Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Solutions
Mercury Pollution
Prevention
Control
Phase out waste
incineration
Sharply reduce mercury
emissions from coal-
burning plants and
incinerators
Remove mercury from
coal before it is burned
Tax each unit of mercury
emitted by coal-burning
plants and incinerators
Convert coal to liquid
or gaseous fuel
Switch from coal to
natural gas and
renewable energy
resources such
as wind, solar cells,
and hydrogen
Collect and recycle
mercury-containing
electric switches, relays,
and dry-cell batteries
Phase out use of
mercury in all products
unless they are recycled
Require labels on all
products containing
mercury
Figure 17-23
Solutions:
ways to prevent or control inputs of mercury into the environment from
human activities—mostly through control of coal-burning plants and incinerators.
Critical thinking:
which four of these solutions do you believe are the most important?
In the United States, individuals have organized to
prevent hundreds of incinerators, landfills, and treat-
ment plants for hazardous and radioactive wastes
from being built in or near their communities. Opposi-
tion has grown as numerous studies have shown that
such facilities have traditionally been located in com-
munities populated mostly by African Americans,
Asian Americans, Latinos, and poor whites. This prac-
tice has been cited as an example of
environmental in-
justice.
See the Guest Essay on this subject by Robert
Bullard on the website for this chapter.
Health risks from incinerators and landfills, when
averaged over the entire country, are quite low. How-
ever, the risks for people living near these facilities are
much higher. They are the ones whose health, lives,
and property values are being threatened.
Manufacturers and waste industry officials point
out that something must be done with the toxic and
hazardous wastes produced while providing people
with certain goods and services. They contend that if lo-
cal citizens adopt a “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) ap-
proach, the waste still ends up in someone's back yard.
Many citizens do not accept this argument. To
them, the best way to deal with most toxic or haz-
ardous wastes is to produce much less of them, as sug-
gested by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(Figure 17-14). For such materials, their goal is “not in
mackerel, or tilefish and to limit their consumption of
albacore tuna to no more than 170 grams (6 ounces)
per week. They also advised these populations to
check local advisories about the safety of fish caught in
local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas.
In 2004, the EPA warned that one-fourth of the na-
tion's rivers, one-third of its lakes (including all of the
Great Lakes), and three-fourths of its coastal waters are
contaminated with mercury and other pollutants that
could cause health problems for children and pregnant
women who eat too much fish caught in them.
Figure 17-23 lists ways to prevent or control hu-
man exposure to mercury. In its 2003 report on global
mercury pollution, the UN Environment Programme
recommended phasing out coal burning and waste in-
cineration as rapidly as possible.
17-9 ACHIEVING A LOW-WASTE
SOCIETY
Politics: Grassroots Action for Better Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management
In the United States, citizens have kept large numbers
of incinerators, landfills, and hazardous waste
treatment plants from being built in their local areas.
