alriteyessir Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 TURKEYLAND NEW SITE FOR BOTTOM ASH VIGOROUS protests are expected after Turkeyland quarry in Malew was confirmed as the latest site earmarked for bottom ash from the incinerator. Last week, the Department of Local Government and the Enviroment revealed it was turning to the private sector to find a dump for the bottom ash, once Wright's Pit's use expires in December, reaching a deal with the Colas Group to take responsibility for the disposal. Plans to use Archallagan appear to be on the backburner and, although the DLGE did not reveal in its statement where the bottom ash can go, today's Isle of Man Examiner confirms it is Turkeyland quarry. David Allsebrook, secretary of Ballasalla and District Residents' Association, said he expected 'vigorous' protests. 'We as an association have rigorously opposed incineration and its doings from the outset.' The 320-member association has yet to meet to make a formal decision on the move, but Mr Allsebrook said: 'I would be astonished if they didn't repeat the arguments I have put. 'I don't understand how they (DLGE) expect the protesting to be any less vigorous than it was by those at Archallagan.' Full story in the Examiner. (taken from www.iomonline.co.im) anyone have any opinions on this potential development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I find it bizarre that the Government is going to pay for the stuff that Colas take out of the ground for the resurfacing of the roads and now they will be paying Colas to take their waste and put it back in the hole that they have already paid to be dug! Wouldn't it make common sense to put in a Licence that whatever they take out of the ground has to be filled in later with bottom ash from the incinerator at their own expense. A "You dig the hole, you fill the hole" policy? As usual, we end up getting screwed for being screwed in the first place! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 It's not toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alriteyessir Posted August 16, 2005 Author Share Posted August 16, 2005 it contains dioxins which can trigger cancer http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/sa...nerator_ash.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 You should read that report, full of facts it is. Bottom ash is NOT toxic: Bottom ash can safely be recycled as secondary aggregate – e.g. for construction blocks, asphalt, or bulk fill – because dioxin levels are similar to those typically found in urban soils. Fly ash is a different matter, but that's not getting put in the Turkeyland quarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I find it bizarre that the Government is going to pay for the stuff that Colas take out of the ground for the resurfacing of the roads and now they will be paying Colas to take their waste and put it back in the hole that they have already paid to be dug! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You should read that report, full of facts it is. Bottom ash is NOT toxic: Bottom ash can safely be recycled as secondary aggregate – e.g. for construction blocks, asphalt, or bulk fill – because dioxin levels are similar to those typically found in urban soils. Fly ash is a different matter, but that's not getting put in the Turkeyland quarry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Silly and possibly obvious question coming up - if the bottom ash is not toxic and can be safely recycled as secondary aggregate then why not save two lots of taxpayers money? If it can be mixed with the stuff that we presently pay Colas for to resurface our roads then it will save us twice if we use it for road resurfacing. We will buy less off Colas and we will avoid paying them to dump it. Now there are obviously things wrong with this idea or the government would have already though of it, wouldn't they? Anyone got any comments on why it wouldn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 It would work. It used to be the case that nobody wanted it but now I'm not sure seeing as Colas are taking it off their hands. Sounds a bit like one of those slightly insane situations like Corlett's taking the glass for recycling - the taxpayer pays him to take it and then he uses it in paviours which people buy off him, thereby making money twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alriteyessir Posted August 16, 2005 Author Share Posted August 16, 2005 if you read further into that report (full of facts it is) one of the FOE's concerns is that soil dioxin level should be zero Bottom ash can safely be recycled as secondary aggregate – e.g. for construction blocks, asphalt, or bulk fill – because dioxin levels are similar to those typically found in urban soils. The urban soil dioxin level in the report is from a German study. Germans recycle a great deal more than their uk counterparts so their soil levels should have a much lower reading of dioxin level in urban areas. In addition that report states that the level of dioxins consumed by humans (mainly from food) for a third of the human population are already over and above what the govt. deems to be an acceptable 'daily intake' rate My major concern for the proposed turkeyland development is that this material will outgas into the surrounding area and thus overtime depending on peoples ability to detoxify these man made chemicals their will be an increase In environmental illness. IMHO bottom ash IS toxic and hazardous to human health and i'd be very interesting to know how the site would be stored and managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alriteyessir Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 Dear all, Their was a meeting at the ballasalle village town hall with regards to future bottom ash storage at Turkeyland this evening. The meeting today in ballasalla neglected to mention a few causes for concern, such as; All landfill liners will eventually leak (greenpeace) All chemicals outgass into the atmosphere (rogers) Dioxins are one of the most potent cancer causes (Rogers) Dioxins also damage childrens brain functions as well as thyroid (Brucker) Dioxins do not go away when indroduced into the atmosphere (Rogers) Even tiny amounts damage brains and especially motivation (Washam) Dioxins are a persistent environmental poison never leaving the soil or water permanently, but cycle through rain, plants, animals and into our foods and bodies (rogers) When bottom ash was used in newcastle 1994-1999 for local allotments and paths it was found to have unacceptable levels of dioxins and subsequently removed recently (Greenpeace) sources D.F Brucker - Effects of environmental synthetic chemicals on thyroid function, thyroid, 8:827-56, 1998 C. Washam - Slowing the rat race, low dose dioxin alters behaviour, Environ Heath, Persp, 109; 6A 279, June 2001 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...ion/the-problem S Rogers - Detoxify or die, 2002 In saying this though coutesy of the incinerator 'non hazardous' waste will have to be stored somewhere on island as we have produced it and it will effect us all anyway. As for the future when turkleyland runs out of space, someone elses doorstep no doubt embrace a bottom ash disposal site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 When bottom ash was used in newcastle 1994-1999 for local allotments and paths it was found to have unacceptable levels of dioxins and subsequently removed recently (Greenpeace) Hi alriteyessir Some interesting points, but please please please never use the one I have quoted as an example. In Byker they were found to have mixed fly ash with bottom ash - which you just don't do (or shouldn't do!). Fly ash IS toxic. Fly ash would NOT be sent to landfill. The incident at Byker is an anomoly for arguments against bottom ash storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alriteyessir Posted August 23, 2005 Author Share Posted August 23, 2005 Thanks for the info. Sarah your right Byker poor example in this instance. Apologies for misleading anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 http://www.gov.im/lib/news/dlge/newgovernmentown.xml "the Department of Local Government and the Environment has concluded that a smaller site within the Archallagan Plantation should be progressed as the next long-term landfill site". "The review concluded that the site in Archallagan Plantation is still the most suitable site for development at present" ....and what happens when the "smaller site within the Archallagan Plantation" is full??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 From April 2002: Investigation of Possible Alternatives for Bottom Ash From the Incinerator From June 2002: My Impression of the Potential Impact of a Landfill Site at Archallagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabbyl ushtey Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 How can you be sure fly ash can't be sent to landfill. Any thing is possible in the Isle of Man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 How can you be sure fly ash can't be sent to landfill. Any thing is possible in the Isle of Man! /In theory... Because it is a licenced waste product which will have consignment notes when it is collected, wrapped, moved and finally disposed of. SITA have a "paid for" (I assume they had to pay) licence to ship Fly Ash off Island so it wouldn't make sense to dump it locally. You can not move a goldfish now without a complete history of where it comes from and where it went through to arrive. Besides, it was SITA who messed up at Byker and Edmunton, so they would be foolish to risk further acts of stupidity. /In reality... 'We' can not be sure that Fly Ash doesn't go to local fill other than for the above reasons which I suppose could be abused, although due to fiscal penalties and damage to reputation, we'd have to first ask 'why' they would do it. There are those who will suggest or speculate to the contrary without a care about why they chose to spread rumour. If a current SITA employee or a current landfill employee offers evidence to the contrary then we would have reason to be concerned. Does anybody know one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.