Save East Winch - Some suggestions

"The last thing I want to do, is to move into an area of natural beauty, that will soon be desecrated in the name of progress, and I don't want to have to involve myself in a protest group, just to protect the environment I have chosen to move to".

The best advice I can offer is to research the area thoroughly and draw your own conclusions.

Here's a few suggestions...

Firstly:
• Read the saveeastwinch and the eraseorg website/blogs.
http://saveeastwinch.blogspot.com
http://eraseorg.blogspot.com
This will save you the hassle of trawling through some of the sources below for yourself directly and provide you with further useful links.

Also:
• Talk to local people other than the seller and ask them about the situation.
• Check the local papers (EDP, Lynn News) for current articles and go online to find past articles.
• Try the Norfolk County Council (Planning Department) website.
• Phone the Norfolk County Council Offices and speak to a planning representative. Ask them directly about development in the area and ask them where it is documented.
• Get hold of a parish newsletter/magazine if you can (maybe from the local post office). They contain planning application information and useful contacts (e.g. The Parish Council).
• Speak to (or write to) the local parish council. You could even attend a meeting.
• If you drive around the area, look for prominently displayed signs from protest groups saying "No means No - Stop violating our democracy", "No to the Incinerator", and so on. Review the website displayed underneath the slogan and make your own informed decision.

In the end, it's a personal choice.

Good Luck!

Notice of Public Meeting re: Min 39/40 (Tues, 5th July 19:00 EW Village Hall)

Nell has booked East Winch Village Hall for a public meeting for 19:00, Tuesday 5th July 2011 to discuss mineral allocation for MIN39 & MIN40 and our response to the latest 8 week consultation period which runs from Monday 20th June 2011 to Friday 15 August 2011.

There will also be an opportunity to discuss the latest developments and concerns re the proposed incinerator.

I have attached a link to the latest mineral allocation documents from the council - you can download the full document here:

http://documents.dareiidream.co.uk/mwdf.pdf

MIN39 is discussed on the ERASEORG blog at:

http://eraseorg.blogspot.com

MIN40's current status is "allocated" - The text from the MIN40 report is produced below:

******************************************************************

Site ref no.
MIN 40
Parish
EAST WINCH
Location of site
Land to the east of Grandcourt Farm
Submitted by
Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s
Mineral extraction (silica sand)
Estimated
reserves
3,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search
Allocation
Size of site (ha)
52.7

Background information: There are no current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an unworked area of land with planning permission for silica sand extraction. It is proposed that the site forms an extension to the existing pit to the east.

Landscape: The site comprises open gently undulating arable land divided by hedgerows and groups of trees. The site is adjacent to the current Leziate Quarry, and MIN 40 would form a natural extension. The site borders East Winch to the east and two isolated properties to the west and south. Parts of the area probably could be worked and screened satisfactorily but phasing with permitted sites to the North and west would need to be arranged.

Ecology: The surrounding area is of high wildlife value; there would be a need to carry out surveys to assess the size of population of protected species and ensure suitable mitigation if necessary; also there would be a need to carry out a tree survey to establish the location of any veteran trees. The site offers the potential for a high quality restoration to heathland, or a heathland/ arable/woodland network if a suitable scheme can be agreed.

Highways: If the site needed direct access to A47, this would probably be unacceptable to the Highways Agency; an alternative route through East Winch would also be unacceptable. However should the material be conveyored to the existing Leziate quarry site (for processing and onward transportation), the existing road and rail links at Leziate could be used.

Amenity: The potential for health impacts (development of Silicosis) caused by exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) related to certain operations was highlighted by many respondents. Information from the HSE states that ‘Silicosis is a disease that has only been seen in workers from industries where there is a significant exposure to silica dust, such as in quarries, foundries, the potteries etc. No cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that environmental exposures to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause this occupational disease.’ High risk operations that have been identified are stone masonry, milling, and drilling which are not operations normally carried out in Norfolk quarries due to the nature of the resource. Milling does occur, but in enclosed processing buildings with appropriate HSE monitoring.

Concerns were also raised about air quality and in particular fine particulate dusts referred to generically as PM10. These are particles with a diameter of less than 10 μm; the principal sources are vehicle emissions, pollen, aerosols, chemicals, sea salt and dusts. These fine particles are a health concern because they can be inhaled directly into the lungs. The particle sizes of quarried sand in the UK are generally larger than 70 μm.

