EPA ignores medical experts, OKs burners.

by Bananaman Fri Nov 25, 2005 14:08

Should they reject the siting of these waste management facilities just because one "health expert" holds a contrary opinion? Check out this press release from the EPA:http://www.epa.ie/NewsCentre/PressReleases/MainBody,8044,en.html
Once you're read it, you might see that if you ran a campaign against backyard burning would reduce the amount of dioxins in Irelands environment by a lot more than a campaign against these facilities.

by Bananas are not the only fruit Fri Nov 25, 2005 14:48

Ignoring (as Banaman does) the inconvenient fact that the site breaches World Health Organisation guidelines left right and centre, the EPA heard warnings of health risk from no fewer than four medical witnesses, who all went on the record and were all uncontradicted at the Oral 'Hearing'.

Not just one medical expert after all...meanwhile zero medical experts on the side of the EPA/Indaver/Minister Roche. Strange that.

Possible next question from Bananaman: who does the WHO think they are anyway?

by BANANAMAN Fri Nov 25, 2005 15:22

what WHO is alright. But just one thing, Dr. Tusschers report deals mainly with older plants. This is an opportunity to build a state of the art facility.
I'm not denying that dioxins and other compounds created during the burning or incineration of waste are harmful to human health, that I completely accept, but the way in which some people refer to the EPA as the "environmental polluting agency" etc. is disgraceful. They are charged with protecting our environment, and are doing quite a god job really. Just because they don't agree with every objector doesn't mean that they aren't doing their job.
The incineration of waste at a properly built and managed facility would have huge benefits, and is desperately needed in todays uber capitalist consumer driven society. The calls for a zero waste society are surely well intentioned and should be the way to go, but it ain't going to happen tomorrow now is it? As it is we ship a lot of haz waste abroad, and get it incinerated there, so does it not make sense to build a few here and deal with our own waste.
If for example, the EPA were to accept that these facilities will affect human health if they are built, would it be ok to send the waste abroad to another incinerator where it will affect the health of the people beside that incinerator?
I honestly do not think that the EPA would allow these facilities to be licenced if there was even the slightest doubt about their safety. But it doesn't matter what I say, because we live in BANANALAND.

by T Fri Nov 25, 2005 16:12

The previous commentator said:

>I honestly do not think that the EPA would allow these facilities to be licenced if there was even the slightest doubt about their safety. But it doesn't matter what I say, because we live in BANANALAND.

Firstly the EPA is an arm of the State whose sole function is to keep the status quo and allow the rich layers of society to remain as they are.

Also we know it can be a very political institute and it knows what way the wind blows especially when we think about to the saga a number of years ago with the aluminium plant in Limerick and the dead animals in the surrounding farmlands.

The current head of the EPA is Mary Kelly. Whilst she has a good academic background, she also has a MBA, spent a number of years working in the pharmaceutical sector and also had a job with the business lobby group IBEC, where she setup their environment unit.

As we know an outfit like IBEC is not first and foremost concerned about the environment, but about it's members, who naturally are in business to get wealthy. Therefore an entity like their environment unit is always go to be used by them to co-opt arguments and public opinion to favour their interest and particular cases.

The fact that Mary Kelly worked there shows she clearly understands the "needs" of the business and corporate sector. Whilst her overall goals may well be to strive for a cleaner environment, it is almost impossible in her position not to be co-opted by both the business sector and government and she is much more likely to retain contacts with members of these groups rather than say local activists that are opposing these incinerators. We know that when people among the ranks of the privileged very occasionally come out and oppose something in their group, they very quickly get ostracised and we hear phrases like: 'most inappropriate' and so forth. They very quickly feel the heat socially amongst their peers. This would be where the current head of the EPA or most likely any further head, is most likely to reside.

Mary Kelly will not be at the EPA forever and I am sure she knows this. So like anyone who is keeping an eye on their career, she will be very acute and sensitive to the reaction of the big players and others who hold top positions around the country and would ultimately have a role in any further stages of her career. Therefore it would be most unhuman-like of her not to tilt things in their favour and so grant the licenses to these toxic incinerators that will not help stall any practical progress in recycling rates in this country and further the agenda and so called development path that leads us to an environmentally destructive and unsustainable path.

by Smokie - Bemused Fri Nov 25, 2005 17:36

It's a pity that the Government don't allow the contributors to Indymedia to decide on these issues seeing as nobody else can do it right and in the absence of a scientific argument against an "unwelcome" proposal sure we can always personalise it by questionong the motives of the decision makers. So that's it then, all major proposals to be decided by polling Indymedia contributors. Stone age here we come.

