Anyone who thinks that incinerators pose no harm to health is mistaken.

Examination of Office for National Statistics birth/mortality data at electoral wards around incinerators consistently shows higher rates in the wards that are downwind of the incinerators compared with upwind.

Worcester had six infant deaths and 1243 live births recorded by ONS in 2006, ie an average rate for the City of 4.8 per 1,000 live births, but unless you have access to data at ward-level, you cannot tell whether all six infant deaths occurred in one ward or which wards in Worcester have had zero infant deaths for many years.

London has 625 electoral wards and sixty-two of them had infant mortality rates greater than 9.0 per 1,000 live births in the 4-year period 2003-6. These "high" infant death wards are clearly associated with incinerator emissions and the Borough of Enfield, which is home to Edmonton incinerator, had four of these high wards and the names of three of them give a clue to where they are: Edmonton Green, Upper Edmonton, Lower Edmonton, Ponders End. If you check a ward map of Enfield, you'll see that the above 4 wards are along the eastern boundary and if you check the Enfield Advertiser you'll see that Enfield had the highest infant mortality rate in London at 7.3 per 1,000.

London also has one hundred and one wards where the 2003-6 infant mortality rate was less than 2.0 per 1,000 and these "low" wards were free from incinerator emissions.

When I checked the infant mortality rates in Coventry's electoral wards I found that the five wards with the highest rates in 2003-6 formed a single group that was immediately downwind of the incinerator.

Coventry also had two electoral wards where there had been zero infant deaths in 2003-6 and these two wards were both upwind of the incinerator and formed a single group.

When I checked the data in Warwick's electoral wards I found five more wards with zero infant deaths in 2003-6 that formed a single group when joined to the two zero wards in Coventry and these wards "just happened to be" along the line of the prevailing SW wind on its way to Coventry incinerator.

The seven "upwind" wards hasd zero infant deaths and the five "downwind" wards had fifty infant deaths in 2003-6.

I hope that the Director of Public Health for the PCT who will be asked to sign the IPPC letter saying that the proposed incinerator will pose no significant harm to human health reads this blog comment and starts to look at data instead of listening to spin from the Health Protection Agency.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan
Shrewsbury

Kind regards,

Anyone who thinks that incinerators pose no harm to health is mistaken.

Examination of Office for National Statistics birth/mortality data at electoral wards around incinerators consistently shows higher rates in the wards that are downwind of the incinerators compared with upwind.

Worcester had six infant deaths and 1243 live births recorded by ONS in 2006, ie an average rate for the City of 4.8 per 1,000 live births, but unless you have access to data at ward-level, you cannot tell whether all six infant deaths occurred in one ward or which wards in Worcester have had zero infant deaths for many years.

London has 625 electoral wards and sixty-two of them had infant mortality rates greater than 9.0 per 1,000 live births in the 4-year period 2003-6. These "high" infant death wards are clearly associated with incinerator emissions and the Borough of Enfield, which is home to Edmonton incinerator, had four of these high wards and the names of three of them give a clue to where they are: Edmonton Green, Upper Edmonton, Lower Edmonton, Ponders End. If you check a ward map of Enfield, you'll see that the above 4 wards are along the eastern boundary and if you check the Enfield Advertiser you'll see that Enfield had the highest infant mortality rate in London at 7.3 per 1,000.

London also has one hundred and one wards where the 2003-6 infant mortality rate was less than 2.0 per 1,000 and these "low" wards were free from incinerator emissions.

When I checked the infant mortality rates in Coventry's electoral wards I found that the five wards with the highest rates in 2003-6 formed a single group that was immediately downwind of the incinerator.

Coventry also had two electoral wards where there had been zero infant deaths in 2003-6 and these two wards were both upwind of the incinerator and formed a single group.

When I checked the data in Warwick's electoral wards I found five more wards with zero infant deaths in 2003-6 that formed a single group when joined to the two zero wards in Coventry and these wards "just happened to be" along the line of the prevailing SW wind on its way to Coventry incinerator.

The seven "upwind" wards hasd zero infant deaths and the five "downwind" wards had fifty infant deaths in 2003-6.

