I personally like Chris's Calculation,
It's the first time I have seen a representation of how the risks
increase in these terms and I read it as being quite sympathetic....To
me it's the classic small risk being increased to not such a small risk,
as per radio 4 when they tell you something xx increases the risk by 5
times but the risk s still tiny and they never tell you this.
I would agree the risk here is not so tiny but I think chris's playing
with numbers shows it is tolerable- nice Job
Ps no surprise is it on a cancer risk- increase the number by 5 and its
5 x the theoretical risk.... so I don't think any one needs to take it
personally
And I wont re visit my leafy surrey argument about the character of my
District
Rob Ivens
Scientific Officer
01306 879232
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Richard Boyle
Sent: 18 July 2014 13:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Impact of remediation to 5 mg/kg BaP instead of 1 mg/kg
Chris
That has taken things incredibly too far. How dare you imply that I, or
anyone else, effectively doesn't mind killing people or causing cancer.
How dare you say that the "RB policy" is what you suggest. I am
extremely offended.
But as you rightly say " So country wide 5 mg/kg versus 1 mg/kg BaP
would add max 0.002% cancers to the mix..." - not exactly SPOSH is it?!
Not all of those cancers are deaths, are they? So, overall, that is
"low".
Now, go figure on the other impacts of unnecessary road movements, where
an assessment of official statistics, carried out by the Metropolitan
Transport Research Unit (MTRU) for Campaign for Better Transport, showed
that the ratio of fatal road accidents involving Heavy Good Vehicles
(HGVs) compared with those involving other vehicle types has been
climbing year on year:
- On motorways: More than half (52%) of fatal accidents on motorways
involve HGVs, despite HGVs only making up 10% of the traffic on
motorways
- On A-roads: HGVs are involved in 1 in 5 fatal crashes on A roads, a
ratio that has worsened over the last 5 years
- On minor roads: An HGV is five times as likely to be involved in a
fatal accident on a minor road than other traffic
So, some hypothetical extra cancer risk or a DEATH on the roads from all
those trucks taking off marginally impacted soils to bring on topsoil.
And not to mention the extra particulate matter from all those diesel
fumes, more BaP being deposited to make matters worse, air quality
deteriorating, asthma rates rising, finite fuel reserves being used up,
congestion being cause, roads deteriorating, rubber particles from tyres
polluting watercourses, silt run-off, CO2 being produced, etc, etc,
I know I'd rather have cancer and life than being hit by a truck!
Regards
Richard
______________
Dr Richard Boyle, BSc (Hons) MSc PhD MIEnvSc
Senior Technical Manager
Public Land Acquisitions/Transfers Team | Land Team | Homes and
Communities Agency
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 01925 64 4821
Mobile: 07767 424 447
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dainton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 July 2014 12:23
Subject: Impact of remediation to 5 mg/kg BaP instead of 1 mg/kg
With regards to the last slide in RB NWBR presentation.
There are other ways to view the impact of remediation to 5 mg/kg
instead of to 1 mg/kg.
Using the numbers presented by RB, exposure to:
5 mg/kg BaP = 10 additional cancers per million population (over
lifetime)
1 mg/kg BaP = 2 additional cancers per million population (over
lifetime)
So having 5 mg/kg instead of 1 mg/kg = 8 additional cancers per million
population
Applied across UK Population of 63M, this policy approach could
theoretical add c. 500 cancers into the UK... (dodgy calc I know, but
gives a nice population wide upper bound)
(but also need to be remember that increasing BaP soil loading, will
also increases other PAH soil loading, so cancers due to other PAHs
could also be increased by a factor of 5)
Other factors to consider: c. 330,000 new cancer cases per year in UK
(cancer research UK).
So say over 50 years = 16.5 Million cases
Or using the 1/3 get cancer rule of thumb = 31M lifetime cancer cases in
snap shot of population
So country wide 5 mg/kg versus 1 mg/kg BaP would add max 0.002% cancers
to the mix...
Devils Advocate: So if we continue the RB thought process to its logical
conclusion, there really is a strong case for not worrying about any
cancer inducing contaminants in soil in the greater scheme of things as
it is a drop in the ocean..: so how about a RB land contamination regime
based on: "if it looks like a soil, it will be fine, any potential
impact to health are not really worth worrying about in the greater
scene of things" ...
.... playing with numbers is a dangerous thing. 'Careful with That
Calculator, Eugene". (some of you might get that).
Chris Dainton
Peak Environmental Solutions
http://peakenvironmentalsolutions.com/
HELP SAVE NATURAL RESOURCES. THINK BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
Homes and Communities Agency; Arpley House, 110 Birchwood Boulevard,
Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 7QH (reg.address for legal documents) 0300
1234 500 [log in to unmask] VAT no: 941 6200 50
**********************************************************************
This email is only for the addressee which may be privileged /
confidential. Disclosure is
strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this in error notify us
immediately on
01908 353604 and delete the email. This email message has been scanned
for viruses. Open any
attachments at your own risk.
Have you tried www.molevalley.gov.uk? Our easy to use, accessible website allows you to access our services at any time. You can look at planning applications, pay bills online or find out more about where you live using the Mole Valley and Me feature.
Please note that calls to the Council may be recorded and monitored for training purposes. The computer system may also be monitored and recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.
|