Delimara power station and health risks
I would like to contribute towards the current public discussion as to whether there is a link between the Delimara power station and the occurrence of cancer and health problems in Malta. I do this in my own personal capacity as a practising scientist with experience in environmental risks arising from pollution.
Cancer is known to be caused by a multitude of factors, including environmental exposure to a range of pollutants (including infectious agents such as viruses) and unhealthy lifestyles (such as smoking, low physical activities, drinking alcohol and unhealthy eating). Throughout a lifetime, an individual is often exposed to more than one agent, the combined effects of which are difficult to predict.
To complicate matters, cancer may arise years after the beginning of exposure. Furthermore, genetic factors may lead to predisposition towards certain types of cancer in certain families, though even in such cases, such predisposition may be related to a triggering effect of a multitude of environmental factors. So it may be argued that there are two types of cancers: those which may be prevented and those that may not.
The overall rate of incidence of cancer in Malta is surprisingly low when compared to those of other countries. Nonetheless the interpretation of such ranking needs to be done with caution since there may be competing causes of death.
For example, Dr Neville Calleja (The Times, January 26, 2011) argued that heart disease (the top killer in Malta) could be reducing the number of people who die of cancer, since they die of cardiac problems first. But all in all, it seems that the health authorities are doing their best to improve the fight against cancer through screening programmes, diagnosis and treatment facilities.
Nonetheless there is no room for complacency since the available projections suggest that cancer cases in Malta are expected to rise by 49 per cent by 2030, according to the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). This will place Malta among the top countries for new cases of cancer in Europe.
The WCRF has identified a number of factors leading to such projections, including an ageing population and the social habits of the Maltese, especially smoking, eating habits and reduced levels of physical activity leading to obesity and alcohol consumption.
In my opinion, there may be other factors leading to a potential increase in cancer rates in Malta, include wrong and myopic policy decisions in the transport and energy sectors.
The complexity of factors which increase the risks of cancer, the relatively small size and high population density of Malta, the relative mobility of our population, the high intensity of traffic in most localities, especially during the summer months and during weekends, all contribute towards rendering the situation extremely complex. There is no doubt that under these conditions, epidemiological studies would find it difficult to statistically link the occurrence of rates of cancer in different localities with any single source of risk.
This has been amply proved by studies in Malta (such as those reported in the press last week). On the other hand, it’s more likely to prove the link between lung cancer and smoking, as well as the link between working with asbestos and the risks of having asbestosis which may lead to types of lung cancer.
Yet the difficulty in establishing epidemiological and statistic links between cancer incidents and a single source is not in itself proof that that a particular source will not cause cancer. To make such claim would be a travesty and a gross abuse of statistical science.
Can the use and combustion of heavy fuel oil at Delimara power station increase the risk of cancer and other health problems? Yes it can. And such conclusion is not based on epidemiological studies, but rather on other scientific approaches, including laboratory exposure experiments (on mammals other than humans, to complicate matters). According to various publications, heavy fuel oil may cause cancer prior to combustion and may pose health risks during handling and storage.
On being combusted in a power station, the emitted components may also constitute to environmental and health hazards. Combustion of natural gas produces less of such emissions. Evidently the best policy option to reduce environmental and health risks is to switch from the combustion of heavy fuel oil to that of natural gas.
Unfortunately, the fact that the Delimara power station is equipped with emission abatement equipment, in an effort to ensure compliance with EU emission standards, is not a fool-proof strategy.
The prevalent local social and cultural environment allows for no real distinction between regulating authorities and their political masters, and the culture of responsibility and accountability is almost non-existent at all levels. Under such circumstances, I would rather place my trust in the option to burn a ‘cleaner’ fuel at the power station than in the technological capabilities to ‘clean up the act’ after burning a more risky fuel.
It is true that there are other local sources of risks for cancer and other health problems, such as transport and certain lifestyles. The question is: can we do something about them? The answer is yes. It is up to us to change our day-to-day behaviour to reduce such risks (stop smoking, eat healthy, do exercise, reduce alcohol consumption).
It is up to our policy makers and politicians to take the right decisions regarding increasing the efficiency of public transport so as to reduce the use of private cars, and to switch the Delimara power station to burn natural gas, rather than heavy fuel oil.
Victor Axiak is a professor of biology at the University of Malta.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
27 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Ellul
Jan 29th, 21:45
cont'd
Evaluation
......and also noted a positive
association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1).
Let's start reducing diesel cars and trucks from our roads and replace them with LPG/NG
Alex Ellul
Jan 29th, 21:43
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf
Evaluation
The scientific evidence was reviewed thoroughly by the Working Group and overall it was concluded that
there was sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. The Working Group
found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence) and also noted a positive
association
Alex Ellul
Jan 29th, 21:38
Patrick Zahra, I think that you have not understood my comments. What I mean to say, and please understand this correctly, is not that we should not c/o the Delimara PS to gas or angel power or whatever is the cleanest, but immaterial of what we do with the Delimara plant, 99% of the carcinogens that we are inhaling NOW will still be there in the form of diesel exhaust from emanating from vehicles
John Pace
Jan 29th, 17:45
Prof Axiaq admits that the Delimara plant emits gases which are within the limits imposed by the EU, but he still states that 'this is not a fool proof strategy'.
I agree that natural gas is better, but since we do not have natural gas the next best option is heavy fuel oil, with the necessary measures to prevent any health risks. There is no need to scare the public
Sammy Vella
Jan 29th, 12:37
The fact that we are already exposed to many sources of cancerogenous fumes and particles render it even more urgent that no further emissions are even contemplated.
Sammy Vella - Mellieha
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:42
May i recommend that Prof. Axiaq reads and comments about the IARC report on diesel exhaust. He is the most competent to comment and his valued and informed opinion will carry a lot of weight.
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:32
Conclusions
Dr Christopher Portier, Chairman of the IARC working Group, stated that “The scientific evidence was
compelling and the Working Group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung
cancer in humans.” Dr Portier continued: “Given the additional health impacts from diesel particulates,
exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide.“
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:31
Large populations are exposed to diesel exhaust in everyday life, whether through their occupation or
through the ambient air. People are exposed not only to motor vehicle exhausts but also to exhausts from
other diesel engines, including from other modes of transport (e.g. diesel trains and ships) and from power
generators.
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:29
Lyon, France, June 12, 2012 ‐‐ After a week-long meeting of international experts, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), today
classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence
that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer.
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:18
To all: The bottom line is not that we should not c/o our power stations to gas, but that if we change out p.s. to gas, we would have removed only an insignificant risk of cancer since we are living continuously in a cancerous atmosphere full of vehicle diesel fumes, aprticulates and gaseous chemicals. I have twice tried to post the link for the IARC report that was published last June. contin'd
Edward Mallia
Jan 28th, 18:04
@ Alex Elul scenario 1. Until the BWSC plant came on stream, Delimara had absolutely NO pollution abatement equipment. Now only BWSC exhaust is treated; rest of HFO burnt in boilers of 2 x 60MW steam turbines is still untouched. Marsa, with much lower chimneys and a much tigher site, has had only electrostatic precipitators on 3(?) stacks. Years of high sulphur (3%) HFO use in DPS & MPS.
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 22:40
Maybe I did not stress the fact that for hours. daily, we are living with our nose a few meters away from the tail pipes of diesel powered vehicles. Diesel exhaust has been confirmed scientifically as grade 1 caecinigenic. The concentrations are high. Fumes from a ps chimney are far away,diffused and are not classified as carcinogenic. We are barking up the small tree. The big tree is diesel cars
John Pace
Jan 29th, 17:48
Prof Mallia may see the continuous monitoring of the boilers emissions on the Enemalta webside http://www.enemalta.com.mt/emissions/
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 16:32
Due to carbon (dioxide)-mitigation instituted by the EU, vehicles in Europe have evolved to reduce the cars' 'carbon foorprint', meaning CO2 emissions, "to save the planet". Vehicles have evolved in a way that diesel powered vehicles have increased substantially, especially in France. Statistical analysis found that lung cancer has increased linearly (correlates) with increase in diesel vehicles
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 16:12
This is scientifically confirmed by the IARC, an organisation within the framework of the World Health Organisation. No quack science for sure.
