Landfills can carry health risks

The report says: "The large number of other important sources of such pollutants suggest that these deserve a greater emphasis on regulatory control.

"Examination of relevant studies leads to the conclusion that relative health impacts from dioxins, metals, etc., from modern incinerators are exceedingly low."

The report acknowledges that uncertainties remain, and that certain groups like unborn children may be at risk.

And it points out that other methods of waste disposal, like putting it in landfills, can pose health risks, and it urges more frequent monitoring of dioxins from incinerators.

But it says health risks are not the only issue in the debate, a point emphasised by the NSCA itself.

In another report, on the public acceptability of incineration, the society says: "There remain concerns, both about other impacts of incinerators on the local environment, and about their place in the national waste hierarchy" (the choice of waste disposal methods).

Incinerators should be built "only where there is a proven environmental need, and where this need is effectively understood by the population affected".

The NSCA says local planners should identify the optimum levels of recycling, composting and other waste disposal options.

And any incinerators that are built should be large enough to cope only with waste produced locally.

Charge and counter-charge

The report concludes that incineration "should form part of an integrated waste management system which encourages waste minimisation, optimises recycling and composting, and recovers energy".

Despite this, Friends of the Earth (FoE) says the report "fails to address the need for the UK to cut resource use through waste minimisation, re-use and recycling".

Waste has to go somewhere

It describes the NSCA's work as "poorly written, un-referenced and grossly misleading", and says the report was "funded by incinerator companies and pro-incinerator local authorities".

The society says: "It was funded through the landfill tax credit scheme, written by independent consultants, and overseen by an academic advisory board."

FoE says the society has got some of its figures wrong on recycling and composting rates in other European countries and has made other "false claims".

Objectives shared

Tim Brown of NSCA said: "We cannot accept FoE's view that this is a 'grossly misleading' initiative. In my discussions with FoE they fully accepted the report's conclusions and recommendations, and their criticism amounts to nit-picking over a few details".

Mr Brown told BBC News Online: "We don't want any more incinerators than absolutely necessary, but when you've recycled everything worth recycling from an environmental point of view, it may be best to burn the rest and generate electricity.

"I'm disappointed that FoE have reacted so negatively, because we share their objectives for more sustainable waste management."