by John Fri Nov 25, 2005 19:32

No country in the world has achieved a recycling rate of more than 50 per cent. The vast majority of countries in the world don't even come close to that figure. Given that reality, perhaps we could have some constructive suggestions from you on how to get rid of waste that is not recycled. There are only two possibilities: (a) bury it in the ground or (b) burn it off in incinerators. If any of you can think of a third method, please specify. Some countries opt for (a), others for (b), most for both. Its only in Ireland that environmentalists oppose both. Irish environmentalists pretend that some magic wand can be waved and, hey presto, all waste will disappear. Well, it won't. Time you grew up.

by R. Isible Fri Nov 25, 2005 19:41

QUOTE: perhaps we could have some constructive suggestions from you on how to get rid of waste that is not recycled

An absolute reduction in the amount of waste generated through a wasteful consumerist lifestyle would be the most practical approach. The vast majority of this would occur at the production end of the spectrum. As soon as business entities are given the incentive to reduce wasteful packaging by the application of a tariff that reflects the cost of their packaging to Irish society we can be sure the problem will be significantly reduced.

Reuse is another strand that hasn't been tackled seriously. Time to bring back glass milk bottles perhaps.

by Terry Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:13

You say:

>There are only two possibilities: (a) bury it in the ground or (b) burn it off in incinerators

That's just amazing, because thats exactly the way this issue is presented in the corporate and state media. No mention of recycling whatsoever. Classic manuipulation of the public debate and opinion by controlling the parameters of the discussion!

It's funny that the consultants used by the councils all around the country in every case recommended incinerators in each of the regions.

In the case of Galway they said 50% was the max in the recycling rate that they could ever achieve and it would take about 10 to 15 years to get there. But this was proven to be a complete falsehood, because local groups there (Galway Safe Waste Alliance, I think) helped push and encourage recycling and in 8 months, the recycling rate in Galway shot up to these levels and I think may have exceeded it.

You say more than 50% rate has never been achieved. This is just false and there are numerous cities around the world have done this.

This brings us to the main point, as to some constructive suggestions. The previous commentator suggested a levy on excessive packaging. This would go a long way. He also suggested return of glass milk bottles.

And to that I would add, how about a return to glass bottles for all other drinks, including a deposit system. What about more paper and cardboard recycling.

Introduction of recycling for plastic bottles everywhere. It's too sparse at the moment. Likewise introduction of recycling for batteries, again with a deposit system. Actually you could do the same for practically everything.

As mentioned before, give out compost bins to every household. This makes up nearly a third of the domestic waste stream.

And then of course there is industry that produces about 80% to 90% of the waste. Again the same rules or infrastructure could apply there.

In the case of building rubble, the wood could be separated out, and the old blocks and gravel could be crushed and used for roadfill and other stuff. A simple levy of about 1 Euro per tonne on virgin quarry rock would greatly help this incentive because at the moment destroying our landscape by creating big holes in it is made economically cheaper. This levy would reverse it.

In the recycling industry itself, there is a great many set of methods for recycling all sorts of stuff very effectively from cables, to tyres, electronics, metals and so on. There has been huge strides made in the invention of new industrial processes to do this. Let's start using them.

Clearly some pro-business lobby / capitalist / neo-liberal free-market types pretend that some magic PR and corporate spin can be issued and hey presto, all the waste can go up in smoke in the incinerators. Well it's time you stop being so arrogant and condescending.

by Bananaman Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:07

set the limits for the emissions that will be allowed from these incinerators. Also, like that lady said on Q&A lastnight, would the women (and men and children too) of Germany, Holland et al prefer to be accepting our toxic waste for incineration in their part of the world, or would they prefer to see us dealing with the waste that we are generating as part of our 'booming economy' ourselves? Two main principles of environmental good practice: Polluter pays and proximity principle, the fours ps I suppose you could call them. It costs money, produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases when transporting wastes for incineration abroad, so overall, holistically speaking like, its a much better option to incinerate the waste (that should be incinerated, i.e. its unsuitable for any other treatment including landfill) as close to the source as possible, i.e. Ringaskiddy.

by james Tue Nov 29, 2005 15:59

Is this a rational debate or an idealogical and dogmatic position held by anti-incinerator protesters.

The only area of argument seems to me to be health grounds. Are these incinerators lethal death spewing murder machines or not?

