I am compelled to reply to Zack Douglas' letter due to his simplistic arguments. Just because the government said that incinerators are safe does not prove anything. To date, no data has been gathered on the effect of a large ash-melting 1,500 ton incinerator.

This is new technology and scientists need years to just gather information - let alone analyse it. To say that the technology is safe without data is very much premature.

Added to the fact that the proposed site sits upstream of a major water intake - the issue is magnified significantly as it affects thousands of households in Selangor.

If indeed the government can provide undisputed and quantified proof of the safety of this monstrosity, it should have been included in the advertisements. Sadly, this did not happen. Possibly again, because of the lack of data.

It makes me wonder if indeed the only 'proof' that the government has on the safety of the incinerator, is in the form of an attractive colour brochure by Ebara Corp, a company which stands to make a hefty profit from this ill-conceived venture.

Douglas also commented that recycling must be promoted. Agreed. However, in order to re-coup the astronomical cost of the incinerator, its electricity needs would have to be paid by the profits made from burning garbage.

As far as the incinerator operator is concerned, it does not make economic sense to recycle garbage as it takes away their fuel. Both the concept of incineration and recycling are diametrically opposed. You cannot have one and promote the other.

With regard to the continued of use of the 'unsanitary' landfills, I wonder if Douglas is aware that the incinerators require landfills too? Incineration produces a by-product in the form of toxic ash which need landfills.

I think an 'unsanitary' landfill is preferred to a toxic landfill. The case is made more serious especially when the toxic landfill is going to be built on a slope that sits in a water catchment area.

The worst case scenario is a landslide that will bring down the landfill into the Semenyih river. The least case scenario is the slow seepage of toxins from the landfill into the river system.

I wonder how long thousands of people will be drinking dioxin, lead and arsenic laced water before somebody realises the problem. I also wonder how long will it take for the river to recover and be able to support the population again? Do bear in mind that our water resources are limited and thus precious.

With all these easily answered points, I am perplexed as to why Douglas insists on writing? I do hope that in the next episodes of the discussion on this issue, the proponents of the project can come up with hard facts instead of just echoing unsubstantiated government propaganda.

And yes, all of us want our country to be modern - 'ultra' modern if possible. However, at the expense of the health and quality of life of its people? I think not!