Climate change WOTrTi@s Dear Wings, ANOTHER year, another chimney. Your article regarding the Wingerworth Avenue site in December's magazine was thought provoking and informative, Residents ofthis area can readily recall the permanent fae, the polluting chimneys and the final ‘emoltion of the coking plant in February 2003, Your ‘ews tells us ofa proposed 12 foot chimney wich wil spread airbome discharges over the eastern slopes of Wingerworth parish “The fact thatthe most sensitive monitoring station willbe at Hunloke Park primary schoo! indicates ‘dearly @ potential poluton hotspot, However, my main concern about the Avenue evelopment is whether a site which has along Fistory of industial activity and which was describes 2a one of the mest contaminated in Europe is & Suitable place to build an estate of 590 homes plus ‘attendant infrastructure. ‘further complication is the undeniable future cffect of climate change on river levels. According to the experts, flash floods will occur more often and strong wamings have been issued about bulding on Fonying ground - which could include the Rother Valley. What do your readers think? Ken Boyes, Meadowside Close, WingerworthIndependent toxicologist Dear Wings, AS | too was at the last Avenue Technical Liaison Group meeting conceming the Avenue Plant Assurances report in the December Wings edition reported by John Winter, ! hope you will let me make comments, ‘Ar monitos do not protect health. They provide data on air quay concerning the ‘weight of pariculates and capture samples of pollutants for later chemical analysis itis not sufcent to only check that levels are below a level known as the “igger level” {or assessing health impacts, as he tigger £ with regards to the Corby site bith defects levels are based on body weight. High Court Judgement, toxicologists were ‘Also, eerain chemicals when mixed increase : employed who confirmed thatthe release of toxiciy. Only @ toxicologist (one who studies chemicals into the ait fom the Corby the effects of chemicals on health) is qualified} reclamation scheme was probably the cause to do this. Nether Mike Fenton nor Trevor ofthe bith defects. The folowing extracts Patkin re toxicologists and despite many should be noted: requests 1o employ such a person, they The defendant was under a non-delegable reluse. ity at commen law fo take al reasonable “The fact that they are now agreeing to ‘measures fo ensure that contaminated waste {monitor PM2.6 particulates (ne particulates cause health effects) even though it was notin their orginal planning application, shows that they were not considering the lalest most ‘advances monitoring equipment to protect health EMDA has consistonty confirmed that the Avenve site is stl one of the most contaminated sites in Europe. Entec confi that they will not remove 100% of the particulates from the desorption pant. The baghouse fit to be used in the desorption unit is less efficient than the ‘one proposed forthe Dunston gasification plant is needed {and toxic chemicals did not escape or cause >porsonal injury. Causing or permitting the disturbance of sol! material during the reclamation ‘operations leading 10 its cariage as dust or ‘small particles inthe air andor the Vaporsation of volatile hqude fom the Sites leading fo chemicals being carried as vapours in the ai They do not obviously or atleast expressly ‘ply fo pregnant woren or the fostuses ‘or embryes they may be carrying. They do hot conelude that no bith defects can be ‘caused by intakes ess than maximums suggested. I€ Trevor Parkin wants to prove that the plant wal not cause health hazards then | suggest that EMDA employs an independent toxicologist to assess the curent plans and issues a puble statement confiming the safety oF not on human health John Gower, Derby Road, Wingerworth