Ramifications to consider as researched by Marg g.

Air quality

”While a refusal which is not backed by substantial objective evidence cannot be described as unlawful, it nonetheless can readily be described as unreasonable in planning terms. ”

Why then, given the above, is it acceptable that the EA gives no evidence of ‘unacceptable impacts?’ There is evidence of impacts upon air quality, why isn’t the EA acknowledging this?

Why is the EA allowed to not back statements with substantial objective evidence, but the objectors are not?

Why, when the EA has already, for example, mismanaged the environment to the cost of 650 kilometers now of HIGHLY POLLUTED land in England, are we being asked to ASSUME, in this instance, it WILL now discharge its duties properly?

Ground water contamination

We neeed a full list of all groundwater risks the EA says it has identified, (sadly it identifies only that from wells of toxic sludge and fails to identify that from frack fluid known to seep upwards through shale over months and years…..)

We need a list of all mitigation measures they are satisfied with.

We need a list of all standards that have been approved in regulation that we can expect these mitigation measures be made to abide by.

The only question is do the council really believe that fracking is bad for the environment?

ANSWER:- ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol9/issue4/full/10/———
Lists effects of dangers of using gluteraldehyde biocide, known to cause environmental and ecological damage..and our wonderful EPA have designated it as safe for frackers to use. DUH! It isn’t a matter of belief it causes damage, it is a matter of proven evidenced FACT!

See also ref to this in EU health commission report

”In the face of the large increase of biocide use in various fields (human, animals, foods etc.) and the continuous increase in bacterial antibiotic resistance, there is a serious lack of data and methodologies to clearly identify the risks arising from the indiscriminate use of biocides: ”

see also this:-http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/111308.pdf
The principal health effects of glutaraldehyde are irritation of the skin (dermatitis), eye and respiratory tract,nose and throat irritation,
skin sensitisation and occupational asthma.

In Australia, over 100 tonnes per year of glutaraldehyde have been imported in recent
years. Sweden imports approximately 165 tonnes/year, Denmark approximately 50 tonnes/year, France <
1000 tonnes/year, United Kingdom several hundred tonnes/year and Canada 33-333 tonnes/year.
Norway imports approximately 12 700 tonnes of glutaraldehyde-containing products each year.”, (notice how UK gives obscure definition, yet implies a massive import for such a small island comapred to only 100 tonnes Aus imports and is forty times bigger than us. We need to get rid of DEFRA, EPA etc, they are killing us off……………………….errrr don’t visit Norway either!!)

Glutaraldehyde has also been reported to be used as:
. a preservative in the printing industry;
. a biocide in sanitary solutions for aircraft and portable toilets;
. an intermediate in the production of adhesives, sealants, polyhydroxy materials, pharmaceuticals,
pesticides and crop protection agents;
. a disinfectant for air ducts; and
. an embalming agent
In the UK, glutaraldehyde is used mainly as a cold
disinfectant and as a biocide in off-shore oil operations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s