Desperately seeking Straight Goods...? Subscribe here
Friday, December 5, 2008
NEW Content Regularly
Saving you money - Protecting your rights - Untangling spin

[ Front Page ] [ Future of the Left ] [ Feedback ] [ Site Search ] [ Web Search ]

"Incinerators merely move the problem around - and don't count Adams Mine proposal for dead" - Ruth Grier

And finding a willing host for an incinerator is as difficult as for a landfill

  Larry Solway's commentary on Toronto's garbage disposal problem provokes me to make a couple of comments. First, he says the Adams Mine proposal is dead. I say "Wait and see what happens after Mel and his supporters have safely won the Nov. 13th election". Opposition is rising in Michigan to the import of Ontario's waste - communities along the 401 are raising concerns about truck traffic in an effort to accelerate plans to widen the highway. The Adams Mine promoters have fought an expensive, lengthy and tenacious battle to get approval for their shortsighted and foolish scheme. I do not believe they will accept defeat as quietly as they appear to have done these last few weeks. They will return!

  The second comment I would disagree with is Larry's support of incineration as a quick fix for Toronto's dilemma. Incinerators merely move the problem from one part of the environment to another - land to air. We would still need a landfill to dispose of the ash - which would now be classified as hazardous waste because of the residue of metals and toxins left by burning at even the highest temperatures. Incinerators are very expensive to build and have to be fed to justify the capital investment - therefore they work in opposition to waste reduction. Finding a host community for an incinerator would be even more difficult than finding a happy host for a landfill site. Proponents of incinerators always claim that they will operate at their peak performance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore estimates of the emissions are based on that faulty presumption. Incinerator emissions have been identified as a prime source of lead pollution - from burning all those batteries we use, among other things. Lead is recognised as a persistent neurotoxin to which children are particularly susceptible. And lastly, but most importantly, incinerators are one of the prime sources of carcinogenic dioxin. Dioxin does not occur naturally but is formed by the process of combustion and particularly during the combustion of plastics. Dumping garbage in a waterfilled open pit mine has been called a nineteenth century solution to the woes of our wasteful society. Burning it is an even more out-of-date idea and one that is dangerous to our health.

Bio note: Ruth Grier teaches at the University of Toronto, is a leading environmental and health activist, and served in Ontario's NDP government as Minister of the Environment and later as Minister of Health.

What others are saying:

Larry Solway
John Chandler
Tooker Gomberg
Colleen Cooney

Does incineration make sense to you? Speak your mind!

And please register your opinion in this week's Straight Goods readers' poll

[ Front Page ]

[ Feedback ]

[ Front Page ] [ Free Bulletin ] [ Subscriptions ] [ Donations ] [ Login / Manage ]
[ Your Feedback ] [ RSS / Newswire ] [ Search ] [ Our Sponsors ] [ About Us ] [ Useful URLs ]

StraightGoods.ca is part of the Straight Goods family of news websites and is published by Straight Goods News Inc.
[ HarperIndex.ca ] [ PublicValues.ca ] [ YourDailyClick.ca ]

Partner Links
[ PEJ News ] [ the Tyee ]

© Straight Goods, 2000-08. All Rights Reserved.
All text that appears here is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced for any purpose, including education, without the explicit permission of the author. To inquire about permission to reproduce or republish an article, click here.
For comments or suggestions, please contact webmaster@straightgoods.com
Site built and maintained by Perfect Vision (Productions) Inc.Visit Perfect Vision's Website