Can anyone guarantee that the Sark incinerator is safe?
I WAS interested to read Dr Stevenson go on record recently playing down the adverse health effects of the Sark incinerator, particularly in light of him having written to me on 16 October 2014 as follows: 'Your concerns about the incinerator and its possible link to ill health are far from unreasonable' and 'I am far from hostile to your serious questions about the incinerator but have no personal answer to providing an alternative to something which few of us would consider other than profoundly undesirable.'
Is Dr Stevenson now guaranteeing to us that the incinerator is safe, endorsing this method of waste disposal and willing to put his job on the line if this turns out not to be the case? What is the reason for his recent conversion?
I was also curious to see how readily available the statistics of recent deaths are to Dr Stevenson. When I approached him about whether he had statistics available on cancer cases on Sark in recent years, he told me those statistics were not easy to come by and that he would need to get the 'support of Sark's Public Health Committee and the Sark Medical Committee before I release any statistical information to you'.
Will he be kind enough to provide and, in the public interest, publish these statistics now, as he has done with the other statistics?
I am aware of at least six cases of brain cancer in Sark over the past 10 years and three cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma – all in people in their 20s or younger – over the past two, both cancers linked to living near an incinerator. That equates to 100 (respectively 250) cases per 100,000 population per year, versus the UK, USA and world average of six (respectively 15) cases per 100,000 population per year, i.e. a Sark rate 17 times too high. Perhaps the good doctor will complete this picture and tell us how many cases of incinerator-related cancers there have been in Sark over the past 10 years – fatty tissue cancers (brain, breast, etc.), air-exposed tissue cancers (skin, nose, oral, oesophagus, lung), lymphoma – and either put our minds at ease, or confirm that there is a problem.
It would not take a lot to get to the bottom of this potential issue, as I have repeatedly said. Obtain the above statistics to see if other relevant cancers are at elevated levels too, and measure dioxin levels near the incinerator, at a cost of £300 for the lab measurement, to see if dioxin levels are safe or too high. But this would require Chief Pleas permission to collect samples on their land near the incinerator. Will this be forthcoming?
TOMAZ SLIVNIK,
La Pavlaison,
Sark.
Editor's footnote: Dr John Stevenson, Sark's medical officer of health, responds:
'Dr Slivnik approached me in October mentioning his concerns about the Sark incinerator and inquiring about health statistics, which were not then available.
As he states, I agreed with him on two accounts.
My acknowledgements, that his 'concerns about the incinerator and its possible link to ill-health are far from unreasonable' and that waste incineration in an ideal world is undesirable, remain valid. I am perplexed at his strange allegation of my having undergone any kind of "conversion".
I discussed Dr Slivnik's fears with Sark's medical and public health committees, which were already digesting and acting upon a
report associated with a visit by Dr Valerie Cameron, Guernsey's director of Environmental Health.
It is understood by Sark authorities that an incinerator is potentially harmful and discussions continue regarding optimal investigative methods for things such as dioxins.
Because the Sark medical computer system is not designed for ready access to statistical information, we considered that looking at deaths over a decade would be the most constructive assessment of information in available records.
I did the work myself when my primary responsibilities allowed time to do so; data were not "readily available".
Just before completion, Dr Slivnik disseminated alarming claims about cancer allegedly related to the Sark incinerator.
For me to discuss a specific medical history is not merely a matter of bad manners but a serious breach of professional integrity. Detailed information facilitates easy identification of a Sark individual and thus cannot be offered. Discussion of cluster manifestations also requires sensitivity for similar reasons.
However, I was happy to offer Dr Slivnik the results of my small study of broader causes of death. The results, unpredictable at the outset, can be interpreted by any interested party.'
