Letter: Doesn't recycling reduce need for Shrewsbury incinerator?

Letter: Can anyone explain why Veolia proposes to build an incinerator at Battlefield that needs to burn 90,000 tonnes of waste per year when last year our total rubbish was 77,664 tonnes?

As the incinerator needs to keep going 24/7, of course the remaining rubbish will come from elsewhere - probably "commercial".

Last week we all received black boxes for recycling plastic bottles; surely this means even less rubbish for landfill?

Veolia has already built a plasma gasification waste plant in the US. These convert rubbish at a very high temperature into glass substances which are then made into bricks, blocks, gravel and paper.

The rest is converted into electricity and liquid fuel. The whole process occurs in containment, so there are no emissions and is extremely cost effective - so much so it is deemed cheaper then landfill.

Veolia claims to reduce its landfill after incineration to just five per cent ash. Incinerators produce 30 per cent ash. Incinerators cause health problems and raise infant mortality rates in nearby areas.

Why on earth aren't the people of Harlescott and Sundorne coming out in force?

Margaret Bowman

Shrewsbury