Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.4.2-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we have finite resources to expend on environmental improvement, even in the developed West. Money must be targeted where it will have the most beneficial environmental impact. Therefore I welcome this attempt to prioritise substances.
Testing techniques are becoming more sensitive. Minuscule levels of contamination can be detected. It is therefore unrealistic to talk about elimination or cessation or even 'close to zero'. What does 'close to zero' mean, one, two, who knows? Threshold levels must be set with regard to human health, not using abstract concepts. Secondly, the United Kingdom has a specific problem regarding the categorisation of fluoranthene, which is one of the family of polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the top category. We have one hundred thousand kilometres of cast-iron water-pipes lined with coal-tar, which contains some fluoranthene. No-one is suggesting that the levels present are a risk to health, but these pipes will have to be re-lined unless fluoranthene can be moved into the 'under review' part of the list, along with the other PAHs like naphthalene and anthrocene all of which, incidentally, the COMMPS procedure has found to be less toxic than fluoranthene.
It would be a waste of resources to have to replace or reline all these water-pipes on the basis of this priority list when the resources could be better deployed in areas of real concern."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples