Deposition for Committee-in-the-Whole, June 16/09
Mr. Chairman, Councillors, Staff, members of the audience;
My name is Steve Conway, and I am opposed to the construction of an EFW facility. It is not a ‘NIMBY’ issue to me. I envision greener waste diversion initiatives combined with green energy alternatives. The problem, as I see it: Too much garbage. Why? This is complicated. The solution is to burn it? Two things about that bother me. One; it is too simple a solution. Two; it doesn’t address the issue of too much garbage! A complicated problem usually requires a complicated solution. What is the alternative? Aiming for a zero waste policy, whether attainable or not will at least address the issue of ‘too much garbage’. There are several initiatives included in a zero waste plan. EPR, increased RRR’s, government legislation eliminating over-packaging and the use of non-recyclable materials in packaging, and extensive composting programs are the main ingredients. When combined, they will take care of most of our waste diversion issues. The key to success is educating the public, which won’t be easy. The solution is not that complicated, getting the public on board will be the hard part!
No matter how safe the “experts” claim it to be, toxic substances will enter the air stream via the smokestack. In 1986 I travelled to Germany to visit a friend. This was 6 months after the Chernobyl accident in Russia. Every few days, we journeyed into Stuttgart to have meat or homemade jams and home-grown vegetables tested for radioactive exposure. Even though Chernobyl was a great distance away, and over a mountain range, the fallout entered the airstream and eventually settled on the ground – in part due to rain. Cows ate contaminated grass, fruits and vegetables grew out of contaminated soil, and humans were consuming both. I am not saying that an EFW would do the same damage as a nuclear accident, however, the emissions will enter the air and eventually settle on the soil and in the water. The safety of our food chain would be compromised.
My family was involved in the Clear Bag Study in Courtice, and I found it to be successful at reducing the amount of refuse at my curb. Even with two young boys, one in ‘pull-ups’, we were able to reduce our waste to less than two full bags every other week! Taking some extra time to sort garbage is a small price to pay if it helps us strive for 70% diversion, or even zero waste.
The last few years I had the privilege of presenting an environmental message in local schools through the CAW’s Earth Day program. Our objective was to introduce the younger members of our community to creative and exciting ways to protect the environment and to create safer, greener jobs that would be better for the community. I hoped that I inspired these students to get active, and I encouraged them to take some of the ideas home to get their parents involved. I find so much of these ideas refreshing and exciting, and the results all positive. The same cannot be said for incineration. No matter what the technology, there will always be a certain amount of risk to the community. The industry refers to it as “negligible”, which suggests that those who get sick are few and expendable. What message are we sending to our youths following this story? When you are older, you will have to fix our mess, but for now we will do a quick fix and burn it! Again, burning does not address the garbage problem it just gives the illusion of solving it.
The precautionary principle should be applied here because of the uncertainty. Doctors and scientists all over the world are rallying against incineration as a safe solution. Virtually every member of our healthcare system here are against it, and they stand to profit more if an EFW proves to be hazardous to our health. Why do some of our elected reps treat them with disdain yet show the utmost of respect to profiteers who will be taking our money and running far, far away? European studies, although they admittedly aren’t conclusive, show higher incidences of non-hodgkin lymphoma in children as well as a host of minor illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis in communities with EFW’s. The R.S. McLaughlin Durham Region Cancer Centre in Oshawa is here for a reason: We need it! I ask you; What would higher exposure levels do for this region?
There seems to be so many reasons for not building this incinerator and few good reasons to build it. For this reason, I say that the risks outweigh the benefits. My youngest son, Jack has a brain tumour. He endured 42 rounds of chemotherapy beginning at the age of 6 months. Can you imagine, as someone who has tried to eliminate toxic chemicals around the home to protect his children, I had to agree to let the team at SickKids inject toxic chemicals into his tiny body to try to control the tumour? There just seems to be too much out in our environment that is hurting/killing our most fragile members of society: our young and our old. We had a 50/50 partner in the York Region, which got the ball rolling. Then York backed out, yet still retains a voice in location. We were told that landfill is not the answer, yet an EFW requires landfill – as well as a special one for toxic ash. We were told that truck traffic exiting our region with garbage was bad for the environment, yet trucks will be travelling into Courtice with garbage and trucks will be exiting our region with ash. We were told that it is absolutely safe, yet the toxic emissions suggest otherwise. Lastly, the garbage problem of too much waste at the curb will not be addressed. Why are we still discussing EFW’s as the only alternative to land-filling our garbage?
Finally, I would like to speak quickly about asbestos. I think we all will agree that asbestos is an unsafe mineral. In 2003, Canada was one of 14 asbestos exporting countries that stopped the United Nations’ bid to have white chrysotile asbestos added to the list of banned substances. Why? Quebec mines exported millions of dollars’ worth of it annually. Not because it was safe for the miners, not because it was safe for the communities surrounding the mines, but because of profit. I am afraid that your decision will ultimately come down to that. Profit.
I ask you to err on the side of caution and say ‘NO’ to this plan. Then you can invite all the opponents to join you in rolling up your sleeves and getting down to the hard work of eliminating waste and building a sustainable region. Together, we can create a model of successful waste diversion and clean, green energies and companies within the Region of Durham. Thank you for allowing me this forum.
