What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

As if the previous post didn’t spell out the problem of flytipping in The Rattlechain part of the world, we have yet another example of arseholes dumping in exactly the same spot. So here we go again.

This time its origin is from

13 CHURCH STREET TIPTON DY4 7SR.

Special thanks to Mr Piotr Laska, and Ms Farhana Begum. Your details will be passed to Sandwell council in due course.

I don’t know why these people appear to love amazon but they do; it just makes one wonder if they are actually paying it out of their own cash though.

I say this because it looks like the inhabitants of the address above are in arrears. Wonder if there is any connection there in this recent dumping in John’s Lane?

On this occasion there is furniture and used nappies and it’s a bloody disgrace that it keeps happening in the same spot. Strangely it seems the dumpers even left their (unused) council bins behind as well for good measure!

Time for cameras I think SMBC, as there are obviously some fly by nighters in this area who really couldn’t give a shit. Any more will be posted here and reported, it’s as simple as that.

As well as the ludicrously sanctioned waste management licence issued to Albright and Wilson all those many years ago to dump toxic waste in the open environment, John’s Lane and its environs has also from time to time seen indiscriminate fly tipping by both industrial and private entities.

sl31-licence

Sandwell council even had a letter from the serial chemical blighters bemoaning the fact that they could not deposit toxic waste into the “licenced landfill” due to the flytipping blocking it! Oh the irony.

“unauthorised deposition of building rubble, old furniture, worn tyres , and other materials by person’s unknown.”

The problem of fly tipping remains endemic across Sandwell and beyond, both by dodgy companies, so called “travellers”,  and also private individuals. Unfortunately however the local authorities seldom prosecute claiming lack of evidence, but does this really wash when someone leaves items and personal effects linked to an address at another scene?

An infrequent but reoccurring fly tipping spot occurs at the entrance to the Rattlechain end of Johns Lane leading to Temple Way. All sorts finds its way here, mostly I suspect from rogue traders, but occasionally it appears that some people slip up and leave behind items which incriminate them.

One such occasion happened recently, and so I am going to name and shame because there is no excuse as to what these items were doing at John’s Lane Tividale, having arrived from an address off the Park estate in Tipton. Geographically we are talking a distance of some 1.1  miles by road.

The dumped rubbish near to the Rhodia barrier gate

Amongst an assortment of household rubbish and toys were a couple of incriminating items betraying whence the pile had come from. 40 Anderson Road Tipton. DY4 8SD

A Hermes delivery empty package for a Mr Anfor Ali.

But wait there’s more,… a hand crafted valentines day card from loving wife “the one and only Farhana Ali”.

So if the loving couple would care to explain how this pile of rubbish got to be in John’s Lane, then I’m all ears, because right now I’m scratching my head for an explanation other than they or person’s operating from that address dumped it there.

Of course house clearances by dodgy companies do not indemnify the occupants from committing an offence even if it were not they who actually dumped the rubbish there themselves. I would suggest that Mr Ai gets himself a better “Curryer” in future. 😆

By way of help , I’m giving some sat nav directions to the council’s Shidas Lane Tip, some 1.5 miles from where this rubbish was illegally dumped , and therefore a distance of 2.6 miles from Anderson Road Tipton. It apparently takes a time of 8 minutes 33 seconds.

Rest assured, if Rhodia are more interested in their own problems these days, and Sandwell council look the other way, the bloodhounds of Rattlechain will always be watching. Keep em peeled!

Last week, it was reported that Alcohols Limited of Oldbury had been fined £277,000 and ordered to pay £25,000 costs for a serious fire in 2012. It appears that the blaze was blamed on “the new boy” moving dangerous chemicals around, yet the training and health and safety of the company were obviously shit to start with.

The prosecution delay was apparently criticised by the judge, and we have also seen similar unacceptable delays with the other large fire in the area from 2009 involving Rhodia/Solvay which took 7 years. The scale of fine however is not acceptable. This had a lasting human impact as revealed in this blog. It is also revealed that the worker who was burned by the fire has been paid off by the company , but not how much.

