HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0387.004 2004-2006 CA~lY:iy i uifnCil
{'iCdaE ii~liril7UiE iv all COU~iC~I ti'iEn'i~uerS ~ ~ ~ ~ '
Hear Couacii members
ee in the paper that the council is still conssdEring an incinerator for our crash. M;ke
I`ulatg was quoted as asking "'`~L'hy is there reluctance to embrace (incineration) technology?" t
would b kz to answer :rash-to-energy is also trash-to-air pollution and trash-to-as}r. Ail
mcinaratar still needs a landfill for the ash, and possibly a toxic Waste landfill, depending o.. l:ow
the ash tests. But the main rcasou t.hai inctinerators arc rarely bulb anymore is the air pollution
even N nh the best of scrubbers, there is still lead, mercury and many other poisons dumped into
~~ur air lead is known to reduce the SQ nfchildren. Arc we really not ~ncerned about the
intelligence of our dtildren? P,rtd the mercury will add to the burden that is already in our fish
i :vent though all this t6 years ago in New Iersey before moving to FTawaii After the
uctnerator was built, the governor declared a moratorium on building any more incinerators, ar,d
acrx th:;r, use. a lined iandIIll
since we would need a new land'£II for the ash ewe go with an incinet-a'ror, why oat build
~ `.ew landfill now, and keep our options open for when and if a new technology for safe trash
~isposai comes along°
~av~rd aecia
af; $c•. 1788
~t,nkaa G~~~~~
Comm. No. 38~. ~f
Ref. To:
Raf. Uate flf
Tom(}
y~(15
t, LHt S:=': S7ac -i, 'i~0 SZ6T 9LL 868 'ON 3N6Hd d?~~d~ W6?J~