Letter to the Editor
Peter seeks advice on the so-called problems relating to land fill sites
As I hinted a few months back, I have another discussion point I don't seem to fully understand.
What is the big problem with land fill sites? Sure they need to be controlled and not contain time bombs for the future, but that aside what is the problem?
In my travels around the country we appear to have a vast amount of 'holes in the ground' that could well do with infilling and being planted upon, either for food or just for trees to help offset the vegetation loss elsewhere. In my experience these holes have varied from single bomb craters left over from WWII to giant worked out quarries that took a hundred years to remove the millions of cubic meters of base material and soil; and there are thousands of them scattered all over the country.
I would certainly not want to see fresh holes dug just to create landfill sites, but it seems we have a good opportunity to bring some life back to neglected areas that are in most cases now just an eyesore.
Is there another problem I am not aware of, or is it the usual bureaucratic inability to solve two problems with a single answer?