Ethyl acetate is a highly flammable substance, associated amongst other things with putting insects to sleep in killing jars. One could argue that the area in question is one large experimental area, where a lid is not put on the dangers to either humans or the environment.

The costs to the fire service, and therefore you and I as tax payers for this “little” accidental spillage are not revealed, but a recent FOI request that I submitted to West Midlands Fire Service about a separate but related issue which I will look at in a future blog post gives an insight into the generic costs of fighting a fire.

According to a Sandwell Council post incident  report , “at its peak there were more than a hundred Fire Service personnel and 24 vehicle assets deployed at the scene.”

A cost of £7,594.35 is also revealed for Traffic management and SMBC legal costs as well as over £3,000 for emergency accommodation  in the Sandwell report.

The problem with fines to companies of this scale is that we do not ever learn how they pay the fines, a one off cheque and paid to whom, or paid in instalments?  How is this  then divided up back to those who are owed the cash? How much for example of their paltry fine paid the wages of those involved with the prosecution, and the judge himself? One thing is for sure, the victims of the fire and those affected got very little in terms of a satisfactory conclusion. It could all happen again tomorrow.

So the world has gone mad over some fairly ghastly Japanese animated characters. The chavs have got fit by following fictitious creatures and relentlessly pursuing them across parks and town centres.

But did you know there are several characters from What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon on the loose around this infamous Black Country morbid tourist attraction off John’s Lane Tividale?

Yes it’s all the favourites from the blog, in one place, in and around Rattlechain . This is one genuine Rat stop with plenty of goo. Collect them all and try to trick them out with a 1 Euro coin. They could be all yours. Best of luck, they are all hiding in there like P4 or an AW bomb.

One of the more shocking revelations from the recently released but redacted HSE investigation report into the Rhodia/Solvay fire is the manner in which the defendants attempted to illicit personal information about those affected by their toxic gas leak, directly from The Health and Safety Executive!

The preceding paragraphs are redacted , however the HSE leave in the timeline of 21st November 2011 where they respond “to Rhodia’s query of 15th November 2011 regarding off site person’s affected by the incident. “

It is incredible that this company are so unaware of data protection legislation that they believe they should be given the names of those they affected. The final sentence can only make those in the know about how this company and the chemicals industry in general operate to try to close PR disasters like this laugh out loud and role their eyes.

As if “the services of the company doctor” will provide those affected with any form of reassurance about the ailments suffered. This appears to suggest that any other NHS doctor or medical staff that saw to the individuals were fucking useless. Of course there is absolutely no altruism here, it is a cynical attempt to obtain the medical records of those that they affected, and whom no doubt may have pursued the services of criminal injury lawyers, whose “company doctors” may have taken a very different view of what occurred, and what the long term affects may be.

It is also worth bearing in mind the utter charlatans that have masqueraded as “health and medical  advisers” at the Trinity Street site over the years. Their “expertise” allowed people to suffer asbestosis in later life as well as conning workers into believing that bad teeth caused phossy jaw instead of the wretched chemicals that they were handling.

And as for the chemicals that they came into contact with, well I’m fairly sure I know where that “advise” would have led. “Small amounts” no doubt. We are certainly aware of the lies and misinformation that they were putting out about what went into rattlechain lagoon.

When they are directly refused the information, Rhodia persist in badgering the HSE for information that would assist their mitigation and probable denials that anyone had been affected, by wanting to ascertain “generic information”. From this had it been provided, they would no doubt have produced impact zones based on their previous underestimations of the chemicals released and their affects off site.

The symptoms of course would have been used against those claiming to have been affected. How would people, unfamiliar with such chemicals know or be able to explain how they had been affected by them if they are unfamiliar with those chemicals? It is very unlikely that the HSE would have given them any advice to assist them.

The final paragraph again shows the denials and rebuttals of a company who operate on PR spin. They deny asking the HSE for personal data of the witnesses, but the HSE have clear evidence that they did ask for this. It is unfortunate and deliberate that the HSE have redacted this sentence, and there is no good reason for this, except perhaps protecting the blushes of the individual from Rhodia who made the request, though I could certainly guess.

