Given the massive shortage of power in the country disrupting our life and industrial development, the proposition is apparently very attractive. But it is, in effect, comparable to alluring a monkey to take a short walk for getting a banana, eventually only to trap it to death. For decision-makers not equipped with the essential information to enable them to make an informed decision, burning municipal solid waste has already been proven in the western world as similar to a child playing with fire. Because of the severe threat to health and environment posed by toxic byproducts of incineration, it is actually much more hazardous and deadlier than playing with fire.

Dhaka city now produces 4,000 tons of garbage daily. Historically, since introduction of conservancy services, the City has been dumping its garbage as land filling at low-lying sites at outer boundaries or away from habitats. But such sites are fast vanishing in the city due to rapid urban sprawl. It was during the reign of a khaki top brass at the helm of the City that the dumpsites were first brought right next to our homes and in the middle of residential areas. The General had ordered the filling of low lying natural drainage channels and lakes in Banani with garbage. We were made to endure the nauseating smell for quite a long period. With the low-lying open spaces away from habitats becoming rare, the search for alternative sites became obvious.

This has been a process through which all large cities around the world have gone through at different times.

In the process of searching for a solution, some frontrunners made costly mistakes jeopardising lives and environment and squandering public money. Only a few lucky and pragmatic ones, mostly because they were behind others though, have learnt from the mistakes of the ones ahead of them. The most unfortunate are those cities that did not investigate their options enough and opted to burn their fingers, accepting alluring offers from smart salesmen touting incineration as a solution. Can we afford to be one of these unwary and unfortunate cities? I am sure, we cannot. (International Air Quality Advisory Board -- A Policy Statement on the Incineration of Municipal Waste -- Windsor, Ontario, Canada -- http://-ww-w.ijc.org/boards/iaqab/incin.html)

Garbage disposal: Search for safe option

The indispensable search for safe option for garbage disposal has made the developed countries to explore alternatives including designing and constructing of sanitary landfills with an impermeable bottom layer and piping for collecting leachate and gas produced from decomposing garbage. The collected gas can be utilised as energy and the toxic leachate is treated and disposed safely. These modern landfills thus reduce to a great extent the chances of contaminating the environment or the groundwater. Remediation of such landfill sites after shut down is much easier for future reuse of the land. Because of these, even throughout the developed world, landfilling still remains a major option for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal. In USA, 80 per cent of the municipal solid waste, i.e. 160 million ton each year is still buried in 5,500 operating landfills. However, the task of successfully designing, constructing and monitoring, during the working life and post shutdown, of such landfills can also be very challenging indeed. Failures are not totally unlikely and so incineration, in-vessel composting and zero waste (waste minimisation through awareness and other means) campaigns emerged as alternatives and/or complementary measures.

In in-vessel composting of municipal wastes -- particularly kitchen and garden waste it is composted in sealed vessels to produce a commercially profitable product, which is sold as a soil conditioner or 'fertiliser'. In-vessel composting, as a technology, is continuously improving and gaining acceptance. Although waste minimization through awareness is a slow process requiring a paradigm change in people's habit, still 'zero waste' waste minimization campaigns are fast becoming popular and successful in developed countries through increased recycling, waste avoidance and increased community awareness. These have resulted in diverting millions of tons of garbage from landfills and thus extending their operative life and capacity of existing landfills.

Against this, within a short time from its inception, incineration has already been discarded as it proved to be a nasty and hazardous technology. Let's have a close look why:

With the discovery of ground and surface water contamination at various sites including the Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY, both landfill leachate and dumping of industrial effluents became suspects. With the rise of community outcries, the focus was on the hazards of landfills and the opposition to new landfills grew. Some government agencies and businesses started touting garbage incineration as the solution. The arguments put forward were simple -- landfills contaminate groundwater and burning of garbage in incinerators results in a 75 per cent reduction by weight thus reducing much the need for new landfills. Most western countries and land-scarce Japan embarked upon installing incinerators in large numbers. Giant companies like Mitsubishi, NKK< Wheelabrator, Kvaemer and ABB started churning out massive incineration plants knowing little that they are sowing for hazards to public health and environment that will be reaped later on.

Hazards of incineration

About 25 per cent by weight of the garbage burnt in an incinerator remains as left over ash. Besides this, during incineration, numerous highly toxic substances are continuously released in the environment as smoke and particulates, which then disperse with airflow and settle over a very wide area. Some of these byproducts like dioxins, heavy metals and some other products of combustion (and incomplete combustion) are toxic carcinogens (cancer causing) or mutagens (substances that cause genetic mutation). Most of these are very persistent (not biodegradable and remain in the environment for a very long period). These are also cumulative (i.e. their concentration becomes higher with time) thus increasing the level of toxicity in the environment. To appreciate the serious consequences for the health of a community resulting from the release of unknown quantities of these known toxins in the environment, let us examine one of these groups of toxins -- dioxin.

