Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just finished reading a book on the Love Canal, that toxic waste dump created by Hooker Chemical in the 50's, 60's, and the book also stated there were, before the EPA, 28,000 toxic waste dumps scattered across the country. But the book didn't tell me, when they do a clean up of all those dangerous drums of dangerous chemicals, where does that waste end up? In a more remote area, far away from people? What to do with a 5 gallon drum of Dioxin, the most dangerous chemical you could image?
I looked at all the categories to place this post and I didn't know where else to put it. If the Moderator can find a better place for it, please be so kind.
According to EPA:
Disposal - Permanently containing hazardous wastes. The most common type of disposal facility is a landfill, where hazardous wastes are disposed of in carefully constructed units designed to protect groundwater and surface water resources.
But I doubt that toxic waste is so careful disposed everywhere.
Private households should bring it to recycling centres or special drop-off facilities that accept certain types of household hazardous waste, but most people don't care ...
Most Western countries export toxic waste to poor countries.
For example, the U.S., which is one of only eight countries that has not yet ratified the Basel Convention, sent more than 800 million pounds of plastic waste to Mexico, Malaysia, India, Vietnam, and other Basel parties last year — activity that likely violates the convention's plastic amendments...
But surprisingly, the leading destination for scrap plastic exports from the United States is ...Canada.
At least 30 States exported hazardous substances that had been banned locally because of health and environmental reasons to Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The US, though it's home to only 4% of the world's population, is responsible for 12% of the planet's trash.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57728
I am familiar with an old WWII tank farm that was remediated about 15 years ago. Yes, the soil is removed to a landfill with safeguards to prevent it from seeping into the groundwater or any streams. Even after cleaning, this site was covered with a blacktop surface.
If you check out that EPA site afbove, only one of the methods used to deal with toxic chemicals actually destroys them-- incineration. Toxins come in basically two forms-- organic chemicals that can be turned to CO2 and H2O by heat, and toxic metals like Hg, Pb,etc. After burning, those are left behind as ash which can then be re-cycled.
The other methods of remediation all involve sequestration in one way or another. The problem then becomes one of evaluating the risk of leakage.
Luckily (actually a function of the general principle that if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to talk about it) the best solution to pollution is dilution-- The biosphere has been able to survive these three billion years because it is able to deal successfully with many adverse conditions, including toxins, in small amounts.
BTW-- the facts about dioxins (agent orange, etc) are hidden in the hype. As with most adverse publicity about toxins, there is precious little actual experimental evidence that can be meaningfully extrapolated to human health issues, and the correlative studies about human exposure (Viet Nam) are not nearly as impressive as those with an agenda would like us to believe. As always, follow the money.
If you check out that EPA site afbove, only one of the methods used to deal with toxic chemicals actually destroys them-- incineration. Toxins come in basically two forms-- organic chemicals that can be turned to CO2 and H2O by heat, and toxic metals like Hg, Pb,etc. After burning, those are left behind as ash which can then be re-cycled.
The other methods of remediation all involve sequestration in one way or another. The problem then becomes one of evaluating the risk of leakage.
Luckily (actually a function of the general principle that if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to talk about it) the best solution to pollution is dilution-- The biosphere has been able to survive these three billion years because it is able to deal successfully with many adverse conditions, including toxins, in small amounts.
BTW-- the facts about dioxins (agent orange, etc) are hidden in the hype. As with most adverse publicity about toxins, there is precious little actual experimental evidence that can be meaningfully extrapolated to human health issues, and the correlative studies about human exposure (Viet Nam) are not nearly as impressive as those with an agenda would like us to believe. As always, follow the money.
This is a commonly used method of disposal as well. Anyone ever hear of Times Beach, MO?
"Good Old Boy" bought 'used oil' from a chemical plant and sprayed it on the dirt roads in the town back in the 80's(?).. The 'used oil' also contained dioxin, IIRC.. Basically started making the entire town sick.
Wound up as a superfund site and as I recall, they took the top layers of soil and incinerated them. Massive cleanup.
I believe the area is now a park.
Ok.. Reading up on it.. I think I got most of it right, but a few errors. It was the 70's when he sprayed the oil, and the 80's when the town was 'bought out' by the EPA and disincorporated. Cleanup was completed in 1997 at a cost of $200M
This is a commonly used method of disposal as well. Anyone ever hear of Times Beach, MO?
"Good Old Boy" bought 'used oil' from a chemical plant and sprayed it on the dirt roads in the town back in the 80's(?).. The 'used oil' also contained dioxin, IIRC.. Basically started making the entire town sick.
Wound up as a superfund site and as I recall, they took the top layers of soil and incinerated them. Massive cleanup.
I believe the area is now a park.
Ok.. Reading up on it.. I think I got most of it right, but a few errors. It was the 70's when he sprayed the oil, and the 80's when the town was 'bought out' by the EPA and disincorporated. Cleanup was completed in 1997 at a cost of $200M
Dioxin is pretty safe at the concentrations recommended,...According to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri Times Beach soil contained half the dioxin contained in the whole state of MO, so they built an incinerator there to handle the stuff for the whole state.
The problem with trying to "prove" that a certain toxin is causing a problem in a small area with a small population over a short period of time is that the observed illness may be naturally rare in that setting and the exposure only makes the illness slightly less rare...Toxins that cause a marked increase in some illness don't usually make it to market, so we don't have arguments over them.
I don't know the answer but I am wondering the same thing when it comes to used dirty oil buried in underground tanks. Gas stations have those tanks emptied or maybe just removed when they fill up with old oil but what happens to it after that? Where does it go? and when the larger tank the company that gets paid to take it away where do they put the oil they remove from underground tanks on property from old homes, gas stations?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
