It depends on your case. Usually, the proper incineration is the safer solution since depositing your waste in a landfill is just postponing the solution and give a burden for the future generations.

To decide which is better in your case, you need to answer a series of questions:

- What type(s) of wastes you have?

- What mass do you have?

- Dynamic of the waste generation?

- Energy content?

- Inert content?

- Heavy metal content?

- What are the sanitary landfill opportunities? Distance? Safety?

- What are the incineration opportunities? Distance? Safety?

- End of life of the waste/ash/inert/landfill?

The best way to map the to process and elaborate Life Cycle Analyses of the solutions.

Thanks a lot dear Robert Istvan Radics. You gave a nice, scientific and conservative answer. Best regards. 

Just to add to the list, the cost of waste treatment method is also one of the factor. For countries with limited land, incineration is a better choice and vice versa. Most of the time, an environment impact assessment is required in order to determine the best option.

In my opinion  (incineration) itself must be avoided as it imposes air pollution and the additional cost due to the required fuel. Only the Hospitals solid wastes must be incinerated due to the different( diseases, viruses, bacteria). After the reference to an economical study and the land required as prescribed by Robert Istvan Radics.

I concur with you Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati , incineration should only be applied to hazardous wastes such as hospital wastes. Disposal of wastes should be based on its characteristics such as physical and chemical. Since landfills consume sizeable areas of land, it should only be a last resort. Focus should be on re-use and recycling.

Yes dear Edwin Kimutai Kanda . Best regards .

Incinaration should be avoided as much as possible to protect air quality. However, hazardous wastes (medical, flammable, toxic, but not radioactive or explosive) are better to be incinarated.

Thanks a lot dear Dr. Hasan Mahdi Al-Khateeb. Your answers are always fashionable, accurate and deep in their meaning . So let's always hear your voice. Best regards. 

i agree with Dr. Robert

Dr. Robert has clearly explained in detail the purposes and approach. As many have suggested I too of the opinion that incineration should be the preferred option while dealing with hazardous waste, especially the hospital waste. Any method you choose, there will be some type of side effects or negative impact on the environment. Hence an EIA is a must to decide the method of treatment, place of implementation and disposal of the sludge/ultimate end product. Now a days public are very alert and highly informed of environmental issues and consequences. Hence while implementing waste treatment projects (solid or liquid), public opinion and participation, if possible, has to be ensured for the sustainability of the scheme. If possible public awareness should be conducted and the importance and safety of the project should be explained. There are many schemes which are condemned/non-operational due to the public agitation/apprehension. One more important factor to be considered while selecting a technique, is its recurring maintenance cost and availability of the service engineer/technician in the event of any problems/repairs of the equipment.

Thanks a lot dear N B Narasimha Prasad for your valuable notes and illuminating information. Best regards. 

Just to impress upon the necessity of EIA or need for availability of maintenance engineer, I would like to give the following two examples:

1. In one of the medical colleges in India, incineration plant is not put into use, as the local people are objecting/agitating against the fowl smell they are experiencing.

2. In almost all the 10 inhabited islands of Lakshadweep in India, to deal with the potable water scarcity, RO plants have been established to desalinize the sea water, but most of these are not functioning for months together because of maintenance problems. The maintenance engineer or expert has to come from the mainland by ship travelling overnight or travel by air, availability of seats are always difficult.

Again dear N B Narasimha Prasad you proved your wide experience . Best regards. 

If it is possible to use the proper incineration process, always better than the land-filling. In case of land filling, you are just keeping your problems inside the land which could be dangerous during some natural hazards. 

In some case of organic wastes, it is better to go for land filling. But for plastics, medical waste, toxic pesticides etc., it is better to be incinerated.  

First of all, it depends on the solid wastes, the location, and the available infrastructure, it can be different case by case.

The general rules of ranking (a particular instance can be different) from the best to the worst:

1. Avoid/reduce waste generation - growing population and GDP results in more solid waste (the correlation is almost 1). If you can provide the same wealth with less waste production, would help a lot.

2. Reuse - e.g., take out of parts of a car and use in another or sell your car instead of wasting it.

3. Recycle - e.g., collect paper and make recycled paper. The paper somewhat deteriorates, you can recycle it approximately five times, the last one is for a tissue.

4. Energetic use - incineration in a managed environment to avoid pollution.

5. Landfilling - worst solution, you waste the materials and pass the problem to future generations.

Mr. Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati,

Very interesting topic!

Thanks