|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
Incinerator study gets green light
A fresh government-backed study into the potential health risks of incinerators has been given the go-ahead, sparking concerns that key projects could be de-railed. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) confirmed it would begin the study in April 2012, with preliminary results expected in March 2014. Experts warned earlier this month that such a study could make it harder to get incinerators through planning. A HPA statement said: “A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run Municipal Waste Incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency.” “The HPA’s current position that well run and regulated modern MWIs are not a significant risk to public health remains valid, but the study is being carried out to extend the evidence base and to provide further information to the public on this subject.”
The HPA will fund scientists at Imperial College London and King’s College London to carry out the study.
HPA chief executive Justin McCracken said: “It is important to stress that our current position on the potential health effects of well run and regulated modern Municipal Waste Incinerators remains valid. “This is that while it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable.” “However, we recognise that there are public concerns about this issue and this study will provide valuable new evidence. “HPA continually seeks to review and extend the evidence base on which it bases its advice. We are therefore delighted to support this new study with researchers from the MRC-HPA Centre for Environment and Health.” Earlier this month, Grant Thornton director Nigel Mattravers told MRW: “It is disappointing. Previous [Government-backed studies] were largely thought to definitively prove there are no serious health problems. “It may not be helpful for the future if there is a piece of work which campaigners can say ‘we need to wait for this before a decision is taken’.”
|
||