Concerns were raised as to the impacts of noise, dust and vibration etc, this would require an assessment, if impacts are identified suitable mitigation measures would need to be put in place.
Water resources/quality: The site is located on a principal aquifer and the Environment Agency would be likely to object to the proposal if, permanent de-watering of the perched Carstone aquifer is proposed. A Hydrological Impact Assessment (HIA) would be required as part of any planning application to quantify impacts and suitable mitigation. A water supply main crosses the site and site boundaries should be amended to exclude the area where the main is located; alternatively the diversion/protection of the main should be carried out at the developer’s expense.

Geodiversity: It would be useful to have watching brief during extraction in case potential features of interested are uncovered and retaining some open faces as part of the restoration would aid scientific study.
Other comments:

Conclusion: This site is considered to be suitable for allocation subject to conditions including:
29
•
An approved scheme of working and restoration which addresses issues of phasing, landscape, geodiversity and ecology;
•
A dust and noise assessment to identify any potential impacts on nearby properties and appropriate mitigation to address any of these impacts;
•
A Hydrological Impact Assessment to identify any potential impacts on groundwater and appropriate mitigation to address any of these impacts, and;
•
The use of a conveyor and/or internal haul routes to the current processing site.

Site allocated.

**********************************************************
LETTER FROM NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (Text reproduced below)

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework:

Minerals Site Specific Allocations and Waste Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Documents: Consultation on Revised Further Issues and Options

I am writing to let you know that Norfolk County Council is undertaking a further round of consultation, for a period of eight weeks, on the “Revised Further Issues and Options” of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and the Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD. The consultation will run from 20 June to 15 August 2011 (inclusive), and I would welcome your comments.

The Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD, which will run until the end of 2026, contains the site specific allocations for waste management facilities in Norfolk. A total of 35 waste management sites, covering a range of different potential uses, are proposed to be allocated, whilst 34 sites are considered unsuitable for allocation. The document also contains maps of safeguarded waste management facilities and safeguarded waste water treatment works.

The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, which will run until the end of 2026, contains the site specific allocations for mineral extraction in Norfolk. A total of 25 sand & gravel sites, one carstone site and two silica sand sites are proposed to be allocated. 66 proposed mineral extraction sites are considered unsuitable or unnecessary for allocation. The document also contains maps of safeguarded mineral extraction sites, mineral infrastructure (railheads and wharfage), Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas.

The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD and the Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD have been through two stages of consultation: the “Issues and Options” in 2008 and the “Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options)” in 2009.

After the current consultation period finishes, the next stage in the preparation of the Mineral Site Specific Allocations DPD and the Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD will be the publication of the Pre-Submission documents, which is planned to take place in autumn 2011.

The documents are available to view at libraries, Council Information Centres and District/Borough Council offices in Norfolk, and online at www.norfolk.gov.uk/nmwdf. Where possible the County Council would prefer representations to be made directly to www.norfolk.gov.uk/nmwdf; however responses by post, fax and email (ldf@norfolk.gov.uk) will also be accepted. All comments, in whatever form, should be made by 5pm on 15 August 2011.

The following “new” sites, put forward since the consultation in 2009, are included in the current consultation documents.

Site Parish Proposal
WAS 90 Norwich Recycling centre
WAS 91 Hockering Inert waste recycling, waste transfer
WAS 92 North Walsham Anaerobic digestion
WAS 93 North Walsham Composting, anaerobic digestion
WAS 94 North Walsham Composting, anaerobic digestion
MIN 117 Beetley Sand and gravel extraction
MIN 118 Wymondham Sand and gravel extraction
MIN 119 East Winch Sand extraction

Yours sincerely

Caroline Jeffery
Principal Planning and Policy Officer
Planning Services
Public Protection
Environment, Transport and Development
Direct dial telephone number: 01603 222193
E-mail: caroline.jeffery@norfolk.gov.uk
Norfolk County Council
General enquiries: 0344 800 8020 or information@norfolk.gov.uk
www.norfolk.gov.uk

Interview, BBC Norfolk 4th April 2011, 07:15am

Please click on the title of this article to hear the interview in full.
You can also click on the link below. Thank you.
http://soundcloud.com/neilpaddock/save-east-winch-interview-on

You Deserve The Truth!

Sometimes music says it best. My son James created this piece of music recently for a school project, and I think it's appropriate and fitting to be used to highlight the Save East Winch and West Bilney Campaign.

