Madam, - Prof William Reville, writing about incineration (Science Today, July 29th), dwells on the dioxin issue but unfortunately does not mention several other concerns which also make incineration proposals a non-runner.
However low the dioxin emission levels achieved, the marketability of food is easier in a country without incineration. We must bear in mind that many other chemicals other than dioxins are also admitted by incineration, both to air and in the ash.
The claim of low dioxin levels from an Irish incinerator cannot be guaranteed as testing is intermittent, not continuous, and to date dioxin tests have to be sent abroad to be processed.
Regarding the branding of CO2 emissions as "harmless", remember the Government's climate change strategy which requires a reduction in CO2 emissions or otherwise the payment of hefty fines arising from Kyoto Protocol non-compliance.
A small agricultural country such Ireland needs to think very carefully before adopting a municipal and toxic incinerator waste strategy. Incineration is extremely expensive and requires a continuous supply of waste.
Profits for incinerator companies are boosted if there is less recycling - so where is the incentive to prioritise waste prevention, minimisation, re-use and recycling? In fact, the EU Environment Commissioner, Ms Margot Wallstrom, has said Ireland needs to make far more progress on the three Rs - reduction, re-use and recycling. She has also said incineration is not mandatory.
Ultimately incineration is a political choice. The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas believes that intelligent leadership, community empowerment, proper enforcement, scientific research and state-of-the-art technology can deliver, over time, a zero-waste strategy without incineration. - Yours, etc.,
TREVOR SARGENT, TD,
Leader,
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas,
Dáil Éireann.
Dublin 2.