Toxic Pollution or Harmless Recycling? - You Decide

[Shizara]

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

See too the Slough experience:

Some Councillors Support Incinerator

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.

[cathidaw]

from what I have read , the people of Nuneaton had no say whatsoever-and neither did the Council -although a Conservative counciller was in favour it.
Please read in the Bedworth Observer today the letter from Alan Cook who is a world renowned Consultant Geological Engineer, and has studied this area in depth for many years
What could happen is horrific and all arising from a geological fault.
I hope these Councils take note.

[keith]

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.

1/2) the soil is heated to 450C to remove toxins but this also drives off all orgainc content (and mercury etc,). What is left is useless and will be buried back deep under the new building or carpark as infill. This is a tax dogge as they would have to pay landfill tax if it goes in a proper landfill.
3) it is said that it will go back to where it was taken from. This is dubous as who would truck it back to stoke or Liverpool.
4) it is not proper soil and would have no significant value.

Nuneaton will suffer so that developers can send toxic soil to us. For big sites cleaning on site is best. My fear is that the soil will be trucked to Nuneaton and stockpiled as cleaning is very expensive. The process is based on using 5 trankers of Diesel like fuel per week to vapourise the toxins.

Please sign NO.10 petition and write to WCC to say you were not told before it went to planning.
Petition to: over rule proposed plans of a toxic waste site at Judkins Quarry Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

There is also a facebook page
Wall | Facebook

Keith Kondakor - Nuneaton green campaigner