| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "LANDFILLS WASTE DISPOSAL": |
|
|
Waste Disposal, 2007.
This paper explores the three methods of waste disposal: landfill, incineration and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle).
1,416 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the accumulation of waste is an inevitable problem of highly industrialized, consumerist and rich nations, whose economies thrive on producing and creating demand for more products. The paper discusses three methods that are used to deal with waste: landfill, incineration and the 3Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle. The paper explains how all three methods are associated with various environmental and economic costs. The paper points out, however, that the 3Rs method of waste management has the greatest potential for growth and improvement.
From the Paper
"Waste is a non-avoidable result of high-technology industrialized economies. We live in a consumerist society that encourages us to shop and acquire more things. Hence more things are produced and more waste is generated. In 2000, Canadians generated 1021 kg of non-hazardous waste per capita (Statistics Canada, 2002). 747kg of this waste were disposed of per capita (Statistics Canada, 2002), while the rest was recycled. "Current waste management practices in Canada emphasize techniques and approaches that avoid or minimize the need for waste disposal" (MacLaren, 371). There are three methods used to deal with waste: landfill, incineration and the 3Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle."
| |
|
Waste Disposal in the GTA, 2002.
Examines the problem of waste disposal in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 15 sources, £ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paperfocuses on the Greater Toronto Area's curren, and historic reliance on land filling. It identifies the problems with landfilling and other aspects of the GTA's waste disposal plans and proposes alternatives.
| |
|
Solid Waste Disposal & Contamination, 2002.
An analysis of the environmental crisis of fecal contamination due to inadequate solid waste disposal.
1,662 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the hazardous effects of inadequate methods of solid waste disposal on the environment. The paper emphasizes the urgency of the need to deal with this issue, and describes fecal contamination as the major culprit. The writer illustrates how the lack of modern sanitation facilities and adequate health care in certain areas, are the main cause of fecal contamination.
From the Paper
"Fecal waste may contain an undetermined number of bacteria, viruses, and parasites capable of causing disease in humans and animals. Studies have focused on numbers of indicator bacteria (total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and fecal streptococci) or enteroviruses in feces and leachates, but have not estimated the total pathogen load or identified the major sources of these pathogens. This may be due to lack of detection methods for many of the pathogens in solid waste or leachate as well as potentially low numbers of viable but non-culturable organisms. Fecal waste is a breeding ground for diseases and even the smallest of contaminations can cause a great deal of problems."
| |
|
Waste Disposal in the U.S., 1993.
Examines public policy, laws, recycling, municipal solid waste, hazardous materials, landfills, waste-to-energy plans, industrial pollution, radioactive waste and sewage treatment.
4,500 words (approx. 18.0 pages), 18 sources, £ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The more developed a country is, the more waste it produces. Waste, therefore, is an excellent standard-of-living indicator. The abundance of waste, however, is also a significant source of pollution, and this has become a major concern of governments all over the world.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) drew up the following categories for waste classification: municipal (mainly household) waste; industrial waste; residue from the production of energy; hospital and agricultural waste, mining spoil and demolition debris; dredge spoil, and sewage sludge--nuclear wastes were regarded separately (3:28). In the industrialized member countries of OECD, where 90 to 100 percent of garbage collection is carried out by municipal authority, people do not seem to worry about what happens to their household ..."
| |
|
Nuclear Waste Disposal, 2005.
This paper discusses why the disposal of nuclear waste is a contentious issue that is often the subject of heated debate.
3,421 words (approx. 13.7 pages), 15 sources, MLA, £ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the problem of nuclear wastes and how it presents a particular dilemma on various fronts including health and security issues. Nuclear energy and technology has become an endemic part of modern society. The paper points out that concomitant with the significant advances in the production of nuclear energy as well as its application to the areas of medicine and defense has been the escalation of the problems of nuclear waste disposal.
Includes several graphs and tables and diagrams.
1. Introduction
2. Classification of Types of Nuclear Waste
3. Sources of Nuclear Waste
3.2. Storage of Low Level Waste
3.3 Long-Term Storage of High Level Waste
3.4. The Storage of Plutonium
3.5. Transmutation
4. Conclusion
From the Paper
"This debate emphasizes the dilemma and the importance of finding a permanent and less environmentally hazardous solution to the problems of nuclear waster. All of the methods discussed above provide some solutions to the problems - but they do not as yet present a permanent and fully acceptable means of waste disposal and many of the methods have significant drawbacks and are often manpower intensive and open to the vicissitudes of human error. The answer to what to do with nuclear waste has not yet been adequately answered."
| |
|
A Call for Safer Methods of Nuclear Waste Disposal, 2001.
A call to action for safer methods of disposal of nuclear waste and other radioactive material.