Mr. Chairman, Councillors, Staff, members of the audience;
My name is Steve Conway, and I am opposed to the construction of an EFW facility. It is not a ‘NIMBY’ issue to me. I envision greener waste diversion initiatives combined with green energy alternatives. The problem, as I see it: Too much garbage. Why? This is complicated. The solution is to burn it? Two things about that bother me. One; it is too simple a solution. Two; it doesn’t address the issue of too much garbage! A complicated problem usually requires a complicated solution. What is the alternative? Aiming for a zero waste policy, whether attainable or not will at least address the issue of ‘too much garbage’. There are several initiatives included in a zero waste plan. EPR, increased RRR’s, government legislation eliminating over-packaging and the use of non-recyclable materials in packaging, and extensive composting programs are the main ingredients. When combined, they will take care of most of our waste diversion issues. The key to success is educating the public, which won’t be easy. The solution is not that complicated, getting the public on board will be the hard part!
No matter how safe the “experts” claim it to be, toxic substances will enter the air stream via the smokestack. In 1986 I travelled to Germany to visit a friend. This was 6 months after the Chernobyl accident in Russia. Every few days, we journeyed into Stuttgart to have meat or homemade jams and home-grown vegetables tested for radioactive exposure. Even though Chernobyl was a great distance away, and over a mountain range, the fallout entered the airstream and eventually settled on the ground – in part due to rain. Cows ate contaminated grass, fruits and vegetables grew out of contaminated soil, and humans were consuming both. I am not saying that an EFW would do the same damage as a nuclear accident, however, the emissions will enter the air and eventually settle on the soil and in the water. The safety of our food chain would be compromised.
My family was involved in the Clear Bag Study in Courtice, and I found it to be successful at reducing the amount of refuse at my curb. Even with two young boys, one in ‘pull-ups’, we were able to reduce our waste to less than two full bags every other week! Taking some extra time to sort garbage is a small price to pay if it helps us strive for 70% diversion, or even zero waste.
The last few years I had the privilege of presenting an environmental message in local schools through the CAW’s Earth Day program. Our objective was to introduce the younger members of our community to creative and exciting ways to protect the environment and to create safer, greener jobs that would be better for the community. I hoped that I inspired these students to get active, and I encouraged them to take some of the ideas home to get their parents involved. I find so much of these ideas refreshing and exciting, and the results all positive. The same cannot be said for incineration. No matter what the technology, there will always be a certain amount of risk to the community. The industry refers to it as “negligible”, which suggests that those who get sick are few and expendable. What message are we sending to our youths following this story? When you are older, you will have to fix our mess, but for now we will do a quick fix and burn it! Again, burning does not address the garbage problem it just gives the illusion of solving it.
The precautionary principle should be applied here because of the uncertainty. Doctors and scientists all over the world are rallying against incineration as a safe solution. Virtually every member of our healthcare system here are against it, and they stand to profit more if an EFW proves to be hazardous to our health. Why do some of our elected reps treat them with disdain yet show the utmost of respect to profiteers who will be taking our money and running far, far away? European studies, although they admittedly aren’t conclusive, show higher incidences of non-hodgkin lymphoma in children as well as a host of minor illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis in communities with EFW’s. The R.S. McLaughlin Durham Region Cancer Centre in Oshawa is here for a reason: We need it! I ask you; What would higher exposure levels do for this region?
There seems to be so many reasons for not building this incinerator and few good reasons to build it. For this reason, I say that the risks outweigh the benefits. My youngest son, Jack has a brain tumour. He endured 42 rounds of chemotherapy beginning at the age of 6 months. Can you imagine, as someone who has tried to eliminate toxic chemicals around the home to protect his children, I had to agree to let the team at SickKids inject toxic chemicals into his tiny body to try to control the tumour? There just seems to be too much out in our environment that is hurting/killing our most fragile members of society: our young and our old. We had a 50/50 partner in the York Region, which got the ball rolling. Then York backed out, yet still retains a voice in location. We were told that landfill is not the answer, yet an EFW requires landfill – as well as a special one for toxic ash. We were told that truck traffic exiting our region with garbage was bad for the environment, yet trucks will be travelling into Courtice with garbage and trucks will be exiting our region with ash. We were told that it is absolutely safe, yet the toxic emissions suggest otherwise. Lastly, the garbage problem of too much waste at the curb will not be addressed. Why are we still discussing EFW’s as the only alternative to land-filling our garbage?
Finally, I would like to speak quickly about asbestos. I think we all will agree that asbestos is an unsafe mineral. In 2003, Canada was one of 14 asbestos exporting countries that stopped the United Nations’ bid to have white chrysotile asbestos added to the list of banned substances. Why? Quebec mines exported millions of dollars’ worth of it annually. Not because it was safe for the miners, not because it was safe for the communities surrounding the mines, but because of profit. I am afraid that your decision will ultimately come down to that. Profit.
I ask you to err on the side of caution and say ‘NO’ to this plan. Then you can invite all the opponents to join you in rolling up your sleeves and getting down to the hard work of eliminating waste and building a sustainable region. Together, we can create a model of successful waste diversion and clean, green energies and companies within the Region of Durham. Thank you for allowing me this forum.