I read with interest your editorial Heated Views On Waste (Argus, December 12). You suggest the burden is on environmentalists to convince the public our alternatives are more viable.

In contrast, I would suggest the overwhelming evidence, which demonstrates incinerators are dangerous to human health, puts the burden on the authorities.

Residents are entitled to know why a crisis in waste management has occurred and why the authorities believe the crisis is so serious they are prepared to build incinerators.

Further, we environmentalists do have viable alternatives: A recycling and composting-led waste strategy. Incinerators are a very basic waste-reduction technology. At least 40 per cent of the input comes out as toxic ash, which has to be landfilled. Therefore a 60 per cent recycling strategy will be just as viable in terms of final disposal.

A 60 per cent recycling rate is possible. No examples currently exist in this country, although a number of authorities are aiming for much higher targets, including Sutton Borough Council, aiming for 80 per cent recycling by 2005.

Daventry District Council started from a similar recycling rate to Brighton and Hove and has achieved a 52 per cent recycling rate in 18 months. This is at least five years quicker than building an incinerator, it is more environmentally sustainable, economically cheaper and creates more jobs.

-Paddy Johnston, Magpie Recycling Co-op, xpade@demon.co.uk