The long running saga to establish details of what exactly happened at the Solvay Trinity Street site on 2nd January 2009 has been challenging to say the least. I have asked many FOI questions to find out the causes and effects of this white phosphorus related fire. The most recent of these to The Health and Safety Executive has been stalled when I requested an internal review, due to the ludicrous redactions made concerning events that have reported elsewhere.

One of the main requirements of the HSE concerning such incidents is to report them to The European Commission, which they stated in the released report document, and also in their post successful prosecution of Solvay which was published on their website , formerly known as Rhodia, (in effect of course exactly the same company).  The report goes into detail as to why this was required under the COMAH regulations citing L111- A Guide to the COMAH regulations as amended.

The FOI requests made and featured on this website have been made using whatdotheyknow.com, an excellent site run by My society which gives the requesters a chance to submit requests easily and more importantly allowing the answers to be publicly listed as a permanent record.

A recent expansion to this idea comes in the form of asktheeu.org, an opportunity for ALL EU citizens to request information and documents under Regulation 1049/2001.

Wonderful then, in that in theory anyone in the EU could ask the EU for information to which they are lawfully entitled- especially on an institution to which the UK voted to leave last month who are perceived to be secretive and esoteric in information that they disseminate. So via this new site I decided to ask the EU via the Environment directorship what information they held concerning the Solvay fire, directly reported to them by the UK HSE. Would they also withhold information and redact it under the same spurious reasons?

Unfortunately, my request never got off the ground via this site, due to the bizarre reply which makes the asktheEU website utterly useless, unless you want your contact details publicly listed. The lengthy bureaucratic reply is typical Brussels gabble.

Despite this, I asked the same question directly to the European Commission.

Question: “Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

 The major accident/release of toxic gas at Rhodia/Solvay solutions site Trinity Street , Oldbury, West Midlands, United Kingdom B69 4LN.

 This incident was reported to the European Commission and I am requesting all documents that you hold on this matter, including the quantities of substances released.”

Positive vibes were received when I was given a direct link to a website that I never knew existed about such reports to the European Commission.

“Please also note that in principle, all accident reports are available at https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu.  “

You can easily find the accident you are searching for by searching on the date.”

Given that I knew the date, I did just that and found much of the information that the HSE had decided to redact, even though they had reported it and it was already in the public domain!

Here is the direct link to the information that the HSE are supposed to have reported to the commission.

It is worth looking at the background to how the report found its way to the EU commission, which is given at the link as the EU Seveso 2 Directive.  

The Seveso incident occurred  in 1976 at an Italian chemical factory manufacturing pesticides and herbicides.  Many people were poisoned by dioxin and some six years later the first Seveso Directive was aimed at trying to strictly control such events within the EU zone and in theory prevent them from happening.

The HSE published COMAH control of accidents and emergencies regulations 1999 explains

 “COMAH implements the Seveso II Directive (96/82/EC) which replaces the original Seveso Directive (82/501/EEC), implemented in Great Britain by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (CIMAH). The CIMAH Regulations are now revoked. The new Regulations aim to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the consequences to people and the environment of any accidents that do occur. “

This directive has since been superseded  since the life of the ridiculous procrastinated HSE prosecution with a third Seveso Directive.

The information at this source, reported by the HSE reveals much of the information that the HSE chose to redact! Thus they appear incredulous to the fact that they refused a British citizen right to information that any EU citizen could read with an internet click. Were they just being unhelpful in not providing me with the direct link, or are their staff so clueless as to not know that the EU actually publish information given to them by the HSE? Somehow I suspect the latter.

This report gives significant information which I believe the HSE has misused to withhold information interpreted incorrectly under Section 12 (5) (a) concerning the information being useful to terrorists. Quite why the amount of chemical released would be useful to terrorists is only relevant to the bizarre thinking at the HSE.  The redacted HSE report in the FOI request deleted the chemical quantities involved in the incident.

