “memory” within it,another is the direct effect on nuclear DNA (via the AHR receptor),affecting cell proliferation,differentiation and protein synthesis.


  • regine

    The incinerator will cause serious health issues which we shouldn’t risk. Future generations and the planet are depending on us. Some things are worth fighting
    for. This is one of those things. Let’s get the word out – door to door, house to house,
    street by street.

  • Louise Holmes

    what a disgusting thing to build in the middle of a dense urban environment. If it’s not that damaging how about building it in a little corner of Green Park or near Hyde Park Corner – they won’t notice a thing!!!

  • Liz

    If campaigners in North London can succeed in convincing the North London Waste Authority to scrap their plans for an incinerator/ waste disposal facility in Pinkham Way, Bounds Green, then surely we have a case for scrapping the plans for an incinerator in South London?
    Jeff Lever, who represented members of the Pinkham Way Alliance commented ”
    “I have never known plans which are backed by seven north London boroughs to be stopped by a residents’ group so I think it’s quite a dramatic achievement.”
    It would seem our campaign has fallen on deaf ears and the health of the local community is considered a small price to pay for the profits of Viridor and their supporters.
    It is interesting that their Liberal Democrat MP supported their campaign and said
    “They should have been looking at ways to reduce wastage – not thinking of building huge incinerators in unsuitable places.”
    It was not so long ago that the residence of Putney came together to fight the plans to locate the proposed outlet for the super-sewer there and won their case.
    I so appreciate all the hard work our campaigners are putting in.

  • philip watkins

    Ask for the health and environment impact reports from the Cardiff incinerator
    it shows this small incinerator will give off almost 1 ton of vaporized Lead and 2 hundred weight of Mercury every year !! . They also state that there will be extra Dioxin in the breast milk of nursing mothers living in the polluted area near the incinerator. What goes up must come down 300 tons per year get burnt 100 tons come back as toxic waste that cant go to ordinary landfill, the other 200 tones per year come out of the stack and poison you, sleep well P.S. google search the effects of lead in petrol ,( but then you wont be able to sleep )

  • Stop The Burn

    Find out what happens if the South London Incinerator exceeds carbon emission targets.

  • Stop The Burn

    Environmental vandalism – read what BBC presenter & wildlife expert David Lindo thinks of the South London Incinerator: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=254

    For a satirical look at the this subject see the latest rant from Dog with a bone: http://youtu.be/2OdkSCjYel0

  • Stop The Burn

    See our festive protest video, thanks to a little help from Santa Claus: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=258

  • Stop The Burn

    Air pollution kills – the EU have recognised this so why haven’t our local councils? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25431608 The latest information from Sutton Council is that the final plans will be submitted at the end of January. We will then only have 6 weeks to submit our legal case to the judge. This will cost us about £10,000. Stop people dying for profit and donate to our legal fundraiser.

  • Stop The Burn

    Thank you very much for all your donations so far. We have managed to
    raise enough money to proceed to the claim before proceedings. The next
    step is to get to permission stage, where our case will be sent to the
    High Court and Sutton Council. Every pound helps us reach are next


  • Stop The Burn

    Local wildlife expert explains why Beddington Farmlands needs saving.

  • Gwen Martin

    The Country Park connecting Mitcham Common with Beddington Park was promised around the year 2000. It was on the London evening tv news and everyone was excited about it. It was promised to be finished by 2010. For this reason I stayed living in Mitcham, taking regular walks to see the progression. I went to an open day by Land Rover where it was all explained what it would be like when finished. Nothing has been said about halting this project, it is as if had never been mentioned in the first place and now we will have an incinerator that nobody wants. Where is the tv publicity now about the country park that we never had? I do not want to live in this area if this goes ahead. It just goes to show that promises can change when it is down to money. There is obviously a great financial gain if this incinerator goes ahead, opposed to the gain of the quality of life for people living in and around this area.

  • Stop The Burn

    Exciting news! The first of what we hope to be a number of celebrity endorsements was confirmed this week. JB from the pop band JLS added his backing to our campaign. Coming from Croydon he was keen to help and wishes us luck. More news on this will follow soon.

  • Stop The Burn

    Writer and comedian Mark Steel has called our campaign “well thought out and informed” and is happy to offer his backing to Stop the South London Incinerator. Catch him at the Fairfield Halls on the 12th February in his latest stand up which includes commentary on the local area he’s performing in – you never know he might even manage to find something funny to say about the incinerator!

  • Stop The Burn

    Listen to Clr Hoare lie his way through a radio interview and hear the lies given to Croydon Council about what comes out of the incinerator: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?page_id=212

  • Stop The Burn

    Who is the mystery yarn bomber? Can you work it out from the clues in their cross stitch?

  • smogbad

    Why have they been keen to shut down the air monitor that used to measure air pollution just outside the proposed incinerator entrance (the old Beddington north air station).
    During the recent particulate pollution peaks the monitor outside the SELCHP incinerator peaked at VERY HIGH…more recently this is what happened at ERITH (black 10):
    The rubbish of Hammersmith to Westminster is burned here after river transport.How Green is that ! ?

  • Stop The Burn

    Mark Butcher adds his name to our campaign: “When I heard about the incinerator I couldn’t quite believe what I was hearing. It seems every week news reports indicate that London’s air quality is appalling”. For the full story go to our news page: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=408

  • Stop The Burn
  • Stop The Burn

    This weekend we’ve been helping Shasha finalise the letter before claim which sets out the legal challenge to Sutton Council. We’ll keep you posted as soon as this is submitted.

  • Stop The Burn

    You know the big deal Sutton and Viridor made
    about closing the landfill site early? Well, having just read the new
    section 106 agreements, it appears that Viridor can go back on this if
    they don’t get ‘sufficient’ waste from the SLWP. Not only does this
    prevent waste reduction it also shows their promise to close the
    landfill site by 2017 was yet another piece of spin. Why am I not

  • Stop The Burn

    See the details of the legal challenge to the incinerator by local resident, Shasha Khan: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?page_id=212

  • smogbad

    There are very many things I could say,but a picture paints a thousand
    words.This is to scale,and the elevations are OS.When an inversion layer occurs
    the area under the dotted line would become very polluted.The council’s “expert”
    called this “relatively flat” and used the wind patterns from Gatwick airport,
    ‘nuf said.

  • Stop The Burn

    Hi everyone,

    The legal challenge has been in the news a lot lately. Most recently the Evening Standard carried a story about it: http://tinyurl.com/o9mv4yy

    Stop the Incinerator was supposed to be on a breakfast TV show this week along with Sutton Council, but the item was cancelled at the last minute because Sutton pulled out.

    They claimed they couldn’t talk about the incinerator due to legal reasons but I wonder if it’s more to do with the excessive pollution that is choking us all this week: http://tinyurl.com/klfugj3

  • another opinion

    I have been looking at the figures and the incinerator could be the only way to deal with the problem. if nothing is done then over the next 20 years we will have a 5.5 million ton mountain of waste that we have to send away by lorries and bury in a landfill site
    If people are worried about air quality Nitrogen oxide particulates and nitrogen dioxide from diesel engines are very dangerous to health at high levels kill. the Incinerator will reduce the amount of Lorry traffic.
    Landfill puts pollutants into the water and releases methane. Having an energy reuse facility incinerator is a responsible choice. The plant will generate electricity for 30,000 homes and heating for 6000 homes.
    this is power would have come from burning fossil fuels anyway, In a modern incinerator every part of the process is controlled and dangerous substances removed.

  • another opinion

    i think this is not a very useful site as it only gives one side of the argument

    • Stop The Burn

      I’m sorry that you feel we only give one side. We think burning rubbish is wrong because it increases air pollution. If you have seen the news recently, air pollution is something we need to improve, not make worse. Have a look at our FAQ page to see the what the alternatives to burning rubbish are.

  • Stop The Burn

    The great thing about burning our rubbish is that it doesn’t even bring about an end to landfill. You have failed to mention what happens to all the ash that comes out and needs to be landfilled.

    There are more than two ways to deal with our rubbish. We are not saying that our rubbish should be landfilled rather than burned. Landfill or
    incineration are not the only two choices available. Both are bad for the
    environment and so we argue that the best way forward is to focus on waste
    reduction, re-use and recycling, that way there is no need for either
    landfill or incineration.

    The idea that the waste incinerator will heat any homes is a complete myth. Viridor, the company building the incinerator, have admitted that it will be several years before heating even becomes a possibility let alone a reality.

    With regards to lorry movements, there will be 666 of them a day and they will be coming and going from all over the country. So the idea that the incinerator will in some way reduce traffic is also untrue.

    85,000 tonnes of ash comes out of the incinerator and has to be driven elsewhere, 10,000 tonnes of this is hazardous waste and has to be buried in a specialist landfill site 100s of kms away.

    • another opinion

      The population in the UK IS increasing and there will be more and more waste. The reasons why countries like Holland and Denmark use incinerators is that it causes the least environmental damage of all practical solutions. The South of England is becoming one of the most densly populated areas in Europe you cannot stop people generating rubbish. the idea that there would be 666 lorry movements per day is completely untrue. the plant will process 5300 tonnes of waste per week. assume a 5 day week thats 1060 tonnes per day. if there were 666 lorry movements per day each lorry would only carry 1.6 tonnes the capacity of a large van. the 6000 homes in Hackbridge will be heated by the plant.
      if you dont believe the population is increasing look at the UK census 2011

      • Stop The Burn

        I’m sorry to say it, but you are dangerously misinformed. All of the information on this website comes from verifiable facts.

        Incineration does NOT cause the least environmental damage of all solutions. What about Anaerobic Digestion and In Vessel Composting – both of these treat rubbish in a safer way and still produce energy.

        Just because Europe have incinerators doesn’t mean we should too. There is an over capacity of waste incinerators and we don’t need any more: http://tinyurl.com/ocdcybj

        I believe you that the population is increasing, but that doesn’t automatically mean the amount of rubbish we produce will also increase. 90% of all rubbish can be recycled or re-used so it doesn’t have to get burned or buried.

        The incinerator is capacity is much larger than is needed which means rubbish will have to be imported from all over the country from day one.

        You claim that 666 lorry movements per day is untrue. However this comes from official
        council sources. You can hear them confirm the figures on this recording taken from Croydon Council’s Strategic Planning Committee: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pe554at

        NO HOMES WILL BE HEATED – this is a fact. The Combined heat and power report submitted as part of the planning documents state in relation to heat that the “delivery
        of future phases is uncertain”. Look at Viridor’s web site and the best they can offer in relation to heat is: “We are currently exploring opportunities for exporting heat from the plant to nearby developments.”

        If they were able to provide heat why isn’t this happening from day one?

        If you care to point me towards where you are getting your information I will be happy to study it in more detail.

        • another opinion

          The 666 Lorry movements are an impossible daily figure . If the plant runs 5 days a week it processes 1056 tonnes per day. if the average load is 15 tonnes which is less than 40% of the capacity of a 40 ton lorry that would be 70 lorries a day . The fact is the large Ferinox industrial estate in Hackbridge is being demolished right now. 6000 homes will be built the incinerator starts in 2017, the houses will be heated by the waste heat

  • another opinion

    the only way that the amount of rubbish to reduce is for the population to shrink dramatically. many people are selfish and do not care about pollution or their carbon footprint. The carbon foot print of 1 quarter pounder with cheese is 2.5 KG of CO2. if you drive to pick it up its greater. You should ask people to alter their lifestyle if you are concerned about air quality. The damage done by people flying to holiday destinations in terms of greenhouse gases is horrendous.In a perfect world where every body cared about the environment there would be no need for incinerators. Unfortunately people want their takeaways their presents from Amazon, the furniture
    from Ikea. the incinerator at least will generate electricity that can be used to power trams and trains and buses.

