IN response to Derek Slater (Letters, January 16), I should point out that his idea of sending the residual waste to Drax was indeed mentioned in two of the options in the Best Practicable Environmental Option report... and then not put as one that the public could choose on the consultation!

No, we the public were lumbered with the choice of building an incinerator, or building an incinerator.

I agree with Mr Slater that sending material that cannot be recycled to be co-fired at Drax is a good arrangement.

Not only will burning it there result in less pollution than using a dedicated incinerator, but also a contract to supply Drax need not be a permanent agreement.

We could phase it out as the European Union phase out non-recyclable packaging, and the rest of us get the hang of recycling.

In contrast, a dedicated incinerator, once built, needs a constant supply of unrecycled rubbish or else it will fail to pay its way.

Which means a constant supply of dioxins in our air and, eventually, in people's lungs, where they can have unpleasant consequences, for example, cancer.

Personally I would rather avoid the risk.

Candy Spillard,

Seymour Grove,

York.

Updated: 10:03 Thursday, January 19, 2006