For me to accept this i need solid proof, dioxons to my knowedge are naturely accuring gases true? therefore there must be a level at which they are completely harmless to us, we evolved breathing them. I can accept that the is a level where they become toxic. Just like any gas, oxogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Is anone arguing that these gases are not acceptable in the athmosphere at all?? that would be insane. We just need to know at what level they become dangerous and toxic, then build incinerators that do not cross this level.

If what is being expressed is an irrational fear, then this should be a support group for a phobia, otherwise, rationally look to build a incinerator that is not toxic, do you think this is not possible?

by Jane Tue Nov 29, 2005 18:49

Please go and inform yourself before attempting to enter this debate. All of the questions you ask can be answered by a visit to the CHASE website where you will find all of the facts - presented by experts and scientists from many different reputable institutions and organisations - all of them much better qualified to hold opinions than you are, by your own admission.

If your true motive is defend the incinerators regardless, then please just say so.

by BANANAMAN Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36

To the best of my knowledge, dioxins are not naturaly occuring gases, and are produced when chlorinated compunds such as plastics and other synthetic materials are burnt, especially at low temperatures. Therefore, the burning of waste in peoples back gardens is very likely to be a much greater source of dioxins than a properly engineered and run thermal treatment facility. In a TTF (or incinerator as they are affectionately known)the wastes are burnt at a very high temperature which ensures that the least amount of dioxins are produced, and sure enough there are dioxins (and furans, other nasties) produced during incineration. But the exhaust gases from the process go through a comprehensive (nay, exhaustive) scrubbing process which removes them from the exhaust. Many people also have concerns about where these materials go, along with the ash that is produced, which usually concentrates the toxic components held within the waste, but referring again to good environmental practice, it is better to concentrate these wastes before disposal. In relation to the 'safe' amount that one can be exposed to, its a bit like radiation I think, there is no such thing as a safe level, but this is also spun by the anti incineration lobby, as one is more likely to ingest/inhale a greater amount of dioxins by standing beside the bin they burn their rubbish in, than if they lived beside an incinerator for a decade. They're not hard and fast facts that I can back up with stats at this moment in time, but thats what I reckon, call it an educated guess. As for using the CHASE website to inform yourself about the ins and outs of incineration, I would say that it is slightly less than objective about the whole technology, so I'd say do a bit of googling.

by Miriam Cotton Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:56

Bananna-head above is distoring the facts again.

Firstly, nobody from within the anti incinerator lobby burns their own waste. Being as well informed as we are about dioxins we all know very well that it is an extremely polluting thing to do.

Equating the burning of rubbish in a backgarden, in any case, with the burning of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of toxic waste beside a major population centre is a sneakly sleight of hand.

There are no safe levels of dioxins. The medical evidence shows that even within the spurious and so-called 'safe' limits that have been set by some authorities, significant medical and health problems occur. That is the fact of the matter. It is, as I have already written, a calculated outcome taken by those who simply dont care about the dangers.

Caricaturing the anti-incinerator lobbyists is also disingenuous. We include people from every walk of life - this is an issue that is unting the whole of Cork Harbour and apologists for this filthy plant will have to come up with something better than the fruit head above has so far managed.

by BANANAMAN Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:31

Where did I distort the truth? And where do I caricature anti-incineration activists? Nowhere I dare say. Did I not say that there is no safe level of dioxins, and equate it with radiation? And I did not say that people from the anti-incineration lobby burn their waste, but its well know that many people do (and if as you say, your group includes people from all walks of life, would this not suggest that there are some who burn their rubbish?).
I am no apologist for any Corporation, but one cannot have their cake and eat it too. What do you suggest we do with our toxic waste Miriam? Keep on sending it abroad? What about the aforementioned widely accepted principles of Polluter Pays and the Proximity Principle? Surely there are some of those in CHASE who work in one of the many industries in and around Ringaskiddy who produce these wastes? I have tried give some answers to the questions posed by those who are against, but what about my questions? Or do you just berate those who are in favour of it, and who trust in the technology and expert opinion on the other side of the argument?

by M Cotton Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:30

"I am no apologist for any Corporation, but one cannot have their cake and eat it too. "

Exactly. Which is why we must all confront the polluting excesses of our lifestyle. Mass incinceration is a recent solution to waste problems, so again, it is disingenuous to suggest that we cannot do without it. We did for millenia and will have to do so again if we do not want to kill ourselves by dioxin poisoning. How much dioxin do you suppose we can allow to build up in the atmosphere? It is the equivalent of sitting in a closed garage with the car engine switched on. Incineration is not the solution.