    • Stop The Burn

      You are right that people need to change their lifestyle but that is a whole other issue and we can’t try to solve all the worlds problems in one campaign! Our campaign is focused on an incinerator that we know will increase pollution and so stopping it will make a difference. And by the way It will produce 300,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, not to mention all the particulates and other dioxins.

      • another opinion

        The plant will not produce 300,000 tonnes of CO2 the real figure is .275,000* 0.85 =233,750 tonnes of CO2
        the electricity the plant generates would have to be generated by say gas goal from the grid. which would create
        90,000 tonnes of CO2 so the net CO2 without the saving in energy for the 6000 homes is 233750-90000=143,750 tonnes of CO2. . Then the CO2 saved by not having 6000 gas boilers in 6000 homes say 40,000 tonnes of CO2 Saved . which leaves 103,000 tonnes of CO2. which is equivalent to £10 million spent on budget flights

        • Stop The Burn

          This makes no sense! For a start the incinerator will be burning 302,000 tonnes of rubbish a year and not 275,000. No heat will be provided by the incinerator for at least the first several years of operation (most likely never) which means the 6000 homes you keep talking about will have to have their own boilers.
          Because the incinerator will not be providing any heat it will be less efficient and more polluting than a traditional fossil fueled power station.
          Once again I ask for the source of our figures, becaue they are quite simply wrong.

          • another opinion

            my figures come from The Consulting engineers Fichtners who carried out the study on the plants performance . this is in the public domain. I also carried out calculations based on CO2 emissions from Municipal solid waste.

          • Stop The Burn

            If you have read the documents you will see that their performance figures are based on heat as well as electricity being used. The fact that heat will NOT be used, means the figures are completely wrong.

          • another opinion

            I have discounted the heat and only used the figures for electrical power, the community heating can be factored in when it is used

          • Stop The Burn

            though incinerators stand up well against coal-fired power stations in terms of their
            emissions, they certainly aren’t climate friendly. The Eunomia report
            ‘A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste?’ found that incinerators that
            only generate electricity emit 510 grammes (g) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)
            for every kWh of electricity, which is
            better than coal-fired power stations (835gCO2e/kWh), but worse than gas-fired
            stations (383gCO2e/kWh) and doubtless dismal compared to other ‘renewable’

            more, in line with current practice, the figure for incineration omits
            biogenic carbon, in theory because biomass absorbs as much CO2 in its
            life as it emits in its destruction. AsFriends of the Earth’s Senior
            Campaigner on Resource Use Dr Michael Warhurst points out, though, this
            approach is problematic because “the atmosphere doesn’t know the
            difference between biogenic and non-biogenic carbon”. As we move into a
            world where carbon becomes the new currency, where, as Jones notes,
            “you’ll want to have the lowest exposure to carbon tradable permits or
            carbon taxation”, incineration’s carbon
            footprint will be a further black mark against it.”

          • another opinion

            i have taken a worse figure than yours for CO2 emission per KWH of electricity generated by MSW I have used 850 grammes.. The real issue here is can this electricity be used wisely to reduce CO2 and NOx. the Croydon Tramlink uses 9KWHrs per 100 people per Kilometre . If the tramlink can be extended and powered by the ERF
            then the benefits to the community will be considerable. the electricity is a precious asset and tens of thousands of car journeys with their pollution can be removed. The tramlink is around 400% more efficient in moving passengers with less energy than a standard London Bus.

          • Stop The Burn

            Yes but! Energy can be generated from safer forms of waste treatment than burning it. What about anaerobic digestion and in vessel composting? Why haven’t we been given these as an option?
            The same amount of energy could be produced by about 6 off shore wind turbines.
            Viridor charge 4 times the amount per tonne for burning it than they do through AD or IVC.
            The incinerator is a treatment of the disease rather than a cure and until we address the problem head on and stop letting the waste industry dictate what we should do we will never solve the issue.

    • Broad Greener

      The 666 lorry movements is stated in the documentation submitted with the planning application. If you can’t/won’t accept that basic figure I have to question all of your other comments.

      Have you seen what Southwark council are doing with their waste (http://www.veoliaenvironmentalservices.co.uk/Southwark/Integrated-Waste-Management-Facility/)? Have you seen what the Scottish government have made Viridor do in Glasgow (http://www.viridor.co.uk/news-blogs/show/viridor-signs-glasgow-residual-waste-contract)? Another solution might be to build 4 small pyrolysis plants, one in each borough, to deal with the waste. This would produce fewer emissions, be more flexible, as one or more plants could be mothballed should recycling rates improve in the future, reduce lorry journeys across the boroughs and prevent the concentration of pollution in one small area of the Wandle valley.

      Even if the incinerator were perceived to be the best or only solution, only a fool would place it downwind of one of the most densely populated areas of the whole country (as you make reference to yourself).

      Your comment about this site being one sided truly beggars belief! Did you not notice the name of the website? The four borough councils and Viridor have spent £100,000’s promoting this development, much of it public money. We have fought a campaign on no budget, with just the generosity of ordinary people whose time and effort have been given freely and willingly. We have friends and families whose lives will be literally put at risk by this development if it is allowed to go ahead. You are entitled to your opinions and we will argue them with you, but you are wrong – so wrong – in your beliefs and comments.

      • another opinion

        Please listen to your recording it clearly states 666 vehicle movements. I have lived in Beddington
        for 35 years i go up and down Beddington lane Several times a week. At present with Landfill there are 700 Plus Vehicle movements a day. NOT LORRY MOVEMENTS. the incinerator will employ 40 staff if they all drive to work and back that is 80 vehicle movements a day alone. The point is if people told the truth and got the facts straight there could be an objective discussion.
        The carbon footprint of Ikea in Purley way is going to be close to that of the ERF. People are quite happy to drive there eat Swedish Meatballs and buy furniture shipped from China and around the world. Can you imagine the waste that is created by just that one store. We live under the flightpaths of Gatwick airport and Heathrow and people will on leisure flights create environmental havoc on aircraft high in the sky without any concern.. They become concerned when a lifestyle based on consumption and waste has to be accounted for. Why should the waste we generate be transported miles away to pollute other people land and water courses ? If you overeat at meal times you would not go next door and use your neighbours toilet ?

        We created the problem now we have do deal with the 5.5 million tonnes of waste we are going to generate locally over the next 20 years. hopefully If we use the electricity wisely for transport and the heat energy . we can reach a point where it becomes carbon neutral,
        the whole point of an ERF is to dispose of the waste in a controlled and environmentally safe way. People are dying because of uncontrolled emissions from Vehicle engines the ERF will reduce these,

        • Stop The Burn

          I’m not sure why you keep going on about people driving to Ikea and taking flights!? Our campaign is nothing to do with that. Just because we pollute the planet in other ways doesn’t mean we should just carry on doing so.
          You don’t seem to understand that the waste will NOT be dealt with locally. There is not enough local waste to go in so it will be imported from elsewhere. The ash that comes out the other end has to be driven elsewhere. 10,000 of hazardous ash will be driven 100s of kms elsewhere and buried. The emissions that come out the chimney will travel for many miles.
          This incinerator is going to create pollution that is spread far and wide, so it certainly isn’t a local issue being dealt with locally.
          Do you care to address this fact?

  • smogbad

    My other web name is Alphaemitter…..that being the uncounted and under reported poison fallout from Hiroshima,Nagasaki,Bikini and Fukushima.If they ever burn radioactive waste at Beddington someone had better be adopting the old,tried and tested X-Ray film method of detection.If they do it they won’t tell you the results, for sure!

    Here is a clear film about how researchers have done it, and what they found, in Japan.

    Fairewinds is no scaremongering group,you can trust all it says,its just very,very unpopular with the “authorities”.






  • another opinion

    We need a mature debate about the incinerator. Sometimes as few as 20 people turned up for public meetings about the Incinerator, the Incinerator was approved by the Mayor of London. Nobody would like to burn rubbish but for the last 25 years people have refused to reduce reuse or recycle. The result is each year more and more
    Waste is collected. At present there is no alternative as the landfill is full. The combustion will be controlled and monitored. This does not happen in the engines of lorries that would be needed to take the waste to far away landfills

  • Stop The Burn

    The trouble with the incinerator is that 85,000 tonnes of ash a year has to be driven elsewhere for processing. 10,000 tonnes of this is hazardous and has to be taken 100s of kms away to specialist landfill. This means incineration does not stop landfill! Incineration is not the only way to deal with our rubbish problem – 90% of all rubbish can be recycled or re-used – which means we don’t need to landfill or burn.

  • another opinion

    Everybody was happy when the lorries came down Beddington lane and filled up a hole in the ground with rubbish.producing a mixture of 2 parts methane to one part CO2. Now there is an incinerator on the way there are a group of born again environmentalists. The Incinerator deals with the waste in a controlled way the electricity produced will power Tramlink and trains, plus supply houses we will all benefit.
    Each house generates around 250Kg on Non re-cyclable waste per year. and businesses a lot more.

    • Stop The Burn

      We are not all born again environmentalists; some of us have cared about the environment all along! Personally I do not own a car, I am a vegan and haven’t been on a plane in years. I bet my carbon footprint is lower than yours!

      I am astounded that you think we were happy with the lorries and the landfill. The local community have been against the landfill and against the industrialising of the area from the outset.

      And don’t forget that for decades now the council have been promising us an end to waste management on the site and that it would be turned in to a country park. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the incinerator this represents 20 years of broken promises.

      And by the way, that recording clearly states 666 lorry movements a day, not vehicle movements. Please get your facts right.

      • another opinion

        When I use the word “we” I am referring to some politicians who try and oppose the incinerator on environmental grounds while colleagues from the same party in adjacent boroughs are enthusiastic supporters. I also refer to people who drive everywhere fly and have a disregard for the environment. The problem for the council is that part of Beddington Lane is zoned as industrial and all applications for industrial applications have to be judged against planning laws.
        i admire you for not having a car, i try and walk or use public transport where ever possible.
        i have fitted solar panels and i help people reduce the energy they use. I am passionate about low carbon strategies and making public transport greener. I try and stick to Fish Fruit and Vegetables in my diet

        • Stop The Burn

          I agree with you that this matter has been used as a political football and that there has been no consistency from the main political parties. This campaign group is a non- political organisation so all I can say is that the local people are verhemently against this incinerator for a variety of reasons but mainly due to the impact it will have on our health.
          For me the fact that they have ignore a number of ‘legally binding’ section 106 planning agreements promising an end to waste treatment and the restoration of the land to a country park show how badly we are being let down by our elected representatives.

  • smogbad

    Here is an interactive map that enables you to see air pollution deaths and life years lost,by borough


    Kind of ironic that the home of the overpowered “Chelsea Tractor” has the worst air…but I guess its also the flyover.