I hope that the Director of Public Health for the PCT who will be asked to sign the IPPC letter saying that the proposed incinerator will pose no significant harm to human health reads this blog comment and starts to look at data instead of listening to spin from the Health Protection Agency.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan
Shrewsbury

Kind regards,

I wonder how conversant Michael Ryan is with the analysis of statistics. His presentation of "facts" and "figure" are typical of those that are presented to illustrate a one sided point of view. Michael, you have to research at least ten years of data collected in order for any analysis to be anywhere meaningful. Also you need to define "infant mortality rate" (ie at birth or upto a certain age). I would suggest that you try to obtain copies of the appropriate British Standards Institute documents which lays down the correct methods and procedures for data collection and the amount and type of data needed for meaningful analysis. If you do this then you may come up with a different conclusion.

I wonder how conversant Michael Ryan is with the analysis of statistics. His presentation of "facts" and "figure" are typical of those that are presented to illustrate a one sided point of view. Michael, you have to research at least ten years of data collected in order for any analysis to be anywhere meaningful. Also you need to define "infant mortality rate" (ie at birth or upto a certain age). I would suggest that you try to obtain copies of the appropriate British Standards Institute documents which lays down the correct methods and procedures for data collection and the amount and type of data needed for meaningful analysis. If you do this then you may come up with a different conclusion.

Varien hasn't the slightest idea of my knowledge of statistics, but he or she should know that infant mortality rate is recognised throughout the world as the number of babies who die aged less than one year divided by the total number of live births and that result multiplied by 1,000.

Varien should also know that there are many medical journal articles proving the association of infant mortality with industrial PM2.5 emissions.

The "ten years of data" advice is meaningless as what's important is the size of the sample and some electoral wards have very low numbers of live births and some very high.

As it happens, I have a dataset extending beyond twelve years but prefer to present data in sets of three or four years to avoid smooth out any wide yearly variations.

If Varien is a genuine blogger who doubts anything I've written, perhaps he/she will contact the Worcester News and ask them to print some of the ONS data for Worcester and also for Coventry and Warwick.

The five electoral wards in Coventry that are immediately downwind of Cheylesmore ward where the incinerator is sited had a total of 5,753 live births and fifty infant deaths recorded by ONS during 4-year period 2003-6, ie an average infant mortality rate of 8.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

The only electoral wards in Coventry that had zero infant deaths in 2003-6 were both upwind of the incinerator with prevailing SW wind and these two wards had a total of 834 live births, but none of the mothers in those wards had to bury a baby.

When the group of two zero infant death wards in Coventry are joined to a group of "zero infant death wards" in Warwick, which are also upwind of the Coventry incinerator, the total number of live births where there hasn't been an infant death becomes 1538.

No researcher, or spin merchant, or incinerator promoter, or County Councilloe will dare to argue that the above pattern is "chance", or that baby killers are clustered in the downwind wards.

When I examined the infant death rates around another source of industrial PM2.5s, I noticed that the downwind group of wards, which had been significantly higher than the upwind group of wards for every year except one, I checked what had happened in the low year and found that there had been a major fire and the plant had been shut down for almost a year.

Varien can try and argue that the above is just another chance event, but if it was your child, or grandchild that was being expected in one of these downwind zones, you'd surely be concerned enough to get the data checked.

The UK isn't a good country for owning up to any matters of public health, as the Camelford residents have found out since their water was accidentally poisoned in 1988.

If you were reading papers in the 1960s, you might recall the reluctance for thalidomide to be linked with birth defects.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan

Varien hasn't the slightest idea of my knowledge of statistics, but he or she should know that infant mortality rate is recognised throughout the world as the number of babies who die aged less than one year divided by the total number of live births and that result multiplied by 1,000.

Varien should also know that there are many medical journal articles proving the association of infant mortality with industrial PM2.5 emissions.

The "ten years of data" advice is meaningless as what's important is the size of the sample and some electoral wards have very low numbers of live births and some very high.

As it happens, I have a dataset extending beyond twelve years but prefer to present data in sets of three or four years to avoid smooth out any wide yearly variations.

If Varien is a genuine blogger who doubts anything I've written, perhaps he/she will contact the Worcester News and ask them to print some of the ONS data for Worcester and also for Coventry and Warwick.

The five electoral wards in Coventry that are immediately downwind of Cheylesmore ward where the incinerator is sited had a total of 5,753 live births and fifty infant deaths recorded by ONS during 4-year period 2003-6, ie an average infant mortality rate of 8.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

The only electoral wards in Coventry that had zero infant deaths in 2003-6 were both upwind of the incinerator with prevailing SW wind and these two wards had a total of 834 live births, but none of the mothers in those wards had to bury a baby.

