Madam, - It is the present Government's policy to protect us from carcinogens in pubs and restaurants by making it illegal to smoke in them. It is also the policy of the same Government to have a toxic waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy. Why?
Kevin Myers (An Irishman's Diary, January 20th) says "we can't keep on exporting pollution". If Ringaskiddy goes ahead, not alone will we not be exporting pollution, we might very well end up importing it.
We have a beautiful natural environment. Let us be good at protecting it and exploiting it responsibly with eco-friendly tourism. Britain decided it was in the national interest to keep its own currency and not join the euro-zone. Why can't this country follow suit and take a "subsidiarity" decision on toxic waste incinerators?
This fight is going to cost CHASE a large sum of money if it goes to the High Court. If they set up a bank account for campaign contributions I will donate €10 and I have a feeling I won't be alone.
- Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL McGUIRE, Burt, Co Donegal.
Madam, - May I comment on Kevin Myers's reference to compensation for those living within a short distance of a hazardous plant (An Irishman's Diary, January 20th).
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen stated on Waterford Local Radio that "incineration is a necessity, but people living near it will have to be compensated". This statement was made in the run-up to the last election. It was in reference to the proposed general incinerator which is mooted for the Bellview port area of Waterford. How many Waterford people will be compensated?
Personally, I see nothing wrong with sending our toxic waste abroad, if it is going to the countries to which the profits for the chemical industry involved are also repatriated. Ditto for the dismantled cars, trucks and fridges. - Yours, etc.,
AFRA CRONIN, Ferrybank, Waterford.