“It's quite easy for the Croydon Conservatives to clear this up, once and for all. That would be achieved by refusing to back the construction of an incinerator in Croydon, Merton, Kingston or Sutton.”

“That is complete rubbish Arfur. I said that if the Labour government force an incinerator on the waste partnership then it will not be near Croydon. The Conservatives are opposed to an incinerator anywhere near us. You are twisting my words to suit your own views of the Tories.”

“Assuming Mark can speak for Croydon Conservatives, we have an admission that they will support an incinerator being built to burn Croydon's recyclable waste - just so long as it isn't in our borough. As Kingston, Sutton and Merton are upwind of us, we'll still get to breathe in the lovely fumes though.”

“They should build it right in the centre of Croydon, it would be a great place for the feral youth to play. two birds with one stone springs to mind ....”

“There may be an incinerator outside of Croydon but not in or near us. Thats as much as I know. Incineration is NOT the prefered solution for croydon conservatives but it is for the Labour government and our rulers in Brussels. There isn't any more that I can say unfortuantly.”

“Mark, perhaps you can help us out here, seeing as how Phil prefers to keep a low profile, apart from the odd exclamation of "absolute nonsense".

The quotes below come from the South London
Waste Partnership
Residual Waste Treatment
Descriptive Document of May 2009.

It says, amongst other things, that "the Partnership¿s evaluation criteria will reward high performing,
low emission, modern, sustainable technologies that offer residents value for money."

It goes onto mention things like "EfW" - which is "energy from waste" and refers to the "recovery of energy value" and the "promotion of CHP schemes" - CHP stands for Combined Heat and Power.

It also says that "Energy-from-waste (EfW) is the recovery of renewable energy in the form of electricity and/or heat from the controlled incineration of residual waste. "

The Environmental Services Association says on its Incineration web page that "CHP systems can make incinerators more energy efficient providing energy and heat for local communities and businesses. A number of the UK's efw facilities have a CHP system in place".

All this points towards an incinerator being built somewhere either close to or in Croydon - at a cost over 25-35 years of c£990 million.

Have I got that right?”

“'He said the very same thing to the Advertiser last July about the prospect of an incinerator - before backracking into weasel words about ""Nothing is ruled in, nothing is ruled out." and "We're technologically neutral."'

The Labour Government do not allow any council to rule out anything unfortuantly. But the Conservatives have said that if a waste facility is to be built in croydon the council will oppose incineration. That is a fact that has been made clear on so many occasions.

'incineration does not destroy radioactivity'

Your quite right it doesn't that is why is would be insane to do so anywhere near us. This is why Mr Khan is spreading these lies. To scare people.

Recycling has gone up from 17% under Labour to 36% under the Conservatives, yes there is still a lot to do but to more than double recycling levels in under 4 years is a big improvement.

Yes Wotan I am a Conservative. But that doesn't change the facts on this case. That Shasha Khan is spreading mis-information in an attempt to gain votes for a party that is a joke.”

“Wotan, incineration does not destroy radioactivity. If that were the case, the sun would not be radioactive, and there would not have been any radioactivity at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. If this mad scheme gets the go-ahead, we can expect to breathe in radioactive particles - along with cancer-causing soot and other nasties.

Mark, according to the Tory propaganda sheet pushed through my door recently, Croydon currently recycles 36% - of what exactly it and you don't say. This figure is at odds with a February 2009 report published by RSE Consulting for London councils, which refers to a rate of just 16.42% as at 2007/8.

Even if we accept the 36% figure, that still leaves around two-thirds being dumped in landfill now - and being put into an incinerator in future (let's not use that euphemism "energy from waste").

That's very poor compared to lowly Staffordshire Moorlands Borough Council where they manage to recycle 61.58%.

That means 64% - nearly two-thirds - of Croydon's household waste is being dumped and would in futurebe incinerated.

For incinerators to work, they require a good mix of materials to burn - recyclable things like plastic, cardboard and paper .

As well as toxic fumes and ash, incinerators will emit the greenhouse gas CO2. And since the stuff that is burnt will surely be replaced by new plastic, cardboard and paper (not to mention metal), even more greenhouse gases will be emitted in their production.

The financial cost to local taxpayers will be colossal.

As for Phil Thomas dismising the radioactive waste threat as "absolute nonsense". He said the very same thing to the Advertiser last July about the prospect of an incinerator - before backracking into weasel words about ""Nothing is ruled in, nothing is ruled out." and "We're technologically neutral."

Only a fool would back an incinerator over recycling. Unfortunately one is in charge of the Council's waste policy.”

“Mark, Croydon will presumably be Mark of Woodside Conservatives. Party politicians should declare their partisanship when they post, here, so that we can read their commens in the correct party political context.

As it happens, I agree that Mr Khan is pushing his luck. To claim that a facility will be processing radioactive stuff, merely because the definition of hazardous CAN (in some circumstances) include low-grade radioactive waste is mischievous and causes unnecessary alarm.

Even if an incinerator were built and even if it did process low grade waste, what is the science? If you burn this stuff at a very high temperature, what happens to its radioactivity? Does it still pose a real hazard (we'll rely on the IAEA or WHO for a benchmark)? After all, high temperature incineration is the preferred method for disposing of old chemical weapons.

Those are the sorts of questions that local politicians (regardless of party) should be asking.”

“Radioactive waste in Croydon.....what a brilliant idea.”