When the group of two zero infant death wards in Coventry are joined to a group of "zero infant death wards" in Warwick, which are also upwind of the Coventry incinerator, the total number of live births where there hasn't been an infant death becomes 1538.

No researcher, or spin merchant, or incinerator promoter, or County Councilloe will dare to argue that the above pattern is "chance", or that baby killers are clustered in the downwind wards.

When I examined the infant death rates around another source of industrial PM2.5s, I noticed that the downwind group of wards, which had been significantly higher than the upwind group of wards for every year except one, I checked what had happened in the low year and found that there had been a major fire and the plant had been shut down for almost a year.

Varien can try and argue that the above is just another chance event, but if it was your child, or grandchild that was being expected in one of these downwind zones, you'd surely be concerned enough to get the data checked.

The UK isn't a good country for owning up to any matters of public health, as the Camelford residents have found out since their water was accidentally poisoned in 1988.

If you were reading papers in the 1960s, you might recall the reluctance for thalidomide to be linked with birth defects.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan

Michael
What did I say that gave you the idea that I am knowledgable about the subject you are talking about. That is why I asked what the definition of infant mortality rate is. I did not realise that I may be the only person in the world who does not know what the definition is. The point I am making is not about the subject matter (which I know very little about) it is about your use and interpretation of statistics and figures (which I do understand) that you are using in order to make your point. You have admitted that your dataset extends beyond twelve years but you prefer to only present data in sets of three or four years to avoid smoothing out any wide yearly variations. Is that not bending the facts to suit your argument? Unfortunately Michael any variations are a matter of fact and cannot really be ignored as the reasons for variation would need to be investigated.
It is obvious that you have very strong and valid opinions about waste inceration but I would respectfully suggest that you present your arguments in a more meaningful manner and not in a way that bores the pants of the average reader by quoting "out of context" statistics, which the average person is unlikely to grasp, in an attempt to reinforce your argument.

Michael
What did I say that gave you the idea that I am knowledgable about the subject you are talking about. That is why I asked what the definition of infant mortality rate is. I did not realise that I may be the only person in the world who does not know what the definition is. The point I am making is not about the subject matter (which I know very little about) it is about your use and interpretation of statistics and figures (which I do understand) that you are using in order to make your point. You have admitted that your dataset extends beyond twelve years but you prefer to only present data in sets of three or four years to avoid smoothing out any wide yearly variations. Is that not bending the facts to suit your argument? Unfortunately Michael any variations are a matter of fact and cannot really be ignored as the reasons for variation would need to be investigated.
It is obvious that you have very strong and valid opinions about waste inceration but I would respectfully suggest that you present your arguments in a more meaningful manner and not in a way that bores the pants of the average reader by quoting "out of context" statistics, which the average person is unlikely to grasp, in an attempt to reinforce your argument.

Would the citizens of Worcester prefer to know what the infant mortality rates are in the electoral wards around existing incinerators, which are supposed to be adequately monitored & regulated, or would you prefer to remain in ignorance?

The following newspapers have all reported ONS infant mortality data following my research:
Enfield Advertiser, Haringey Advertiser, Harrow Observer, Waltham Forest Guardian, The Mercury , plus the national paper, Sunday Express.

It's not just infant deaths that are associated with incinerator emissions or other industrial sources of PM2.5s as child deaths from asthma tend to occur where infant mortality rates are high and these are places that are downwind of industrial sources of PM2.5s.

Here in Shropshire, Ironbridge power station has a chimney stack that's 670 feet high and the PM2.5 emissions from that stack will easily travel for over forty miles, having measurable adverse health effects wherever they ground, such as at Gnosall, Staffs, which is fifteen miles downwind of the power station and is the village where six people have killed themselves in a 12-month period ending 1 Dec 2007. The Stafford Post of 21 Nov 2007 had front page article "Suicides 'linked to power station" featuring Dr Dick van Steenis and myself and the 6th suicide occurred a few days later.

These six suicides are part of a much larger set, all within a downwind zone from Ironbridge power station and one of the suicides in Feb 2007 was the Assistant Deputy Coroner for Staffordshire who lived in Brocton, just outside the grounds of Shugborough, where Lord Lichfield lived until he died of a stroke in 2005, aged 66 years.

