Edmonton incinerator

• GIVEN the substantial body of research on dioxins and their emission from waste incinerators, the absence of these hazardous carcinogens from the heated debate surrounding the Edmonton rebuild is puzzling.

Dioxins are an inevitable by-product of incineration and plastics, including PVC, are major culprits. Incomplete combustion is the cause, but it’s not easily sorted by just upping the temperature.

Dioxin formation is known to be extremely complex, and emissions vary with the proportion of different materials within waste, and the temperatures used.

As a consequence, emission data from regulatory checks are time-specific and cannot deliver reliable long-term monitoring of combustion efficacy and incinerator safety.

Separation of waste into types/classes for singular burning would simplify the chemistry and help determine a “safe” temperature for each, but the logistics of sifting through hundreds of lorries’ worth of domestic detritus would be an expense too far.

The most modern incinerators can curtail, but not eliminate, dioxins (and other toxins) from flue gases; particulates will continue to settle on land and water and infiltrate the food chain.

Closely associated with an alarming array of medical conditions, they lurk in fatty tissue, putting breastfed infants at particular risk, and have a half-life within the body of seven years.

While carbon dioxide is a worthy focus for the incinerator rebuild debate, downwind doses of dioxins also pose a threat to surrounding communities and surely merit consideration.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED, N1