    Please remember that children,whose lungs are damaged irrevocably,walk through hotspot Peaks of Pollution to school…not average levels.
    Even more frighteningly nitrogen diffusion tubes placed at buggy height READ X3 STANDARD pollution levels.But I have never seen schoolchildren walking along pavements with their little brothers and sisters in buggies..have you?

  • another opinion

    Hi this is a very interesting exchange of views. I am sorry that more people did not turn up to meetings or write in to voice their opinions. The landfill was producing a toxic mixture of Methane and carbon dioxide plus leaching chemicals into the soil. All the councils around Sutton knew what was going on but took no action. Hopefully people will start to take their responsibility for reducing waste seriously and the plant will no longer be viable and have to be downsized .We only have one planet but people think they can damage it and there will be no consequences. iIt is very disapointing that so few people post their views. I cannot see how there could be 666 lorry movements for the plant it is vehicle movements I will make some enquiries. In Germany some ERF facilities have closed for lack of rubbish but we are years behind Germany in environmental matters

    • Stop The Burn

      Everyone agrees we need to move away from landfill and that it is not safe. Except for Viridor who are still promoting landfill as a safe and viable form of waste treatment: http://tinyurl.com/pd82hqy

      When Viridor were asked in a public meeting which is safer, incineration or landfill, they said both were safe. How can we trust a company who says this? How can we trust that their out of date incinerator with relatively low furnace temperatures is any safer than landfill.

      Burning rubbish WILL increase air pollution at a time when we really need to be reducing it: http://tinyurl.com/pmkhtml

  • smogbad

    While Sutton was watching Viridors magic tricks…just over the border Croydon had commissioned its own future air picture…just a teensy bit different !
    If you wonder why it bears no relation to Boris’ ” its all getting better” message,that’s because he uses manufacturer’s own ( tee hee!) emission figures in a computer, not real world measurements and he hides his own 2 million planned population growth (with cars etc and 60% increase in jams guaranteed).

  • smogbad

    When you put the two together…decisions in one borough,effects in the other.
    That’s what I call “planning”.

  • smogbad

    How to hide behind “average figures” of pollution exposure.Very real whole body immune system reactions are triggered by the sorts of exposures measured by modern,phone-app,individual sensors.Here are just two:

  • Stop The Burn

    If you were in any doubt the incinerator will kill people, here is a Government sanctioned report confirming that it will: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=472

  • smogbad

    Local councillors are trying to reassure residents that they don’t need to worry about metal residues from the incinerator “because the waste will go through very powerful magnets”

    Its really the battery,motherboard and “business waste” (specialist industrial) that will be a danger.New waste streams were a specific area of incinerator development.

    Here is an article from Australia about the populations subjected to poor air,and how pollutibg industries concenetrate in polluted areas. Did you know that there were three chimneys planned for the Wandle bowl?

    Australia’s dirty secret: who’s breathing toxic air?
    From The Conversation

    By Donna Green, Jayajit Chakraborty, University of South Florida, and Mark Patrick Taylor

    Australians living in poorer communities, with lower employment and
    education levels, as well as communities with a high proportion of
    Indigenous people, are significantly more likely to be exposed to high
    levels of toxic air pollution.

    These are the key findings from the first Australian study to assess
    the relationship between industrial air pollution and the communities
    most exposed to it, which has just been published in the international
    journal Environmental Research Letters.

    Our study evaluated industry-reported estimates of air emissions, which are available from the Australian government’s National Pollution Inventory (NPI), which details annual pollution from facilities like mines, power stations and factories. The NPI keeps track of more than 90 substances, including arsenic, lead and sulphur dioxide that can harm human health and the environment.

    We then combined the national air pollution inventory data with demographic information from predefined areas determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
    For each area, we considered the proportion of Indigenous people, and
    several measures of social disadvantage, including levels of education,
    income and employment.

    The results revealed consistent national patterns: Indigenous as well
    as disadvantaged communities across Australia are being being
    disproportionately exposed to sources of industrial pollution, including
    higher amounts and higher levels of toxicity of air pollution.

    In the communities containing NPI-listed air pollution sites, the
    average percentage of Indigenous Australians was almost 1.7 times higher
    than those which did not contain such sites.

    These locations are also more likely to be associated significantly
    with communities that have greater socio-economic disadvantage, lower
    access to economic resources, and with lower levels of educational and
    occupational status.

    Living with dangerous pollution

    Port Pirie in South Australia is a good example of such a community.
    Located about 225km north of Adelaide, the town’s residents have long
    known that their town’s 125-year-old smelter – one of the largest in the
    world – produces harmful emissions.

    However, until this new study
    was done, people in communities such as Port Pirie have had no way of
    assessing how the air pollution they have been experiencing compares
    with other parts of Australia.

    Our findings show that Port Pirie, which has one of the lowest socio-economic disadvantage ratings in South Australia,
    falls into the top 10% of all communities in the country, in terms of
    total toxic air emissions and the toxicity-weighted emissions. (Toxicity weightings
    are based on the toxic equivalency potential, which determines the
    relative human health risk resulting from release of a chemical.)

    These findings are consistent with countless reports and inquiries
    that have revealed how lead poisoning has affected generations of Port
    Pirie children, including more than 3000 in the last decade.

    To limit exposure to environmental emissions, including at children’s playgrounds, the “Thumbs Up for Low Levels”
    campaign advises Port Pirie residents to use a wet mop rather than a
    broom to clean their homes; not to drink rainwater; to wash hands after
    play; while their children are told to brush their pets outside because
    of the contaminated dust risk.

    Lead is a neurotoxin: that is, a chemical causing irreparable nervous system damage. Yet the advice to local residents is not based on strong evidence. In fact, a recent Cochrane Review of 14 studies involving 2656 children concluded that:

    “educational and dust control interventions are not effective in reducing blood lead levels of young children.”

    Even low blood-lead levels affect a child’s mental and physical development, as shown in a recent study of Port Pirie children. So it is unfortunate, but not surprising, that children living in Port Pirie have been shown to be disproportionately developmentally vulnerable by comparison to the state or the national average.

    Interestingly, a similar pattern prevails for children in two of
    Australia’s other major lead mining and smelting cities of Australia: Broken Hill, NSW and Mount Isa, Queensland.

    Last year, the Port Pirie smelter – operated by Zurich-based company Nyrstar – breached agreed pollution limits. As The Australian newspaper reported
    earlier this month, South Australian Health Department data for 2013
    shows that more than 100 Port Pirie children — about 20% of those under
    five tested in the town — had blood lead levels above the ­nationally
    accepted level. The average blood lead level in all children had also
    risen to its highest level since 2010.

    Legal protection from pollution

    Unlike some other Western nations, Australia’s environmental
    protection laws do not adequately or equally protect all communities
    from the health effects of air pollution. That is in spite of a
    long-standing – though not legally-binding – agreement by the federal,
    state and territory governments that all Australians should:

    “enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from air, water and soil pollution and from noise, wherever they live”.

    Pollution licences and the way they are enforced are a state
    responsibility. For large companies that provide a high percentage of
    employment for a town or region – especially in rural towns –
    significant flexibility is provided by state authorities when it comes
    to enforcing compliance with licence controls. Across Australia, and
    even within individual states, there are many interpretations of acceptable practice.

    Coming clean on the air we breathe

    Our new national assessment
    is not enough to conclusively state that industries have deliberately
    chosen to locate in specific areas with less well-off communities. In
    fact, sometimes people with less money, who are looking for work, may be
    attracted to living near cheaper land – including less desirable
    places, such as near mines or industrial sites.

    However, these new findings suggest that, at minimum, more research
    is needed to identify the specific trajectories and impact of industrial
    and economic development. It also points to the need to have
    independent measured emissions data to analyse, rather than having to
    rely on industry-provided estimations of emissions to the NPI.

    Without such data, it is inevitable that some Australian communities will continue to live with a disproportionate burden of pollution and adverse health impacts.

    This article was originally published on The Conversation.

    • Read the original article.

    About the author

    Donna Green and Jayajit Chakraborty were co-authors of the new research published in Environmental Research Letters. Mark Taylor was invited to be a co-author on this article because of his research on lead poisoning in Port Pirie.

    Donna Green, Jayajit Chakraborty and Mark Patrick Taylor
    do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any
    company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also
    have no relevant affiliations.

    This is from a recent US study:


  • Stop The Burn

    Today Mr Khan went to the Royal Courts of Justice to hand in the papers challenging Sutton Council’s decision to build a waste incinerator.
    pic.twitter.com/zu3zgjyQQQ— Shasha Khan (@GreenKnight2010) April 24, 2014

  • smogbad
  • smogbad

    The recently published Health Atlas has some interesting things to say about Croydon air pollution,particularly about Purley Way and the B272 and A236 junctions.
    Whatever Boris says things aren’t better and will get much worse,with planned population and traffic growth.
    The shenanigans with the N. Beddington air monitor need explaining too.Bear with…..
    the scientists at King’s were perplexed when their Marylebone Road (the worst in London)readings showed an unexpected fall….IT WAS A NEW BUS LANE MARKING !
    Only that much extra distance blew the figures’ accuracy.
    What is now called the Beddingon Lane site is far away from any road traffic and its readings bear no relation to those of the old site,which has now been closed.Exactly how that influenced the planning decisions I will leave you to guess !! ??

  • smogbad

    Children are particularly at risk from air pollution.The danger comes not
    just from peaks in pollution, like we saw earlier this month, but also from
    long-term exposure. Britain has some of the highest levels of such pollutants
    in Europe. There is already strong evidence for diesel pollutants having an
    effect on cognitive function in kids.

    London’s East End ,where air
    pollution is some of the worst in Britain, is now a major global threat to
    children. “Long-term exposure to air pollution suppresses lung function
    and leads to vulnerability through life. It’s a major concern. We are setting
    up children to sub optimal conditions in later life.”

    “People in large cities have lower life expectancy because of
    pollution. It seemed far fetched 20 years ago but now it is clear that the air
    we breathe has an impact on life expectancy. Air pollution alone does not kill
    you. But we think up to 200,000 people are having their health affected by
    PM2.5s [particulates
    with a diameter of 2.5 microns],” said Frank Kelly.


    Cyclists could become the new Air Pollution Police, please watch this video carefully:


  • Stop The Burn

    Demo 7.15pm 07/05/14. Sutton Civic Centre

    We will be having a demonstration outside Sutton Civic Centre next Wednesday to mark the one year anniversary of the Incinerator plans being agreed.

    Sutton Development Control Committee will be having a meeting that night, the last one before the elections and so we want to remind them of their terrible decision.

    We will be meeting outside the main entrance of the building downstairs and we will provide banners and placards for people to hold. There are other things planned which we don’t want to go in to at this stage.

    Ironically enough, on the agenda for this meeting are two planning applications for extending waste treatment on 2 other sites on Beddington Lane – one application will result in 10 lorry movements a week and the other will increase waste processing on the Deadman Confidential Site to 50,000 tonnes a year.

    This is a reminder that the impact of the incinerator cannot be taken in isolation and how the council continue to ignore the plight of people living in this area.

    Together we can make a difference.