Just enter "asthma, Bill Cash MP" into google and get the name of the ten-year-old boy from Woodseaves who died from asthma in Feb 2005.

Use Birmingham Post website & asthma search to get name of ten-year-old boy from Golden Hillock Road, Small Heath, who died of asthma in his school playground in Feb 2004 and note that his road and his school were both close to Tyesley incinerator, which is in South Yardley ward.

If Varien checks the Cardiac Risk in the Young website, he/she will be amazed to find that the youngsters who are dropping dead, often when exercising hard "just happen" to have lived near incinerators or other industrial sources of PM2.5 emissions.

The London Health Observatory have examined the same set of data as me and as they have been told that air pollution is not a factor in infant deaths, they concluded that it was "deprivation" that caused the babies to die. Well, well, well, if that's so, why is it that in forty of London's 625 electoral wards there were zero infant deaths in 2003-6 and yet many of those "zero" wards will have had "deprived" people in them. All will have had single mothers and I'm sure that there would also have been smokers amng the mothers whether they were single or not and also that they would have taken their babies into bed with them at some stage and yet none of their babies died.

Some people report that "Asians marrying their cousins" causes infant mortality and yet there are plenty of Asians having children in some of the zero infant death wards and I bet that many of them will have married cousins and yet their babies didn't die either.

The LHO refuse to publish the infant mortality rates by electoral ward and yet they publish the low birthweight statistics by ward and also assert that low birthweight is a risk factor for infant mortality, which is hardly surprising as Professor Fredrica Pereira has already proved that the polyaromatic hydrocarbons from industrial sources cause low birthweight and the LHO data shows that the wards with the highest percentage of babies born live at less than 2500 grams are the ones getting emissions from incinerators.

Take a look at Surrey Online article of 10 Jan 2008: "Incinerators could kill our children":

http://icsurreyonlin
e.icnetwork.co.uk/01
00news/0500dorkingle
atherhead/tm_method=
full%26objectid=2033
1230%26siteid=50101-
name_page.html

Maybe some latter-day King Herod character is going around killing the babies?

The media seemed to blame "black magic" for the Gnosall suicides and the Bishop of Stafford has recently installed a new priest there whilst forgetting that the last one retired through ill-health.

Worcs is due to have five or six wood-burning power stations soon, so you'll find out what industrial PM2.5 emissions are like long before an incinerator is built.

I wonder if Varien was at Dr van Steenis' lecture at Tenbury Wells last year about the Biomass plant>

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Would the citizens of Worcester prefer to know what the infant mortality rates are in the electoral wards around existing incinerators, which are supposed to be adequately monitored & regulated, or would you prefer to remain in ignorance?

The following newspapers have all reported ONS infant mortality data following my research:
Enfield Advertiser, Haringey Advertiser, Harrow Observer, Waltham Forest Guardian, The Mercury , plus the national paper, Sunday Express.

It's not just infant deaths that are associated with incinerator emissions or other industrial sources of PM2.5s as child deaths from asthma tend to occur where infant mortality rates are high and these are places that are downwind of industrial sources of PM2.5s.

Here in Shropshire, Ironbridge power station has a chimney stack that's 670 feet high and the PM2.5 emissions from that stack will easily travel for over forty miles, having measurable adverse health effects wherever they ground, such as at Gnosall, Staffs, which is fifteen miles downwind of the power station and is the village where six people have killed themselves in a 12-month period ending 1 Dec 2007. The Stafford Post of 21 Nov 2007 had front page article "Suicides 'linked to power station" featuring Dr Dick van Steenis and myself and the 6th suicide occurred a few days later.

These six suicides are part of a much larger set, all within a downwind zone from Ironbridge power station and one of the suicides in Feb 2007 was the Assistant Deputy Coroner for Staffordshire who lived in Brocton, just outside the grounds of Shugborough, where Lord Lichfield lived until he died of a stroke in 2005, aged 66 years.

Just enter "asthma, Bill Cash MP" into google and get the name of the ten-year-old boy from Woodseaves who died from asthma in Feb 2005.

Use Birmingham Post website & asthma search to get name of ten-year-old boy from Golden Hillock Road, Small Heath, who died of asthma in his school playground in Feb 2004 and note that his road and his school were both close to Tyesley incinerator, which is in South Yardley ward.