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 16:10
In my opinion, the major risk from hydrocarbon fuel use is definitely not from remotely sited, scrubbed power station flues, but from unscrubbed diesel fumes exhausted directly into our lungs, few seconds after emanating from the thousands of diesel powered vehicles on our roads.
Lets change over our heavy vehicles to LNG/LPG. Lets commence from the real killers. This is scientifically confirmed
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 15:51
Consider the following two scenarios:
1:Living two kilometers away from a power station chimney which has the necessary flue-scrubbing equipment to remove most particulates, SOx's and NOx's, leaving practcally only CO2 gas and water vapour.
2: Driving for a number of hours each day in heavy traffic breaathing one's own and other vehcles' exhaust just a few meters away from the point of emission.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jan 28th, 17:31
Now consider this: a power station running on HFO, having flue-scrubbing equipment which might not work 100% to clear the emissions. And having a power station running on natural gas which doe not produce any dangerous emissions. Why are we playing with lives when we have an obvious choice? The sooner the power station runs on gas, the healthier we will be.
Patrick Zahra
Jan 29th, 17:29
Kindly note that it is erroneous to beleive that most particulates and noxious substances are eliminated by the abatement system,a considerable ammount (tonnes) of potential carcinogens are still emitted yearly into the atmosphere. This is cinfirmed by the EIA which you can find on the MEPA web site.
A switch to gas is a step forward, going for HFO was an environmental and political blunder.
paul camilleri
Jan 28th, 13:12
one wonders if mobile phones as well as transmitters planted on roof tops also contribute to cancer? in which case then Dr Muscat must also take these into consideration when accessing cancer causes!!
Edward Mallia
Jan 28th, 11:55
Switching to gasoil IS NOT BY ITSELF going to exert an upward push on tariffs.
For the same amount of electricity that was being taken from Marsa, the doubled (over Marsa) efficiency of BWSC will MORE than cover the gasoil:HFO cost difference. De-SOx costs, including hazardous waste transport and export, can also be saved as gasoil has a low sulphur content. So how about a switch to gasoil?
Josephine Bonnici
Jan 28th, 09:52
It would be very interesting to know if the Loc. Couns. representatives are knowledgeable enough to scientifically appraise the data on the subject matter. I have come across cases where local council representatives blindly accept conclusions as they do not feel they can challenge the experts providing the conclusions.
Edward Mallia
Jan 28th, 11:43
The LC representative on the MEPA troika is Ing. Arthur Ciantar, no slouch at that sort of thing. He led the LC charge at the public hearing for the IPPC permit for BWSC plant. The detectors were on M'Xlokk & B'bugia Council premises. Before drawing any elaborate conclusions, there is need for publication of the MEASUREMENTS. This has not happened to date.
Edward Mallia
Jan 28th, 07:58
A strong cut back on particulate emissions: real drive to promote LPG use in converted or dual fuel cars. The particulate emission from LPG exhaust is small compared to diesel.
As for lack of "accountability", not one result on BWSC test period emissions has been published by the MEPA troika on which the Loc. Couns. most at risk (all PL!) are represented. Why this silence of the lambs?
Edward Mallia
Jan 28th, 07:30
the best policy option to reduce environmental and health risks is to switch from the combustion of heavy fuel oil to that of natural gas.
The best/quickest-can be done by tonight- is to switch BWSC to gasoil from HFO. No need to De-SOx, no hazardous waste transport with heavy particulate emissions from trucks. Still need for de-NOx, but that has no residual hazardous waste need trucking. cont.
Wilfred Camilleri
Jan 28th, 02:41
How about reducing pollution from automobiles; too many cars on Maltese roads. I recall visiting my wife's aunt and uncle in Bormla and the diesel fumes from cars made it hard to breed. For a politician to single the power plant as if replacing the use of heavy oil with gas was going to eliminate cancer is both disingenuous and disgusting!
Alex Ellul
Jan 28th, 16:18
Wilfred, I know its just a typo, it happens to me too sometimes, and the Times comment system does not give us the chance to correct our typos, but your "made it hard to breed" (breath) came out quite good.
Please choose the reason of your report below: