Much as we'd like to throw it away and put a lid on it, rubbish is everybody's business. Every time we tear off packaging, 'ta pao' teh tarik or nasi kandar, have value meals at fast food joints and go shopping at hypermarkets, we are filling up more landfills to the point of their finite limits.

In recent years, Malaysians have been introduced to the so-called 'no frills, no kill' thermal incinerator to 'solve' our rubbish problem. According to the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), about seven incinerators, costing a total of RM17 million, are being installed in the peninsula.

And just less than a year ago, there was a plan to build the world's largest (1,500-tonne capacity) incinerator facility in the Klang Valley. The original plan was to build the plant in Kg Bohol, Puchong, but after intense pressure from local residents, it is now relocated to Kg Broga, Semenyih.

The idea of building an incinerator may be quite new in our country but it is definitely not a new idea itself. The solution had already been introduced in Japan and western countries since the 1960s. Only after 20 years, in the 1980s, did observations indicate that the technology actually threatens the health of the people. As a result, developed nations are closing down their incinerators; new laws are being passed to control or stop new plants.

There is a growing movement around the world campaigning against incinerators. In the UK, there is Guildford Anti-Incinerator Network

(Gain). At the international level, there is Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Gaia) of which CAP and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) are network members. Another global campaign is hosted by Greenpeace , which exposed the negative sides of rubbish incineration.

Death by dioxin

Opponents find incinerators are not the solution but part of the problem. Yes, they reduce the volume of wastes, but they do not get rid of the problematic toxic substances (dioxin, acid gases, particulates and heavy metals) in the waste. Toxic substances can be found in the stack gases (as filters are not 100 percent efficient), ashes and residues in the filters. Dealing with the highly toxic solid residue is another problem.

Dioxin, a carcinogenic agent, is always associated with rubbish incinerators. It is produced when PVC-based plastic and chlorinated products are burned.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) set the safe limit or tolerable daily intake as 10 picograms per kg of body weight per day (10 pg/kg/bw/per day). That standard was set in 1990. Eight years later, WHO set a new lower rate at 1 to 4 pg/kg/bw/per day. The US Environmental Protection Agency published a review in 2001 which concludes that dioxin could be 1,000 times more toxic than previously thought.

By the way, our environmental laws still do not have a standard for dioxin intake level and 1 picogram is 1 million, millionths of a gram.

In the Kg Bohol case, the authorities said that the incinerator would be absolutely safe, but the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report suggests that the Military Hospital in Kinara Army Camp in Puchong be relocated.

And again, when the authorities said that it is 'safe', where are the facts and figures to substantiate that argument?

EIA conundrum

When the Puchong pro tem residents action committee met Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Ting in August 2002 ( Contradictions over incinerator project signal 'sneaky' intentions: residents

), the minister himself admitted there was a lot of loopholes in the EIA and said he would have to refer the matter back to the cabinet. This contradicted what he said earlier in the same meeting stating that the Department of Environment (DOE) had approved the EIA based on its 'stringent' requirements.

The pro tem committee also questioned the validity of the EIA report because it was written and submitted in July 2000, approved by DOE in February 2001 but the selection of incineration technology was made in late 2001, several months after the approval. In other words, how can DOE consider the impact and approve the EIA report without knowing what kind of technology to be used for the plant? Ironically, the EIA report (with whatever assumption on the incineration technology) still managed to state that a "breakdown of the plant's air pollution control devices over a period of only 24 hours may result in very serious health risks including an almost 20 percent increase in respiratory problems."

Well, I believe in Murphy's law: When something has the potential to go wrong, it will. Just like the collapse of Highland Towers. You may blame the engineer, architect, draughtsman, contractor or even God, but it happened and lives were involved.

Incineration cannot be seen as an easy way out to get rid of wastes. Incineration does not perform magic, vanishing all waste into thin air. Toxic substances trapped in filters and ashes will lead to the issue of disposal. Remember the Bukit Merah radioactive waste disposal scandal in Perak in the 1980s, which caused local residents to suffer cancers, leukemia, and birth defects?

From Semenyih to Putrajaya?

Today, the problem has landed on the Semenyih folk's backyard. For starters, they have to grapple with conflicting statements from the federal and state governments. On the one hand, the Housing and Local Government Ministry said in December 2002 that an EIA needs to be carried out for the relocated plant and it would take about five months to complete. But the Selangor state government stated that the construction would start this month.

Also, data on emission type and level, and operational aspects of the plant are still not revealed to local residents until now, and they fear that the catchment area for the Semenyih and Jenderam water treatment plant will be affected.

Then, there's the rationale of the relocation itself: Is slowly poisoning 4,000 people in Semenyih supposed to be better than endangering 260,000 human lives in Puchong?

If population density is the justification for the relocation, the authorities should heed the call of Ronnie Liu, DAP's publicity secretary, to move the plant to Putrajaya which has a population of only 86 people.

Putrajaya folk, if that is going to happen, don't worry; I will be on your side to defend your right to a clean and healthy environment because I believe that every single life is precious.

Towards 'clean production'

But moving the incinerator around until no one objects to its presence in their backyard is not practical; neither is it a sustainable solution. We should move towards a 'Clean Production' path by looking into the products and processes to avoid toxic production and reduce waste in the first place. A strong political will needs to be instilled to design and implement a national policy on solid waste management for the following:

  1. Revisit manufacturing processes to avoid generating toxic waste during and after each process;

  • Make manufacturers responsible for retrieving and processing toxic and hazardous wastes generated by their products such as used batteries and computer parts;

  • Phase out, ban or impose restrictions on products which are not environmentally friendly;

  • Minimise packaging and avoid using plastic or foam for the purpose;

  • Provide infrastructure to enable the public and private sector to participate in recycling programmes; and

  • Educate and raise awareness among the population through mainstream media about waste management.

    • Can we help at the personal level?

    Yes! We can:

    1. Start using shopping bag/basket and reduce plastic bags;

  • Stop using plastic or foam disposables;

  • Avoid buying products with excessive packaging; a wise consumer should know that the packaging cost is always included into the price;

  • Reuse as many things and as many times as possible;

  • Support the recycling programmes such as separating papers, tin and bottles, at our neighbourhoods; and most important of all

  • Ask our organisations, unions, societies and associations to demand our government authorities to implement an environmentally friendly solid waste management policy.

    • If Malaysia can build the world's largest incinerator and be condemned for it, why doesn't it build the world's biggest (properly maintained) recycling plant and be commended for it?

    SAM HUI is an avid nature lover and photographer. He is a member of SOS Selangor, a campaign body against the Sungai Selangor dam project.