  • smogbad


    Boris Johnson’s transport
    planners forecast soaring London road congestion

    The Conservative mayor’s policies will do little to mitigate a 60% rise in traffic
    snarl-ups in the centre of the capital by 2031 according to Transport for
    London research

    Boris Johnson. Photograph: Chris Jackson/Getty Images for Invictus Games

    Boris Johnson’s transport policies will fail to prevent huge increases in road
    traffic congestion across London in the coming years according to research by
    his own transport agency.

    Transport for London has concluded that by 2031 congestion in central London will have
    worsened by 60% even if Johnson’s entire transport strategy investment
    programme is implemented and augmented with further short-term measures.
    Congestion in inner London is projected to rise by 25% and in outer London by
    15%….jams up 60%.

  • smogbad

    Two important reports have come out over this last week.The National asthma deaths study is hitting the front pages today.Here is a link to the full report..whilst doctors don’t come well out of it..the continued failure to warn the whole population about “smogs” is scandalous.w.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/why_asthma_stil
    A very recent Lancet article explores the links with air pollution:

  • smogbad

    sorry the links got garbled in upload…they are
    1 rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/why_asthma_still_kills_full_report.pdf
    2 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960617-6/fulltext

  • another opinion

    This site should not be used by political parties to misinform. It should deal with facts . The Labour manifesto for Sutton says that “we will seek to withdraw the Council from related contracts and aim for quality green jobs instead” what does this mean what are the Labour plans to deal with 5.5 million tonnes of waste in the next 20 years and how can this create green Jobs?.
    . Viridor the contractor appointed by South London Waste Partnership is made up of four local councils (Croydon, Kingston, Merton and Sutton) . there are a large number of Labour councillors who have given this project
    the green Light,

    • Stop The Burn

      This site is NOT being used by political parties to misinform. No political party has access to amending any content of this site it is run entirely by the Stop the Incinerator Campaign which has no political allegiance. We are a non-political campaign group who are made up of people united by a single aim. Whilst our diverse group is made up of people with different political beliefs we do not support any political party.
      I would suggest you contact the labour party directly with regards to your comments.
      We don’t need an incinerator because 90% of all rubbish can be recycled or re-used and this creates 10 times more jobs than burning it.

  • another opinion

    The South London Waste Partnership that signed the contract has got Labour Conservatives Lib Dems Ukips and independents involved in arriving at the decision. Not forgetting the Mayor Of London.
    what is important if it goes ahead is managing the vehicle flow and measuring air quality independently all around the site .

    • Stop The Burn

      And each party in its own way has broken their promise to serve the people who elected them. 1 in 12 deaths in London are linked to air pollution. The recent study by the Health Department confirmed there are no levels below which particulate matter becomes safe. In other words there are no safe levels of pollution. No matter how small they claim the increase in pollution to be, it is a simple fact this incinerator will kill people. If you believe air pollution causes no harm then you are right but sadly this is not the case.

  • smogbad


  • smogbad

    Link between air pollution and infant deaths:

    please note the “roadblocks” placed in the midwife’s way,just about inquiring about the most basic stats.

    After noticing more stillbirths and newborn deaths in Vernal, a midwife wondered if
    the premature deaths could be linked to the air pollution caused by the growth
    of oil and gas drilling in the area. Donna Young’s inquiry has caught the attention of the local health department,state public health experts and environmental activists.

    On Monday at 12:15 p.m., Dr. Brian Moench of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment,
    Sam LeFevre of the Utah Department of Health and Tribune health reporter Kirsten
    Stewart join Jennifer Napier-Pearce to talk about the troubling observations
    and how researchers will set out to determine if the deaths are the result of
    pollution exposure, another cause or coincidence.


    What do teachers know about air pollution? what do they want to do about it?The Shocking Truth


    survey of 935 (of whom 43 responded!) London schools and nurseries (16,600 children) that are situated within 150 metres of a road carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day
    reveals that just two per cent of schools are even aware of the airTEXT
    service which provides free daily air pollution forecasts for Greater
    London. This is despite the Mayor consistently claiming that airTEXT
    provides an adequate pollution alert service to vulnerable Londoners.

    The Aphekom Project, a European Commission-fundedstudy into the
    health impacts of air pollution in 25 major European cities found
    that living within 150m of high-traffic roads (carrying more than 10,000
    per day) could be responsible for between 15-30 per cent of new asthma
    cases in children:

    http://www.aphekom.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5532fafa-921f-4ab1-9ed9-c0148f7da36a&groupId=10347 [see p.3 of the report]

    I don’t want to argue about a country park,I don’t want to choose the colour of the bricks its built from,I don’t want the lorries painted green,I dont want to do the research the governemnt has consistently refused to do despite many promises…I DON’T WANT AN INCINERATOR AND ITS LORRY TRAINS POISONING MOTHERS TO BE AND THE CHILDREN THEY ALREADY HAVE.


  • smogbad

    Vested interests like to minimise an incinerator’s contribution to local pollution.This study shows how high it can be:


    The industrial source increased the number of
    daily exceedances from 5 to 25 days compared to urban background AQMSs.When wind blew from the waste
    treatment sites it added on average 18.4μgm3 to urban background concentration.

    Swedish studies using very accurate Xray spectroscopy of the PM 2.5 particles found:


    incineration and local sources 32%

    Oil Incineration 33%

    Biomass Burning 18%
    Long distance transport LDT)16%
    Traffic Emissions 1%

  • smogbad

    Over the weekend someone captured a live “inversion” from a helicopter.You usually need a valley side.You can see the clear cut off point between the cold air below and the warm air above,with all the pollution trapped by the warm-air aucepan lid.London is a large bowl city,but you can guess how very many Wandle valleys you can fit into the area,and how dangeroues the valley concentration of pollutants will bewill be.


  • smogbad

    Defra covers-up #airpollution at 187 hotspots across London one day before election.
    See where



    169 South
    Croydon Norbury London Road

    170 South Croydon Thornton Heath Brigstock Rd/High St/Whitehorse Lane

    172 South Croydon Waddon Fiveways Corner

    173 South Croydon Thornton Heath Pond and London Road to StJames Road

    175 South Croydon Purley Cross

    174 South Sutton Wallington Manor Rd/Stanley Pk Rd/Stafford Rd

    176 South Sutton Sutton A232 Cheam/Carshalton Rd/High St/Brighton Rd

    177 South Sutton Worcester Park Central Road

  • NoBurn

    Hhmmm, now as a tourist, where would I like to visit & spend my money??? In a country/community that has clean air, cares about its citizens and environment? Or a country/community that treats the planet like a toilet and doesn’t listen to its citizens? The choice is clear…..garbage incinerators are bad for tourism! Are you listening British Columbia and Ontario Canada???

  • smogbad

    I couldn’t possibly bore you with the numerous instances of governemnt and DEFRA cheating on air pollution measurement.The Harlington monitor is near Sipson and the Heathrow mess.

    Defra’s London Harlington monitor has gone offline after approaching EU Information threshold
    @BarryGardiner pic.twitter.com/vG5Ly5lvio

    You will know of the closure and renaming (further away)of the monitor
    nearest to the incinerator.Here is the 20/20 air pollution vision for
    the area.See anything suspicious for Croydon? If citizen science doesn’t do it,no one else will.

  • smogbad


    You can use this map to see the levels of pollutants emitted by vehicles
    on different stretches of road in London. Pan around the map, or put in
    your postcode, to find where you live, work or study. Click on any
    section of road to see the exact quantities of pollution emitted each
    year, and the numbers of vehicles that travel on that stretch of road
    every day.
    This sort of map often doesn’t include roadside monitoring results but is derived from models,please interpret in conjunction with the dreadful morning and pm rush hour peaks,with added ozone from 12.00pm onwards in the summer!

  • smogbad



    The trouble is…the monitoring rules have been made very weak after lobbying by industry:

    Sutton closed the Beddington North air pollution monitoring site and
    renamed it to appear the same.It is 100 yards from the road.and
    measures sparrowfarts.

    2 The EU (2009)have diluted the old rules,and
    the limits (metals,gases,particulates,acids)are not the old fixed ones but are the equivalent of “the
    best we can manage”

    3 The industry does not have to use the latest technology.

    The industry can legally fail to record switch off and start up
    pollution levels,which can put the euivalent of a years worth of rubbish
    into the air.

    5 The industry doesn’t have to tell you of a breach for 3 months

    6 The industry only has to measure twice a year.

    Do you know where to find those pollution levels online?

    Viridor’s Grundon plant put out 2,000% above acceptable levels last year:

    Outrageously all measurements from that incident have been emoved from the publicly accessible sites.

    One of the tricks played by incinerator managements is to muzzle the local community:

    Grundon have failed to respond to Colnbrook Views and no statement has been forthcoming from either the Parish Council or Colnbrook Community Partnership, both of whom have direct relationships with Grundon.

    London University did a door to door survey of people living near SELCHP…their report found that the local management committee was “stuffed” with people who didn’t pass on residents numerous complaints,that the residents felt completely shut out and got no responses.


  • smogbad
  • smogbad

    What do these three pictures have in common?
    There is an incinerator hiding under the 10 (very high pollution level)
    Colnbrook lakeside

  • smogbad

    Local doctor’s submission to EAC on links between air pollution and brain damage published:
    Will they have to read it,who knows?

  • smogbad

    “Some more polluted than others”…Sutton and Merton planning THREE pollution sources.

    Here is an overview:


  • Belinda Francis

    North Yorkshire Action Group http://www.nywag.org

  • Belinda Francis

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-26764820 Maybe http://cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.co.uk/p/enviros.html should know about the Judicial Review obtained by the South London Incinerator group?

  • Belinda Francis
  • Belinda Francis

    Viridor are having to meet challenges in Dunbar as well http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/12/16/408316-council-boss-200m-incinerator-a-waste-/ so perhaps some kind of class action with others affected by incinerator plans would be worth considering.

  • smogbad

    Very serious Commons committee today…suggest you could devote all 1 3/4 hours to it….but if not…watch


    from 14:27:40 to 14:35:30

    passing,a question from my paper was asked,and Dr Mudway said there was
    reason to believe that London’s results would be much worse than the US
    studies had shown! (if you can get past the technical reasons he discusses)
    the meeting can be embedded on this website (administrator please see) with

  • smogbad


  • Stop The Burn

    1 in 12 – exclusive new song and video coming soon from Dr Toxic.

  • smogbad

    This is the latest paper from the Calderon Garciduenas team.Please read its summary.The entire paper is free.

    • Stop The Burn


  • smogbad

    YouScary #smog | VERY HIGH 10/10 #airpollution reported by @LondonAir at #Bexley #Erith tonight pic.twitter.com/dHLCOXVM95

    You all know what lives at Bexley and Erith,don’t you?

    Hammersmith’s,Fulham’s,Wandsworth’s,Chelsea’s and Westminster’s incinerator !

  • Stop The Burn

    Congratulations to the campaigners who stopped the Barnfield Incinerator: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-28216261

  • Stop The Burn

    Our web site has undergone a re-vamp. Check out our new environmental impact section and see how the diverse wildlife at Beddington Farmlands will be affected by the incinerator. Look out for regular updates from our local wildlife expert and member of the stop the incinerator campaign, Peter Alfrey.

