Developer has many units left?

Developer dropped price or the first agent jacked up price?

How many people dare to walk this stretch of road at night or afternoon?

Believe snatch thieves don't live in those illegal houses, unlikely to improve safety.

1)Incineration does not remove waste. It simply converts it into another form (gas,particulates, ash) and these new forms are typically more hazardous though lessvisible than in the original form.

2)Large epidemiological studies have shown higher rates of adult andchildhood cancers and of birth defects around incinerators. Smaller studies anda large body of related research support these findings, point to a causalrelationship, and suggest that a much wider range of illnesses may be involved.

3)Recent research has confirmed that particulate pollution, especially the fineparticulate (PM2.5) pollution, which is typical of incinerator emissions, is animportant contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment ofother diseases, and causes a linear increase in mortality. The latest research hasfound there is a much greater effect on mortality than previously thought andimplies that incinerators will cause increases in cardiovascular andcerebrovascular morbidity and mortality with both short-term and long-termexposure. Particulates from incinerators will be especially hazardous due to thetoxic chemicals attached to them.

4)Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large varietyof organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrinedisruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damagethe immune system and decrease intelligence. There appears to be no thresholdfor some of these effects, such as endocrine disruption. The dangers of these areself-evident. Some of these compounds have been detected hundreds to thousandsof miles away from their source.

5)The danger of incinerating radioactive waste deserves special mention.Incineration converts radioactive waste into billions of radioactive particulates.These particulates make a near perfect delivery system for introducing theradioactive matter into the human body, where it can then act as an internalemitter of alpha or beta radiation. This type of radiation is qualitativelydifferent, far more dangerous and far more sinister, than background53
radiation. There can be no justification for using this method of dealing withradioactive waste.

6)Modern incinerators produce fly ash which is much more toxic than in thepast, containing large quantities of dioxin-rich material for which there is no safemethod of disposal, except vitrification, a method not being used in the UK.Disposal of incinerator ash to landfill sites is associated with long-termthreats toaquifers and water tables and the potential for accidents serious enough to requireevacuation of an area.

7)The risks to local people that occur when incinerators operate under non-standard working conditions have not been addressed, particularly theemissions at start-up and shutdown which may be associated with the release,within 2 days, of more dioxin than over 6 months of working under standardconditions.

8)The greatest concern is the long-term effects of incinerator emissions on thedeveloping embryo and infant, and the real possibility that genetic changeswill occur and be passed on to succeeding generations. Far greater vulnerabilityto toxins has been documented for the very young, particularly foetuses, with risksofcancer, spontaneous abortion, birth defects or permanent cognitive damage. Aworryingly high body burden of pollutants has recently been reported in twostudies of cord blood from new-born babies.

9)Waste incineration is prohibitively expensive when health costs are taken intoaccount. A variety of studies, including that from the government, indicate that asingle large incinerator could cost the tax payer many million of pounds perannum in health costs. Put simply, the government’s own data is demonstratingthat incinerators are a major health hazard. With the predicted inclusion of thewaste industry within the EU European Emissions Trading Scheme, localtaxpayers, in areas with incinerators, will not only have to live within a pollutedarea but will be saddled with costs, under ETS, of millions of pounds per annumto pay for it.

10)Waste incineration is unjust because its maximum toxic impact is on the mostvulnerable members of our society, the unborn child, children, the poor andthe chemically sensitive. It contravenes the United Nations Commission onHuman Rights, the European Human Rights Convention (the Right to Life), andthe Stockholm Convention, and violates the Environmental Protection Act of 1990which states that the UK must prevent emissions from harming human health.

www.bsem.org.uk/uploads/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf
British Society for Ecological Medicine

Cutting down expenses means reduction in consumers spending.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 27 2017, 03:24 PM

mrt will provide at least 2 shuttle bus service from all 36 stations on mrt2.

Which area in kv is not flooded with either new launch or almost VP?

paper gain of at least 200k.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Apr 29 2017, 09:53 PM

Believe the green circle is location of MRT station.

Where is the entrance of under pass on Jalan kepong?


This post has been edited by icemanfx: May 14 2017, 11:28 AM

Where is the space available at Jalan kepong for the under pass?

MRT in this section is elevated and design is completed. Unless the under pass is completed before MRT otherwise under pass is unlikely.

Under pass is likely to cost more than rm 40 million to build.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: May 15 2017, 06:53 AM

Given limited width of the lake, retaining wall/embankment and maintenance dredging will be needed and won't be cheap.

retention pond is not only about volume but also water level. what is the point to keep large volume of water during dry season in a deep lake and couldn't retain volume during heavy rain?

This post has been edited by icemanfx: May 15 2017, 02:58 PM

With more development i.e less surface area to absorb water, volume of retention pond needed is increase. By reducing the lake size mean flood water will need to goes somewhere. Either the lake surrounding area or down stream will be at risk of flooding.

It doesn't cost to claim.

No more land was a reason cited for property price increase. By approving more land for development is a method to make housing more affordable.

This lake or pond will likely be reclaimed or reduced to be the last phase of dpc development.

Given many bought this place to flip, more incoming supply in the area and if current market sentiment persists, price is likely to drop or stagnant for extended periods.

Depends on price of land, lake and reclamation cost.

Where else in dbkl could the incinerator be located?