Simply because as a fellow resident of Norfolk, as far as local quarrying and proposed incinerators are concerned:

You Deserve The Truth.

Radio Interview with Chris Goreham, BBC Norfolk 4th April 2011, 07:08am

On the eve of my interview on BBC Norfolk tomorrow 4th April 2011 at 07:08am, I have provided a transcript below based on a letter I wrote in 2009 to a reporter at the BBC who was requesting evidence for the "Save East Winch" cause. To date I have never received a response.

With reference to our conversation on Respirable Crystalline Silica, I have provided links to the actual online sources and extracted quotes of particular interest. You will note that these are UK & US Government sources and thus should be taken seriously.

What I fail to understand is that although information exists in abundance stating the risks and consequences of both intense and prolonged exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS), no mention of risk is made when planning applications are considered, for example for Grandcourt Quarry, the HSE person present had no documented health concerns or objections whatsoever and permission to go ahead was subsequently granted.

If you had to live for 20 or 30 years in close proximity to a number of silica sand quarries, would the information I am sharing with you below be of concern to you?

I am reminded of the quotation attributed to German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer regarding the truth:

“All truth passes through 3 stages. First it is ridiculed, secondly, it is violently opposed, third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Lessons from the Past
We can learn lessons from the past. Unfortunately, all too often, history repeats itself with tragic consequences, resulting in unnecessary suffering and lives being cut short.

i) Thalidomide
The 1960s Thalidomide scandal could have been avoided if proper account had been taken of risk and thorough testing been carried out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

ii) Smoking
In the 1970’s, there was no TV ban on advertising cigarettes. They had appeared prominently in 1940s Hollywood movies many years before. Nowadays the dangers of both smoking and passive smoking have been recognized with warning labels on cigarette cartons saying “Smoking Kills” and smoking in UK pubs and restaurants is no longer permitted. The realisation that passive smoking was dangerous came too late for popular entertainer and “Record Breakers” host Roy Castle, whose untimely death in 1994 was attributed to cancer from passive smoking from all his years of performing music in smoke filled bars and clubs. He had never once put a cigarette to his lips.

http://www.roycastle.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle

iii) Radiation
A film by the US War Office in my possession on the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 states that the Bomb did not create radiation on the ground as it exploded before it impacted, pushing the radiation upwards. Scant consolation for the relatives of the hapless film crews that were sent out to “ground zero” days after the blast to record the damage, and to the relatives of many thousands of victims of radiation sickness in Japan after the blast.

Even the famous film actor John Wayne succumbed to stomach cancer in 1979 attributed to Nuclear testing carried out in the US desert where he used to make his western movies.

Clearly, there are many more examples of environmental dangers I could refer to.

My point is this:

Let’s not earmark East Winch as the next tragedy waiting to happen.

So Is Silica Sand Really Dangerous?
If it is, then why aren’t there people going around with illnesses shouting from the rooftops about it? Good Question.

In my 25 years experience as an accountant I have come to realise that companies predominantly focus on one thing:

The survival and preservation of the company, through a good public image and the ability to make and sustain profits and share prices.

iv) Compensation
Bad publicity damages company credibility and puts companies at risk, so some companies have developed a strategy to minimize adverse publicity by paying dissatisfied customers or victims of accidents or illnesses compensation in return for their confidentiality.

This means that the affected worker keeps quiet about it, because if they break the terms of the confidentiality agreement they are required to sign, they have to repay the compensation.

This could range from giving away spare vacuum bags in trivial cases of an underperforming or broken vacuum cleaner to significant financial payments to enable, say, a sick employee to pay for private hospital treatment to compensate them for the onset of an industrial illness. Could this explain why people aren’t coming forward?

v) Fear
It could also simply be fear of possible reprisals from within the community that keeps people quiet who might otherwise speak out. They could also damage the livelihoods of friends and family who still work within the business and feel they are betraying them.

vi) Adverse Events & Drug Safety
People who have an adverse reaction to a drug have been known to receive financial compensation from a company before the event is publicised and taken to court. Budgets are set aside to allow for this.

vii) Keeping Up Appearances
I know of one unhappy worker in a large company who admitted that they were forced to lie to external agencies by their boss about the extent of the impact of an environmental error, which resulted in an illegal chemical discharge into the local river. They had to lie to keep their job.
They decided to lie.

viii) Erin Brochovich
Erin Brochovich sensationally and successfully brought an action against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) of California in 1993 for contamination of local groundwater with harmful metals in a groundbreaking legal case. A film was made about it starring Julia Roberts in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

So, without pointing fingers, you may accept at his stage that it is at least plausible that a company would seek to protect its public image and could use any of the methods I have already described, including choosing to withhold what it considers to be detrimental information. Exactly how far does each one go to achieve that? That is a matter for the directors.

