Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

Despite the UK Government's inability to carry out a statistical
survey of the occurrences of cancer (and asthma) around UK airports,
evidence has come from the USA that shows that there is a high
correlation of incidences of cancer around even small airports over
there. (1)

Additionally research by Spelthorne Council also confirms that
aircraft emissions do cause the high levels of asthma in that area.
Local residents living in and around the pollution hot-spot of
Heathrow - actually including most of West London with a population of
over 1 million - are soon to experience even greater levels of
pollution from: traffic fumes, aircraft exhaust, kerosene derivatives,
NO2, CO2, brake dust, etc.

The pollution from Heathrow can be detected even up to 15 miles to the
east and ALREADY over 14,000 local residents living near Heathrow
suffer pollution over EU permissible limits. This figure is soon to be
dramatically increased due to:

* the building of a new waste incinerator at Colnbrook, downwind from
Heathrow. This has recently been sanctioned by Hillingdon Council,
despite the fears of local residents who are afraid of being poisoned
by dioxins (one of the most carcinogenic toxins known) and other
fallout which have beset local residents living near other such
operations around the world. This pollution will drift on the
prevailing winds to affect residents living in and around Heathrow,
Feltham, Hounslow, Hayes and indeed most of West London.

* the increased pollution from traffic using the proposed eight lane
widened M25 and M4, especially from traffic for the new Terminal 5 and
proposed Terminals 6 and 7, and the proposed third London runway.
Again due to the prevailing winds this pollution will also affect most
of Heathrow, West Drayton and south Hayes, and beyond.

* the dramatically increased pollution (exhaust and brake dust) from
aircraft using the proposed third London runway, which will directly
affect all living in West Drayton and south Hayes, and which could
well result in all homes in the entire area from the M4 to the GWR
railway line to be demolished due to pollution levels being over the
permissible EU limits.

These dramatically increased pollution levels will be accumulative -
and will cause yet more cases of early death from asthma (especially
in children), and cancer. The NHS is already in financial crisis, with
cancer victims dying whilst on overlong waiting lists.

The dramatic increase in pollution, coupled with the increase in
cancer and asthma, will devastate this region, require the demolition
of well over 10,000 homes, and affect the lives and health of well
over 35,000 local residents to say nothing of the million living in
West London.

The question which must be asked, but which will not be answered is
this:
if Heathrow is already such a widely acknowledged pollution hotspot -
why has Hillingdon Council ridden roughshod over local residents'
fears of pollution and fallout from the new gigantic incinerator at
Colnbrook?

Has an Environmental Impact Assessment been carried out? No-one has
seen one. Isn't this a legal requirement?

This decision, which one suspects is based purely on economics of one
kind or another, does not bode well for the Council's publicly stated
opposition of third London runway. In fact reading between the lines
it is easy to see that the Council's support for the campaign against
the runway is really just lip-service.

Why else would the Council state categorically that it is deliberately
conducting a low profile in the campaign against the runway by taking
a backseat and letting the a few local residents do all of the work
(and who are still 'war weary' from the anti-T5 battle)?

The anti-SERAS campaigns against new airport creation or expansion
such at Rugby, Stansted and Cliffe ALL have highly professional teams,
supported and financed by their respective local Councils. At Heathrow
we have a few active campaigners, little commensurate finance, and
hardly any professional support.

To top it all the DfT has the cheek to accuse local residents of not
bothering to attend the SERAS Exhibition at Heathrow when they were
deliberately not warned of it in advance. With this excuse the DfT is
now refusing to hold a second exhibition. The DfT's attitude towards
local residents is as bad and as suspect as Hillingdon Council's.

The whole environmental issue in the Heathrow area stinks (in more
ways than one), due to:

* the local dirty tricks of removing anti-third runway posters and
banners (reportedly by BAA/BA employees or contractors),

* the DfT deliberately not informing residents of the exhibition at
Heathrow and then complaining that attendance was low

* the highly secretive and selective meetings at Waterside to gauge
local opinion about the third runway

* the low-profile support (almost non-existent) support by Hillingdon
Council for the campaign against the third runway, whilst at the same
time supporting the building of a major polluting incinerator at
Colnbrook

It is no wonder that Heathrow is already a pollution (and noise) hot
spot, and it is due to become the Cancer Capital of Europe very soon.

Reference:

(1) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, written by
Professor John Whitelegg, and published by Transport 2000, and the
Ashden Trust in January 2002.

This highlighted research carried out by the US Environment Protection
Agency which showed a "heightened incidence" of cancer in the vicinity
of the Chicago-Midway Airport. It estimated that emissions from
aircraft were responsible for 10.5% of cancers caused by air pollution
in the Midway area. Heathrow is substantially larger than Midway; it
is used by five times as many passengers and has 50% more landings and
takeoffs. There have also been studies at Chicago-O'Hare Airport and
in Seattle which would appear to confirm the findings at Chicago-
Midway Airport.