If Varien checks the Cardiac Risk in the Young website, he/she will be amazed to find that the youngsters who are dropping dead, often when exercising hard "just happen" to have lived near incinerators or other industrial sources of PM2.5 emissions.

The London Health Observatory have examined the same set of data as me and as they have been told that air pollution is not a factor in infant deaths, they concluded that it was "deprivation" that caused the babies to die. Well, well, well, if that's so, why is it that in forty of London's 625 electoral wards there were zero infant deaths in 2003-6 and yet many of those "zero" wards will have had "deprived" people in them. All will have had single mothers and I'm sure that there would also have been smokers amng the mothers whether they were single or not and also that they would have taken their babies into bed with them at some stage and yet none of their babies died.

Some people report that "Asians marrying their cousins" causes infant mortality and yet there are plenty of Asians having children in some of the zero infant death wards and I bet that many of them will have married cousins and yet their babies didn't die either.

The LHO refuse to publish the infant mortality rates by electoral ward and yet they publish the low birthweight statistics by ward and also assert that low birthweight is a risk factor for infant mortality, which is hardly surprising as Professor Fredrica Pereira has already proved that the polyaromatic hydrocarbons from industrial sources cause low birthweight and the LHO data shows that the wards with the highest percentage of babies born live at less than 2500 grams are the ones getting emissions from incinerators.

Take a look at Surrey Online article of 10 Jan 2008: "Incinerators could kill our children":

http://icsurreyonlin
e.icnetwork.co.uk/01
00news/0500dorkingle
atherhead/tm_method=
full%26objectid=2033
1230%26siteid=50101-
name_page.html

Maybe some latter-day King Herod character is going around killing the babies?

The media seemed to blame "black magic" for the Gnosall suicides and the Bishop of Stafford has recently installed a new priest there whilst forgetting that the last one retired through ill-health.

Worcs is due to have five or six wood-burning power stations soon, so you'll find out what industrial PM2.5 emissions are like long before an incinerator is built.

I wonder if Varien was at Dr van Steenis' lecture at Tenbury Wells last year about the Biomass plant>

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Varien and anyone interested in the PM2.5 science and infant mortality, asthmas and heart disease /COPD the below links are fairly useful, an eye opener perhaps, I suggest.

http://video.google.
com/videoplay?docid=
3665914907157343039


http://www.arb.ca.go
v/research/health/pm
-mort/pope_2006_crit
icalreview.pdf

http://www.noaca.org
/pmhealtheffects.pdf


http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/newhave
nreport.htm

Varien and anyone interested in the PM2.5 science and infant mortality, asthmas and heart disease /COPD the below links are fairly useful, an eye opener perhaps, I suggest.

http://video.google.
com/videoplay?docid=
3665914907157343039


http://www.arb.ca.go
v/research/health/pm
-mort/pope_2006_crit
icalreview.pdf

http://www.noaca.org
/pmhealtheffects.pdf


http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/newhave
nreport.htm

Michael,
It is obvious that you are not capable of understanding what I have written so I shall explain again.
I know virtually nothing about the effects of waste transmissions from waste incinerators. Why you wonder if I attended this Dr Van Steenis' lecture is beyond me.
You possibly have very valid reasons,and, dare I say proof, of the effects of waste inceration.
As an engineer this a subject I could be very interested in. Unfortunately your cherry picking of statistics which can distort the facts does, as far as I'm concerned, also destroy the credibility of a lot of your arguments.
I suggest that when discussing such a serious matter you should present the subject in a manner that will get people on your side and not alienate people by presenting the facts in such an agressive "you can't know as much as me" style.

Michael,
It is obvious that you are not capable of understanding what I have written so I shall explain again.
I know virtually nothing about the effects of waste transmissions from waste incinerators. Why you wonder if I attended this Dr Van Steenis' lecture is beyond me.
You possibly have very valid reasons,and, dare I say proof, of the effects of waste inceration.
As an engineer this a subject I could be very interested in. Unfortunately your cherry picking of statistics which can distort the facts does, as far as I'm concerned, also destroy the credibility of a lot of your arguments.
I suggest that when discussing such a serious matter you should present the subject in a manner that will get people on your side and not alienate people by presenting the facts in such an agressive "you can't know as much as me" style.

