3 ms·

to be honest, I would prefer we find more ways to reduce what is going to the land fill. I have to make a trip with my father soon and it is amazing what we hav

to be honest, I would prefer we find more ways to reduce what is going to the land fill. I have to make a trip with my father soon and it is amazing what we have no alternative other than just dumping it all. the chemical cocktail we are burying as a world is just amazing, all those cleaning chemicals, used oils, paints, and more. I know some regions tried incineration and I would like to think it is more environmentally friendly than simply burying it.

justinator 8y ago
I mean, burning something can remove the problem locally, but then anyone that relies on air to breathe has to deal with whatever chemicals have been released. I'm not trying to side on, "let's just bury everything", but as a thought experiment: Would you rather be in a room where there's a plastic line trash can filled with a variety of trash, or in that same room, where that trash is currently on fire? Think about it this way: If CO2 had a color and producing it by driving a car would lead to purple billowing smoke, cars wouldn't exist, I don't believe. But because it's invisible, we also think the problem is invisible. Sort of like burning trash. At least with a landfill, we see, "Guh, that's just a big pile of trash! That's gross!"
shawnz 8y ago
Incineration releases all those chemicals into the environment immediately. Whereas in a landfill, decomposition can be minimised (for example by sealing all the waste in an oxygen free atmosphere)
- j16sdiz 8y ago
  Modern incinerators are in much higher temperture. When well managed -- by keeping the temperature right-- most of chemicals are broken down before emittion. Landfill contaminate ground water. There are no good way to fix. Water-proof layers have problem with rain. Building a sewage system open another can of worms. Sealing... I have no idea how can you seal this amount of land.

justinator 8y ago

I mean, burning something can remove the problem locally, but then anyone that relies on air to breathe has to deal with whatever chemicals have been released. I'm not trying to side on, "let's just bury everything", but as a thought experiment: Would you rather be in a room where there's a plastic line trash can filled with a variety of trash, or in that same room, where that trash is currently on fire? Think about it this way: If CO2 had a color and producing it by driving a car would lead to purple billowing smoke, cars wouldn't exist, I don't believe. But because it's invisible, we also think the problem is invisible. Sort of like burning trash. At least with a landfill, we see, "Guh, that's just a big pile of trash! That's gross!"

shawnz 8y ago

Incineration releases all those chemicals into the environment immediately. Whereas in a landfill, decomposition can be minimised (for example by sealing all the waste in an oxygen free atmosphere)

j16sdiz 8y ago
Modern incinerators are in much higher temperture. When well managed -- by keeping the temperature right-- most of chemicals are broken down before emittion. Landfill contaminate ground water. There are no good way to fix. Water-proof layers have problem with rain. Building a sewage system open another can of worms. Sealing... I have no idea how can you seal this amount of land.