Dioxin is the name generally given to a group of super-toxic-chemicals, which are generally the by-products of various chlorine-based industrial processes (including herbicide/pesticide, paper, plastic manufacturing) and waste incineration. The toxicity of dioxins is second only to radioactive (nuclear) wastes. There are over hundred different chemicals in this group and many of these are byproducts of the municipal solid waste incineration process. One particular type, TCDD (tetra-chloro-dibenzo-dioxin) is so toxic that the toxicity of other such chemicals is measured in relation to it. The US Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) and a number of other environmental regulatory bodies consider TCDD to be perhaps the most hazardous synthetic chemical carcinogen (cancer causing) ever identified. Sponsored by the US EPA and the Chlorine Institute (an industry group), toxicologists and biochemists convened in 1999 to consider the "biological basis for risk assessment of dioxins and related compounds." Studies undertaken showed that "dioxin's effects are exerted through the genetic system..." The US EPA acknowledged that the "hazards of dioxin go far beyond the risk of cancer. The expected non-cancer effects include:

-Disruption of endocrine hormone system, especially those related to sexual development;

-Disruption of critical stages of embryonic development, for example of the nervous system;

-Damage to the developing immune system.

"These are all interg-enerational defects; they are imprinted for life on the developing foetus by the effects of dioxin on the mother and sometimes father." It should not be assumed, therefore, that damage is not occurring because the effects of these toxins are not visible immediately. Bizarre health effects noted at all locations exposed to dioxin have included birth defects, autism, liver disease, endometriosis, reduced immunity, chronic fatigue syndrome, and various nerve and blood disorders. (For more information, http://www.cqs.com/edioxin.htm).

Therefore, the technology of incineration has proved to be an unacceptable 'solution' to the continuing municipal waste crises everywhere. It is a nasty technology that does not meet the safety standards of environmental and health protection, two major responsibilities of governments everywhere. To ignore the outcome of decades of experience, from all over the developed world, of using this apparently 'convenient' but actually hazardous 'solution' will definitely be proved in course of time as an inexcusably bad judgment on the part of our decision-makers. But the damage to the present and future generations will already be done. Even if it is abandoned later on, for some of the victims it will be very painful and irreversible. How do you compensate a mother who gives birth to an abnormal or deformed baby, how do you compensate for the deadly imprint of genetic mutation some families will carry for generations and how do you compensate a family which has lost its dear one to cancer caused from a blunderous decision by someone else? And how do you compensate us all after polluting the air we breathe, water we drink, the fish in our water and the cattle that graze on our greens?

A discarded technology

Worldwide the opposition to garbage incineration is mounting everyday and installation of new garbage incineration plants have already come to a halt and is not heard any more. Incineration as a technology is dead and is no more considered an acceptable solution. It has suffered the same fate as the nuclear power plants for the catastrophic threats inherent in both of these technologies.

Several years back, environmental activists and community members in New Zealand successfully opposed the efforts by an American company to install an incineration plant near Auckland. In America, dozens of brand new incineration plants could not be commissioned due to regulatory restrictions or community opposition. The European Union has already come up with standards practically banning garbage incineration. Even in newly industrialized and developing countries, where western multinationals were initially able to export some incineration plants, a movement opposing the already installed or new incinerator proposals are gaining momentum fast. "We will no longer be the cesspit for the industrialised world", declared the delegates at the Waste Not Asia (an alliance of 12 Asia-Pacific nations for promotion of 'cleaner production' and 'zero waste' technology) in its July 2000 convention in Bangkok. "Incineration is a toxic technology being dumped on us by some of the most polluted nations in the world," said Tara Buakamsri of Greenpeace South East Asia and one of the delegates. "Japan and Europe have poisoned their own people with incinerators and now they want to sell their burners in the rest of Asia."

Waste Not Asia alliance members have committed themselves to a zero waste society, in which discarded materials are composted, recycled and/or reused rather than being incinerated or landfilled. The alliance singled out incineration as a particularly dangerous technology. Australia is supplying incinerators in different countries (India) but it is recycling its waste for quite some time. Seventy-five per cent of the total required quantity of paper is from recycling the garbage and remaining 25 per cent is imported from Indonesia keeping Australian forests intact. The Environment Protection Agency of Australia is very particular to keep their cities clean and pollution free. For construction of any built-up area, prior approval of the EPA is essential.

Cutting and felling a tree even on a private land needs prior permission of the City Council. One will be surprised to notice not only the coastal areas under cover of thick shade of forest but even the bush-lands (a small piece of urban forest) inside the cities separating one suburb to another. (For more information; http://www.bcc.q1d.gov.au or www.visy.com.au)

Incinerators have been identified throughout the industrialised world as a source of dioxins, considered the most potent toxic chemical known to human. Can the message be more clear? Can we afford to ignore it, burn our fingers and then learn what we ought to learn from it?

Dr M H Rashid practices as a consulting engineer and is a former Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi Engineering College (now RUET).