I would hope that by the time the truth becomes self-evident, that it has not cost the people of East Winch too dearly.

My wish would be that we can protect our children from those amongst us who will: (a) put their own commercial interests above the health and safety of the local community and... (b) conveniently turn a blind eye to the evidence.

This is in addition to the anecdotal evidence of the local man who has lost 13 of his relatives to cancer. The link? They all worked in or lived near the sandpits. He attributes their loss to silica sand. Furthermore, he estimates 75% of the people he worked with are now dead. Also he tells me 6 people on “Millionaire’s Row” have died of cancer. A transcript of our interview I recorded outside East Winch Village Hall is attached further on in this note.

Additionally, last year I found an article on the BBC news about a man who worked for a mineral company and successfully sued for damages. He was awarded about £6,000. (The costs were about £14,000).

Not much compensation in my view for his vital organs being damaged beyond repair.

I have enclosed most of the sources (further on) that I uncovered about 18 months ago. It makes for scary reading.

What now follows is a brief summary of the events that took place when we first became aware of the quarry plans and the health risks associated with silica sand.

Cancer & Silicosis Risks to Villagers from proposed local Quarrying Activity at MIN40, East Winch, Norfolk

Norfolk County Council has proposed several sites in the local area for Mineral and Waste Allocation, which is likely to lead to a substantial number of new quarries and rubbish dumps across East Winch and West Bilney, as well as the rest of West Norfolk. We originally actually found out by chance, despite it being called “a consultation” – more about that later.

As relative newcomers to the village, we knew nothing about the extent of local quarrying until 10th March 2008, when we were made aware of a substantial quarry (which most of the residents we met with had no knowledge of) 400m north of East Winch village. The quarry is quite obvious when you look on www.multimap.co.uk and type in PE32 1NP and look to the north of the village in “Aerial” view. It closely resembles a moon crater or asteroid impact crater.

Up to 3 million tonnes of Silica sand, described by Sibelco [formerly known as W.B.B. Minerals] as "a mineral of national importance" could be extracted from MIN40, directly to the west of East Winch.

So why are we worried?

Because exposure to silica sand, or more specifically, Respirable Crystalline Silica (known as RCS for short), is dangerous to health.

Who says?

US Sources
According to the Report On Carcinogens, 11th Edition, published by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program

Respirable Crystalline Silica [i.e. the dust created by silica sand quarrying] "is known to be a human carcinogen." (1) [i.e. it means that it causes cancer in humans]


UK Sources
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Construction Information sheet No 36 Revision 1 states:
“Health effects: Breathing in the very fine dust of crystalline silica can lead to the development of silicosis. This involves scarring of the lung tissue and can lead to breathing difficulties. Exposure to very high concentrations over a relatively short period of time can cause acute silicosis, resulting in rapidly progressive breathlessness and death within a few months of onset.”(2)

We became aware of planning being approved for a site 600m to the west of East Winch, at Grandcourt Farm (Middleton) approved in 2004, again without a large number of local residents knowing about it. Although technically, the notices may have been up for their 2 week period whilst we were viewing our new property in 2005, we missed the opportunity to object.
Only two objections were ever received for Grandcourt Farm.

The document that brought all this to our awareness was Norfolk County Council's document for Mineral Allocation sites, where 3 million tonnes of silica sand would be mined in close proximity to the village from a site known as MIN 40, being the land to the east of Grandcourt Farm (now called Grandcourt Quarry) which would, according to the most recent drawings in the council’s blue book, reduce the “buffer zone” between the village and the other quarries down to 150m if this is granted full planning permission.

[Originally, one vigilant and proactive resident spotted the council notice whilst walking his dog, attended a meeting with the council and was granted an extra month for us to object to the MIN 40 proposal. If not for his timely intervention, this site too could have gone through to the next
stage without any objections.]