665 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An argumentative paper, exploring the chemical make up of uranium, showing that it is extremely difficult to dispose of this material in a complete way. It looks at current disposal practices in the world and analyzes their pros and cons.
From the Paper
"Radioactive material is defined as having atoms with extremely excited outer electron shells. This makes them unstable, excitable and an efficient means of providing energy to a population that can afford a nuclear power plant. The main source of this energy is Uranium. This is a naturally occurring element found in rocks and seawater. It is the most heavy element in the periodic table, having 146 neutrons and 92 protons in its stable form. The instable form has 143 neutrons and this is the kind that is used in cores to create energy (UIC website)."
| |
|
Recycling and Waste Disposal, 1992.
A look at types of garbage, disposal and recycling and educational strategies for children on recycling.
2,475 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 11 sources, £ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
I -Waste Disposal and Recycling
1. History
"'What has four wheels and flies?' A garbage truck of course" (Melosi xiii).
Centuries ago, long before anyone even thought of trucking garbage far away from homes and businesses, people used to throw their refuse out the windows into the streets ... hopefully when no one was walking by. Trash thus accumulated till it would reach the top of the upper windows and, soon enough, till it would bury the houses. Archaeologists have cleared thick layers of decomposed and intact garbage and sand to discover entire cities and civilizations heretofore lost under their own garbage. As the field researchers dug and dug deeper, they unearthed six or seven cities, each interred in its own refuse, one city on top..."
| |
|
Nuclear Waste Disposal, 1997.
Provides background of the problem and discusses issues such as spent fuel rods & liquid waste, storage containers, laws, health & environmental threats, site selection, transportation, costs and public views.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 15 sources, £ 77.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Introduction
This research considers the issue of nuclear waste disposal in the United States. The nuclear waste present in the United States is a combination of spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear power generators, high-level liquid radioactive waste from government-owned nuclear reactors uses in the production of nuclear weapons, and miscellaneous low-level nuclear wastes.
While the way in which nuclear waste should be disposed is a volatile issue, one issue that has not been adequately considered is the separation of the spent fuel rods from the commercial reactors from the high-level weapons production-related nuclear waste with respect to disposal of the materials. Currently, policy calls for all nuclear waste to be placed in long-term storage at..."
| |
|
Waste Dump Landfills, 1989.
Discusses garbage (toxic & non-toxic) problems, statistics, waste-to-energy plants, scrubbers, costs, incinerators, recycling and state laws.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" Only in recent years has there been a growing awareness in the United States concerning waste dump sites. Landfills, as they are known, first came into public view in 1978 when the Love Canal incident in Niagara Falls, New York was revealed. It was discovered that toxic wastes that had been dumped into the canal in previous years by Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation had begun to seep up into houses and schools that had been built ignorantly upon the dump site. The wastes were first suspected of causing health hazards when numerous occurrences of miscarriages and birth defects were reported from the area near the canal. In 1980, President Carter declared the canal an emergency area that demanded immediate attention. He evacuated 710 families, joining another 239 families that had already (...)"
| |
|
Waste Management, 2007.
This paper discusses the three methods of waste disposal; landfill, incineration and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle).
1,426 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper compares and contrasts the limitations of each the three ways of dealing with waste: landfill, incineration and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle). In particular, the paper focuses on municipal and non-hazardous waste. The paper critically examines each of these methods and their flaws. The paper argues that the 3Rs are the most sustainable ways of dealing with waste and that, despite the flaws, some of which can be fixed, this is the best long-term solution.
Outline:
Landfill
Incineration
The 3Rs
From the Paper
"Waste disposal presents a big environmental problem that is universal to all nations of the world. Canada is no exception. "In 2000, Canadians generated 1021 kg of non-hazardous waste per capital" Statistics Canada (qtd. in McLaren, 373.) Waste is an increasing problem within our consumerist society, since not only has it brought about adverse environmental impact but it is also becoming increasingly expensive to deal with it and we are producing more despite all our efforts. In Canada for example "non-hazardous waste disposal per capita was 7 per cent higher in 2000 than in 1996" (Mclaren, 373). Gandy states that "many US cities now face a tax burden for their solid waste management which is exceeded only by education and roads" (31)."
| |
|
Waste Management in Canada, 2008.
This paper examines the social factors that make waste disposal issues difficult in Canada.
986 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at how the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome affects how sites for waste disposal facilities are located. The paper then examines particular problems facing landfills and incinerators. The paper shows how current waste disposal strategies in Canada are ineffective due to undesirable by-products and strong resistance to these facilities. The paper concludes that the most obvious solution to these problems would appear to be to adopt waste diversion programs like the ones being developed in Toronto.