We are facing very tough questions about the way we live. We have to base our lifestyle on true need rather than on want. Right at the moment, for example, an aluminium manufacturing company is preparing to foul and lay waste one of the most unpolluted and beautiful landscapes on the planet in Iceland. And for what? So that millions of us can go on guzzling sickening fizzy drinks in cans. This is a no brainer.

Products must be made from natural resources in a sustainable way. We have to ensure that the means of survival and human thriving is conducted on an equitable basis. We have to unlearn the greed and pollution of capitalism - the means by which we are canibalising our own health and well-being. Convenience and the throw-away economy will have to be acknowledged for the killers that they are. This has nothing to do with left and right, marxism or facism: it's a simple matter of survival. Environmental catastrophes on an ever increasing scale are teaching us the true nature and meaning of the world in which we live. Humankind has always liked to imagine itself as a superior species, above and beyond - and even controlling the forces of nature. We're about to be taught some savage lessons unless we confront the truth, fast.

There are no experts on the pro side of the argument who are not avoiding the fact that incineration is a deadly process and should not even be considered as an option.

You continue to caricature anti-incerator lobbyists by suggesting we burn our private waste. Anti-incineration means anti burning in case you didnt understand.

by BANANAMAN Fri Dec 02, 2005 14:09

I like you Miriam, a little bit anyway. I mean I agree with you completely in relation to the fact that its capitalism that is the root of the problem. But where we differ is that I try as much as I can to live in the real world. The fact is that most people do not give a half a hoot about their environment. The reason I suggested that some anti incinerator folk burn their rubbish is that a friend of mine is moving into a new home, and mentioned to me that he was going to burn all the packaging in his back garden, I scolded him, and told him to recycle it, and that it was nearly as easy. He said that he couldn't be bothered. But then I asked him if he was pro or anti incineration, and he said "no f*cking way, never". OK, so he isn't involved in any campaign, and I'm sure that those of you in CHASE or other similar groups, being aware of the the facts are not going to go and burn your waste, but his attitude is (in my humble opinion) reflective of the general attitude within society towards incineration.
Personnally, I believe that the technology that has been developed to scrub emissions works, and that incineration in todays world is a relatively clean process. I would prefer to see a zero waste society, but I'm afraid the revolution is a while away yet.
We're at a crisis point in relation to what we do with the waste we are producing as a nation, and incineration is a valid solution especially in relation to the treatment of toxic wastes, if the emissions are properly controlled. You said that
"Mass incinceration is a recent solution to waste problems, so again, it is disingenuous to suggest that we cannot do without it",
I would suggest that this is untrue, people have burned their waste for millenia, but in relation to my being disingenuous, I disagree, in this current ultra consumerist, capitalist society, which many people (you and me excluded of course) are comfortable to live in requires this type of waste disposal facility.
You also say "We're about to be taught some savage lessons unless we confront the truth, fast."
I would contend that we're going to experience these 'lessons' at some stage regardless of whether we confront the truth now or next year or whenever. We live in a sick society, and complacence is what will be our downfall, I think your rallying call to wake up is commendable but ultimately futile. But f*ck it, why should I even bother debating this point with you, I try to be civil, but you patronise the bejays out of me..
"Anti-incineration means anti burning in case you didnt understand."
I understand just fine thank you, but you certainly won't listen to me, or engage at any reasonable level, or answer any of the hard questions. Just more of the same stuff about mankind wrecking the environment etc. etc., I know all this and it saddens me no end. But its no argument really. All that will save us is either:a) Revolution b)manmade disaster i.e nuclear war or c) natural disaster (probably provoked by mans abuse of the world).
Thats me though, I give up on this, I'll leave you with a thought.....

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

by M Cotton Fri Dec 02, 2005 16:01

I find it difficult to address a piece of fruit - or even a fruitperson - with the same degree of respect, I suppose, than I would a real person but appreciate you are engaging in this discussion in spite of what must be a considerable handicap :-) and also in spite of the somewhat declamatory nature of my own contributions. Point well taken.