In the EU report the quantities as reported by the HSE are clear to see.

“A mixture containing ~115kg of phosphorus vapour and ~37kg of phosphine was accidentally discharged. On contact with air, the mixture auto-ignited to produce ~390kg of phosphorus pentoxide which reacted with water vapour in the atmosphere to produce ~538kg of phosphoric acid in the form of a mist over a period of approximately 114mins.”

The HSE FOI request redacted significant information concerning the geography of the Trinity Street site and the actual events causing the incident.

In the EU report the detail is retained without redactions.

“Site description
The incident occurred in the Phosphine No.1 Plant which is located towards the edge of the site adjacent to a railway. “

“Causes of the accident

The Phosphine No. 1 Plant includes a ‘converter’ where white/yellow phosphorus is heated to convert it to red phosphorus, and a ‘reactor’ where red phosphorus is reacted in the presence of other substances to produce phosphine. The two vessels are connected by means of pipe work through which the product from the converter passes into the reactor.

A stainless steel rod enters the converter at one side (by means of a stuffing box) and passes diagonally down into the connecting pipe work, through which it enters the reactor. The rod (by means of forward, reverse and rotational motion) is used on a periodic basis to clear any product blockages that might otherwise form in the connecting pipe work. It is understood that the rod is made up of two parts which are screwed and welded together (end to end) to make one length.

It is understood that the plant was in normal operating conditions when, during a rodding sequence, as the rod withdrew from the converter it pulled clear of the stuffing box, leaving a 3cm orifice through which the dangerous substances discharged, auto-ignited and reacted to form a cloud of phosphoric acid and combustion products.

The phosphorus feed was switched off and emergency cooling was applied to the converter. The flame at the orifice continued for ~114 minutes, and the piece of rod that had pulled clear of the stuffing box was then re-inserted into the orifice.

It was later found that the rod had broken in two, apparently having failed at the welded joint.”

The aftermath and casualties in the HSE investigation- in theory their entire raison d’etre is redacted in their released report.

In the EU report this information is more forthcoming and we learn

“Consequences

The incident occurred at a time of reduced manning over the Christmas/New Year break when apparently only approximately 40 persons were on site. No on-site casualties were reported by the Operator.

In terms of off-site casualties, it is understood that a number of persons attended hospital requiring treatment for coughs & stinging skin (apparently having been affected by the cloud which was reported as leaving the site and drifting over the surrounding area). These persons include four employees of the Highways Agency who were stationed at J2 of the M5 for the purpose of closing the motorway in response to the incident.”

The number of people confined for over two hours is recorded in the report as an estimated 4,514 with the motorway also closed.

Further details of the emergency response are recorded in the EU report

Following the receipt of an internal review response where I put the fact that the HSE had released the redacted information to the EC who had made it publicly available , they have completely failed to even look at this, also significantly delaying the internal review as well. The assertion that withholding information is preventing “a terrorist” attack is of course only preventing information getting into the public domain about  the terrorists who confined 4,514 persons indoors and caused them alarm and distress and requiring hospital attention.

THE HSE PROTECT PRIVATE COMPANIES, NOT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BY WITHOLDING INFORMATION.

THIS WILL OF COURSE BE TAKEN FURTHER AND I WILL BE GOING TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

What is even more bizarre however, is the HSE’s response to the EC, who have to ask the host country for permission to release reports- when I made my request to the European body. This is what the EC stated in a letter to myself, before I had received the HSE internal review response.

Thus the HSE, whom released their report to the EC but redacted a version into the public domain, now acknowledge the fact that it is in the public domain, yet in their internal review do not advise me of this, and nor did they when redacting the information that was needlessly redacted. Solvay have friends, as Rhodia and Albright and Wilson did- that’s for sure!

Perhaps Rhodia/Solvay should also consider the advice of their long term friends at West Midlands Fire Service in going forward. Please inhale liberally.