  • another opinion

    Stop the incinerator: taking the campaign to Boris

    Labour Hyprocrisy
    Labour goes quiet on the Incinerator once in power
    News From 2013

    Sutton Council, supported by Croydon’s Conservative Council, has approved Viridor’s planning application to build an incinerator at Beddington Lane on the border of Waddon. Waddon’s Labour Action team is calling on London’s Mayor to block the scheme.
    Households in Waddon have repeatedly told us that they do not want an incinerator on their doorstep. People are worried about the health risks from emissions and traffic congestion from lorries delivering waste to the site. They are also angry that increased levels of local recycling will be rewarded with waste being brought to the incinerator from elsewhere in London and the South East. In addition, the site proposed for the incinerator is metropolitan open land which should be returned to the community.
    For these reasons, Joy Prince, Andrew Pelling and Robert Canning have all been on the doorstep in Waddon in recent weeks to hand out letters to households to sign and send to Boris Johnson to ask him to stop the incinerator. The response has been huge with hundreds of letters sent to the Mayor. Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Caroline Flint MP, also spoke at a public meeting on 18 June where she heard first-hand how Viridor’s proposed incinerator is the wrong scheme in the wrong place. Caroline is pictured at the meeting with Joy, Andrew and Robert.
    Mayor Johnson’s decision around whether to approve the incinerator could come as early as July 2013 so any Waddon resident who opposes the incinerator and has not already written to the Mayor to ask him to block it should do so as quickly as possible. A draft letter can be downloaded from the Stop the Incinerator web site at: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/. This can be posted to the Mayor or e-mailed to him at: mayor@london.gov.uk. Please do make your views known to the Mayor if you have not already done so as he does have the power to stop the incinerator.In their manifesto for the 2010 local elections, Croydon’s Conservatives pledged that they would never support an incinerator in Croydon or on its borders. That promise now lies in tatters. Rather than honour their manifesto pledge and represent the wishes of local people, Conservative Councillors have recently been delivering a Viridor pamphlet which they claim addresses residents’ concerns. Households that have received this pamphlet will have noticed that it provides a good technical explanation of how energy is recovered from the incineration process but fails to provide any reassurance around the real concerns that people have with the proposed incinerator.

    Unlike the Conservatives, Waddon’s Labour Action Team promises to always put the interests of Waddon first and to stand up for our local community.


    • Broad Greener

      Another Opinion – you complain about the political comments and bias that appear on this website but you post THE MOST consistently politically biased comments of anyone! The campaign has the support of all parties and we have striven to remain politically neutral throughout. This is not about scoring political points, it is about the quality of life for thousands of ordinary people.

      • another opinion

        I just look for consistency . incinerators are a political football.

    • Reality Bites

      Wake up and smell the coffee. It was the Croydon Tories who signed Croydon up for the incinerator. There is nothing that the Labour Council can do. Its too late. The new Labour councillors in Waddon raised the issue in the Council Chamber and were told as much. The only hope left is the legal challenge.

  • Stop The Burn

    Even if you don’t think incineration is dangerous, surely the fact we don’t actually need any more incinerators is reason enough to stop building them?

  • Stop The Burn

    It’s frightening how much a council is prepared to spend defending the indefensible: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-28361885

  • smogbad

    There are a number of new ways to check how polluted your
    road is, your school is and how much worse it’ s going to get. Without boring you
    with the details most roadside pollution is VERY SERIOUSLY undercounted, so that the 2020 figures are
    nearer to what it is now.


    Click on the white button of the blue arrow for the name, some
    schools are missed out of those at risk:




    There has also been a deliberate policy of minimisation by
    DEFRA and Boris, which repeatedly means people are not warned. You have to be
    rich and media savvy to get the apps that warn.

    Here’s how they work the flag system for playgrounds in the


  • smogbad

    How polluted is my road?
    How polluted is my school?
    How polluted sill it be soon?
    How is it undercounted>
    Boris prefers to use engine manufacturerers’ figures fed into a computer model called an inventory.THOSE FIGURES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO BE WRONG FOR A VERY LONG TIME…because they are from a fast,unjammed journey on the testing track,not at the traffic lights near you! The filters never heat up to the right temperatures on local roads,SO ARE VIRTUALLY USELESS.

  • Stop The Burn

    Please come along to our next meeting where we will be updating everyone on the latest about the judicial review, discussing fundraising, demos and also plans for what the alternative to an incinerator could be.
    Come to Matthews Yard, Croydon (CR0 1FF) on Saturday 2nd August starting at 10:30.

  • smogbad

    Dirty secrets of ‘cleanest yet’ diesel cars (The Times)

    Pollution from new diesel cars is six times greater than the official limit,
    according to “real-world driving” emissions tests that contradict results
    published by manufacturers.

    Some of the latest diesel models produce the same amount of nitrogen oxides
    (NOx) as older ones, which means they could face the same pollution
    penalties designed to improve air quality in cities.


    As all figures for pollution come from models (including mortality and morbidity stats),just imagine how using the manufacturerers’ figures skews the WHOLE picture.


  • smogbad

    How good will the air monitoring be?
    Who is responsible?

    Viridor hold the air quality monitoring at arms’ length……it
    is processed and put on the web by an “independent” company, and the monitors
    themselves seem to be run by Slough borough council:


    Here is the map frontage of the site, with summary, 7 day
    graphs and archives


    I would also point you to a blogiwrote here, 2 months ago about Viridor flouting its responsibilities:


    As an example of the membership of the Liaison group and its minutes I enclose:

    Minutes of the Lakeside Liaison Group Meeting

    Monday 26th August 2011, Lakeside
    Education Centre

    Attendees viewed the new Lakeside DVD and were given


    Veronique Bensadou (VB)Grundon
    Dan Cooke (DC)Viridor
    Nicholas Hannon (NH)Waste & Environment SBC
    Cllr Peter Hood (PH)Chair Colnbrook with Poyle PC
    Cllr David MacDougald (DMacD)Colnbrook with Poyle PC
    Cllr Wendy Matthews (WM)Vice Chair Iver PC.
    District Cllr for Iver & Richings (S Bucks DC). Chair of Residents Association
    Peter Montgomery (PM)Environment Agency
    Cllr Alan Oxley (AO)Chair Iver PC, District Cllr for Iver & Richings Park
    (S Bucks DC)
    Martin Rogers (MR)Lakeside

    Ruth Roll (RR)Lakeside
    Richard Skehens (RMS)Lakeside/Grundon
    Cllr Dexter Smith (DS)Slough Borough Council
    Monica Wilsch (MW)Environmental Protection SBC
    PC Phil AshleeThames Valley Police
    Danny CoulstonGM Lakeside

    Cllr Barbara
    Underhill Colnbrook with Poyle PC

    No reply received.

    Hillingdon Environmental Health Dept (Jaspal Wadwha
    recently deceased)

    Structure and function of Group

    Richard Skehens introduced himself as the MD of Grundon and a Director
    of Lakeside – with responsibility for Chairing the Liaison Group. His continued position as Chair of the
    Liaison Group was agreed by attendees.

    The group was originally convened to facilitate discussion about all the
    Grundon Colnbrook facilities as well as Lakeside EfW Ltd, the JV between
    Grundon and Viridor. Attendees agreed
    this function should be continued.

    Ideally attendees at the meeting should include members from Slough BC and South Bucks
    DC, representatives from Colnbrook with Poyle and Iver Parish Councils,
    Officers from Slough and Hillingdon, Environment Agency, Thames Valley Police
    and Lakeside representatives.

    Tanhouse (Materials Recovery Facility)

    The rebuilt and upgraded Tanhouse Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), was
    described and meeting attendees were advised group visits could be arranged
    with advance notice. Some detailed
    debate took place about the materials collected by SBC, their suitability for
    recovery for recycling and/or energy from waste, future proposals for
    batteries, plastic bags, small WEEE waste, green waste and food waste. Further deails from Nicholas Hannon, Team
    Leader Waste and Environment SBC (Nicholas.hannon@slough.gov.uk).

    The new MRF has just about been commissioned – at a capacity of 20-25
    tonnes/hour and does have spare capacity.

    CWI (Clinical Waste Incinerator)

    Plant has been operating for many years, has been retrofitted and then
    rebuilt. The steam from the process is
    now being fed into the EfW plant, rather than just putting it through the CWI
    air condensers.

    Air quality monitoring

    Air quality monitoring is covered by the Lakeside specific monitors (one
    in Hillingdon and one in Slough) and the
    council’s general air quality monitors.

    On line continuous monitoring is carried out for particulates and seven
    gases – Volatile Organic Carbons (VOCs), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulphur Dioxide
    (SO2), Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as NO2), Hydrogen Chloride (HC1) and Ammonia (NH3). The full suite of dioxins were tested quarterly
    in the first year of operation and on a six monthly basis since. As the levels are so low, sampling takes place
    for eight hours at a time even to find traces.
    A continuous dioxin monitoring instrument has not yet been developed,
    which is why extractive sampling is carried out. The resulting data is available through the

    The air quality monitoring is run by a third party, with direct input of
    information to Slough and Hillingdon. Annual monitoring reports are produced by Fichtner and are available on request. A copy of the 2010 Fichtner report is attached – the latest
    survey will be completed during September 2011.
    The weekly updated emissions data
    and local air monitoring data can be found on the following links:



    The impact of local weather conditions on the appearance of the plume
    was described. It was noted that when
    condensed water (steam) is coming out of the stack (chimney), there is a gap
    between the top of the chimney and the bottom of the plume.

    Lakeside EfW

    official opening by HRH Duke of Edinburgh October 2010. Numerous other visits by professional
    associations, overseas visitors, local groups etc. Group visits can be arranged by appointment

    the plant is operating to – and above – the predicted
    standards in terms of technical, financial and operational performance. It is operating better than expected in terms
    of both waste throughput and power output.
    418,787 tonnes of waste have been combusted against a target of 414,454
    tonnes of waste. 37.45MW of power was
    generated and an average of 33.73MW was exported to the National Grid against a
    target average of 31.58MW. For every
    tonne of input, 97% is recycled into secondary aggregates, reclaimed as scrap
    metal or turned into sustainable energy.
    Only 3% is sent to landfill as air pollution control (APC) residues. Grundon is currently working on a technology
    solution to recycle a range of materials including APC residues.

    For the first five years operation, Lakeside EfW is contracted to produce
    electricity. However, moving forward, Lakeside
    is committed to and is already seeking suitable CHP partners for the heat and
    hot water (potentially BA, BAA local hotels etc). At Runcorn in Cheshire, Viridor is already constructing a
    CHP EfW facility, where the output will be used on site by Ineos Chlor.

    Questions related to:

    how does the automatic shut down work? In the context of the Waste Incineration
    Directive, automatic shut down cuts in under both abnormal and standard
    operating conditions. It will cut in
    automatically after 4 hours for some parameters (eg temperature or if the
    operational monitoring equipment is not working). Manual monitoring is also carried out 24/7

    how is waste input evened out over holiday periods and
    how much waste is diverted to landfill?
    Over a weekend or B/H period, additional waste input will be sourced
    from Grundon, Viridor or local transfer stations. After 18 months of operation the planning has
    improved and this is now not a problem

    when is the next planned shut down and what
    happens? At the beginning of the
    September shut down, first Line 1 and then the entire plant will be shut down
    for 7-10 days. During this period the
    turbine will also be checked. During the
    final shut down week, first Line 1 and then Line 2 will be brought back on
    stream. Temporarily, the waste will be
    diverted to landfill during planned shut downs but over time it will go to the
    developing network of EfW plants.

    The plant won an award for the bunker – which was one of the biggest and
    most complicated continuous concrete pours in Europe. It has also won an architectural award and is
    currently on the short list for two Renewable Energy Infrastructure Awards –
    for the best designed renewable energy facility and for Energy from Waste
    facility of the year.

    Visitor and Education Centre

    The Centre is available for third party hire for meetings, conferences,
    special events etc and marketing brochures were distributed.

    Groundwork Thames Valley has put together an effective education programme to local schools
    which is being proactively marketed. The
    education promotion brochure was distributed across local boroughs. The Lakeside education team will shortly be
    visiting the Viridor Education Centre at Ford, West Sussex
    to pick up some more practical tips. The
    objective is to maintain school visits at the rate of two days/week during term

    Colnbrook Partnership (CCP) and other community activities

    The structure and function of the Landfill Communities Fund (LCF) was
    described and ENTRUST eligible projects identified. These are primarily those where value can be
    added to an existing public amenity – such as the Pippins Park
    project – and biodiversity projects.

    The Grundon LCF funding is administered through Groundwork Thames
    Valley – Tim Knight/Mike
    Walton should be the initial contacts to check eligibility of proposed
    projects. A summary was provided of the
    local projects funded to date and the level of project funding currently

    Various suggestions were made as to how to raise proactively the profile
    of the Lakeside EfW plant and the Education Centre. These included:

    holding an Open Day in 2012 – possibly as part of the
    Love Where You Live Scheme sponsored by Keep Britain Tidy – or as part of the
    English Heritage Open Doors Day

    holding Parish Council, CCP and/or Community Forum
    meetings in the Education Centre

    making the Centre available as part of the Community Forum
    Annual Fair.

    All to be discussed at the next meeting of the Lakeside Communications
    Group. A working group (including Cllrs
    Dexter Smith and Peter Hood) to be set up to move forward this type of


    RMS offered a bag of bulbs to Iver PC as well as
    Colnbrook PC, which was gratefully accepted

    key messages from meeting for public dissemination:

    EfW plants work more efficiently once the recyclables
    have been removed from the waste

    97% of each tonne of input is re-used as energy or

    SBC currently
    trialling split bins around Colnbrook as part of a service test

    Grundon is trialling APC re-use.

    Questions were asked before the meeting about a recent Grundon planning
    application for a gasification plant at Thorney Park Golf Course. The golf course is built on an old landfill
    site and at the moment a landfill gas flare burns off the carbon dioxide and
    methane created by the anaerobic decomposition of the buried waste. The proposed landfill gas engine would be
    placed within a purpose built, acoustically shielded containerised unit next to
    the existing flare (north of the farm/storage building on the golf
    course). Tree and shrub planting would
    visually screen the compound from both the golf course and the residential
    properties to the south. The relatively small engine would generate
    approximately 50 Kilowatts (0.05 Megawatts) of sustainable energy from non
    fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The Lakeside EfW video is publicly available on the following website:-


    The incident mentiobed in the local papers occured:

    The incident appears to have taken place between 4am and 1pm on Thursday
    5th September, while temperatures soared to an unseasonal 30°.

    What did the monitors say?

  • smogbad

    Independent air quality monitoring stations based at the
    controversial Energy from Waste facility in Colnbrook’s Lakeside
    Industrial Estate showed that levels of coarse particulate matter, or PM10, hit 985 µg/m3 for a period of over 8 hours on Thursday morning.

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines “good” air as having a particulate concentration of less than 54 µg/m3 while Slough Borough Council’s target air quality is an average of 40 µg/m3 over the year.

    The incident appears to have taken place between 4am and 1pm on
    Thursday 5th September, while temperatures soared to an unseasonal 30°.

    The striking red graph at the bottom of the picture was represented by the following numbers on the publicly available archive:


    These are PM 10’s counted hourly consecutively from 01.00 to 24.00

    When you examine the results carefully the archive numbers show both a lesser figure than the red graph shows,and there is a considerable delay in “drift”…..when you include the company’s reluctance to comment,I think this really makes the case for independent elected membership of the liaison committee as well as very careful monitor oversight.

    Sorry to be so boring

  • smogbad



    simply chronicles the
    obstructive nature of DEFRA and BORIS in discharging any public duty to inform
    or warn about their air pollution failures.Simon Birkett desrves a medal for perseverance.When you read the above with my last two posts,detailing the six months release delay and “disappearance” of figures related to a serious incident at Virdor’s other incinerator in London,Bedddington begins to look really sinister.

  • stb

    Been busy this weekend making new props for the Judicial Review Demo on 09/10/14. For more details about the demo see here: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=937

  • Stop The Burn

    25 days to the Judicial Review Demo. Join us at the Royal Courts of Justice on 09/10/14.

  • Stop The Burn

    16 days to JR – latest song from Dr Toxic: http://youtu.be/xY47Y5SDftA?list=PL-5RXl1l7Lc80x33kPMEqbx3g5GnZiK0G

  • Stop The Burn

    3 days until the Judicial review. Come make some noise with us and show them our health and our green spaces are worth protecting: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=937

  • smogbad

    Manufacturers are fighting toooth and nail to delay and emasculate the tests that show this.Just read the whole horrible truth…the whole thing is a travesty.These ar the same people that arranged the new incinerator emissions protocols.


  • smogbad

    1) Shocking infant mortality rates put Grundon’s £100,000 donation to Colnbrook Village Hall under spotlight


    2)Second incinerator gets go-ahead for Colnbrook Lakeside


    At last,some figures on pregnancy health and baby survival (they ususally don’t make it out of the closet).The original ONS spreadsheet usually has statistical significance values not shown in this table,which is shocking enough.
    It really is dreadful,as these pregnacies are the most sensitive canaries in the coalmine.The rest of the morbidity and mortality statistics for the child and adult population will also be raised considerably,but will need digging out.

  • smogbad

    New threat to Colnbrook’s air as Lanz seeks permission to process another 20,000 tonnes of waste next to homes


    See the figures for pollution exceedances below:


  • smogbad

    The latest LLRE application,together with Riverside Bio brings the chimney total to 4 !

    How many chimneys and their pollution can Wandle Valley take?Anyone counting?

  • Stop The Burn

    Judicial Review decision made – Judge says Yes to incinerator. Read all about it here: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=1077

  • Stop The Burn

    With your help the fight will continue – we appeal for more funds to launch an appeal: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=1081

  • smogbad



    ***** Loadsa new lorries for the docks
    ***** Old biomass plant life extended 15 years
    ***** 24/7 activity on the roads
    ***** Who will hold Sutton’s dreadful council’s feet to the fire, for both monitoring and AQMA action?

  • smogbad

    Beddington and Croydon’s problems with incinerator traffic are going to be made even worse:


    ” BRITAIN’S air quality is facing a new threat from diesel engine emissions
    following the emergence of a backstreet industry that removes anti-pollution
    devices from lorries and buses.

    Thousands of large diesel vehicles are driving illegally after paying firms to
    remove the AdBlue systems that control nitrogen dioxide N O2 emissions.

    Newer vehicles are meant to be fitted with AdBlue, which injects fuel with
    urea, a chemical that reacts with exhaust fumes to remove NO2. Removing
    AdBlue saves money because drivers do not have to keep filling the urea
    container, but increases emissions by between 10 and 100 times.

    The Department for Transport said this weekend that anyone using such modified
    vehicles would be acting illegally and could face prosecution. However, it
    admitted that because of a loophole in its own regulations, companies
    carrying out such alterations were not breaking the law !!!! ”

    so :
    1. Manufacturers of diesel engines are gaming the regulations and their tests figuires are not from real world situations
    3.The real World, real Time air pollution monitors results can be manipulated,or monitors removed or figures used that are derived from computer models fed the wrong information !

    Good luck Beddington!

  • smogbad

    There’s been a lot of judgements coming down recently….perhaps people will forgive me quoting extensively from one in 2009,that may even seem irrelevant. What’s Corby got to do with Beddington?

    Through Corby drove convoys of ill-protected loads of contaminated mud from the demolition of the Corby Steel Works…a number of children were born with limb deformities (we know little of the other ill-health that would have resulted locally).Their parents took Corby Borough Council to court.

    THROUGH LOCAL ROADS will be coming convoys of lorries carrying loads of exceedingly toxic FLY ASH.How is the safety of these loads to be guaranteed?Will they have HAZMAT warnings on them.What will the accidental spillage procedures be?Who will be responsible for damages,in the legal sense?
    The illustrations,below, is of levels of metals due to be coming from the Beddington chimneys (Viridor’s numbers) and of nanoparticles in the lungs.

    This is some of what Justice AKENHEAD had to say



    “· Dr Flaks, correctly in my
    judgement, identified PAHs, dioxins and heavy metals as the likely teratogens.
    The former were present at the BSC site largely as a consequence of the coke
    making processes used on the site over many years whilst the latter were the by
    products of the iron and steel making process. Also, dioxins and furans (PCCDs
    and PCDDs) were produced in the electric arc furnace process as well as in the
    sintering process. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the body and are only very
    slowly eliminated.

    So far as dioxins are concerned, Dr Flaks commented,
    based on papers and research, that it should have been obvious that the BSC
    site would be contaminated with dioxins when it closed, it being inevitable
    that dioxins would have been produced during the steel works operation (in
    particular the sintering plant); dioxins were and are known to be extremely
    stable in the soil. Decommissioning should have taken this into account so that
    any patches of heavily contaminated soil could have been identified and
    disposed of by incineration. The toxic characteristics of dioxins had been
    widely published since the 1970s and the technology for analysis and disposal
    was readily available in the early 1980s when remediation work at Corby was
    proposed. The toxic characteristics of dioxins include damage to human health
    (and potential damage to the embryo). I accept this evidence; it is logical and
    backed up by numerous papers and research.

    Dr Flaks was of the view, which I accept, that embryos
    and foetuses are much more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults. The dosage
    of a teratogen required to induce birth defects can be much lower than that
    which would be required to cause toxic effects in adults and, although its
    teratogenic effects may be the result of induction by high doses, they may also
    be induced by low level exposures.

    During the period from conception until implantation,
    insults to the embryo are likely to result either in its death and miscarriage
    or resorption, or in its intact survival. At this stage, the embryo is able to
    repair itself by multiplication of its undifferentiated cells. The embryonic
    period, from 18 to 54-60 days after conception, is the period when the organs
    are developing and is the period of maximum sensitivity to teratogenesis, since
    tissue damage becomes irreparable. The foetal phase, from the end of the
    embryonic stage to birth is the period when growth and maturation of previously
    formed organs takes place, and exposure to teratogens is likely to affect
    foetal growth, or the size or function of a specific organ, rather than to
    cause gross structural defects. Human teratogenicity is indicated by a
    recognizable pattern of anomalies, a statistically higher prevalence of a
    particular anomaly in patients exposed to an agent (which is an epidemiological
    facet), the presence of the agent during the stage of development of the
    affected organ, a lower incidence of the defect in the population prior to the
    introduction of the agent, and production of birth defects in experimental
    animals by the agent.