The bottom line in your argument is that we are doomed anyway so why bother. It's exactly that sort of complacency and refusal to challenge the problems adequately that will turn your attitude into a self-fulfiling prophecy. That angers people who know that it's the inertia of people like you, more than the John Aherns and Bertie Aherns (something about that name, surely?) who are most responsible for the situation we face. There are so many of you who insist on waiting until the shit hits your personal fans before putting up any real challenge. The consequences of incineration are, for you, another problem for other people to deal with on another day. That's not good enough for any self-respecting banana split. So drop your counsel of despair, get off your arse and do something about it. Annoy your friends and relatives about it all - or infect them with your enthusiasm - whatever works.

There is, in the real world, no reason for the things you describe to be inevitable. People have always been greedy and always will be but capitalism is the first time we have had a system that is exclusively and violently dedicated to greed - to the idea that everybody is entitled to grab as much as possible regardless.

We have never before burned rubbish - and especially toxic rubbish - on the scale on which we do now. Incineration, never a good idea, has only become a real problem in the era of mass production and its associated waste. This is not a matter of world population (relevant though that undoubtedly is). We produce so many things that we simply do not need and in the process create appalling waste problems. If the Chinese alone (still not in the same polluting league as the US despite their huge population) would halt production of all the billions of useless plastic objects they export around the world, the reduction in pollution would be massive. No I dont think they should starve either but it is not true to say that it is impossible to live decently without all this mindless activity.

It needs leadership to confront the reality and at the moment there is no leadership. We are confronted, instead, almost exclusively by buffoons and chancers - the former essential to the success of the latter. And we put them there ourselves, what's worse! That's inexcusable.

However, public opinion is reaching critical mass and there is a dawning realisation that the glutton-fest is over, really. 'Everybody Knows' as Leonard Cohen has put it. A pleasant surprise awaits us all, though, if we ever get our act together. We'd wonder why we ever did it any other way and look back on this era as a period of insanity. Wishful thinking, maybe, but better to pursue that line than yours, no?

The planet could sustain its population with ease. There is no rocket science involved in doing this - only a simple change of attitude - a willingness to understand where we really fit into the scheme of things. If we dont find that out for ourselves we'll be taught the lesson anyway.

by BANANAMAN Sat Dec 03, 2005 22:28

"men will come from the shadows". Leonard said that after learning the partisan from a friend that he developed the curious notion that the Nazis were defeated by music. Perhaps this is what will happen for us too eh? Just had to come back to address a couple of points though.
Firstly, the reason for the handle. Its far too risky to give my real name as there are those who would rejoice in giving me no end of guff if they knew who I was, and its not like I hide my opinions from anyone, straight up I like to think I am, but I am just observing and do not wish to become involved personally in this issue. I see this banter as a healthy form of personal development time. If it helps you to develop your own argument against the TTF in your area then bully for you.
Secondly, as for getting involved and getting those around me involved, I do try, honestly, and do have some effect. I am a certainly someone who is very eco aware, but have been involved more so in the antiwar end of things, for all the good that that has done, but I certainly believe in keeping it up, ethically I feel obliged to.
I know about the ice melting and all them folk from up round the arctic trying, desperately, to get the UN to do something to stop their environment being destroyed, which it is being in a very apparent way.
I'm aware of the fact that still more irreplacable rainforest is being chopped down and lost for ever, that it is painfully obvious that this is, with every swing of the axe or whizz of the chainsaw, profoundly affecting our species slim chances for survival. I
know that fish stocks are plummeting. I hear that the numbers of cod have now gone below the minimum level for them to survive in any meaningful way. And thats just one of the species thats on the way out, whats the current statistic for the number of species that become extinct every day, or hour, or minute.What about Kyoto, many respected environmentalists said that it was just the start of what was needed to address with any effect the shitty situation we find ourselves in today. I try to make others aware of this too, but try though I may, it doesn't matter, the US and China, Austrailia, India and more didn't bother signing it. OK so we did, but does it really matter, we've at least got the EPA, who may not be your flavour of the month do go quite a way to protecting our own national environment, and we produce nothing compared to those lot. We have set ourselves very strict standars in relation to emissions into our own environment.
As for incineration, here in Ireland, no I don't live anywhere near one, but if there was one to be built close by, I would not protest against it, pointless, thankless, demanding task for anyone, because they will be built and you will feel like you have failed.
I still recycle, conserve energy, use sustainable products, am actually quite a stickler for that kind of thing, but its like a little holistic treatment for my soul really (apart from the fact that a whole lot of our 'recyclable waste' still goes out to China, India and is left in heaps for children and the old and sick to rummage through to try and make a living, literally, don't collect enough 7 up cans, no money for food, dead kids, yadayadayada).
Our society and world in general is an awful place full of heinous crime and untellable hate, many are aware of it but choose to ignore it. Don't get me started on the use of Depleted Uranium by the Coalition especially, thats certainly one thing that drives me nuts, its truely terrible, reprehensible, disgusting and terryifying.
But on a lighter note, I may stand one day and become one of these leaders you speak of, with my unusually shaped head, my kind of split personality should be a tonic for those of you who want to be lead.
The Left has failed, and the venture capitalists rule the world. Big Brother is here, and watching, but even he can't stop it. Rational Fatalism folks, lets depress everyone into action, cos we're fucked if we keep going the way we are, I mean we're fucked anyway, maybe, perhaps. You're definitely coming round to my way of thinking there at the end of your last comment, non?Maybe I'd be better off joining Decadent Action?

