AFTER reading the scaremongering and conflicting comments on Keighley’s waste-to-energy plant, I agree with Martin Walkers’ comments in his letter printed on February 16 – Confused about energy plant plan (Keighley News).

But David Bateman’s letter, which says “Bradford Council has ignored all the advice of the World Health Organisation” is an absolute nonsense. If only Mr Bateman had read the officer’s report, he will have seen the full explanation of what the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said has no relevance to the plant in Keighley.

People have specifically quoted a passage from a WHO paper to demonstrate why they consider the proposal site is unsuitable.

The quotes from the paper are: “The location of an incinerator can significantly affect dispersion of the plume from the chimney, which in turn affects ambient concentrations, deposition and exposures to workers and the community.

“Best practice siting has the goal of finding a location for the incinerator that minimises potential risks to public health and the environment. This can be achieved by: minimising ambient air concentrations and deposition of pollutants to soils and other surfaces, e.g. open fields or hilltops without trees or tall vegetation are preferable. Siting within forested areas is not advisable as dispersion will be significantly impaired. Valleys, areas near ridges, wooded areas should be avoided, as these tend to channel winds and/or plumes tend to impinge on elevated surfaces or down-wash under some conditions.

“Minimising the number of people potentially exposed, e.g. areas near the incinerator should not be populated, e.g. containing housing, athletic fields, markets or other areas where people congregate.

“Areas near the incinerators should not be used for agriculture, e.g. leafy crops, grasses or grains for animals.”

Although these points are noted, this WHO paper does not relate to, nor is written in relation to, large, modern, energy-from-waste facilities taking residual commercial and industrial waste.

The WHO Paper is entitled ‘Findings on an Assessment of Small-scale Incinerators for Health-care Waste – 2004’ and is: “ ....an analysis of low cost small-scale incinerators used to dispose of health-care waste in developing countries, specifically sharps waste (used and possibly infected syringes and needles)”.

There is no known WHO paper that sets out the same issues for large, modern energy-from-waste facilities taking residual commercial and industrial waste.

If people are concerned they need to start reading the planning document, which Bradford Council produced.

It clearly states the facts about this incinerator. It’s 101 pages long, so if you don’t want to spend the time reading it, don’t comment!

There have been many studies into health effects. Leading experts around the world have concluded impacts are minimal.

It’s difficult to put that into context for the public but the truth is the steam trains in Haworth present a far higher risk.

Whoever set up the Aire Valley Against Incineration group should be ashamed because as the saying goes “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. They have no idea of what they are talking about, thus giving unnecessary, extremely alarming, false information to residents.

LISA HORSFALL Oakworth