    To induce a teratogenic effect, teratogenic substances
    must be administered during organogenesis, the period of embryological
    differentiation. The critical period of organogenesis in humans is 20-55 days
    (or 35-70 days after the last menstrual period). The nature and incidence of
    effects are dependent on the particular developmental stage when exposure
    occurs. During embryonic differentiation or organogenesis, the embryo is highly
    susceptible to teratogenic insult. Following differentiation, the foetus
    becomes progressively less susceptible to teratogenic stimuli, although
    increasing the dosage may or extend the period of susceptibility.

    Most known teratogens have been identified through
    experimental animal studies. It is of course not ethical for any teratogenic
    tests to be done on pregnant mothers let alone on embryos and foetuses. A
    problem with this is that there is no exact or mathematical correlation between
    what will affect a mouse foetus and a human foetus. Only about 19 drugs or
    groups of drugs and three other chemicals (methyl mercury, toluene and
    polychlorinated biphenyls) have been established as teratogenic agents in
    humans (by clusters of abnormalities being observed by physicians) whereas
    about 1,500 teratogens have been identified in laboratory animals (mainly by
    laboratory testing).

    A teratogenic response depends upon the administration
    of a specific treatment of a particular dose to a genetically susceptible
    species when the embryos are in a susceptible stage of development.
    Susceptibility to teratogenesis by a particular chemical depends on differences
    between species and between strains within a species. Variables determining
    strain susceptibility include maternal parity and weight, foetal weight, number
    of young, size of the placenta, foetal and maternal production of hormones, and
    maternal utilization of vitamins and other essential nutrients. This is
    modified by environmental factors, such as diet, season and temperature.

    · Dr Flaks’ view, which I
    accept, is that the most likely teratogenic agents are Dioxins, PAHs and
    particular heavy metals, namely CHROMIUM, NICKEL and CADMIUM and respective
    compounds of these metals. It is at least theoretically possible that other
    agents might also be active. This does not exclude other agents that might have
    been present Dr Flaks could not identify what was likely to be the effective
    dosage of any one of these agents for human teratogenesis because the
    information does not exist. Further, the precise mechanism whereby any of these
    teratogens act is largely unknown. Toxicological coupled with epidemiological
    evidence can provide useful evidence as to the cause of birth defects.

    Air Pollution and Safety Risk Management

    Since the primary case made by the Claimants is that the
    birth defects were caused by the inhalation by the Claimants’ mothers during
    pregnancy of air borne contaminant bearing dusts, the evidence from the experts
    in the area of air pollution is important to determine how and in what
    circumstances dusts from the site could or would reach the mothers.

    · Dr Cox MBE, the expert in
    this field for the Claimants, secured his PhD in air pollution predictive
    modelling from Imperial College, London in 1975 and, as a chartered mechanical
    Consulting Engineer, has spent much of his professional career in risk analysis
    as well as risk management. He has had to address the dispersion and release of
    gases and the impact of biocidal products and for 10 years he served on the
    Health and Safety Executive’s Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances. He
    “spotted” a serious error in published papers by Ove Arup and IEA
    upon which Ms Heasman and Dr Searle had relied relating to the distance which
    small particles (under 10 microns) may travel. This had not been picked up
    either by Ms Heasman and Dr Searl; Ms Heasman ultimately accepted the error. He
    gave his evidence in a relaxed and self deprecating way and did not seek ever
    to exaggerate his views.

    Before reviewing this area of the case, it is necessary
    to make findings at least broadly as to what levels of contaminated dust were
    likely to be present, where and in what quantities. In my judgement, there was
    a virtually constant generation of contaminated mud and dust from and including
    1985 onwards to at least June 1997. There was almost constant work over this
    period by CBC and its contractors, but, even when there were slacker periods,
    dust would still have been released from the CBC sites or some of them,
    particularly Deene Quarry. Substantial quantities of contaminated material were
    carried on and on to the public roads mostly with unsheeted lorries. The main
    roads on which they were carried were Gretton Road, Gretton Brook Road, Phoenix
    Parkway, Steel Road, Shelton Road, Geddington Road and Weldon Road. It is clear
    and I find that the sweeping of the roads was inadequate and often not done to
    all. Once deposited on the roads, the mud and dust would inevitably be spread
    even further around the roads and the town by other vehicles passing over it.
    There is every reason to conclude in addition that dust was generated in drying
    and drier weather off the sites during demolition, excavation, transporting,
    depositing and grading and levelling operations involving the substantial
    quantities of contaminated materials. In similar conditions, where slurries had
    been exposed to the air (as on Willowbrook North A) or spread and deposited on
    the surface (as when Toxic Ponds 3and 4 were deposited in the north-east corner
    of Deene Quarry) there would be contaminated dust generated from those sites.
    It would be facile to believe or expect as a matter of fact that at any one
    material time during this overall period there was only one precise point
    source of contaminated dust being generated.

    · As Dr Cox said, not only
    would vehicles carry material some distance, it would either come off because
    it was blown off the back or by way of being dropped off the wheels or
    undercarriage; if the material was wet, it could also spill over at the edges
    of the lorry. Any material dropped onto the ground including the roads or
    pavements could then be re-mobilised either by wind or by passing vehicles.

    One needs to bring
    together the findings overall, There was a statistically significant cluster of
    birth defects between 1989 and 1999. Toxicologically there were present on and
    from the CBC sites over the whole period from 1985 (and possibly before) until
    1997 the types of contaminants which could cause the birth defects complained
    of by the Claimants. There was an extended period between 1983 and August 1997
    in which CBC was extensively negligent in its control and management of the
    sites which they acquired from BSC and otherwise used. That negligence and, as
    from 1 April 1992, breach of statutory duty on the part of CBC permitted and
    led to the extensive dispersal of contaminated mud and dust over public areas
    of Corby and into and over private homes with the result that the contaminants
    could realistically have caused the types of birth defects of which complaint
    has been made by the Claimants (save in limited respects). It can not however
    be demonstrated that after August 1997 the birth defects in children conceived
    thereafter could be caused by any breaches of duty or public nuisance occurring
    before that time; there can have been no significant emissions of the relevant
    contaminants after that time which could have caused birth defects of the types
    with which this case is concerned. CBC is liable in public nuisance, negligence
    and breach of statutory duty, obviously subject to it being established in
    later proceedings by individual Claimants that their particular conditions were
    actually caused by the defaults identified in this judgement.”

    I must be frank.I have very little trust that either the councils (particularly Sutton) that make up the SWLP or Viridor will do the relevant monitoring with sufficient rigour and transparency.You would not believe how diluted the regimes have become,since the “cutting of red tape” in EU legislation.How will you know?

  • smogbad


    ……..and SUTTON !!!!…TODAY’s LATEST


    By the way,did you know that one of Boris’s great ideas is to widen the A 23

    In Croydon widening the A23/A232 corridor and the Fiveways junction
    Measures to increase the capacity of the local road network for new traffic from
    Westfield shopping centre.
    Cost: £85m
    plus £2.4m provided as a condition of a new Tesco at Lombard roundabout.”

    Boris really says (contrary to all known evidence)that new roads reduce pollution !!!
    So the incinerator will get a whole new motorway system to speed its lorries from the SE catchment….and then its chimneys…(now 4)

    welcome to Chokey Valley Wandle Country Park

  • Stop The Burn

    Join us if you can for our next demo: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=1136

  • smogbad

    Radioactive waste incinerator built in Fukushima


    I am just writing this to show you how irresponsible governments can be (in Japan of all places) and how the survival of TEPCO is more important than the health of the population.
    The supression of the true extent of spread and the levels of plutonium particles scattered in the soil/waste,as well as very high Caesium levels in the sewage sludge has been well known to radiation watchers for a long time.Japan recently made it illegal to report on any of these matters,by the way.The notion that the very high volumes of waste are to be dealt with in this way nontheless are shocking.


  • smogbad

    New “shark-shaped” monitor with low maintenance features for allsorts emissions…..thinks….I’ll trust Viridor,shall I?


  • smogbad
  • Stop The Burn

    Next meeting of Stop the Incinerator: 10/01/2014, 10.30am upstairs at The Green Dragon, 60 High Street, Croydon, CR0 1NA.

  • Stop The Burn

    Have some fun, food and raise money for a good cause. Come along to the pub quiz fundraiser. 7pm 09/02/15.

  • Stop The Burn

    Please come along to our next public meeting 11am 07/02/15 at the Prince Of-Wales 2 Hartfield road, Wimbledon SW19 3TA. We will be updating people on the legal challenge and discussing our next move. All are welcome. You can join in the discussion, ask us questions or just sit and listen to the latest news about the South London Incinerator.

  • smogbad

    The Air Quality and Emissions show


    Someone should go……the devil’s details will be there !

    1. Buggy height versus “normal”

    2. The Transport Scotland Sensor Rotation project involves a series of air
    quality assessments by piloting low cost sensors at locations where the
    Transport Scotland road network meets local authority networks in a the
    vicinity of built-up areas. It also examines the environmental
    monitoring technologies available, the possible metrics, and how this
    data correlates to more established methods.

    3.Highly time resolved measurements of aerosol chemical composition in
    London –

    4. OpenAir – Visualisation tool for air quality (open-source software) –

    Openair is a comprehensive set of open-source tools designed for the insightful
    analysis of air quality data. The software is one of several thousand
    ‘R’ packages that is freely available and works on Windows, Mac and
    linux. The tools make it easy to access air quality data from UK
    networks and historical data from over 8,000 sites in the European
    Environment Agency airbase database. The software makes it easy to carry
    out sophisticated analyses in flexible ways. Some of the capabilities
    include wind and pollution roses, bivariate polar plots, back trajectory
    analysis and clustering. These and other techniques allow considerable
    insight to be gained from the analysis of air quality data providing,
    for example, key information on the nature and characteristics of
    different emission sources.

    All of this sounds like really good value…if people don’t go it plays into the hands of tricksters and PR merchants,who “construct” a PR version of the background science…like wot Boris does.

  • smogbad



    Children should be “bussed in” from the countryside to breathe in
    London’s air Boris Johnson claimed this week, as new figures revealed
    toxic levels of pollution in the capital.

    The mayor of London claimed the city’s air is now “alpine” in its cleanliness.

    “The air quality in London, you can go outside and breathe in great
    gulfs of virtually alpine air,” he told the conservative think tank the
    Capital City Foundation earlier this week.

    “There was a recent bad air day – this is absolutely true – where the
    air quality in Norfolk was inferior to the air quality in London.

  • smogbad

    Latest from incinerator Viridor is too ashamed to own:


    kill of a few bird reserves,add a bit of gas,but still burn lots of stuff including radioactive waste


    just look at the complex wheeling and dealing needed for this little game,and who si prepared to play


    Latest local news…Paul Scully has never heard of the incinerator…….how “forgetful” can a man be…..perhaps too dementing to be an MP?

  • Stop The Burn

    You mention chemicals but what about PM’s – it is a fact these will be produced and according to Public Health England “There is no evidence for a threshold below which effects would not be expected”

    Couple that with the fact that over 90% of all waste can be recycled or re-used we shouldn’t simply be throwing it all in and burning it, which is what this plan will do.