by Miriam Cotton Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:45

Dear Fruitcake

I should make you aware that comments here are not really supposed to be for 'banter' or 'personal development time' - and are likely to be deleted if used for those purposes. However, I'm not convinced that your contribution here is anything so innocent. For all that you have wadded your real position in multiple declarations of eco concern, two points emerge with determined consistency in your comments:

firstly, you support incineration - a fact that is at odds with much of what you say above.

secondly, and this is really funny, that the EPA is protecting our environment. Again, inconsistent with the facts and at odds with other things you say. Nobody with your stated convictions could possibly fail to see how the EPA is an abject failure where environmental protection is concerned: that was always the way it was designed to be, moreover.

In the context of the article these opinions put you well and truly in there with Indaver et al. I dont think its an accident, either. The whole exercise is a bit like Fine Gael trying use the Labour Party's rosy complexion to warm its own death-like pallor.

Sophisticated trolling, tutti-frutti, it must be admitted, but mere trolling, even so.

Incidentally, there is no moral equivalence between the pro and anti-incinerator camps. Incineration is a deadly, polluting industry - just like mugging is a crime. Nothing good to be said for either of them unless you are prepared to lie. To labour the point a bit further, incineration is to the problem of waste management as euthanasia is to the difficulties of old age: not an option.

by BANANAMAN Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:06

I would support euthanasia in certain cases (must be suitably qualified as with incineration, must be suitably controlled).
And the reason I support (although not very actively) the use of incineration is because I don't see the change in society required in order for there not to be a need for incineration happening, ever! My take on things is that in order for us to have a go at doing something remotely environmentally responsible with our waste, we need incinaration in certain instances. You still haven't said what you propose to do with the waste produced in Ireland that would be suitable for incineration. You lack objectivity, necessarily as you are bound to the area (I assume), and you pay no heed to the concepts of good environmental practice I have mentioned. Pessimistic I know but hey, there you go. And with regard to the EPA, you may have had a hard time with them, but without this body, who would be issuing and monitoring the licences that have been issued to all the other potentially environment wrecking industries out there? They are doing some good you know, to suggest otherwise would as you like to say occassionally, disingenuous. Who would you rather oversee the protection of our waterways, groundwater etc.? Our local councillors? As for trolling, no, I'm not really, just having my say, and am in no remote way connected to the EPA, Indaver or whoever else might feel motivated enough to think about the issue. Delete me if you like Mr. editor, but I feel that these comments have some weight, value, something, tis better to debate the issue eh? Hope the revolution comes soon, for all our sakes. Good luck with your campaign, really, only I fear tis doomed.....

by MC Mon Dec 05, 2005 15:45

A number of alternatives have been given - you ignore them, dismiss them, or claim they can't work - without even trying them.

Burning is easy but dirty.

The alternatives require effort and are not.

by maire Tue Dec 13, 2005 16:00

I too was once like you and believed that the EPA's first priority was the protection of human health and the environment .
Maybe the PD 's thought the same when they published their "2002 manifesto - value for your vote. " , Page 51 and 52. with regard to "air-borne emissions, the EU has set tight limits on toxic emissions into the air from incinerators but these are only effective with very tight enforcement. In l999 and 2000 the eleven municipal incinerators in England and Wales breached their limits more than 500 times in total .
Risidual Ash : Unsorted household rubbish yields highly toxic product when burnt. Modern plants filter the gases but the toxins remain in the chimney ash. This is a toxic product and is difficult to dispose of safely. Innovation in the waste industry means that we in Ireland have the opportunity to solve our problems without using mass-burn incineration. We should take that opportunity." If the PD's held that view in 2002, what changed in the meantime?