I'm glad that you're an engineer, Varien, because I've been a Chartered Civil Engineer for over 30 years and during my training I soon recognised the need for accurate data and the ability to analyse it. I also learned to listen carefully and ask for proof of assertions or claims before accepting them as fact.

If you feel that I'm agressive, perhaps my strident way of writing stems from the fact that I've had to bury two of our four children having lived near Shrewsbury hospital incinerator.

If you check the Institution of Civil Engineer's official stance on incineration you'll see that they are all for it, and yet engineers are supposed to keep abreast of current techonogies and ICE and other engineering bodies have failed to take notice of plasma gasification which is the safest and cheapest form of waste disposal.

Not many engineers are too shy to hide their name and yet you seem to be one of those rare types.

I've not "cherry-picked statistics" in any way at all. The laws of physics determine that fine particles ie PM2.5s are wind-borne and gravity ensures that they fall to earth.

If you had attended a public meeting with Dr van Steenis lecturing, you could have learned a lot very quickly and also had the opportunity to ask any questions you chose.

Jonathan Davies is also a Chartered Civil Engineer, and he's one of the authors of DEFRA's 2004 report about waste management which suggests that there are no health risks from emissions but does not examine any data at all.

Margaret Stoklosinski, a former Councillor from Slough who opposed the new Colnbrook incinerator, wrote a letter to the Shropshire Star which Jonathanm Davies answered. Dr van Steenis wrote a reply to it, and so did I, and Mr Davies wound his neck in fast.

Read these letters yourself varien & see who you prefer to believe: ie the facts or the spin.

http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/Inciner
ationLetters.pdf


What type of engineer are you exactly or are you too shy to say?

Maybe you're a bit like a cyber pest called "Doc Hardy" who claimed to know all about the Edmonton incinerator as he had lived there for years. Doc Hardy must have been asleep when the Enfield Advertiser had a three-page article abut my research on infant mortality rates on 25 April 2007 which was then reported further by Sunday Express on 29 April 2007. Doc Hardy featured very often on Norwich Evening News website and the Norwich Evening News hosted and chaired a public meeting on incinerator health hazards on 29 Jan 2007 at which both Dr van Steenis & I lectured. The Norwich Cllrs voted next day to oppose incineration.

If Worcester News wants an article on the health effects of incineration, Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS will be glad to provide expert comment, just as he already has on health matters for many national papers eg Sunday Express, Sunday Times, News of the World, The People, The Times, The Guardian, as well as scores of reginal papers in UK & beyond.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

I'm glad that you're an engineer, Varien, because I've been a Chartered Civil Engineer for over 30 years and during my training I soon recognised the need for accurate data and the ability to analyse it. I also learned to listen carefully and ask for proof of assertions or claims before accepting them as fact.

If you feel that I'm agressive, perhaps my strident way of writing stems from the fact that I've had to bury two of our four children having lived near Shrewsbury hospital incinerator.

If you check the Institution of Civil Engineer's official stance on incineration you'll see that they are all for it, and yet engineers are supposed to keep abreast of current techonogies and ICE and other engineering bodies have failed to take notice of plasma gasification which is the safest and cheapest form of waste disposal.

Not many engineers are too shy to hide their name and yet you seem to be one of those rare types.

I've not "cherry-picked statistics" in any way at all. The laws of physics determine that fine particles ie PM2.5s are wind-borne and gravity ensures that they fall to earth.

If you had attended a public meeting with Dr van Steenis lecturing, you could have learned a lot very quickly and also had the opportunity to ask any questions you chose.

Jonathan Davies is also a Chartered Civil Engineer, and he's one of the authors of DEFRA's 2004 report about waste management which suggests that there are no health risks from emissions but does not examine any data at all.

Margaret Stoklosinski, a former Councillor from Slough who opposed the new Colnbrook incinerator, wrote a letter to the Shropshire Star which Jonathanm Davies answered. Dr van Steenis wrote a reply to it, and so did I, and Mr Davies wound his neck in fast.

Read these letters yourself varien & see who you prefer to believe: ie the facts or the spin.

http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/Inciner
ationLetters.pdf


What type of engineer are you exactly or are you too shy to say?