From the Paper
"To begin this discussion it is necessary to look at the social phenomena known as NIMBY syndrome. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard(Meredith 480). When discussing NIMBY syndrome in "Assessing Environmental Impacts in Canada" Thomas Meredith states,
"...A society collectively accepts the need for a project, say a landfill site, an airport, or a nuclear power plant, but no one wants it near them" (Meredith 480)."
"In this sense NIMBY syndrome can be seen as a way in which land can be made socially unavailable for facilities like incinerators or landfills. This can be seen as a major contradiction because two totally different social and environmental factors are being expressed at the same time. Everyone knows that these facilities are necessary for society to function and are largely unwilling to live without them. However, they are also unwilling to live near the facilities that they desire. Since these two desires can't both be fulfilled it is necessary to look for other options."
| |
|
Ontario and Waste Management, 2008.
An in-depth discussion of Ontario's waste disposal policies.
2,192 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 11 sources, APA, £ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explores the severity of the waste management problem in Ontario, specifically in Toronto. The paper examines what diseases and/or viruses are now emerging as a result of their waste management policies and explores the waste disposal alternatives available as the issue of waste management becomes more pressing with the passage of time. The paper is of the opinion that the province of Ontario must begin to pressure citizens and private businesses to focus on diversionary plans for waste and they must start providing citizens and businesses with the resources they need to make these diversionary alternatives a success.
From the Paper
"The relevance of this topic to our own course work can scarcely be exaggerated. For one thing, our focus on the environment has brought home the reality that we must find an adequate way of disposing of our waste or we as Ontarians will be confronted with the degradation of the ecosystem upon which we depend for food and nourishment. More than that, if human beings in the GTA and elsewhere in Canada's most populous province do not find a means of improving their approach to waste disposal, then the health risks to ordinary citizens - not all of whom are polluters or particularly slothful - will grow ever worse. Not least of all, our fragile groundwater reservoirs (a vital component of the hydrological cycle as our October 2 notes clearly reveal) will continue to face contamination - and the sufferings of this generation because of such a development will be met and exceeded by the sufferings of future generations who will be confronted with the grim specter of contaminated water, as well."
| |
|
Integrated Waste Management, 2007.
A review of the 3 R's (reduction of waste at its source, re-usability and recycling) of waste disposal for Canada.
1,406 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses some of the problems and solutions to Canada's garbage and full landfill issues. It looks at the 3 R's of necessary alternatives - reduction of waste at its source, re-usability and recycling. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this method of garbage disposal and makes recommendations for integrated waste management in Canada.
From the Paper
"3 R's of necessary alternatives are meant "to divert as much waste as possible from disposal" (Mitchell 377) to reduction of waste at its source, reusability, and recycling. Source reduction refers to eliminating as much waste material as possible at its origin to halt "the flow of garbage into the landfill" (The 4 R's). For the consumer it means "reducing the amount of toxicity" (Mitchell 378) in products brought home (water based instead of oil based paints), and the durability of products that will not need to be thrown out despite their inconvenience (cloth instead of disposable diapers). In industry this could include "more efficient manufacturing techniques that produce less scrap or generate fewer toxic wastes per unit of output" (Mitchell 378). In both areas, especially retail, "packaging makes up about half our garbage by volume, one-third by weight" (The 4 R's). Reusability is simply living the way our great-grandparents did down on the farm: repair, don't replace the chair, the new-fangled radio, wash out jars to store things, and if you have to buy, purchase that which lasts. Quality pays for itself. Recycling is the final option, and ideally the least desirable because it means the first two have not achieved their objectives; however, modern life being what it is, what cannot be reused should be broken down by cardboard, paper, bottles, etc. at home. In industry recycling and reusability are often reversed in their order of precedence as they are in some telephone companies who melt down quantities of scrapped copper filaments and remold them into copper wire. This might be an example of the fourth R, recovering (potential) energy from waste, a practice which was employed during wartime especially in England where railings, gates, every scrap of metal was taken by the War Office and melted down for armaments.
| |
|
Dealing With Radioactive Waste, 1997.
Examines the aspects surrounding the nuclear waste problem. Discusses the dimensions of the problem, waste disposal issues and potential solutions.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 11 sources, £ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Dealing with Radioactive Waste
Introduction
The problem of disposing of radioactive waste has existed for over 50 years now and the country is not much closer to a universally acceptable resolution. Initially there was almost a laissez faire attitude on the part of scientists and the government. More recently the public has become so mistrustful that anything less than a near 100 percent risk free solution might be rejected. The amount of nuclear waste keeps growing, yet no one has suggested that we stop producing the things that create this radioactive waste.
Dimensions of the Problem
Radioactive waste is the residue from the production of ..."
|
|
|
