VALDOSTA — A medical atrocity.

That is the phrase Dr. William Sammons used to described biomass energy plants at Monday night’s biomass forum at Valdosta State University’s Student Union theater.

The event was hosted by Students Against Violating the Environment (S.A.V.E.) a campus organization.

A 40 megawatt biomass energy plant is being proposed in Lowndes County by Wiregrass Power, LLC, who is receiving assistance on the project by the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority.

Sammons, a pediatrician from Boston, Mass., got involved in the discussion on biomass two years ago when he learned a proposed plant in Massachusetts would deplete the water in an area river to the lowest flow possible.

Since then he has been active in generating information regarding health hazards and environmental hazards biomass plants can bring to an area.

Sammons has worked with communities in places like Traverse City, Mich.and Gretna, Fla. to keep biomass plants from being built.

In both those cities, local groups succeeded in keeping biomass plants out of their communities.

One of the major problems surrounding biomass plants is that the regulations and technology used in the plants is far behind the known data that points to its ability to destroy human health and the environment.

Biomass plants are dirtier than burning coal. When compared to coal burning plants the carbon dioxide emissions are usually a hundred times greater in biomass plants, he said.

Sammons was meticulous in pointing out where his data came from citing scientific studies and journals and even the Environmental Protection Agency, along with health organizations like the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association.

The people who approve the plant and the people who own the biomass plant will not being paying the medical bills in the future, Sammons said, community members and their children will be.

The reason the country has seen an uptick in the building of biomass plants in recent years relates to the number of tax incentives, both locally and at the state and national levels, that have become available, he said.

When taken at cost, biomass plants are just as expensive as nuclear plants, Sammons said.

If the more than 300 proposed biomass plants come online the federal government, Sammons said, will be on the hook to spend $250 billion dollars through tax incentives and tax credits.

“That’s your dollars,” Sammons said.

To meet most of these tax incentives construction on biomass plants has to begin by December 31 of this year. That does not mean construction has to start, Sammons said, but that a shovel has to be put in the ground and the company needs to order a piece of equipment to meet the requirements.

If all these plants go online the spike in CO2 emissions will be immediate, he said.

Though this is not good for the environment or one’s health the most detrimental health effect emitted by biomass plants is not heavily regulated by the EPA, he said.

Particulate matter, which is measured as PM10 and PM2.5, can range from being an irritant to being deadly.

An irritant to the lungs is PM10, Sammons said.

PM2.5 is riskier and regulated but three other forms of particulate matter that have been identified are not even regulated, he said.

Studies are showing that these three forms can be even more detrimental than PM2.5, he said.

PM2.5 can irritate those with asthma and create severe problems for those already suffering from respiratory problems.

A study by the EPA has determined that no threshold can be determined to judge where PM concentrates pose no health risks. That means, on a rising scale, no line can be drawn as to what is a healthy amount of particulate matter, he said.

In developing countries, where people often cook inside over open fires, it has been determined that exposure to particulate matter in this combustible form leads to earlier death, he said.

More frequent exposure to PM2.5, at levels regulated by the EPA, will still create a public health burden, Sammons said.

Biomass combustion is also not carbon neutral, Sammons said.

The amount of CO2 released through the biomass plant cannot be adequately sequestered or compensated by forests in a reasonable time frame, he said.

When asked to provide evidence of forest CO2 re-absorbtion  that balances with biomass CO2 emissions, the EPA could provide no valid information, Sammons said.

“It’s not clean and it is not green,” Sammons said.

Information provided by the EPA does reveal that following combustion at a biomass plant, half of the CO2 will be taken in by the oceans and vegetation in about 30 years, while another 30 percent won’t be re-sequestered for centuries. The remaining 20 percent of CO2 will then take thousands of years to decay, Sammons said.

Clear-cutting can also disrupt the amount of CO2 sequestered by forests. Old-growth trees have a higher density of CO2 than new growth, he said.

“The solution should be sustainable,” Sammons said. “Biomass combustion is not a solution.”

Sammons told the audience that this was a preventative issue and that other means of energy production and conservation are available.

Currently, Germany leads the world in solar installations, he said.

Valdosta, Sammons said, gets 70 percent more sunlight than any city in Germany.

“You have another source of energy here,” he said.