Petition against the Incinerator plus march

once again the states have not listened to the people who voted for them.yes we know something needs to be done re our rubbish but this plant is too big,possibly dangerous as far as emissions are concerned and far too expensive.well done pete for everything you tried to do.

4) That the 32 Deputies who voted for this mass poisoning burner & the Director Of Public Health give their reassurances that they will be held personally responsible for any health issues which may arise over the life of this mass poisoning burner........


You know that this will never happen - being a politician gives you carte blanche to speak for people (so they will say that 59,500 wanted this thing because only 400+ marched against it....that will be their 'get out'!!!) If in the first place they had not allowed developers to tear down our buildings and erect monstrcities in their place we would not have filled up our landfill sites - so it goes on! the person who really shocked me (as I marched with him in 2004) is Scott Ogier - he told me not too many moons ago that if they put an incinerator in St Sampsons he would move his wife and family away from this parish - so now he has voted it in I would very much like to know (a) if he is staying in our parish and (b) what changed his mind after being so adamant!!! Oh and as an afterthought - why have they got all the facilities in place to have traffic lights at the entrace to the site, presuably in preparation!!!......I have reached that age where the more I find out - the less I know!!! It does however do me one favour, any qualms I had about relocating to Australia have been laid to rest now!!!

I add my name to the 'Thank You' for the hard work Pete.....

There will come a time when you will all wonder how you ever managed without an Incinerator.

Even more so when the Cruet headland has been restored to it's natural state.

IMO even more so when a lot of people become ill and we cannot afford our medical scheme because of it!! Mind you we are running short on tourist attractions!!!

kingcolemk wrote:There will come a time when you will all wonder how you ever managed without an Incinerator.

Even more so when the Cruet headland has been restored to it's natural state.

The green contingent won't, the same nonsense about recycling will be trotted out, as if we're ever going to hit the targets that have been set. I recycle a lot of things (although I'm not totally convinced by the effectiveness of it) but I refuse to spend hours and hours seperating out every last bit of rubbish, and I believe that very few people would actually be prepared to do so.

lets hope the energy from waste unit will help with the apparent sharp electricity rises.

karma wrote:IMO even more so when a lot of people become ill and we cannot afford our medical scheme because of it!! Mind you we are running short on tourist attractions!!!

There are many incinerators all over the UK but, you may be surprise to know, people are not dropping like flies all over the place.

UK health Research claim that they are, but I don't know how scientific their studies are.

They are usually a bit further away from residential areas!!!!

Can someone tell me why ( allegedly ) Dan Hubert of island waste and a wealthy scrap metal merchant paid for the deputies "jolly" proposed Incinerator trip.

INCINERATOR opponents have threatened to use every legal process available to fight the planned energy-from-waste plant.

A consortium of ‘key local residents’ have committed to using their own resources to make a plea to the Royal Court to carry out a judicial review should Sita Guernsey, Suez Environnement’s local subsidiary, be granted planning permission for the plant

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/02/10/money-not-to-burn/

Wow this is called putting your money where your mouth is. A fighting fund to stop this very large incinerator being built.

In Jersey Ex Constable of St. Helier was and is against Jerseys new incinerator saying, it is to big, far too expensive, and the wrong technology. Bob Le Brocq, is part of a committee that has done their homework and deep research into the subject.

If they haven't done so already, he is worth contacting by the Guernsey key local residents, who share similar concerns. He has a lot of information to offer.

Boatyboy.

Ok I live in Jersey, and I don't like football, but if I wore a hat I would take it off to the Guernsey people for speaking up and for the Guernsey States assembly ( the bright ones ) for listening to the voice of the people. I came upon this on the Jersey Evening Post blog and thought you may enjoy it.

Quote.

The fact that the SW prevailing winds tell us that the fallout from the micro toxic particles will fall steadily on the south east side the area of Havre des Pas area and beyond.

This information came from an elderly but extremely clever professor ( sorry name escapes me )who gave a talk at the St. Pauls centre about the unwelcome effects of incinerator waste. Ex TTS Minister Guy De Faye attended and was completely out of his depth. The message was clear; the discharge is toxic, although better than the old chimney, if that makes you happy.

The day after the vote was taken for the Incinerator, the JEP front page told us that Waterfront 2 was on the drawing board. Hundreds more houses more reclamation. This of course confirms the CoM true purpose which is to keep building and to overcrowd Jersey even more.

This is confirmed by their immigrtaion policy of attracting 250 more skilled people (plus families ) to live on this small island per annum.

As part of the grand scheme to increased everything, we need a grand iconic incinerator which is actually two incinerators as there are two streams so one can be shut down for maintenance. It follows we really don’t need Guernsey’s rubbish to keep the whole thing belching on our coastline. Where did the figure of £4 million regarding income come from ? and do you trust them ?

My personal view is, a new incinerator was needed but not this expensive monster. As the younger more environmentally aware children become of age so will less packaging as life will become greener and recycling will become cost effective as new technology takes us forward, lets guess at fifteen years, the mistake will be demolished.

End of Quote.

Well done Guernsey.

Boatyboy.

truthseeker

38 Davey West. You are indeed correct.Dr Dick Van Steenis warned the States that they were buying a Dinosaur,in technology terms this incinerator is out of date before it’s even built,and so is it better than the old Bellozanne one,yes in the same way as a modern Built house is better than a tent.But is it safe for all of us..? Emphatically no,this internationally known Doctor who specialise in diseases caused by burning toxins made it clear,why…Deadly PM 2.5 particles get through the filters and are breathed into the deeepest part of our lungs….those who wanted the incinerator have their own motives and claim that “Scrubbers” clean the emmissions…but it’s about size .

The smallest particles are the most deadly…and we have embarked on what will be a £200 Million spend..when we could have had a plasma gasifier which would have fitted in Bellozanne yard easily,it works by producing a large weld arc burn up to 2000 degrees c.and it produces 6xtimes more electricity which can burn anything including the tyre linings and without releasing all these toxins for us to breathe in …cost about 38 Mill.makes you wonder why it was rejected and this horror which will blight the landscape forever,was chosen…who benefited..and by the way,your health is at risk for three days from just one hours exposure if the wind blows the P.M. 2.5s your way….and yes for the smart asses I have all the documentation if you want it.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/02/24/voteline-should-we-burn-guernseys-rubbish/

Dr Dick Van Steenis.

Anti-incinerator action groups should be aware that Dr Dick van Steenis “saw off” WRG at the 2003 public inquiry for an incinerator at Hull. WRG, and others allegedly against WRG, seem reluctant to allow Dr van Steenis to speak at a public meeting in Norwich where WRG now propose to build an incinerator.

http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/incinerators.htm

BB

RECYCLING companies are unhappy with the decision to throw out the
Suez incinerator.
Guernsey Recycling chairman Alan Crowe said deputies had made a rash
move without having an alternative plan in place.
‘I was a supporter of Suez because it was well costed and a
legitimate way of resolving the island’s waste problem.
‘They’ve now spent about £10m. and are no further forward,’ he said.
The Assembly last week voted for a waste minimisation strategy
instead.
‘If it’s not achievable, I don’t know what we will do with 30,000 to
40,000 tonnes of waste,’ said Mr Crowe (pictured).
He said Guernsey Recycling was Suez’s nominated partner for a
material recovery facility.

"Guernsey Recycling was Suez’s nominated partner for a
material recovery facility".

That might just be the reason.