Reggio Emilia’s Incinerator

municipio reggio emilia.jpg
Reggio Emilia's Town Hall

Last Tuesday and Wednesday during the two shows at Modena's Palapanini, there was an appearance of Stefano Montanari, the researcher from Modena who together with his wife Antonietta Gatti has studied the effects on the organism of the inorganic particles produced by all types of combustion, from depleted Uranium to electricity power stations to heavy oils to so-called clean carbon, to car engines with anti-particle pseudo-filters to incinerators constructed in accordance with BAT (Best Available Technologies).

The discovery is that those particles are capable of entering with great ease into the organism right into the cell nucleus, and to provoke a whole series of illnesses, including some forms of cancer. And there are no biological mechanisms that can eliminate them. The tinier they are, the more they penetrate and the more damage they cause.

The incinerators produce immense quantities of this stuff, transforming rough, smelly rubbish that is not dangerous into tiny killer particles. The trick is in raising the operating temperature of the plant so as to produce particles that are so tiny that they are not checked by the control mechanisms (these can check particles of 10 microns and modern incinerators create dust that is much finer than this) and make it seem that the air is clean when in fact it is full of filth that is much more aggressive for health than the old PM10.

In Reggio Emilia, the local authorities have decided to construct another incinerator as well as the existing one and in spite of the requests of the citizens, they refused to listen to the researchers from Modena (who work, among other places in New York with the survivors of the collapse of the towers on September 11, as well as in Bosnia and Iraq with military personnel suffering from Gulf and Balkan War Syndromes, and have been to talk about the results of their research to the House of Lords in London).

Thus 800 signatures have been collected, more than sufficient by Statute to allow Montanari to talk in the Council meeting, and at midday on Wednesday we went to the Town Hall to hand them over to the Mayor who was a little embarrassed, and  in front of a big crowd of people he listened to the explanation because among all the ways to get free of rubbish, incineration is the one that does not stand up from the scientific point of view.

By Statute the local authorities have 30 days to invite Montanari to speak to the Council.

All the studies have been done using a special microscope that is really expensive and the two researchers might see it being taken from them once the results of their analysis have been published.

And so we must give them another one. For now, the takings of one of the two evenings have gone entirely into an account to buy this equipment. Then, we’ll see.

Posted by Beppe Grillo at 10:22 AM in | Comments (15)
Post a comment | Sign up | Send to a friend | | GrilloNews | TrackBack (0) |
View blog opinions


Wake up every one on incinerators and PM2.5s

See Map Link: This is London, the position of Incinerators and Baby Deaths (High and Low). Genius status not required
Source:From Office of National Statistics Data,[UK Government data].

Peak Infant Mortality areas (ONS data) downwind of waste incinerators (London's Ring of Fire)

The PM2.5 Science

See (

See bottom of cutesphere webpage for the graph of waste (RDF/SWF) combustion (UK Environment Agency, two particle burn runs), which proves 50x unmonitored PM2.5 levels compared to monitored PM10 levels

From UK Environmental Agency IPPC Volume 2, section 4.9.3 Filter System and Gas Discharge

• PM10 between 95% and 98% ie 2-5% of PM10 escape (not as potent or as much by % volume as PM2.5 (Monitored under IPPC)
• PM2.5 between 65% and 70% i.e 30-35% of PM2.5 escape (50x more % volume than PM10 (Unmonitored)
• < PM2.5 between 5% and 30% ie PM1s 95-70% escape, very potent/ toxic, but level by % volume (Unmonitored)

Posted by: Rob Whittle | August 8, 2007 11:36 PM

I recently studied in detail the Italian law on health and safety in workplaces (dlgs 626/94), which covers nearly all possible risks for the workers' health, but unfortunately, until enough evidence of nanoparticles' danger for people is published and accepted, offers inadequate protection to the workers' right to work in a safe and risk-free environment: until the Parliament states that nanoparticles are dangerous, employers aren't compelled to do anything about it...

Posted by: Michael Schiesari | April 4, 2006 10:27 AM

Hi Gianluca,
different positions make always the debate interesting.

I have never perceived Grillo as a scientist or the gate keeper of truth.
He always says it I am a comedian and a showman that likes to shed light on daily facts affecting all of us. He always says think about what it is happening around us.

Luckily he’s a clever guy, with resources to devote to his work (time, right connections to information channels and money) so he can afford to reach what common people cannot and then he gives it to us. It is up to us to filter it.

What I get out of his short post is hey people a new incinerator will build up in the same area and two scientists studying of inorganic particles produced by all types of combustion are in a difficult situation because of their studies.
What’s going on? Watch out!

I do not really need Grillo telling me that two incinerators in the very same area do not help my health.
Or do you disagree with this? Does it? Breathing invisible particles produced by combustion is good for my body? Is good for my lungs? Is good for the tissues inside my nose? Is good for my mucosa? Is good for my blood?

If you think this is good and not dangerous… we definitely are on different positions.



Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 14, 2006 10:40 AM

Hi Maena:
I am sorry but I totally disagree.
Grillo doesn’t present info as a way to open a discussion. He makes statements and assumptions.
Di Bella stuff was clearly bullshit and just because Grillo, and others like him with major luck of knowledge, there was a case and a big illusion, which seriously damaged a lot of very sick people.
About the incinerator data presented by the two researchers are not good and do not prove anything. If you want be credible you cannot just make assumptions from irrelevant work. You must spend time studying good data, get right knowledge and open serious discussion. Otherwise you cannot be trusted. Unfortunately Grillo never presents compelling evidence and never goes in deep. He pretends to be serious, but he behaves just a showman.
Real problems start when people not able to filter what Grillo says follow it. Very bad was when sick people decided to drop traditional tested chemotherapies to follow Di Bella “warm water” cure just because Grillo and some chauvinist judge supported it!!!!



Posted by: gianluca cestra | March 13, 2006 12:24 PM

sorry for such late reply.
I am confused about your statement

“People reading the incinerator story and checking what Grillo cited can assume that the incinerator is completely healthy”

Beppe is saying exactly the opposite, which post did you read?

“Stefano Montanari… together with his wife Antonietta Gatti has studied the effects on the organism of the inorganic particles produced by all types of combustion, from depleted Uranium to electricity power stations to heavy oils to so-called clean carbon, to car engines with anti-particle pseudo-filters to incinerators constructed in accordance with BAT…. The incinerators produce immense quantities of this stuff, transforming rough, smelly rubbish that is not dangerous into tiny killer particles.”

If I remember correctly Grillo almost 9 years ago talked about Di Bella as someone that was operating outside the monopolio of big pharmaceutical multinationals and the groups of powers in our country that work together with these multinationals.
He told guys pay attention to what they say and what they sell you.

We all must be very careful when getting info from any kind of sources. We must be able to filter and re-elaborate it.
Grillo is someone that likes people to get confronted with info that usually do not go through the major channels of information.
That’s what he does best. He always says I do not have answers, but I tell you better to be alert and think.


P.S. Luckily my father is ok so far.

Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 12, 2006 12:43 AM

Hi Maena:
first of all I am sorry for your father. Second I am sorry that you didn’t get the point. The point was about Beppe Grillo methods and his way to sell not reliable info, as it was the truth. In my opinion this way is very dangerous. People affected by cancer can trust Di Bella’s “cure” just because Beppe Grillo supported it, giving bad information about it. People reading the incinerator story and checking what Grillo cited can assume that the incinerator is completely healthy, just because data presented by Grillo are bullshit. If you want make a campaign or defend an idea, especially about public health, you must be reliable, get and give an exhaustive picture and citate good scientific references. Unfortunately Grillo doesn’t do it. This scares me, because a lot people take Grillo seriously.



Posted by: gianluca cestra | March 6, 2006 12:18 PM

Hi Stefano,
first of all thank you for the effort.
I do agree with you when you say “No-Global” isn’t such an appropriate slogan.
We cannot avoid the fact that the world is getting smaller and smaller.
Look at Internet and its effects. Look at the transportation system. Look at the people moving between continents.
Should we stop this? In my eyes we should not.
But indeed we should keep some local aspects and habits peculiar of the places where we live. We should also somehow preserve our way of producing.
I believe in free economies, but at the same time I like clear rules that put some barriers to the huge capitals that brush off small profitable businesses.
I also think that TAV has really nothing to do with global or no global. I believe it has more to do with making priorities when ruling a country and understanding how to build the right appropriate infrastructures.
But hey these days GLOBALIZATION is such a cool catchy word that everyone likes to put everywhere.



Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 5, 2006 11:43 AM

--------------------To Gianluca Sestra ---------------------

You are so right.
You say that right now there is no evidence of any kind of correlation between infinite small particles of these substances suspended in the air and human cancer.
Yes, that was exactly what they used to say to my father, his colleagues and I bet million of people around the world regarding asbestos and cancer correlation.
Unfortunately many of my father colleagues working with this material after 25 years died of cancer. (Mainly the same typology of cancer, lungs cancer).
Hey, 30 years ago there was no evidence what so ever of correlation between the two.
Today, it is considered a cancerous substance.



Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 5, 2006 11:30 AM

Hi Raffaella,
I saw your postings.
I think we should more and more push our Italian mates to use the English version.
This is a GREAT mirror to reflect outside Italy our issues and opinions.

It is plenty of web-surfers that look around for news and facts and then they report it somewhere else.

Moreover, I warmly advise all the Italians to learn English. This language opens the gates to information around the world.



Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 5, 2006 10:12 AM

Hi Maena!
As I wrote on the italian blog, I like this english version very much!
A lot of people don't know these pages, because they think that it's too difficult to read and write in english!
I don't think so. My english is not perfect, but I try it!

Posted by: Raffaella Biferale | March 4, 2006 03:15 PM

Here I am. My english isn't very good, so excuse me. Peutetre nous pouvont parler in a universal language. Io creo que No-Global non es uno slogan muy apropiado, porque how do you mean with No-global? I dont't know. Nowdays we can reach every side of the world in 12 hours by plane, so globalization is a natural consequence of this.Now the trade is an international trade, not yet national, so is impossible for us to stop this. However, we can do something against multinationals companies that make wars for interest.

Posted by: Stefano Firbo | March 4, 2006 02:43 PM


Some people asked to have soon LA SETTIMANA in English. I soooo agree with it.

Since we all write/speak English (with Beppe consensus of course) why each one of us doesn’t translate one article of LA SETTIMANA for each coming issue?
If we do that we can let the news circulate better around the world.

We can get organized via the blog. We share and coordinate the work and then send it to Beppe.

Beppe, I personally do not mind to take the commitment to translate one article per issue.

I see also what I can do here to let it go around using some media.



Posted by: Maena Gambaiani | March 4, 2006 12:08 PM

Instead of looking at the problems at the end of the chain we should, as a society, start at the begining.
Corporations, whether they sell water bottles or other mass produced good, need to apply regulations that dont necessarily protect the consumer and make products more expensive.
Then why cant it be imposed for them to take back what they put out in a manner they can achieve. all the extra cost of packing would be greatly reduced, and also reducing what would reach the
these studies are only usefull to know how badly we try get rid of all the crap we produce, there extent
but i dont think you need a rocket scientist to know its harmful

Posted by: andrea panno | March 4, 2006 11:09 AM

Incinerators are a bad deal to investigate, once you really dig into the study it gets pretty nasty, a lot of info you really don't want to know. Just hope and pray your local incenerator is working properly.
Raymond B

Posted by: Raymond B | March 4, 2006 04:08 AM

It has happened again. The question is how frequent is this misleading information. It happened at least six years ago when Beppe Grillo decided to support Di Bella “cure”. No scientific data supporting his crazy campaign. Today again. I run a Medline on the work of the researchers complaining about particles in the air and an example of the result is just below. Basically no connection at all between what they study and cancer biology. Moreover very low impact factor of their work that means absolutely low credibility of it. Taking home message is that all the correlations made in this article, from the scientific point of view, are “bullshit”.
I am not interested in the specific debate about the incinerator itself, but about Beppe Grillo methods. Since every time I had good knowledge about what he was talking about I realized that his starting point was bullshit, may I assume that everything is coming out from him is just a show and it is not real? Just bullshit?

Gatti AM, Montanari S, Gambarelli A, Capitani F, Salvatori R. Related Articles, In-vivo short- and long-term evaluation of the interaction material-blood.
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005 Dec;16(12):1213-9.
PMID: 16362224 [PubMed - in process]

Gatti AM, Montanari S. Retrieval analysis of clinical explanted vena cava filters. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005 Nov 16; [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 16292760 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Posted by: gianluca cestra | March 3, 2006 01:04 PM

Post a comment

Beppe Grillo's Blog is an open space for you to use so that we can come face to face directly. As your comment is published immediately, there's no time for filters to check it out. Thus the Blog's usefulness depends on your cooperation and it makes you the only ones responsible for the content and the resulting outcomes.

Information to be read before using Beppe Grillo's Blog

The following are not allowed:
1. messages without the email address of the sender
2. anonymous messages
3. advertising messages
4. messages containing offensive language
5. messages containing obscene language
6. messages with racist or sexist content
7. messages with content that constitutes a violation of Italian Law (incitement to commit a crime, to violence, libel etc.)

However, the owner of the Blog can delete messages at any moment and for any reason.
The owner of the Blog cannot be held responsible for any messages that may damage the rights of third parties Maximum comment length is 2,000 characters.
If you have any doubts read "How to use the blog".

Post a comment (English please!)

First name and Surname*:

Email Address*:
We remind you that anonymous messages (without real first name and surname) will be cancelled.

* Compulsory fields

Send to a friend

Send this message to *

Your Email Address *

Message (optional)

* Compulsory fields