Pyrolysis plant
In response to the letter of November 29 from Mr Hugh Steadman, I would like to thank him for his comments, however I need to point out, firstly, that this is not a problem for the folks of Boulevard Park alone. The emissions from the plant will move and settle where the wind blows them and in Blenheim, that is all points of the compass.
Mr Steadman’s view that it was ‘‘time pressure’’ that led the council to carry out inadequate research doesn’t stack up, as the serious implications of this plant are far too onerous to be dealt with in this way.
It appears that there is a company in the district that carries out pyrolysis operations dealing with forestry waste. It is very interesting to hear, but I must point out that the difference between forestry waste, which is clean, chemical-free virgin timber and timber grape posts treated with toxins, is like comparing apples with elephants. No matter how you treat arsenic, it will remain in the charcoal, carbon or ash that will remain, who would want to use this contaminated carbon?
I would also like to give big odds on the fact that the forestry industry are not expecting the ratepayers to pick up the tab for the process.
One other serious issue remains.
We are not talking about a small amount of wood here. We are talking 3000 tonnes minimum, with the potential to be double that. Charcoal is ultra light by weight and with that amount, we are talking about a mountain, around 10,000 cubic metres. With the serious fire history in the Bluegums area over the years, if the charcoal caught fire, I doubt the fire brigade would be able to put it out. Furthermore this huge volume of contaminated charcoal would need to be transported. By whom, the council? By truck? To where?
The charcoal which the council suggested could be used locally as an alternative fuel source would be illegal to burn.
If there is indeed a company close by who can carry out this process safely and without health issues to the residents then why are the district council not talking to them?
Alan Hall
Blenheim Residents and Ratepayers Association average wage rates in the country.
Alternative fact: There is no connection between those two facts.
Yeah right.
Peter Nelson
Blenheim were responsible for 50 per cent of new TB infections in cattle and deer herds. A complaint to the Advertising Complaints Authority against the advertisement resulted in a July 2016 ASA decision saying the ad ‘‘was not supported by the evidence’’. The ASA also ruled
‘‘the ad breached the industry code of ethics requiring truthful presentation and social responsibility’’. That ASA decision says it all.
It is time New Zealand’s media asked OSPRI and DOC to support their public statements with real, verifiable facts and the person supplying such information from these Government agencies should also be named. How can the public give any credibility to statements made by these agencies when they are represented by phantoms?
Those opposed to aerial 1080 operations supply their names to media, all we want is transparency and the truth. Isn’t that what the media is supposed to give us?
Ron Eddy
Nelson