I wish to share a minute of my time with Deputy Gormley.
Adjournment Debate. - Dioxin Levels.
That is agreed.
While the matter I raise is one of the utmost seriousness, we should try to deal with it in a calm and rational manner and without causing unnecessary alarm to members of the public. It is also a matter that raises serious questions about the future course of waste management and makes it imperative for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to spell out exactly the Government's position on incineration as a method of waste disposal.
Anyone who is interested in environmental or health matters has known for a very long time that dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known, capable of doing enormous damage to the environment and causing lethal health problems for those exposed to excessive doses.
Dioxin probably first came to attention as a component of Agent Orange, a herbicide used by US forces in Vietnam. Some 30 years on that country is still trying to recover from the lethal impact of that chemical. Many may remember the terrible damage done in the Italian town of Seveso when an explosion led to a huge discharge of dioxins. People have long been aware of the ill effects of dioxins. Even low level exposure is known to interfere with the immune, reproductive and endocrine systems. Dioxins also affect the early growth and development of humans and animals.
Additional alarm has been caused by the draft report of the US Environmental Protection Agency which found that the cancer risk from dioxins is far higher than had previously been estimated. The report found that in regard to the United States, for the small segment of the population who eat large amounts of fatty foods such as meats and dairy products that are relatively high in dioxins the odds of developing cancer could be as high as one in a hundred. That estimate places the risk ten times higher than the US EPA's previous estimates.
Environmentalists now claim, on the basis of the US EPA's report, that as many as 100 of the approximately 1,400 cancer deaths each day in the US are attributable to dioxins. The report also linked low grade exposure to dioxins to a wide array of other health problems, including changes in hormone levels as well as development defects in babies and children.
While the levels of dioxins present in our environmental chain are relatively low by international standards, we have a high level of consumption of meat and dairy products, which are the biggest carriers of dioxins. Irish children have a high level of consumption of dairy products. For this reason alone, it would be very unwise for us not to take urgent note of the US EPA's findings.
Against the background of the US EPA's report, it is absolutely essential that we not only take measures to ensure that there is no increase in dioxin levels here but that procedures are put in place to reduce and eventually eliminate them totally from the environment.
The US EPA's report will cause particular alarm to those who live in areas close to the location of the proposed large-scale municipal incinerators, given the established link between incineration and dioxins. While I am aware that improved standards and better monitoring procedures have led to reduced dioxin emissions from incinerators, the findings of this report cannot be ignored.
In particular, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government must say exactly what the Government's position is on incineration. He has been in office for almost three years and I have yet to hear him spell out his position on this matter. It is not good enough for him simply to dump this problem on to the lap of local authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency. Does the Government support incineration? The Minister should indicate clearly the Government's position on incineration in light of the US EPA's report.
I thank Deputy Gilmore for sharing his time with me. The US EPA report shows beyond doubt that dioxin is a deadly substance. It is ten times deadlier than we thought previously. To proceed with the national waste strategy with which the Government wishes to proceed would be an act of criminal negligence. How many people have to die as a consequence of incineration before the Government wakes up to the fact that incineration is not the way forward? Can Ministers live with the deaths of so many people as a consequence of incineration? We know that it affects people within a 40 mile radius, it goes into the food chain, that people who consume those food products will die as a consequence of dioxins in food and that it is a deadly substance.
I can commit to my constituents that the incinerator proposed for Ringsend will not go ahead. Industry wants such an incinerator, but the Green Party does not want it. Does the Government want an incinerator in Ringsend because according to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government incineration is the way forward in this area?
I thank Deputies Gilmore and Gormley for raising this important issue. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, cannot be in the House to respond to this matter and he has asked me to do so on his behalf.
The Deputy appears to be prepared to take a definitive position and make categorical statements on the strength of Irish press and TV reports, themselves based on an article in a US newspaper referring to a leaked draft report being prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The rush to analysis on that basis is, in my view, irresponsible and unhelpful. I strongly doubt that the Deputy has seen or read the draft report referred to.
I understand that the report, possibly amended, will be officially published next month. The Department of the Environment and Local Government will then evaluate it and the Minister will in due course be in a position to respond definitively in relation to issues arising.
The information which is said to emerge from this leaked report should not come as a surprise to anyone who has attempted to keep abreast of the factual position regarding dioxins or waste incineration. For instance, equivalent information is contained in a comprehensive published 1999 EU report, Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data.
It is generally accepted that dioxins are persistent and toxic in the environment. The essential point emerging from the original American article on this leak is that the US EPA has concluded for the first time that dioxins are a human carcinogen. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organisation, had already classed the most toxic dioxin compound as a known human carcinogen.
Due to particular dietary habits, or occupational exposure, some sectors of a population may face a relatively higher exposure to dioxins than others. Press reports suggested that the US EPA has concluded that for a small segment of the American population, who eat large amounts of fatty foods that are relatively high in dioxins, the risk of developing cancer is ten times higher than previously projected. There are so many qualifications associated with this statement that comments, out of context of the report and the data involved, and without knowing what assumptions the US EPA had previously made, are of very questionable value.
However, the question of exposure levels and relative risk goes to the heart of the issue regarding dioxins. The World Health Organisation considers that there is a level of exposure to dioxins below which cancer risk would be negligible and, in 1998, it agreed on a tolerable daily intake of dioxins. The fact is that dioxins are ubiquitous in the environment. We encounter them every day, at very low levels. Combustion sources include domestic fires, motor vehicles and cigarettes, as well as incineration and metal industries. Clearly because of the potential toxic effects of exposure to dioxins, their emission must, where possible, be strictly controlled and minimised to ensure that exposure does not exceed relevant guidelines and standards.
The information available to me is that modern thermal treatment technology enables the destruction of most dioxins in waste, and means that remaining emissions are minimal and can be tightly controlled. The EPA here already applies a flue gas emission limit value for dioxins of one ten thousand millionth of a gram per cubic metre of gas emitted. This is an extremely stringent standard, taking the precautionary principle into account, and it will shortly be adopted by the EU generally. The available evidence indicates that these standards work. A 1995 EPA survey found no statistically significant variation in dioxin levels near existing incineration facilities in Ireland.
I am advised that emissions from proposed new thermal treatment facilities, employing modern technologies and subject to compliance with strict environmental standards, should not have any appreciable environmental impact or contribute significantly to background levels of dioxins locally or nationally.