|
Dear
Charlie
Proposed Landfill Site South-West of Knepp
Wildland Project
I would like to point
out a few examples of purely veterinary
concerns regarding the proposed Landfill
site at Thakeham.
-
Direct
pollution effects. The waste is
described as non-toxic, so presumably
heavy metals and the products of plastic
combustion such as dioxins will not be
present: has this been guaranteed?
Non-toxic waste is likely to degrade
with the release of nitrogenous
compounds. Nitrates accumulate in deep
soil water and, particularly after a
drought, pasture plants may contain
toxic levels. Nitrates are toxic, but in
the plant are reduced to nitrites which
are far more toxic. Grazing animals are
susceptible. Pigs are most sensitive;
followed by cattle, sheep, and horses.
Nitrite poisoning is unpredictable,
because normally nutritious plants
become toxic. Affected animals are
likely to die within hours, because of
haemoglobin destruction.
-
Indirect
pollution effects. An increase in the
nitrogen content of the ground water
will inevitably be reflected in surface
water. One aspect of the Knepp project
has been the de-canalisation of the
Adur, re-establishing meanders and
slowing the water flow. This has
benefits in reducing the risk of
flooding in builtup areas downstream,
but it reduces the rate at which local
nitrogenous pollutants are diluted,
increasing the risk of eutrophication.
The ecological impact of this is for
others to assess, but from an animal
health point of view eutrophication
favours the growth of toxic algae (Microcystis
Spp). All animals and birds are
susceptible. When the algae are present
animals cannot escape ingesting them
when drinking. As to the seriousness of
the poison, there are two recognised
syndromes: the “Slow death form” and
the “Fast death form”!
-
Introduction
of pathogens. Landfill waste is likely
to include spoiled food, and a variety
of bacterial pathogens may be present.
Those of veterinary significance include
Listeria
Sp, Escerischia coli, Salmonella,
Clostridium Sp, and Shigella. It
should be remembered that the 2001
Foot-and-Mouth Disease epizootic has
been directly attributed to processed
food waste.
-
Introducing
vectors of disease. The presence of
waste material is likely to attract
animals capable of transmitting disease.
Apart from the obvious, flies feeding on
dead animal tissue can accumulate toxins
from the bacterium Clostridium
botulinum, and when consumed by
birds can cause mortality on a large
scale. Waterfowl are most commonly
affected in the UK.
-
Changes
in the local fauna. Increased visits by
opportunists such as seagulls, crows,
and magpies are possible. This increases
the risk of introduction of pathogens
from elsewhere (such as Campylobacter
Sp, a cause of serious
gastrointestinal disease in all animals
and birds, and of “abortion storms”
in cattle) and of distribution of
pathogens already present in the site.
Other fauna may increase in local
population, such as rats, which may
spread diseases such as Leptospirosis (a
cause of liver and kidney damage, as
well as abortion, in most mammals
including cattle, dogs and humans),
Yersiniosis (a relative of the Plague
bacillus which I regularly encounter in
deer in Sussex) and Tularaemia. Species
already present may undergo changes in
behaviour, becoming scavengers where
previously they were predators. An
increase in the fox population would
have effects on survival of newborn pigs
and deer, as well as on wild prey
species. Changes in badger numbers and
behaviour could have serious
implications, as they are an important
vector of bovine Tuberculosis. The Knepp
project is not far from the current
Sussex Tuberculosis hotspot on the South
Downs
Yours sincerely,
Rob Reynolds
BVSc
Cert ZooMed
MRCVS
[click
for original letter]
Back
to Press Comments Page
Back
to Laybrook Introduction
|
