ANN KIRWAN,
Sir, - In your article "Confronting the Waste Mountain" (August 12th), I have two points to make with Mr John Ahern, general manager of Indaver.
He stated that the hazardous waste incinerator has received less hostility than the municipal one. That is absolutely untrue. Over 18,000 signatures have been collected in Cork with over 2,500 submitted today, (August 14th) opposing the application to rezone the proposed incinerator site.
People are strongly opposed to this, but unfortunately Mr. Ahern appears to have easier access to the media than the opposition. No radio stations, local and otherwise are prepared to give the opposition air-time, even though time and time again people have stated that they are willing to go on air and make their views heard.
Point number two. His comment on misinformation being bandied about is interesting. As far as I am concerned he is the one who is misinforming. He stated that "incinerators account for less than one per cent of dioxin emissions in Europe".
Why then does a Danish EPA study show that incineration remains their major source of dioxin? Not alone that, but monitoring practices are inadequate and that they are unable to detect all kinds of dioxin? Why also did the US EPA, in April, 2002, say that there is no level of dioxin exposure safe to humans? And why did WHO, earlier this year, call for dioxins to be phased out?
It has to be said that an obvious lack of balance is present in all of your articles so far. As far as I am aware, no anti-incinerator group was asked for their contributions or comments to this series. What does that say for transparency and fairness? Final point. As regards recycling, I for one can recycle up to 60 per cent of my "waste". Shame on the Government for contributing to this problem by not introducing proper recycling facilities. And shame on the large proportion of people out there who do not bother at all to use the few recycling facilities that do exist. - Yours etc.
ANN KIRWAN, Carrigaline, Cork
Kevin O'Sullivan, who edited the series, replies on the issue of lack of balance:
The main theme of Confronting the Waste Mountain was how local authorities were attempting to deal with the waste crisis. In the past The Irish Times has had two series focusing on the merits or otherwise of incineration. Nonetheless, in the recent series we highlighted concerns about incineration throughout. In the first part, we featured the incinerator proposals of some local authorities and in most cases the views of opposing local groups - a separate piece spelt out concerns about a commercial incinerator proposed for south Tipperary.
In the second part, we featured moves towards recycling and its possible impact on reducing demand for thermal treatment and noted the views of an anti-incinerator group in Galway. On the same day, we featured a significant opinion piece from Earthwatch/ Friends of the Earth Ireland articulating the need for waste reduction, re-use and recyling, and challenging the pro-incineration position.
In the third part, we highlighted regional plans for processing waste and in some instances local environmental concerns about incinerator plans where they arose, including the Green Party position on the thermal treatment plant envisaged for Dublin.
The concluding part outlined Germany's increasing processing of Irish waste by thermal treatment but ended with concerns about its possible environmental impact.