[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recycling vs Incineration - New Scientist 22/11/97

  [ ]
  >The characterization is false at best and much worse can be said regarding
  >this summation of the beginning of the incineration of municipal waste.
  >Without fanning flames too much, this paragraph is a rewrite of history, and
  >a poor one.  When the idea of a controlled combustion of municipal waste was
  >born, engineers and scientists were not trying to take advantage of anybody.
  >Engineers looked at various aspects of much of the waste:  a) it was taking
  >up space and smelled bad, hence leading to opposition, b) finding new sites
  >was getting harder, c) the waste had a fuel value and could generate energy
  >in its destruction, d) some was toxic (paints/pesticides, etc. - though much
  >is no longer destined for muni incineration) or a threat - which could be
  >destroyed by incineration, and c) the incineration would reduce much of the
  [ ]
  No, I don't think it's false.  I've been involved both in promoting
  incineration (in a previous incarnation) and opposing "it."  The negatives
  for the health and pocketbooks of a community that typically result from
  getting sucked into a garbage incineration project are manifold, and the
  advantages hard to pin down.
  What is highly visible in these situations are "scientists" and "engineers"
  spouting lies and misrepresentations to the targeted communities while
  "managers" suborn the integrity of the 
  political process.  One might argue that "incineration" is indeed an
  industry that manufactures
  Alan Muller