| You are in: Sci/Tech | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, 4 April, 2001, 16:35 GMT 17:35 UK
Animal disposal row intensifies
![]() Official concern is over 'air quality and odour issues'
By BBC News Online's environment correspondent Alex Kirby
As foot-and-mouth disease claims ever more victims, the UK Government stands accused of ignoring the pollution impacts in its haste to halt the outbreak. Local authorities fear that slaughtered animals could contaminate air and water.
And fears persist that dead cattle could also spread BSE, "mad cow disease". The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for environmental protection in England and Wales: the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) does a similar job in Scotland. The EA has agreed with Maff "a hierarchy of preferences for disposal of carcasses":
Hazardous substances "Local authorities responsible for air quality have been shut out by Maff as pyres burning hundreds of thousands of animals release polluting emissions," it says. The fires use wooden railway sleepers, coal, and old tyres, and, the report says, emit "a variety of hazardous substances including dioxins, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and particulates". It interviewed one environmental health officer from Castle Morpeth borough council in Northumberland, the authority which includes Heddon-on-the-Wall, identified as the source of the outbreak. He told Ends: "We have had no input and haven't been consulted by Maff at all." Another, from West Devon borough council, an area badly affected by the disease, said: "Maff's priority is to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease. They are not showing proper regard for environmental considerations, or the possible impact on public health." Risks to environment He said slaughtered animals on one Devon farm had been doused with disinfectant which had contaminated a shallow well supplying local farms. The EA's foot-and-mouth task force leader, Geoff Bateman, said there was "unprecedented" use at the moment of disinfectants containing phenolics and peroxides, both directly toxic to aquatic life. The National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA) believes that the risks of burning carcasses are at least as great as those arising from burial. Tim Brown, NSCA's deputy secretary, told BBC News Online: "The top of our own hierarchy of preferences is burial, so long as there's no risk to the groundwater.
"Some times the carcasses explode on the pyres. And we just don't know what the risk of spreading BSE may be. "The government has put it at less than one in a million, but in fact there's no way of knowing whether the causative agent, the prion, will be destroyed or dispersed. "If you decide burning is the best option, we'd like a proper look at napalm. It sounds ideal: it's very hot, it burns quickly, and it coats the carcasses in a gel while they burn. And it's a lot cheaper than building a pyre." |
Internet links:
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites Top Sci/Tech stories now:
Links to more Sci/Tech stories are at the foot of the page.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Links to more Sci/Tech stories
|
|
|
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |
|