Talk:Risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator
This page contains the discussions related to a risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipality solid waste incinenator. To start a new discussion, copy the template below into a new place in the edit mode.
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Objective
Variable: RA of Hämeenkyrö MSWI
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Discussion on the focus of Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Discussion on the scope of Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
General variables
- Precautionary principle (disagreement)
- PP based on expected value, general
- PP based on worst-case or another 'conservative' scenario, general
- PP applied to emissions of municipal solid wasti incinerator (MSWI) in Hämeenkyrö
- Intake fraction (disambiguation)
- iF based on measured concentration fields
- iF based on exposure monitoring
- iF based on shortcuts
Fine particle variables
PM2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö
Päivi
Emissions should be given per sector
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--It is important to be able to compare different risks. Seeing emission values for each sector makes this easier. The new emissions from the plants can then be put into perspective with variables people can perceive: they may have previous experience or a feeling about the amount of smoke coming from homes, or factories.: . --Jouni 06:05, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
PM2.5 emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö
Tommi
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Baseline PM2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö
Anne K
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
PM2.5 exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö
Terhi Y
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
PM2.5 exposure-response function on population level
Sari
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Dioxin variables
Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö
Virpi
Should this variable define the current dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö, or the possible level of emissions due to different decisions on MSWI?
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Landfills should be included in the list of dioxin sources
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--Dioxins are formed in all combustion in small amounts. Especially when there is chlorine available and the burning temperature is low, the formation of dioxins is high. Even at high burning temperatures, dioxins form when the gases cool down. Uncontrolled burning of landfills is an optimal process for dioxin formation: low temperatures, lack of oxygen which creates large amounts of unoxidised gases and polyaromatic compounds, and abundance of chlorine from salt in food waste. Therefore, landfill fires should be added to the list of dioxin emission sources, and these emissions should be estimated.: . --Jouni 06:30, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö
Marjo
PCBs should be excluded
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--PCBs were a group of oily products that were used in sevaral places until 1980's but that were banned due to their persistence and toxicity. Although PCBs are formed in a poorly controlled burning processes in the same way as dioxins, they are much less toxic compared with dioxins. Therefore, the major concern with PCBs is not the formation in burning but the existing PCBs in building materials, transformers, and other places. PCBs do not bring any significant new understanding to the emissions of the different alternatives, and therefore it should be excluded from the risk assessment.: . --Jouni 06:47, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Dioxin exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö
Martin
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Dioxin exposure-response function on population level
Sanna
Ambiguity with Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5
{{Resolution |Topic = Ambiguity with Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 |Statement = Ambiguity with Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 must be resolved. |Outcome = |Argumentation = ←--The variables Responses of dioxin exposure on human health at the population level (originally Dioxin exposure-response function on population level) and Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 are ambiguous. Either one should tell about the exposure-response function, i.e. the amount of health effect per unit exposure. The other one should tell the amount of health effect in a given situation and exposure. Taking the two variables together, the dose-response is already well characterized (although childhood effects may need more scrutiny), but the actual health effect estimates for Hämeenkyrö are missing (which is, of course, not an easy question).: . --Jouni 07:17, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--I was thinking, what was the scope of this variable. Anyhow, health effetcs of low doses should be modelled from animal data and use existing human data (eg. Alaluusua et al. 1996). For example, in rats, a bolus dose of 0.05 μg TCDD/kg body weight to pregnant dams on GD15 results in maternal fat tissue concentration of 177 pg/g fat on GD21 (Hurst et al.,2000) and in other study (Miettinen et al. 2005) exposure to 0.5 μg TCDD/kg body weight on GD 15 resulted in maternal adipose tissue concentration 2185 pg/g fat. In that study linear extrapolation of the data predicts a maternal adipose tissue concentration of 100-120 pg/g fat after exposure to 0.03 μg TCDD/kg body weight. This estimated maternal adipose tissue concentration which is sufficient to induce developmental dental defects in offspring, is similar to the highest values measured in the Finnish average population (PCDD/F 145.5 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat). (Miettinen, 2006): . -- Sanna 08:32, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--Sanna has changed the name of her variable, and now our variables have conflicting names. What was the reason for this change? I think the names should not be changed. Anyhow, if I understand correctly, my variable Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 should be changed into a summary of the upstream variables - it should be a conclusion. So maybe we do the changes together with Sanna during the finalizing session. But the problem is that I should make the ultimate conclusion... Another thing is that I was not able to find any numerical data about the developmental effects concerning dioxins.: . --Anu 08:52, 22 September 2006 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Indicator variables
- Decisions related to Hämeenkyrö case
- Possible indicators (optimising variables) in Hämeenkyrö
Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise)
Kari Auri
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
If the decision model will be used to analyse alternative scenarios, we have to include both modelled variables and feedback variables here or alternatively define these own variable for the Pyrkilö -model.
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
MSWI and dumping site alternatives have diffent total noise and smell effects for people living near the emission source. Both should be analysed before final solution.
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant)
Juha
Discussion on effect on economy
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
Probably it could be possible to use also ash produced by MSWI? In Elimäki new factory was started where they produce forest fertilizer from the ash, which means that ash is not waste any longer but can be used (in case it is clear enough to be spread on the ground). -Sanna
|
Transportation costs of waste
Anne
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5
Anu T
Discussion on short term effects of dioxins
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--Short term effects of dioxins only occur when the acute doses exceed the current background exposures by several orders of magnitude. This kind of exposures are not possible in the case of MSWI, and they can be excluded.: . --Jouni 10:33, 21 September 2006 (EEST), Anu {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Miscellaneous variables
- Secondary effects on waste separation, recycling etc.)
Municipal solid waste production in Häme
Pasi K
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Existing MSWI plants and current plans in southern Finland
Marjaleena
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|
Background of waste production and its relations to EU directive
Eva
Discussion on ...
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|