YOUR article regarding Indaver‘s planned toxic incinerator (August 4) and Indaver’s comments, took my breath away.

IN your report headlined ‘Department warns An Bord Pleanála of risks from harbour incinerators’ (February 25), you quote the developer Indaver as saying “the incinerators are ‘must-have’ for this country if we want to avoid hefty EU levies for sending too much waste to landfill.”

AS everyone has discovered in recent days, dioxins are hazardous.

THE Port of Cork company’s plan to build a gigantic container terminal within the heavily populated Monkstown Bay area will change the perspective of Cork harbour from a priceless amenity to a huge industrial site.

PETER LEVY (The County, July 3) is wrong to suggest “incineration could be the best solution and that protest groups may not have thought through their objections”.

THE fact that Ireland’s emissions have increased 25% above their l990 levels begs a question. Has the Government factored in the emissions from the policy of burning waste?

YOUR editorial on global warming (Irish Examiner, May 24) certainly provided food for thought.

IS enough enough - or just a little more?

WHAT if Government had engaged local communities in the formulation of coastal policy and adopted responsibility in local management practices.

COMPETITION in tourism is mounting even in the regions. Contemplation of the honour bestowed on Waterford, which greatly deserved the Tall Ships, only makes it galling to think of the ‘honour’ bestowed on Cork harbour as the site of a proposed hazardous incinerator to accept the country’s toxic waste next to our new International Maritime College.

WE accuse this Government of recklessness in regard to the health of people living in Cork, its city and especially the densely-populated area in the harbour area, in promoting a site for a national toxic incinerator in an amenity area.