Shizara
26-06-2008, 07:27 AM
I see that Judkins Quarry in Nuneaton have been passed to have countless numbers of lorries containing TOXIC WASTE travelling into Nuneaton
No one wants toxic waste in their town, city, back garden etc and you can't blame them for that, after all, it would very likely lower the property values, which is something to set the teeth on edge in the current economic climate, however, what of the longer term damage to health and the environment in the town?? What research has been done that provides provable results showing absolutely no harm whatsoever to people, the town, the environment now AND in the longer term? I take it that those that gave the green light to this project are Nuneaton residents, maybe even living on any possible lorry routes or near to the site itself?
I did a little research on the internet and found this, dated Thu 12 June 2008 :
GreenNuneaton.org.uk - Judkins toxic soil plant disgrace - General - News (http://www.greennuneaton.org.uk/x/htdocs/modules/news/article.php?storyid=19)
See too the Slough experience:
Some Councillors Support Incinerator (http://www.wlfoet5.demon.co.uk/waste/incin/colnbrook/cllrs.htm)
Of interest:
The biggest sources of contaminated soil will be around Stoke-on-Trent and Black Country.
Some interesting questions to ponder:
1. What value will the decontaminated soil have after processing - other than the monetary value?
2. What will it be used for?
3. Will the users of such soil have any idea what process it has been through and why?
4. Would the cost of such soil be lower to encourage more to use this recycled product?
5. If this is such a great process why would the producers of the contaminated soil not "cleanse" it in their own back garden? - Lack of facilities is not a good reason to dump it elsewhere.
Food for thought - but hopefully not grown in the "soil" of so called progress and great opportunities in someone else's back garden.
No one wants toxic waste in their town, city, back garden etc and you can't blame them for that, after all, it would very likely lower the property values, which is something to set the teeth on edge in the current economic climate, however, what of the longer term damage to health and the environment in the town?? What research has been done that provides provable results showing absolutely no harm whatsoever to people, the town, the environment now AND in the longer term? I take it that those that gave the green light to this project are Nuneaton residents, maybe even living on any possible lorry routes or near to the site itself?
I did a little research on the internet and found this, dated Thu 12 June 2008 :
GreenNuneaton.org.uk - Judkins toxic soil plant disgrace - General - News (http://www.greennuneaton.org.uk/x/htdocs/modules/news/article.php?storyid=19)
See too the Slough experience:
Some Councillors Support Incinerator (http://www.wlfoet5.demon.co.uk/waste/incin/colnbrook/cllrs.htm)
Of interest:
The biggest sources of contaminated soil will be around Stoke-on-Trent and Black Country.
Some interesting questions to ponder:
1. What value will the decontaminated soil have after processing - other than the monetary value?
2. What will it be used for?
3. Will the users of such soil have any idea what process it has been through and why?
4. Would the cost of such soil be lower to encourage more to use this recycled product?
5. If this is such a great process why would the producers of the contaminated soil not "cleanse" it in their own back garden? - Lack of facilities is not a good reason to dump it elsewhere.
Food for thought - but hopefully not grown in the "soil" of so called progress and great opportunities in someone else's back garden.