|
A press article by Jean-Marie Bergeron, entitled La folie des ordures and published on 22 January 2008 in Le Droit, that considers the current situation an opportunity (rather than a problem) and recommends the use of innovative technology as a solution
Full text |
|
A 6-page brief (PDF file available in French only) by the Outaouais Division of the Quebec Health and Social Services Agency to the Quebec Environmental Review Board
|
|
The firm of LDC - Gestion et services environnementaux proposes to establish a technical landfill site (TLS) at Danford Lake in the Municipality of Alleyn-et-Cawood on the territory of the RCM of Pontiac in the Outaouais region. The TLS would be situated on the edge of Route 301 about 8 km west of the village...
Full text |
|
Seagulls cries have long been associated with the seaside and water bodies. Nowadays their noise pollutes inner cities and deafens city dwellers. Large cities in Europe, including Paris, are hosts to thousands of gull species (brown-back, silver-back, sterns), some with wingspan greater than one meter.
Full text |
|
This article deals with two viable and modern technologies for treating residual waste with far less environmental impact than engineered landfills as proposed by LDC for the Municipality of Alleyn and Cawood. The two technologies are incineration and plasma gasification.
Full text |
|
A. Large Engineered Landfill Sites Use 25 Year Old Technology
In its 10 page insert in the Low Down newspaper, LDC refers to the landfill technology proposed as a 21st century state-of-the-art residual waste treatment facility. This is absolute hogwash, and to refer to it as state-of-the-art more than 25 years after its introduction is ridiculous. The technology planned to be used is old, dating back to the 1970s – hardly a 21st century way to treat residual waste. Only for those interested in making money from landfill, where the more the garbage generated the richer they become, may this be construed as state-of-the-art.
Full text
|
|
We have read in detail LDC’s insert in the Low Down, labeled “The Facts”.
The newsletter is slick and clearly cost considerable money to put out. Despite this, it is filled with errors and misleading statements, either deliberate or an attempt to paint a potential blight on the Danford landscape as a project that can save Danford.
Full text
|
|
|