Shhhhhhh, the European Chemical industry are trying to gain influence for their products by lobbying the European Commission directly. ClamadiEU, CEO of Solvay and Chair of CeFIC is backed in this quest by one Alistair James Steel, under the pretentious title “Deputy Director General”,  who previously utterly failed to protect the environment in Great Britain during a disastrous term in charge of Rhodia UK Limited between 2001-2006.

Perhaps as a former employee of the Frenchman under Rhodia, he is his “right hand man in Europe.” During this time their company were polluting beaches, spilling acid without informing the Environment Agency and had the headache of a legionnaires outbreak connected to the Trinity Street site. Oh and did I leave out the fact that they were poisoning birds at a certain Tividale tip with white phosphorus, yet denied this based on so called “risk” based “evidence” that they did not want to be tested?

With such a pedigree, what could possibly go wrong with ensuring citizens of the EU are in safe hands from the reported 29,000 companies that they claim to represent? 😳

But the chemical industry are very, very, very sly, as I have found out directly from my dealings with Albright and Wilson, Rhodia and now Solvay. Despite claims of wanting to protect public health and the environment, they base these claims on deniability of proving that their chemical products are “harmful” until proven guilty. It is this burden of “proof” of course which is highly controversial and very difficult to pin down. The EU takes a precautionary approach whereas, CeFIC  appears to want to follow the American model where nearly everything gets approved. TTIP is what they both want, and this trade agreement must be stopped.

One of the main controversial chemicals in recent times involving the EU concerns Glyphosate. This is principally used in herbicides, and in particular Monsanto’s “Round-up” products.  It is certainly NOT a “safe” product in the environment.

“There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion.” Glyphosate poisoning. Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA.2004

glyphosate

Industrially glyphosate relies on phosphorus acid in one form of its manufacture, and at one time Albright and Wilson directly produced this for Monsanto who first marketed it in 1974. The other method also involves a phosphorus derivative product made by Rhodia called Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite. This was known as “Albrite® DMHP“. A brochure from the mid 2000’s confirms.

Other producers manufacturing the chemical include Dupont, Bayer Cropscience and Dow AgroSciences. The chemical industry therefore is directly connected to this product, and its continued sales and promotion are therefore threatened by any regulation which would hinder its use. Any “ban” would be catastrophic for their profits.

The problem for the chemical industry and Monsanto however is that many studies are now showing this exact thing- that glyphosate is both harmful to life and is also a likely carcinogen.  Whilst the US EPA pander to the chemical lobby, it is becoming more clear that the product is causing systemic  harm to people.  Playing on semantics some scientists deny that glyphosate itself is harmful, but some of its constituent parts may be. Well what a load of crap that is.

A major concern has been that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Scientific research has demonstrated this. Though Monsanto hide behind US EPA protection, independent science tells a different story.

One would think then that Monsanto were up against it in terms of the European Union taking a firm stance on banning such a concerning harmful product to environmental health- well that would be where ClamadiEU , Steel and co come into the equation to at least in part lobby on their behalf. ClamadiEU also belongs to the international lobbyist group ICCA, which includes of course Monsanto.  They are also signed up to TTIP  and would welcome watered down regulation in the EU area to boost sales and cull costs.

A meeting took place as revealed in a freedom of information request to the European Director of Environment where Cefic representatives including Clamadieu and Steel met with top EU bureaucrats. Without even mentioning Monsanto or their product, they did raise the spectre of endocrine disruptors, and it is patently clear that they are talking about glyphosate and round up.

“These are issues which need to be discussed with EU policy makers as a matter of extreme urgency and on behalf of our President Mr Jean-Pierre Clamadieu I Invite you to meet our Executive Committee comprising thirteen CEOs and industry leaders from the major European chemicals companies during a window of opportunity from 16:30 on 3rd December through to the evening of 4th December 2014 when they will all be in Brussels to meet. As the Executive Committee only meets in Brussels twice a year this is a rare opportunity to arrange these face to face meetings.”

Clearly the meeting went well according to Cefic, in that the commissioner had agreed to a meeting to resolve the issue of endocrine disruptors and the chemical industries concerns.

