Written question asked by Tam Dalyell (Labour) on Wednesday, 28 March 2001, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Thursday, 3 May 2001. It was answered by Baroness Quin (Labour) on Thursday, 3 May 2001 on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Question: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Oral statement of 27th March 2001 at 363 c843, on foot and mouth disease, what reasons underlay the decision not to consider the use of napalm as a fuel for burning carcasses. - (Holding answer 2 April 2001).

Answer: Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 March 2001, Official Report, column 843, on foot and mouth disease, what reasons underlay the decision not to consider the use of napalm as a fuel for burning carcases. [156464] Ms Quin: [holding answer 2 April 2001]: There are two forms of napalm available, which both produce very toxic compounds when they burn. We therefore cannot use them because of the public and environmental health risks. We recognise that burning at higher temperatures is more efficient and cleaner, and so there is a need to increase the temperature of pyres, particularly at the beginning of the burn while the water in carcases is being driven off. We have therefore commissioned urgent studies, in collaboration with MOD, on the possible use of gelled fuel mixtures to increase the temperature.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 367 c738W; 156464
Session: 2000-01
Subjects: Health hazards Disease control Foot and mouth disease Incinerators Waste disposal Napalm
Link: View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk