In Mallorca, Monzón (Huesca), Córdoba, Florence, Cork (Ireland), China… there are dozens of cities and millions of people in the world fighting waste incineration. Also in Euskal Herria, thousands of citizens have spoken out against the incinerator that the Council of Gipuzkoa wants to build in Zubieta.

The incinerator’s project was paralysed in 2011 by EH Bildu, when he arrived at the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa. Since then, the debate on waste has mainly focused on the method of collection, basically on door-to-door collection or its maintenance. The collection method was finally used by the factual powers of Gipuzkoa and, finally, by the PNV and the PSE to whip the foral government of EH Bildu. The issue, both the collection and the plot, will continue to be given for a long time, but the project of the Zubieta incinerator is now coming back with strength.

The possibility of carrying out the project is now approaching, and the concern of the first level of citizenship is once again taking its main place in the debate: health. Many studies have been carried out in the world in recent decades on the harmful effects of incineration on human health, clearly showing how cancers and many other diseases are reproduced in incineration areas. In front of them, the authorities cannot say anything, because they are proven. Now the miracle is in modernity and science, in the indispensable instruments that power uses to sell to citizens destructive and risky projects: “Before it was dangerous, these are absolutely modern and safe.”

However, the problem of air pollution is becoming increasingly clear to the majority of the responsible population. Anyone who follows the media a little will realise that there are more and more reports on this problem. Although indirectly, the proponents of the construction of the incinerator admit that Zubieta may pose a danger. Otherwise, if there is no risk, why should Biodonostia be commissioned – as suggested – to analyse the impact of the incinerator on people? In other words, in this hypothesis of analysis, the question would be: if you build the incinerator, if you generate damage and… what? Is the citizen willing to be used as guinea pigs? Why does the investigation of Biodonostia in Rezola de Añorga not begin?

From the point of view of health, it cannot have serious defence arguments that go to a 2004 Osakidetza report to defend the incinerator from the point of view of health. Even more so when it says that incineration has “no significant harm” to health. What is significant damage? Why are they endeavouring to devise systems that reduce emissions data from incinerators? The Pietrasanta incinerator in Italy closed in 2010 after it falsified its landfill data in the area. It is memorable how the technician Alfonso Del Val (Larrun nº 156) told the tricks they were doing to falsify data at the incinerator in Madrid. The false emissions data from Volkswagen cars or the Fukushima nuclear power plant mean that there is less and less room for confidence in their level of control.

Historian Pierre Vilar said that it was necessary to “think historically” about the awareness and reflection of current problems. I do not know if it will be right to say “think with sustainability” when it comes to destructive macro-projects such as the incinerator, but I know that the Catalan historian Josep Fontana is quite right when he says that at the base of “thinking historically” there is an idea (Diagonal, 16 May): “Understanding that what cannot be admitted in any way is to give in.” On the Zubieta incinerator, the idea is also valid until the last minute. Among other things, for your health.