Waste generation even when it is not classified as 'toxic' is a serious matter both in developed and developing countries. Greenpeace has reportedly shown that toxic waste incinerators are not as utilitarian as they sound and controversy continues in developed countries about the development of further units.

The issue in question is that firstly, Malaysian authorities should not blindly emulate the developed world by proposing toxic waste incinerators. Although the Greenpeace report tells us that there is a residue of 45 percent with incineration, they did not state that with high temperature incineration with temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Celcius and appropriate 'dwell times', the residues can be further reduced and detoxified.

The concerns continue with the generation of cancer-causing dioxins. This is presumably one of the several reasons why many developing countries are experiencing an increase in their prevalence of cancers.

My own view is that although there may be some merit in building properly run and maintained toxic waste incinerators, there remains no consensus about their safety, their optimum operation standards and how they will impact the environment.

So, unless they are a priority projects which will definite benefit the rakyat, there should be a serious rethink. Probably one or two would be necessary for very toxic medical and biological waste but again, this remains controversial .

More simple is to consider measures to reduce the generation and use of harmful polymer-based utilities and products and to encourage recycling. NGOs, including the Malaysian Nature Society, would be able to spearhead these drives.

Research within the palm oil industry in Malaysia should also be commended and encouraged on the generation of biodegradable and presumably less toxic polymers.