WHEN the drawbacks of burning and burying waste are pointed out to people they overwhelmingly opt to seperate their wasrte ready for doorstep collections of recyclable materials. This is not a time consuming, dirty task and 90 to 98 per cent of the public do it in places that have well designated recyling schemes.

Burning waste in incinerators is not cheaper than recyling. In the last ten years massive government subsidies have been supporting incinerators and these are gradually being withdrawn, so any council planning to build incinerators would end up with a financial disaster on their hands.

The reason why the Lancashire draft waste strategy poses a rise in council taxes is that the costings for recyling in the plan are based on out of date inefficient recycling systems.

Poor quality recycling systems tbnat are commoin in the UK are expensive, but well designed recyling systems can actually reduce waste costs.

Lancashire County Council need to hire advisors who have a good track record in designbing recyling systems that can deal with 60 to 80 per cent and more of waste.

Such designers are skilled in usiing methoids that avaiod unnecassary capital expenditure and high running costs.

According to our giovernment's own data, 88 people die every year from lung-related diseases associated with incinaerator emissions and 168 are admitted to hospital. These figures relate to the newest incinerators that we are told are safe.

It is time Lancashire County Council stopped ignoring the facts about incinceration and turned their attention to developing the best type of recycling and compsting systems.

I find it outrageous that public money could be spent on subsidising a hugh money-making operation that kills people.

Nicola Escott,

Action to Reduce and Recycle Our Waste (ARROW)