On Aug 15, 11:25 am, CJB wrote:
Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

If they keep selling those overpriced rancid burgers anythings
possible.

The pollution from Heathrow can be detected even up to 15 miles to the

More than that. Look up into the sky on a clear day anywhere in the
southeast and look at all the vapour trails. Sometimes theres so much
**** up there the whole sky goes hazy. Still, we'll eventually reap
what we sow.

B2003

On 15 Aug, 12:20, Boltar wrote:
On Aug 15, 11:25 am, CJB wrote:

Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

If they keep selling those overpriced rancid burgers anythings
possible.

The pollution from Heathrow can be detected even up to 15 miles to the

More than that. Look up into the sky on a clear day anywhere in the
southeast and look at all the vapour trails. Sometimes theres so much
**** up there the whole sky goes hazy. Still, we'll eventually reap
what we sow.

Some more than others, the victims of the sowers.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
On 15 Aug, 12:20, Boltar wrote:
On Aug 15, 11:25 am, CJB wrote:

Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?
If they keep selling those overpriced rancid burgers anythings
possible.

The pollution from Heathrow can be detected even up to 15 miles to the
More than that. Look up into the sky on a clear day anywhere in the
southeast and look at all the vapour trails. Sometimes theres so much
**** up there the whole sky goes hazy. Still, we'll eventually reap
what we sow.

Some more than others, the victims of the sowers.

Oh god, Doug has found an enhanced audience by crossposting to the
London and air subgroups...

--
Abo

CJB wrote:
Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

I don't care.

I'm just glad it's down south, near Doug and many, many miles away from me.

--
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Doug wrote:
On 15 Aug, 12:20, Boltar wrote:
On Aug 15, 11:25 am, CJB wrote:

Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

If they keep selling those overpriced rancid burgers anythings
possible.

The pollution from Heathrow can be detected even up to 15 miles to
the

More than that. Look up into the sky on a clear day anywhere in the
southeast and look at all the vapour trails. Sometimes theres so much
**** up there the whole sky goes hazy. Still, we'll eventually reap
what we sow.

Some more than others, the victims of the sowers.

Is that the sowers of the food you have imported by air Doug?

In article . com, CJB
says...
Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

Reference:

(1) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, written by
Professor John Whitelegg, and published by Transport 2000, and the
Ashden Trust in January 2002.

****ING HELL. Is it 2002 again?

Here's a suggestion. Try posting stuff that's a little more up to date
than HALF A DECADE OLD.


--
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

CJB wrote
Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

Despite the UK Government's inability to carry out a statistical
survey of the occurrences of cancer (and asthma) around UK airports,
evidence has come from the USA that shows that there is a high
correlation of incidences of cancer around even small airports over
there. (1)

Additionally research by Spelthorne Council also confirms that
aircraft emissions do cause the high levels of asthma in that area.

No reference of course. Perhaps because no one has a plausible
explanation of the apparent increase in asthma in most places. Example,
the Isle of Skye, which has as much fresh air and water as anyone could
wish, no airport and only one town


Reference:

No it isn't. Lets have a real reference, not a "he said"



(1) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, written by
Professor John Whitelegg, and published by Transport 2000, and the
Ashden Trust in January 2002.

This highlighted research carried out by the US Environment
Protection
Agency which showed a "heightened incidence" of cancer in the
vicinity
of the Chicago-Midway Airport. It estimated that emissions from
aircraft were responsible for 10.5% of cancers caused by air
pollution
in the Midway area. Heathrow is substantially larger than Midway; it
is used by five times as many passengers and has 50% more landings
and
takeoffs. There have also been studies at Chicago-O'Hare Airport and
in Seattle which would appear to confirm the findings at Chicago-
Midway Airport.

So if air pollution is responsible for 0.0001 % of cancers this is
still "true" since a true believer said it !

Except for the "cancer is caused by pylons and mobile phones" true
believers of course.

--
Mike D

Many years ago, even before the Chunnel was built, there was a plan to
place London's third airport somewhere in the Pas de Calais area.

The idea was that transcontinental flights would end there and people would
then board high speed trains to London, Paris,or Brussels.

Whatever happened to that idea?

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article . com, CJB
says...
Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

Reference:

(1) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, written by
Professor John Whitelegg, and published by Transport 2000, and the
Ashden Trust in January 2002.

****ING HELL. Is it 2002 again?

Here's a suggestion. Try posting stuff that's a little more up to date
than HALF A DECADE OLD.


--
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

On 15 Aug, 17:42, Conor wrote:
In article . com, CJB
says... Is Heathrow due to become Cancer Capital of Europe?

Reference:

(1) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, written by
Professor John Whitelegg, and published by Transport 2000, and the
Ashden Trust in January 2002.

****ING HELL. Is it 2002 again?

Here's a suggestion. Try posting stuff that's a little more up to date
than HALF A DECADE OLD.

How about this?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/127
I doubt the anti-airport protesters will be referring to *this* study
much.