In conclusion, although MIN 40 is still only at the proposal stage, given that we already have an active quarry to 400m the north of the village and planning granted for the one 600m to the west which at the [original] time of writing, October 2009, has been worked on by clearing trees and moving earth for over a year now) we believe we already have enough quarries to deal with as it is!

Substantial tracts of local land have been falling like dominoes all around us, due to be swallowed up for quarrying and landfill, and officials appear to have rubber stamped these huge deals without any planning or safety objections.

And we as local residents and taxpayers who have the most to lose, have been the last to know!

Is this ethical? Is this sustainable? Is this justifiable? Aren’t the people of East Winch entitled to enjoy their basic human rights? Are Sibelco prepared to admit to the risks? Or will they simply choose to hide behind the cloak of commercial confidentiality? “The answer is blowing in the wind.” – Bob Dylan

Risks To Health – The Evidence

The Report On Carcinogens, 11th Edition as referred to above, states:

"The link between human lung cancer and exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica was strongest in studies of quarry and granite workers"

And also:
"Residents near quarries and sand and gravel operations are potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica." (1)

The people of East Winch stand to lose not only their DEFRA sponsored conservation walks and beautiful scenery and local wildlife (nowhere to walk the dogs or let the kids play) but also potentially their health and their very lives due to increased exposure to respiratory crystalline silica, which is known to cause respiratory illnesses such as silicosis and is linked to cancer.

“In humans, respirable crystalline silica persists in the lungs, culminating in the development of chronic silicosis, emphysema, obstructive airway disease, and lymph node fibrosis.” (1)

Sibelco’s slogan is "Working Together for Mineral Solutions".

Most of East Winch’s residents don’t want this mineral solution to become their “final solution.”

Also consider the unique wildlife that will be destroyed or displaced such as our local skylarks, hares, and so on, much of which is on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (which means it should be protected by the Government). Skylarks were present at all the Proposed Mineral Allocation Sites I visited back in April 2008.

“Am I Affected?” & “What Can I Do To Help?”
By the time the original deadline had lapsed on April 25th 2008, East Winch (with the help of the recently formed East Winch Action Group [E.W.A.G.]) had delivered over 100 individual written objections to the proposals to Norfolk County Council and a signed petition objecting to the sites at both East Winch and West Bilney. We set up an online petition which has to date attracted around 150 signatures. We also set up a website www.saveeastwinch.com as a useful information
source and organised a number of local residents’ meetings at East Winch and Leziate with local councillors and MPs in attendance, to consider the issues raised by the proposed quarries.

Now the selection of “preferred sites” has raised its head again in October 2009 with MIN40 still being included in the latest document issued and we now have 8 weeks to raise any objections or concerns.

Having revisited the links and documentation attached, I remain convinced that the long term risks to health are our number one concern.

I would like Sibelco to take our concerns seriously and provide us with information to demonstrate and prove that any risks outlined below are being actively considered, managed and minimized, rather than simply denied or dismissed without any justification.

I have seen a tendency for some individuals to simply deny the evidence and say things like “Silica sand is safe while it’s still in the ground.”

Seems a good enough reason to me to leave it there!

Local Opinion
I have been accused of "blackmail" in the village magazine and scaremongering simply by drawing attention to this information [evidence] about RCS, silicosis and the links to cancer enclosed here. Sibelco have denied the risks in the Lynn News newspaper under the headline “Firm Dismisses Cancer Threat”.

Remember:
“Precautions taken to control the risk of potential exposure to RCS will serve to control the risk of fibrosis.”

“Precautions taken to control the risk of fibrosis will serve to control the risk of lung cancer.”

We encourage anyone directly affected by these or similar proposals to contact us at the email address below and everybody else to actively support us by signing the respective e-petitions on our websites [NB which are now closed].

You can also leave comments directly under the articles on the “Save East Winch (and East Bilney)” site, and we strongly encourage you to do so.

Finally, please spread the word and pass on this message to your friends to enlist their support.

Thank you.

Let's Keep Norfolk Green!

"Don't Quarry - Be Healthy!"

Local Contacts:
East Winch Action Group (EWAG):
www.saveeastwinch.blogspot.com

ERASE – Exploited Region Against Silica Extraction
www.eraseorg.blogspot.com
erase.org@tiscali.co.uk

neilpaddock@gmail.com
01553 842385

Transcript of Interview by Neil Paddock (NP) with Local Man (LM), 13th April 2008
(NB The names have been omitted to maintain privacy)

NP: “Could you state your name please?”

LM: (Name Witheld)

NP: “(Name repeated) Could you just tell us a little bit about your experiences
round here and er… why you are here today?”

LM: “Shall I start at the beginning? Well I’m here because I lost my father (1) in the late fifties with cancer. He worked at the sandpits. From the… during the war. The latter part of it that is.

A few years later, my brother (2) lived near the sandpits, he died at 49 of cancer.

The next one was my eldest brother’s nephew (3), he was 28. He worked in the sandpits, He died at 28.

I then lost 3 uncles, that worked at the sandpits (4 5 & 6). After that I lost another nephew (7) who worked at the sandpits.

Now recently, My brother (8) who was in his late eighties, Ashwicken, he died two year ago, cancer.

The other brother (9) from Middleton , he worked at the sandpits, he died last year.

My Aunt and Uncle, who lived at Bawsey near the sandpits, they both died of cancer (10 & 11).

Now I lived at erm XXXX Farm near the sandpits with my ex wife she moved away –
about two year ago she got cancer of the throat, she died (12).

My Daughter XXXX, 50, she has now got cancer of the throat.

My sister XXXX at Ashwicken, who has lived there from the day she was born, she’s
sixty odd, she’s opposite the quarry down at Ashwicken, she’s been diagnosed with
cancer, she’s been treated for 3 years.

And I’d say 75% of the people who worked in the pits died of cancer.
And I know of 6 down Millionaire’s Row if you know where that is? They call it Millionaire’s Row – there’s about 6 died down there. That’s it.”
NP: “So (Name Withheld) what do you attribute to these deaths?”

LM: “Silicon Sands. I worked there, you know, yeah.”

NP: “Is there a lot of dust blowing around when you work there?”

LM: “You cannot see – last Wednesday when we had the wind, my sister could not see
across the road.”

NP: “And presumably this blows into people’s houses does it ?”

LM: “It’s in the house all the time she’s always wiping the windowsills down”

NP: “And so where does your sister live?”

LM: “Ashwicken.”

NP: “Right next to one of the largest…”

LM: “300 metres [corrects himself] 30 metres away from the quarry, large quarry.”

NP: “And how long have they been extracting sand from that pit?”

LM: “I think it about 4 years, it’s on that list yeah.”

NP: “So you have been in the area, your 75 years old…”

LM: “I’m 75, I was born at Ashwicken, Yeah.”

NP: “How many relatives was it in total that you feel have been lost to cancer? I
think it was 13, is that correct?”

LM: “Yes 13 and the wife, (and daughter).”

NP: “Well clearly this is a tragic story and obviously I extend my sympathy to you
personally, man to man…”

LM: “Thank you.”

NP: “You know we thank you very much for coming forward with this information, I got involved in this initially because of the damage to the countryside and the surrounding areas…but I can see already there is a much broader issue we need to address, things where, you know, the truth hasn’t come out until now.
We’ll do everything we can to bring this into the public domain, so thank you for coming forward…”

LM: “That’s quite all right, you’re welcome.”

***End of transcript***

Online Sources:

(1) http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf

Silica

HSE information sheet

Construction Information Sheet No 36 Revision 1

“Health effects
Breathing in the very fine dust of crystalline silica can lead to the development of silicosis. This involves scarring of the lung tissue and can lead to breathing difficulties. Exposure to very high concentrations over a relatively short period of time can cause acute silicosis, resulting in rapidly progressive breathlessness and death within a few months of onset. Similarly, accelerated silicosis, which can progress to death within a decade, has been associated with high exposures to silica in sand blasting. More common is progressive silicosis, usually because of exposure over a longer period. This causes fibrosis (hardening or scarring) of the lung tissue with a consequent loss of lung function. Victims are likely to suffer severe shortness of breath and will find it difficult or impossible to walk even short distances or upstairs. The effect continues to develop after exposure has stopped and is irreversible. Sufferers usually become house- or bed-bound and often die prematurely due to heart failure.

Silica may be linked to lung cancer. If this is the case it is most likely that it occurs as a progression of lung fibrosis. Precautions taken to control the risk of fibrosis will serve to control the risk of lung cancer.”

(2) http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s161sili.pdf

“Silica, Crystalline (Respirable Size)*

Known to be a human carcinogen
First Listed in the Sixth Annual Report on Carcinogens (1991)

Carcinogenicity
Respirable crystalline silica, primarily quartz dusts occurring in industrial and occupational settings, is known to be a human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans indicating a causal relationship between exposure to respirable crystalline silica and increased lung cancer rates in workers exposed to crystalline silica dust.”

“Hazardous human exposure to respirable crystalline silica, primarily quartz dusts, occurs mainly in industrial and occupational settings (discussed in “Exposure”). The link between human lung cancer and exposure to respirable crystalline silica was strongest in studies of quarry and granite workers and workers involved in ceramic, pottery, refractory brick, and diatomaceous earth industries. Human cancer risks are associated with exposure to respirable quartz and cristobalite but not to amorphous silica.”

“The findings in humans are supported by studies in experimental animals demonstrating consistent increases in lung cancers in rats chronically exposed to respirable crystalline silica by inhalation or intratracheal instillation. No lung tumors were observed in hamsters exposed to quartz by intratracheal instillation. Single intrapleural or intraperitoneal injections of various forms of respirable crystalline silica caused lymphomas in rats (IARC 1997).”

“Additional Information Relevant to Carcinogenicity
Respirable crystalline silica deposited in the lungs causes epithelial injury and macrophage activation, leading to inflammatory responses and cell proliferation of the epithelial and interstitial cells. In humans, respirable crystalline silica persists in the lungs, culminating in the development of chronic silicosis, emphysema, obstructive airway disease, and lymph node fibrosis. Respirable crystalline silica stimulates (1) release of cytokines and growth factors from macrophages and epithelial cells; (2) release of reactive oxygen and nitrogen intermediates; and (3) oxidative stress in lungs. All these pathways contribute to lung disease.”

(4) http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacrystalline/index.html

“Silicosis is a disabling, nonreversible and sometimes fatal lung disease caused by overexposure to respirable crystalline silica. Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly two million US workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reports that each year more than 250 die from silicosis and hundreds more are disabled. There is no cure for the disease, but it is 100 percent preventable if employers, workers, and health professionals work together to reduce exposures.”

Silicosis Dr Rob Hicks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/silicosis1.shtml

“WHAT CAUSES IT?

Silica in crystalline form is toxic to the lining of the lungs. When the two come into contact, a strong inflammatory reaction occurs. Over time this inflammation causes the lung tissue to become irreversibly thickened and scarred - a condition known as fibrosis.

WHO'S AFFECTED?

People who work with these materials, as well as foundry workers, potters and sandblasters, are most at risk. Other forms of silica, such as glass, are less of a health risk as they aren't as toxic to the lungs. Men tend to be affected more often than women, as they are more likely to have been exposed to silica. Silicosis is most commonly diagnosed in people over 40, as it usually takes years of exposure before the gradually progressive lung damage becomes apparent.”

Siliocosis & Asbestosis http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/silasb.htm

Conclusion:

"Residents near quarries and sand and gravel operations are potentially exposed to
respirable crystalline silica." (1)

We believe that the health considerations stated above are valid (given that they come from UK & US Government sources) and that no local agency or business involved in this matter has to date given them (or us) the consideration they (or we) deserve.

The people of East Winch are hardworking taxpaying people who deserve the support of local officials and the government and should not be treated as guinea pigs (or laboratory rats for that matter) in a long term commercial experiment.

We do not want to be written off in years to come as “collateral damage” in order for the county to meet a government quota.

Commercial interests have predominated here, not the interests of the local residents and the health of their children.

The nature of contamination of the lungs through PM10 particles of RCS can be an extremely gradual process over many years, so the victim does not notice at first.
It’s a subtle, invisible enemy.

We know the sand blows around and settles, but what becomes of the airborne
particulates? Do we simply unknowingly breathe them in? How often?

Have scientists agreed on appropriate standards for levels of PM10s?

So given the inherent uncertainty, would you want to live next door to a 3 Million
tonne silica sand quarry?

(That’s 1 of 3 within 1000m metres of the village, don’t forget!)

Where you and your family are “potentially exposed” to RCS every day, for decades?

From at least 3 different sources?

Why should the residents of East Winch with our limited resources have to bear the burden to prove that this is dangerous?

When Sibelco have the manpower and the resources to prove that it is safe by demonstrating keen risk management and allowing access to their internal procedures for independent audit.

My message to Sibelco is simply this:

Mr Cutbush, Prove it’s safe. If you can. Or at least demonstrate that you recognize the risks and are actively managing them. Would you knowingly put your family at risk of “potential exposure” to silica sand or anything else considered to be harmful without first quantifying the risks? I doubt it.

“There is no cure for the disease, but it is 100 percent preventable if employers, workers, and health professionals work together to reduce exposures.”

Regards



Neil Paddock Chairman
East Winch Action Group
18th October 2009
Note: The views expressed in this note are that of the author alone. It is hoped that they coincide with the views of the East Winch Action Group Committee and the majority of the residents of East Winch but this cannot be guaranteed.

Why Quarrying Silica Sand may be bad for your health...

There are at least two good reasons why you might not want a large local mineral company quarrying silica sand on your doorstep.

1) Cancer Risks
2) Silicosis Risks

The council appears determined to give us both a quarry in East Winch and also a potentially dangerous incinerator at Saddlebow in King's Lynn, despite concerted opposition from local people. There was even a vote against it which appears to have been completely ignored.

I have attached a link to a report REPORT ON CARCINOGENS, ELEVENTH EDITION (issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program) so you can read about just how dangerous Respirable Crystalline Silica (or RCS - the dust created from Silica Sand Quarrying) can be.

An extract from the beginning of the document follows below:

1) CANCER RISKS

"Carcinogenicity
Respirable crystalline silica, primarily quartz dusts occurring in
industrial and occupational settings, is known to be a human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans indicating a causal relationship between exposure to respirable crystalline silica and increased lung cancer rates in workers exposed to crystalline silica dust."

And...at the bottom of page two...

"Nonoccupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica results from natural processes and anthropogenic sources; silica is a common air contaminant. Residents near quarries and sand and gravel operations are potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica."

The link to the full report is here:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s161sili.pdf

This may explain why a local villager has lost 13 of his relatives to cancer who either worked in or lived near the sandpits.

There are also risks of contracting Silicosis.

2) SILICOSIS RISKS
Ironically, the Government, apparently intent on harvesting Silica Sand from in and around the King's Lynn area (and wiping out the nature walk at "MIN40" in the process) have issued this document highlighting the dangers of silica sand, and the risks of silicosis via The Health and Safety Executive.

The document, [HSE information sheet on Silica
Construction Information Sheet No 36 Revision 1] states:

“Breathing in the very fine dust of crystalline silica can lead
to the development of silicosis. This involves scarring of
the lung tissue and can lead to breathing difficulties.
Exposure to very high concentrations over a relatively
short period of time can cause acute silicosis, resulting in
rapidly progressive breathlessness and death within a few
months of onset.”

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf

Here's a picture of a healthy lung...
http://www.sy-klone.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/photos/news_case_studies/health/LungSection_healthy.jpg

Here's what a lung looks like with silicosis...
http://www.sy-klone.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/photos/news_case_studies/health/LungSection_Silicosis2.jpg

I have attached the links to the original article so you can see where these came from.
http://www.sy-klone.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SI&Product_Code=NW-R-AIOH-RCS&Category_Code=NW

"Dead workers aren't fashionable,"

"Sarah Butler, 6:44, Sunday 20 March 2011

Asda (NYSE: WMT - news) , Diesel, Matalan and Primark are among a group of companies being criticised for selling jeans made using sandblasting, which can cause illness or even death.

The pressure group, Labour Behind the Label, said these companies continue to use sandblasting to give denim a "worn" look, despite the danger that silica dust from the sand can get into workers' lungs. British companies including New Look and Marks & Spencer (Dusseldorf: MA6.DU - news) also say they have banned the process. Levi's and H&M (Stockholm: HMB.ST - news) stopped all use in December

"Dead workers aren't fashionable," said Sam Maher, co-author of Labour Behind the Label's Killer Jeans report, which will be published on Monday.

"The trend for killer jeans must be phased out by companies and rejected by consumers with immediate effect." It is also calling on retailers and brands to compensate workers who have been made ill by operating sandblasting machines in the past."

They couldn't give a monkeys about dead villagers.

So what will they hit us with first, the quarry or the incinerator?

Review the article for some information about the dangers of silica sand by clicking on the title of this post. You can also click on the link below.

Just what exactly are we paying our council tax for?

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Top-chains-urged-ban-tele-3797296291.html?x=0