  • Stop The Burn

    Join us at the climate change march this weekend, all you need to know is on the news page here: http://www.stoptheincinerator.co.uk/?p=1335

  • smogbad

    THAY ARE AT IT AGAIN…..industry amd diesel motor manufacturer polluters changing our laws to favour their profits:


    I know it’s a lot to ask,but I repeat my posts of 6 and 5 years ago:



    In the guise of cutting red tape and curbing administrative costs the
    Environment Committee of the EU Parliament has just last month passed
    amendments to European Directive [COM(2007) 843 final]that seriously affect our
    ability to monitor and inspect

    Chimney emissions

    Groundwater pollution

    Soil pollution

    Heavy metal emissions

    The industry lobby wants to limit access to the legal complaint procedure by
    non governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, leaving an
    individual to face them alone!

    The industry has gained permission for inspections every two years instead of
    every year.

    Industry wanted derogations from limit values..it has got them!

    Soil monitoring every 10 years, groundwater, every 5….!Heavy metals once a year

    You won’t be informed until four months after a breach has occurred etc.etc.

    When the SLWP come to say that incinerators are safe..who can argue with
    them….the operators will own all the numbers…..It is really time that we all
    had access to independent sources of monitoring,both particulates in general
    and heavy metals in particular.Perhaps it should be made a condition of the
    contract that we get heavy metal readings every week!

    Isn’t it truly amazing that in all this regulation there is no provision whatsoever for
    monitoring the health of the “local” population.That is absolutely
    disgraceful and negligent.Come on you Green MEP’s!

    2 EURO-FLAW 2

    In a further deliberate attempt to disguise the real cost of incineration, and
    maintain the truly crazy drive to globalised companies’ profits, the EU
    parliament continues the policy to ease controls on pollution
    measurments.WHAT’S TO HIDE ?? !!


    The latest press release shows how ultra-fine particulates, dioxins and heavy
    metals are being made to “disappear”.

    They are even falling behind on their scurrilous “best we can manage”
    safety promise.They are refusing to measure with the latest technology.

    How expendable do you feel?

    3 BAD STUFF BY THE TON that comes out of some

    Information Supplied by The Air That We Breathe Group

    (Courtesy of UKWIN)

    Operator Site Address Licence


    Process CEMENT AND LIME Manufacture

    Material Maximum Reported Emission 1998 – 2006 Effects on Human Health


    22.5t Excessive exposure to ammonia may affect the eye, lung, nose, skin and


    17453kg Excessive exposure to boron and its compounds may affect the brain,
    digestive system, eye, kidney, liver, lung, nose, reproductive system, skin,
    throat and the unborn child.



    10.4kg Excessive exposure to antimony may affect the digestive system, eye,
    heart, kidney, lung and skin.


    4.2kg Arsenic and some of its compounds may cause cancer and genetic damage.
    Excessive exposures may affect the blood, blood vessels, brain, digestive
    system, lung, peripheral nerve and skin.


    3.43kg Excessive exposure to beryllium may affect the eye, lung and skin, and
    may cause cancer.


    2.7kg Excessive exposure to cadmium and its compounds may affect the blood,
    blood vessels, bone, digestive system, heart, immune system, kidney, liver and
    lung, and may cause cancer. Danger of serious damage to health by prolonged
    exposure through inhalation and if swallowed. Possible risk of irreversible


    62.2kg Chromium and its compounds may cause cancer and genetic damage.
    Excessive exposure may affect the digestive system, kidney, liver, lung, nose,
    skin and the unborn child.


    29.9kg Excessive exposure to copper and its compounds may affect the digestive
    system, eye, kidney, liver, lung and nose.


    100kg Lead and some of its compounds may affect the development of the brain in
    children and the unborn child. Excessive exposure may affect the blood, blood
    vessels, digestive system, kidney, peripheral nerve, reproductive system and
    the unborn child, and may cause cancer.


    100kg Excessive exposure to manganese and its compounds may affect the brain,
    liver, lung, reproductive system and skin.


    20.44kg Excessive exposure to mercury and its compounds may affect the brain,
    digestive system, eye, heart, kidney, lung, reproductive system, skin, and the
    unborn child.


    103.83kg Nickel may cause cancer and genetic damage.Excessive exposure to
    nickel may affect the blood, lung, nose, reproductive system, skin and the
    unborn child.


    200kg Excessive exposure to selenium and its compounds may affect the brain,
    digestive system, eye, heart, liver, lung, peripheral nerve, reproductive
    system, skin, throat.


    100kg Excessive exposure to vanadium compounds may affect the digestive system,
    eye, liver, skin, throat and the unborn child, and may cause cancer.


    100kg Excessive exposure to zinc compounds may affect the blood, digestive
    system, eye, kidney, lung, pancreas, reproductive system, skin and the unborn

    Ozone 50kg Excessive exposure to ozone may affect the eye and lung.

    Carbon dioxide

    716004.2t Major contributor to climate change. Climate changes will inevitably
    influence the health of those directly affected.

    Carbon dioxide – ‘chemical’


    Carbon dioxide – ‘thermal’


    Carbon monoxide

    678.7t Excessive exposure to carbon mono

    xide may affect the blood, brain, heart, and the unborn child.

    Nitrogen oxides (as NO2)

    3447.7t Excessive exposure to nitrogen oxides may affect the blood, liver, lung
    and spleen.

    Nitrous oxide


    Sulphur oxides (as SO2)

    1685t Excessive exposure to sulphur dioxide may affect the eye, lung and throat.

    Hydrogen chloride

    52.46t Excessive exposure to hydrogen chloride may affect the eye, lung, nose,
    skin and throat.

    Inorganic chlorine compounds 52466kg

    Hydrogen cyanide

    <200kg A poisonous gas that affects the central nervous system and can cause
    death if the exposure is high enough. May cause brain damage at lower than
    lethal concentrations.

    Hydrogen fluoride

    <5000kg Potential symptoms of overexposure are irritation of eyes, nose and
    throat; pulmonary edema; skin and eye burns; nasal congestion; bronchitis.

    Inorganic fluorine compounds <5000kg Can cause fluorosis – may damage teeth
    and bones if exposed to excessive concentrations

    Particulate matter

    – total 147.91t

    PM10 69.5t Particulates affect the heart and lung. COMEAP have concluded
    that there is an effect on health from any particulate matter.

    Methane 50.1t Excessive exposure to methane may affect the brain.

    VOC and POP

    Volatile Organic Compounds include a large number of toxic chemicals some
    effects are listed below under the individual chemicals. No one knows the
    effect of small quantities of lots of organic chemicals acting together.

    VOCs (as C) (1998-2001)


    VOCs (NMVOCs) (2002 onwards)



    4367.02kg Benzene may cause cancer and genetic damage. Excessive exposure may
    affect the blood, brain, heart, immune system, liver, lung and skin. Toxic:
    danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation

    Butadiene (1,3-Butadiene)

    <100kg 1,3-Butadiene may cause cancer and genetic damage. Excessive exposure
    may affect the blood, brain, eye, heart, kidney, lung, nose and throat.


    <100kg Excessive exposure to styrene may affect the blood, brain, eye,
    immune system, kidney, liver, lung, skin and throat.

    Carbon disulphide

    <1000kg Excessive exposure to carbon disulphide may affect the brain, eye,
    heart, liver, lung, reproductive system, skin, and the unborn child.

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

    There is rapidly increasing body of evidence supporting the conclusion that
    carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) produce severe, long-term
    immunotoxicity. This may be related to the structure of the carcinogenic
    polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons since immune alterations have not been
    observed following exposure to noncarcinogenic congeners. Evidence exists to
    indicate that mixtures of PAHs are carcinogenic in humans. The evidence in
    humans comes primarily from occupational studies of workers exposed to mixtures
    containing PAHs as a result of their involvement in such processes as coke
    production, roofing, oil refining, or coal gasification (e.g., coal tar,
    roofing tar, soot, coke oven emissions, soot, crude oil)… . PAHs, however, have
    not been clearly identified as the causative agent. Cancer associated with
    exposure to PAH-containing mixtures in humans occurs predominantly in the lung
    and skin following inhalation and dermal exposure, respectively. Some ingestion
    of PAHs is likely because of swallowing of particles containing PAHs subsequent
    to mucociliary clearance of these particulates from the lung.

    PAHs (borneff six)



    <1kg Benzo(a)pyrene may cause cancer and genetic damage. Excessive exposure
    may affect the blood, immune system, reproductive system and the unborn child.
    May cause heritable genetic damage; May impair fertility;


    <1kg probable human carcinogen, increased incidences of skin, lung, bladder
    & gastrointestinal cancer. Pregnant women may be especially susceptible to
    exposure effects associated with coal tar pitch volatiles like benzo(b)fluoranthene
    and other pahs.


    <1kg Possibly genotoxic

    Benzo(k)fluoranthene <1kg probable human carcinogen.


    <10kg probable human carcinogen. Pregnant women may be especially
    susceptible to exposure effects associated with coal tar pitch volatiles.
    Persons with existing skin disorders may be more susceptible to the effects of
    coal tar pitch volatiles


    <1kg The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. caused increased
    incidences of lung and genitourinary cancer mortality


    <10000kg Excessive exposure to naphthalene may affect the blood, breastfed
    baby, eye, lung and the unborn child.

    Organo-chlorine and organo-fluorine compounds

    CFCs (as C) (1998-2001)

    <100kg Damage the ozone layer so may affect health indirectly through
    increased uv radiation at ground level.

    CFCs (total mass 2002 onwards)


    Carbon tetrachloride

    <100kg Excessive exposure to carbon tetrachloride may affect the brain,
    digestive system, eye, kidney, liver and skin, and may cause cancer.

    Dioxins and furans – as ITEQ 70 mg Excessive exposure to dioxins may
    affect the heart, immune system, liver, skin, thyroid gland and the unborn
    child, and may cause cancer.

    Dioxins and furans- as WHO TEQ 40 mg

    Halons (as C) (1998-2001) <100kg Chemicals containing fluorine and chlorine.
    Many cause cancer or have narcotic effects. They can be associated with dioxin

    Halons (total) (2002 onwards) <50kg

    HCFCs (as C) (1998-2001) <100kg

    HCFCs (total) (2002 onwards) <1000kg

    HFCs (as C) (1998-2001) <100kg

    HFCs (total) (2002 onwards) <100kg

    PCBs as WHO TEQ .02g

    PFCs (as C) (1998-2001) <100kg


    Phosgene (Carbonic dichloride)

    <100kg Excessive exposure to phosgene may affect eye, lung, skin and throat.

    Methyl chloride

    <10000kg Excessive exposure to chloromethane may affect the brain, eye,
    heart, kidney, liver, reproductive system and skin, and may cause cancer.

    Sulphur hexafluoride <100kg Excessive exposure to sulphur hexafluoride may
    affect the brain.

    Source: The Air That We Breathe.

    The reason that our democracy has come into such disrepute is that vital decisions are taken very far away,by very rich people at Davos-like places and then cascaded down.Whatever we think of our councillors,MP's, MEP's,ministers and Dave or Tony the stitch-ups have already been done,very,very far away.

  • Stop The Burn

    Please join us on for our next meeting on the 21st of March from 11am upstairs at the Slug @ Wimbledon. We will be updating people on the latest news and plans going forwards. All are welcome. Any questions or things you want added to the agenda, drop us an email.

  • smogbad

    Why do lorries matter?
    Why does the Waddon Flyover Project show such ignorance and misjudgement?
    Why do governments continue to ignore pollution,and refuse to change school and nursery planning regs?