Maybe you're a bit like a cyber pest called "Doc Hardy" who claimed to know all about the Edmonton incinerator as he had lived there for years. Doc Hardy must have been asleep when the Enfield Advertiser had a three-page article abut my research on infant mortality rates on 25 April 2007 which was then reported further by Sunday Express on 29 April 2007. Doc Hardy featured very often on Norwich Evening News website and the Norwich Evening News hosted and chaired a public meeting on incinerator health hazards on 29 Jan 2007 at which both Dr van Steenis & I lectured. The Norwich Cllrs voted next day to oppose incineration.

If Worcester News wants an article on the health effects of incineration, Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS will be glad to provide expert comment, just as he already has on health matters for many national papers eg Sunday Express, Sunday Times, News of the World, The People, The Times, The Guardian, as well as scores of reginal papers in UK & beyond.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

I have been asked to investigate the possible consequences of the introduction of the incinerator in Capel. I wish to find out the ward birth and mortality rates. Micahel Ryan mentions that he obtained these figures from the ONS website, but I have been unable to find them. Michael, please can you direct me to the correct spot. Thanks

I have been asked to investigate the possible consequences of the introduction of the incinerator in Capel. I wish to find out the ward birth and mortality rates. Micahel Ryan mentions that he obtained these figures from the ONS website, but I have been unable to find them. Michael, please can you direct me to the correct spot. Thanks

Hi Norma,

You have to purchase the data from ONS as it's not online.

I'm preparing two updated maps, one of London and one of Coventry & Warwick

I obtained the data from ONS, but not from their website. I don't know why the data isn't online. You should consider contacting Dr Dick van Steenis who is supposed to be speaking at a public meeting in Capel next month.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Hi Norma,

You have to purchase the data from ONS as it's not online.

I'm preparing two updated maps, one of London and one of Coventry & Warwick

I obtained the data from ONS, but not from their website. I don't know why the data isn't online. You should consider contacting Dr Dick van Steenis who is supposed to be speaking at a public meeting in Capel next month.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

Michael,
You still appear to be missing the point. I have told you that the effects of waste inceration is a subject that I know little or nothing about. All I did was to be critical of your presentation of data which I recognised as being presented in a way that was not truly representative (I know, I've been there and done it).
It is now evident that the subject of waste inceration is something that you are very emotive about. Because of this I consider it to be sensible that we have no more "exchanges". This will therefore give you the opportunity and satisfaction of having the last word. Should you take this opportunity of the last word then I would be grateful if you could explain why you continued to bombard me with information which you thought I should have known about.

Oh, and by the way. I am a mechanical engineer and obtained qualifications the hard way via apprenticeship, day release, night classes eventually being M.I. Mech. E. I retired after 42 years in production engineering the latter part being involved in mathematical modelling and computer simulation of machines and production lines.
And another thing, I do not hide behind the name "varien" as my wife, and sometimes my son or daughter will use this computer to respond to items published in this newspaper.
Bye bye.............

Michael,
You still appear to be missing the point. I have told you that the effects of waste inceration is a subject that I know little or nothing about. All I did was to be critical of your presentation of data which I recognised as being presented in a way that was not truly representative (I know, I've been there and done it).
It is now evident that the subject of waste inceration is something that you are very emotive about. Because of this I consider it to be sensible that we have no more "exchanges". This will therefore give you the opportunity and satisfaction of having the last word. Should you take this opportunity of the last word then I would be grateful if you could explain why you continued to bombard me with information which you thought I should have known about.

Oh, and by the way. I am a mechanical engineer and obtained qualifications the hard way via apprenticeship, day release, night classes eventually being M.I. Mech. E. I retired after 42 years in production engineering the latter part being involved in mathematical modelling and computer simulation of machines and production lines.
And another thing, I do not hide behind the name "varien" as my wife, and sometimes my son or daughter will use this computer to respond to items published in this newspaper.
Bye bye.............

There's no easy way to get qualifications unless you cheat.

Is the chip on your shoulder still giving you gyp, Varien?

Look at map at:

http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/coventr
ymap.pdf

I doubt if you've any idea about mathematical modelling, otherwise you'd know that such models have to be "proved" against real measurable items.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury

There's no easy way to get qualifications unless you cheat.

Is the chip on your shoulder still giving you gyp, Varien?

Look at map at:

http://www.ukhr.org/
incineration/coventr
ymap.pdf

I doubt if you've any idea about mathematical modelling, otherwise you'd know that such models have to be "proved" against real measurable items.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury