Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Millennium Dome roof is poisonous, say campaigners

Geoffrey Lean
Saturday 19 July 1997 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Enviromental campaigners are threatening to disrupt construction of the Millennium Dome, plunging the controversial scheme into a fresh crisis. They call it a "poisonous project" because its roof will be coated in PVC - a toxic material which is being phased out in hundreds of cities worldwide.

Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace, has written to Peter Mandelson, the minister in charge of the project, warning him that "very, very determined efforts will be made to stop its construction".

And George Monbiot, who last year led the occupation of a Guinness site on London's South Bank, says he would be "very surprised if direct action did not take place".

Ministers are taking the threat seriously and Mr Mandelson, dubbed the Dome Secretary, has met Greenpeace to try to head off confrontation. But the official line is that it is too late to change the plans.

Direct action against the dome would mark a new phase in environmental protest, for it would be the first time that campaigners had tried to stop a prime minister's pet project. Tony Blair intervened to save the dome last month when the Cabinet was expected to scrap it: he believes it will "help instil a sense of pride, purpose and national unity".

In a flurry of correspondence, Lord Melchett has told Mr Blair that the dome is a "toxic, plastic throwaway monster" and has warned Chris Smith, the National Heritage Secretary, that PVC is "one of the most environmentally damaging building materials it is possible to find".

The material - 40 tonnes of which will be used to coat the dome's 150,000 square metre polyester roof - gives off highly poisonous dioxins and furans, both during manufacture and on disposal as waste. The Fire Brigades' Union, which says dioxins are among "the most toxic chemicals known", says they could be "spread over a wide area" by smoke from a fire.

The other great millennium project, the Sydney Olympics, is making a point of avoiding PVCs. More than 200 German communities and more than 120 Swedish ones - including the cities of Bonn, Berlin and Gothenburg - are restricting or phasing out the material in buildings, as are cities in Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Japan.

Even the Tube station at the dome will be PVC-free because London Underground will not use it in new wiring.

The campaigners are confident of causing the Government maximum embarrassment because, by definition, the dome has to be ready on time. Chris Rose, Greenpeace's campaign director, has already reminded Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair's press chief, that any disruption would be in full view of the seven national newspapers with offices in Canary Wharf.

Yesterday Gez Sagar, head of press for the New Millennium Experience Company Limited, the government firm building the dome, rang this newspaper asking that the story be dropped. After an exchange of views on the subject of vested interests attempting to suppress news, he faxed the following statement:

"We have consistently asked Greenpeace to recommend a viable alternative to the fabric chosen to cover the dome, but they have been unable to do so ... Indeed in their immediate reaction to the decision in April on the dome covering, they were able to suggest only that an alternative structure should have been chosen. Nevertheless, we are happy to consider any alternative Greenpeace can suggest."

Geoffrey Lean, page 9

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in