|
Leyland to Become the Waste Recycling Centre For
|
24-Jan-2004, 09:02 PM
O.K. So who is kidding who? The proposed plant will process bio-degradable waste into an enviromentaly acceptable fuel. Nothing wrong with that - IS THERE? Or am I not reading between the lines? On the face of it , it appears to be a good project. No doubt the actual truth will be far removed from the press release.
Jim
24-Jan-2004, 10:07 PM
The letter does say Jim that there will be no incineration of waste!
It also says " No material will be burnt at the Leyland site and the MBT plant ( mechanical biological treatment plant) does not involve incineration of waste. So 3 times. I suppose a cock will crow now.<g> It is clear tis process is totally different to the original proposal and if it carries through then well done Lancs CC for coming up with a "green" solution.
26-Jan-2004, 09:30 AM
Wouldn`t it be great if we could take what we read at face value and know that we were being given the truth evey time. (That will be the day!).
A typical example was Castle cement`s application to burn pellets made from BSE cattle carcases. What a great way to get rid of them - you would think!!!! It now comes to light that the fuel will be a cocktail of BSE and `OTHER` chemical wastes.
Jim
31-Jan-2004, 12:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Spitfire Wouldn`t it be great if we could take what we read at face value and know that we were being given the truth evey time. (That will be the day!). You mean like the Hunter report?[}  ]
31-Jan-2004, 12:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by noel You mean like the Hutton report?[} ]LOL! What a whitewash!
31-Jan-2004, 01:09 PM
Pardon me Linda, yes the Hutton report. I tried to correct it before anyone noticed. Changing track then what do others think of it? I am so angry that Teflon Tony apparently gets away with it again, reference has been made to "you can't chose your own referee " but the government did.
This report has convinced me more than ever that this government is corrupt. And I for one voted them in, but not next time, it's the Monster Raving Loony Party for me.
31-Jan-2004, 06:46 PM
In the past, one could trust the BBC. In recent years people have (quite righty) been taking what they say with a `little pinch of salt`. As the government has the final say in who the next director general of the BBC will be, will we be able to trust them at all from now on?
As for the Hutton report, WHITEWASH is the only word that springs to mind.
Jim
31-Jan-2004, 08:25 PM
I've yet to find any of my friends who find differently spitfire.
It's very odd to find a mass of employees paying for an advert to complain about the demise of their top manager. 
01-Feb-2004, 10:03 PM
http://www.letsrecycle.com/info/localaut...story=2993
The Lancashire plant is expected to be operating by March 2005. Lancashire has not yet found an incinerator or combined heat and power plant to take the material at an attractive price, but discussions are thought to be taking place with industrial owners of power plants which could take in the fuel.
Martin ~
31-Mar-2004, 08:25 PM
quote:
Paper sack manufacturer fined £15,000 for recycling failure Paper sack manufacturer Smurfit Ward has been fined a total of £15,000 for failing to meet its recycling obligations under the Packaging Waste Regulations. Under the Regulations, producers are required to ensure the recovery and recycling of their obligation of packaging (see letsrecycle.com legislation section). At South Ribble Magistrates' Court last week, Leyland-based Smurfit Ward pleaded guilty to six offences relating to their failure to meet their producer obligations in 2001 and 2002. http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/news.jsp?story=3189
Martin ~
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
