Sir, - I was greatly disappointed to learn that the EPA and the Minister for the Environment have come out in favour of incineration as a means of hazardous waste disposal. Have we not learned from other countries about the dangers of such methods?
For example, is the EPA not aware of the closure of three French incinerators last year because they contaminated local milk and cheese supplies with deadly levels of dioxin? Does it know of the studies that link a higher incidence of all cancers among populations living near incinerators and of the elevated levels of persistent organic pollutants in the breast milk of mothers living downwind from incinerators in Germany? All of these findings were in European countries where EU and WHO emission guidelines are in place. It is not comforting, therefore, for the pro-incineration lobby to try to assuage the general public's worries about the safety of incineration by touting the fact that incinerators operate to such guidelines.
I know that the EPA is aware that the levels of dioxin in cows' milk in Ireland are the lowest in the world (EPA 1995). Is it acceptable for us to jeopardise this situation by building incinerators which are the major avoidable cause of dioxin contamination in the environment? Where is the precautionary principle in these recommendations? How can the building of incinerators be reconciled with the recent comments by the Irish Commissioner for Food Safety, Mr David Byrne? Commenting on the Belgian dioxin food crisis he stated that "there clearly is a problem associated with animals reared close to some industrial plants, particularly waste disposal incinerators".
I accept that Ireland must deal with its hazardous waste and I commend the EPA for all its efforts in first promoting prevention, minimisation, re-use and recycling. However, why are alternative destruction technologies not considered fully? For example, the US army has recommended three alternative technologies to destroy stockpiles of chemical warfare agents. These are high temperature gas phase reduction, molten metal technology and electrochemical oxidation. I am aware that the former is in commercial operation in Australia (where an incinerator proposal was abandoned in its favour).
Other countries such as the Philippines and New Zealand have chosen not to build incinerators and have adopted alternative strategies to manage hazardous and municipal waste. In fact New Zealand has adopted a policy of zero waste by 2010. We must look seriously at all the options before we begin the rush to burn. - Yours, etc.,
Louise Hadden, Moyglare Abbey, Maynooth, Co Kildare.