Other developments since this December 2014 meeting should be considered. Bayer, a German pharmaceuticals manufacturer has recently made a bid to buy the American spray poisoners for $62 billion.

At the meeting in December with the commissioner was Cefic executive and board member Bayer’s Michael König. Oh how convenient that Monsanto through these intermediaries and Bayer with a certain vested interest are allowed to plant a seed into the minds of the EU hierarchy, to help unpick EU legislation to the two companies benefit but little to EU citizens.

And so even more recently it appears the scandalous Cefic has helped triumph in its lobbying in the EU through stumbling inaction to allow Monsanto’s cancer in a can to continue to flood the EU market without being banned for another 18 months. Should be good news for all of their companies profits, but at what cost to the environment and human health?

Softly softly, whisper whisper, it is the way of the chemical industry that will gas us in our beds, kill us with poison in our food and defer responsibility and deniability to a regulator who is their sock puppet.

One can only guess if this was the first word that spilled out of The Frenchman’s mouth on hearing Brexit had won and the UK were leaving the European Union. Jean-Pierre ClamadiEU probably was not a supporter of Vote leave, I am pretty sure of that, although I remain open to a retraction if he wants to point out differently. 😆

As CEO of Brussels based Solvay, he is also chair of the chemical industry European lobby group Cefic, The European Chemical Industry Council, based in , you’ll never guess, Brussels- the heart of course of The European Union. Aside from that he is also a former French Government civil servant, but information on that appears a little more secretive.

Being based in Brussels no doubt helps both Cefic and Solvay get very close to where European legislation is constructed- especially its regulation. The lobby group unsurprisingly  seeks out get togethers with the powerful unelected Brussels bureaucrats. An EU freedom of information request reveals significant information about Cefic and the way that they operate.

A meeting was sought with the newly appointed EU Commissioner for Environment, Maritime affairs and fisheries, Karmenu Vella in December 2014. His appointment ends in 2019.

According to the Commissions “mission” statement the purpose of Vella’s portfolio is

“To develop and facilitate the implementation of policies and legislation that contribute to enabling EU citizens to live well, within the planet’s ecological limits, based on an innovative, circular economy, where biodiversity is protected, valued and restored and environment-related health risks are minimized in ways to enhance our society’s resilience, and where growth has been decoupled from resource use.”

What a long winded load of waffle- typical EU bureaucrat speak you might say filled with flashy verbs and adjectives to disguise the real limited effect of its existence.

The Cefic letter is typical brown nosing disguised as a friendly Brussels luncheon chat. packed with self important trumpet blowing such as “with an annual turnover of €558 billion, 17.8% share of the world market and a trade surplus of €49.2 billion we are a vital component of European manufacturing industry” , it virtually reads as a summons. One wonders what they would have said if he had declined the invitation.

They also subtly remind Vella of unelected President of the EU Junker’ s own agenda whilst asking what “hurdles” the new environment chief has so that they can presumably develop a strategy around avoiding them, or seeing them lowered in order for them to achieve their “mission” strategy. Unfortunately, lobbying like this is endemic within the European Union.

It is clear that this meeting benefitted the lobby group in that they spell out a further letter reminding the commissioner as to what they believed had come from the meeting. These “key points”  are anchored with personable statements such as “your enthusiasm”, your offer“, whilst connecting them to Cefic’s aims.

“Though we touched on a variety of topics I make particular note of:

• Your enthusiasm to reduce the administrative burden on industry particularly in complying with REACH;

• Your offer to engage in a meeting to resolve issues connected to the Endocrine Disruptor debate.

• The importance of the Circular Economy in tackling growth & jobs;”

The freedom of information request also presented Cefic’s objectives, which in relation to Mr ClamadiEU’s company in the UK are particularly interesting. They point out that there are 150 legislative EU rules which they desire to reduce under the guise of achieving better environmental standards, but does anyone really believe this, or conversely that they just want to remove as much of the regulation as they can. Presumably the EU set these legislatures for specific reasons of environmental protections. Why should the polluters have an easy time of steering a course through these protections?

“Non-toxic Environment
The European Chemicals Industry is committed to ensuring that there is “no harm to people, wildlife and the environment as a result of exposure to substances during the whole life cycle”. To deliver on this commitment we support an evidence based approach to the safe use of chemicals.
Thus, if evidence were to show that people, or the environment, are being harmed, then we do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm. Where evidence shows that people, or the environment, could be harmed, we will manage the risk so as to avoid that harm. And where scientists suggest a possibility of harm, we explore that possibility and may take proportionate, precautionary measures to guard against any possible risk pending such review. “

I coughed quite loudly on first reading this and remembered the lies of Rhodia Consumer Specialities concerning what they knew to be harmful in Rattlechain lagoon, which even when proved harmful to birds dying on the lagoon they further attempted to deceive the public. Mr ClamadiEU was in charge of Rhodia at the time that Rhodia knew what was causing the bird deaths. It is uncertain if he has ever even heard of the site, or visited it,  except that it featured in a single line concerning financial liabilities that the company held in remediation terms in past corporate reports. SO OF COURSE THEY KNEW AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL EXACTLY WHAT THE RISKS WERE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

And then of course there is the Rhodia/Solvay toxic assault fire of 2nd January 2009 on Oldbury and subsequent guilty plea revealed earlier this year. One must wonder if this left Mr ClamediEU extremely red faced when it was reported to the EU commission, yet it should be remembered that the procrastination of the UK Health and Safety Executive trial was in part due to people within his company trying to spin out scientific evidence to favour their own selfish denials of guilt.

Bullshit arguments by Rhodia not protecting human health

Their toxic gas emergency plan was non existent

Politicians left in such positions may be called to “consider their positions” and to take collective responsibility when embarrassed by such incidents, but I’m not sure if lobbyists have such rules let alone morals when it comes to “responsible care”.

We also learn from the request that the insidious TTIP is backed by Cefic. This secretive trade deal between the US and the EU should worry everyone because US legislation is virtually bought by lobbyists and backed by gamekeepers turned poachers who used to regulate companies and then go on to work for them for their expertise. Science for hire you may call it. Environmental regulation in the US as evidenced by the recent drinking water crisis is utter rubbish and has been widely condemned by well known environmental activists like Erin Brockovich. .Oddly Cefic wanted the name and data of the requester from the EU which she agreed to, even though it appeared on a public website. Is this a little sinister?

Of course reduced costs are what Cefic and their affiliates are about and they desire less cumbersome regulation to achieve this.

Another meeting over dinner appeared to take place on the same date as revealed in a further information request. On this occasion we learn that the head of Cabinet, Mrs Maria Åsenius, and the CEOs of the chemical industry mainly discussed TTIP.

 “Cefic is also very concerned about the negative tone of the public debate and believes that Member States should do more to promote TTIP and counter misperceptions. “

If you voted to remain in the EU, and believed the lies about economics, then this is basically what you were voting for, a corporate green light for business to piss on us all from a great height. One can only hope that after the democratic exercise that Mr ClamadiEU and his colleagues’ ambitions have been thwarted and they are now up Merde Creek like a Rattlechain bird landing in the quagmire of a white phosphorus lagoon that his polluting company were eager to lie about when they were dying.

Of Solvay’s two sites in Halifax and of course Oldbury, will the Brexit vote mean the exile to Brussels of this chemical behemoth to reduce costs? I certainly hope that potential  voyage has been aided by the result.

So were you in or out today? The speculation and campaigning has been bitter, divisive and scare mongering of the worst order- just what politicians do best of course, whilst pretending to be in touch with the common man or woman.

On balance I don’t believe the status quo will change whatever the eventual result because business and politicians will still control what we do and corporations conspire to make things work for them and not us.

I chose leave because the EU simply adds a useless unnecessary cloud level of bureaucracy to the local and national level, as well as the unelected house of Lords. I am happy to send the British MEP’s, 73 of them back where they come from. Can anyone name their MEP, or even 2, apart from the obvious Nigel Farage? They aren’t household names and the work that they do is not advertised and neither are their advice surgeries- if they even have them.

