Sir – Catherine Edwards (Letters, April 16) illustrates bizarre aspects of this incinerator proposal. Here’s another. One gets the impression that our cabinet has decided it is the right choice.

Yet there are real and increasingly well understood dangers to the health of populations living downwind. So it is not a matter of choosing.

The latest, most professional and most authoritative consideration of the impact on public health is given in the 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine, updated in 2008 [available on the web].

This is a dispassionate and impartial body of medical experts in Public Health, who reviewed evidence from around the world, as well as technologies to alleviate the risks.

It has been debated and criticised by those with something to lose, yet they hold their corner. Although highly technical, its conclusions are crystal clear. The concluding recommendation is “No further incinerators should be built”.

That for me is conclusive and definitive. I respect their opinion and for me the public health issue is paramount.

Just as one would not design a dangerous road junction, why should one dispose of waste in a life-threatening manner?

There is a close parallel with the situation on passive smoking and asbestos usage.

For decades regulatory authorities denied the medical evidence of the danger to the public. As a result people died early.

As this message sinks in, incinerators will be shut down.

Fines for not reducing landfill will be irrelevant. As I say, bizarre. But then, Lewis Carroll was an Oxford man.

David Knowles, Sutton Courtenay