The EU is a gravy train propping up the French and Belgian economy where every week the train ride from Brussels to Strasbourg sees the entire circus move en masse between the two countries. It would apparently take a new treaty to override this nonsensical arrangement, yet this would require a referendum to bring this about. Fat chance if you are a French or Belgian politician that this will ever happen.

Talk of reform after 40 years is not going to happen. This along with the doom and gloom of Cameron and Co’s Remain campaign  was the false flag.

In terms of “environmental protection”, I’m afraid the EU has been a dismal failure in sites like Rattlechain Lagoon. The article below has been looked at in more detail HERE. It is worth pointing out that membership of the union took place at the same time as that other useless guardian of protecting the environment- The West Midlands County Council waste disposal committee had approved the dumping of toxic waste that would continue to poison birds over three decades later.

Recently there was some suspicious activity noted on the Birmingham canal near Rattlechain. The pump from the lagoon had been switched on again and was flowing out of the larger lagoon. A couple of cars were up on the cut and it was quickly apparent that some “monitoring” was going on concerning water samples.

Bottles were filled and placed into a box.

A slightly demented German Shephard watched intently from the other side inbetween chasing the passing trains.

Later inspection also revealed that the Canalside boreholes had been uncovered and remarked. But the curious and still unanswered question concerns the discharge being made to the canal from the now “covered” larger lagoon which is still producing bubbles of obvious phosphine gas from below the surface.

The original licence allowed the site operators to discharge water from the so called “clean side”, the smaller Western subsidiary lagoon constructed around 1961. Since 2014 however and following the so called “improvement works” of 2013, the site operators appear to have utilised the newly added pier pump to discharge only from the larger now supposedly covered lagoon. The smaller lagoon was never covered with geotextile membrane and no sand was added either.

I decided to ask the Environment Agency what was going on here and they replied treating a simple question as a freedom of information request, which it wasn’t. As the contact email for the person in Environment management no longer appears responsive , (the person the EA appeared to have delegated to answer my questions), I am unsure as to who in the EA is now looking at matters Rattlechain.

Please find a response to your email dated the 5th May 2016: 

Why are Rhodia/Solvay pumping water from the large lagoon instead of the smaller one? 
They are pumping from the larger lagoon as the ammonia levels are lower in the larger lagoon than the smaller lagoon according to testing conducted by the operator. 
Do Rhodia/Solvay have permission to do this and why no longer from the smaller lagoon, have they been restricted from doing this and for what reason? 
The operator had a meeting with the Environment Agency in April 2015 to discuss the change in pumping, and as the discharge permit did not specify which lagoon the water was pumped from they have decided to pump from the larger lagoon for reasons given above. 
Do the EA still sample from the canal discharge point? Have there been any changes to the licence? 
There have been no changes to the discharge permit and yes we endeavour to gain a sample from the discharge point at the canal.  The Environment Agency do have a sampling programme to monitor the discharge which is currently under review as a discharge is not always being made at the time of sampling.  Samples may be taken directly from the lagoon in future.  This would not require a change to the permit.

The wording of the discharge consent is indeed open to abuse given that it only specifies the discharge point to the canal, and not the source from where the “pumped quarry water” comes from.

There remains no creditable explanation as to what chemistry is going on with the smaller lagoon, why it was never covered like the main lake, and why the ammonia levels are higher, especially when it was claimed that a one off exercise in February 2014 was carried out to lower the levels using aluminium sulphate. Well obviously that didn’t work did it and we are now two years on from this?

So Rhodia rig up a hosepipe from the contaminated larger lagoon connected to an old piece of pontoon that they once used to discharge “hazardous waste”  into the lagoon direct from tankers from their site.  Periodically they then discharge what we are supposed to believe to be just water into the cut.

So there you have it. The EA continue to coast along on the crest of whatever the site operator appear to want to do at any point in time to suit their own agenda.

Whilst passing John’s Lane I happened to notice two pairs of recently disposed  latex gloves.

bbb