Under the influence of European law, waste law in California is evolving and imposes new obligations. But for Glendale, in terms of the management of waste, it is concerned by this device which is characterized by the implementation of regulations insofar as “all legal texts are intended, with some exceptions, to apply locally; the decentralization has led, overseas in particular, to a transfer of skills and of responsibilities, recent and accentuated; finally, its natural and social environment needs to be protected, in order to limit and stop all attacks on the quality of life of the population must be preserved or improved.

Strengthening regulations in the household waste sector

Since the 90’s California has undergone a process of development which is therefore triggered on all fronts. However, it was faced with environmental problems especially in the area of ​​waste disposal. Thus, from 1989, a state plan for the collection and management of household waste has been drawn up by the local officials.

At the level of the state, this scheme, after having been approved of the Governor and examined by the Departmental Hygiene Committee, entered in force by decree. This scheme is spearheaded by fight against the eradication of certain gross landfills and numerous deposits wilderness that undermines the Californian landscape, while it is one of the major assets of the state for the development of tourist activity, as well as the public health.

State garbage disposal schemes

Local collection schemes attempt to provide solutions by putting in place an organized waste collection and treatment policy for housewives at the department level. But given their low legal significance, their effectiveness is also reduced with elected officials to the extent that they do not impose any real prescriptions to be followed.

Indeed, developed under the leadership of the representative of the State of California, the plan proposes to establish, under acceptable economic conditions, collection circuits, number and location of depots and treatment factories as well as their capacity for action and radius.

Nevertheless, it is important to identify existing services and facilities and study their cost. In addition, the diagram is presented in the form of two documents: the first is a general report including a presentation plan of factories and landfills controlled and the second represents a study of the marketing of sub products. Also, the plan provides for the creation of additional water at least two so-called controlled landfills.

But their elaboration constitutes a dispute because it will depend on the provisions issued by the counties which, in the field of extension and strengthening of urbanized spaces and activities, will proceed expressly at the location of these landfills as well as the collection perimeters. This project is therefore only indicative and evolving.

In addition, in view of the evolution of urban growth, techniques and marketing of by-products, the circular highlights that the conclusions of this report can be modified and therefore, the scheme should be able to be reworked.

Also, the creation of a circular relating to the collection and treatment of urban waste is the weak link in this scheme. Indeed, this process does not give the diagram any value since it tends to establish projects and that he is not obliged to impose constraints on municipalities. In fact, its application, subject to no obligation, therefore depends on the free will of these last.

Even if no financial means are provided for these schemes, when do they have even the merit of provoking the “reflection” of the municipalities. This taking of consciousness dates back to 1989 when we witnessed a broadening of skills in the field of household waste. Some waste management council was created in 1993 and later dissolved in the extent to which it has achieved its objective and is therefore overwhelmed by the cooperation which has practically spread throughout the state.

Waste management regulations

In the field of the environment, it ensured (1) the management of the park of garbage collection bins, which are endowed all inhabitants, (2) door-to-door collection and (3) the collection of bulky waste door to door. In fact, it’s more a “sight” collection, meaning that the truck collects all bulky the waste on public roads.

Also it took care of the transfer of waste from the municipalities and composting of green waste on two platforms, one in Glendale (valuation remains insufficient, there is less than 10% of the tonnage collected compared to 300 to 400 in the entire state), which also processes sludge from a sewage treatment plant, and the other up north.

However, it is clear that these departmental diagrams did not have any legal value, to which the federal law did not refer. In front of these unsuccessful environment patterns, only partially responding to the treatment of waste and faced with the growing scale of the latter, California voted a framework law on waste. But very few of his articles have been so far applied. This law provided in particular that the municipalities have the obligation to collect waste, at least once a week in the towns or villages with more than 500 inhabitants.

Also waste disposal plans would be drawn up to avoid the current “every man for himself” (the implementing decree has not been issued after seventeen years); that the manufacture and sale of products could be regulated, or even prohibited, generators of waste that are difficult to eliminate; that the producers of waste-generating products may be obliged to contribute to their elimination; that the recovery of materials or energy must be “facilitated”, that we can even impose a minimum proportion of materials recovered in certain products.

The federal law obliges producers of packaged household products like Glendale dumpster rentals and others to either collect their packaging themselves, or entrust this recovery to an approved body, such as eco-packaging, which can in particular selectively collect or sort the packaging.

Learning to recycle and waste less is important for keeping our planet green, as we all know. If you care about the environment, check out the best ways to recycle you everyday items!

The recycling rate in the United States has increased from less than 7% in 1960 to over 34% in 2015. While the progress is promising, we still have a long way to go. This article should help get you started so that you can recycle more at work, home, and school. Recycling in and around the home can be easy when you know how to do it. By thinking carefully about what products you buy at the supermarket and how to recycle them is the first step towards efficient recycling. Find ways of recycling different materials by better understanding the recycling processes.

How to recycle best, this is the question. Recycling conserves raw materials and saves the additional energy that manufacturers would use producing new products from scratch. Recycling also reduces the amount of material going into landfills, which is a big bonus given that many countries are fast running out of space for trash.

For instance, do you recycle in several rooms of your home? If you only recycle in the kitchen, recyclables in your home office or bathroom get thrown away. So make recycling a collaborative effort where everyone participates, enabling the most recycling of the right materials.

Recycling may not be a cure-all to pollution and landfill issues—following a zero waste lifestyle to limit use of landfill-clogging items may be the more environmentally friendly route—but for recyclable items already out there, recycling is the best way to do whatever possible to keep those items from damaging natural resources. Maintaining a recycling system, learning how to recycle are important duties everyone should get involved with.

By the way recycling creates jobs. EPA released significant findings on the economic benefits of the recycling industry with an update to the national Recycling Economic Information (REI) Study in. This study analyzes the numbers of jobs, wages and tax revenues attributed to recycling.

Learn which materials belong in your bin, where to recycle or donate other items, and what to throw away. Do your part and recycle smart to enhance the environment, boost the economy, and save your community money. To learn more about local recycling, composting, and hazardous household product, use google to research the question.

Recycling doesn’t have to be a big commitment. Just think, the few seconds a day you take to recycle will have a positive impact on the health, safety and cleanliness of your community – not to mention, the future of our environment! There are easy steps to recycling better. Learn What to Recycle. Make your recycling efforts count. Learn what items go into your recycling and what items should be put in the garbage. Residents in single-family and multifamily homes can learn how to prepare their bins optimally.

Recycling is a huge part that everyone must take action in to keep the environment safe and to decrease landfill space. Teaching kids how to recycle is important, as they can learn early in life and continue with it as they grow older. Hire waste management services if needed, some companies will take your junk in bulk and recycle all they can.

In the USA, determine local requirements: first and foremost, consult with your local recycling jurisdiction to see if there are any special requirements as to what materials are accepted, how they must be sorted and cleaned, and what bins must be used for depositing them for pick-up. Some areas may not accept all seven classes of resins. Look at the bottom of the plastic bottle to verify that it is an allowed item for the recycling facility.

Air pollution is a complex and ever-changing mixture of various chemical, biological and physical elements that can be toxic to humans. Every day, an adult inhales 10,000 to 20,000 liters of air with an average of 99% oxygen and nitrogen, but which can also contain various pollutants that can cause health effects.

There are different sources of air pollution (natural, related to human activities …). More and more studies highlight health effects that can be differentiated according to the source of emission considered.

Air pollution results both from:

• Pollutant emissions from various sectors of activity (industry, transport, agriculture, heating, etc.);
• phenomena of natural origin (Saharan sand winds, soil erosion, volcanic eruptions …);
• Chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere between the so-called “primary” pollutants (particles, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, etc.) which are directly emitted by the pollution sources and which are at the origin of the formation of so-called “secondary” pollutants (ozone, particles, etc.);
• phenomena of import and export of air pollution that can occur on a large scale.

Pollutants most harmful to health

The chemical pollutants that cause the greatest public health concerns are:

• The particles of outdoor air, classified as carcinogenic to humans since 2013 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The toxicity of these particles comes from both their composition and their size. The finer the particles, the more they are able to penetrate deeply into the pulmonary tree (see diagram below) and to go through the bloodstream to other organs. Various chronic diseases (cancers, cardiovascular and respiratory pathologies) develop after several years of exposure to particles, even at low levels of concentration. Other effects are more and more highlighted: possible effects on reproduction, risk of premature birth, impaired neurodevelopment of the child, dementia in the elderly … At present, particles are pollutants air for which health effects are the most documented.
• Ozone
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a highly irritating substance of the respiratory tract and the main respiratory effects described in humans are shortness of breath, bronchial obstruction, asthma attacks, or bronchitis.
• Volatile organic compounds (benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene …)
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs such as benzo [a] pyrene)
• Metals (such as arsenic, chromium and cadmium).
• Biological agents, such as pollen and mold, can also be responsible for health effects. In addition, there are several types of interactions between air pollutants and pollens, since certain chemical air pollutants can promote the allergic reaction by lowering the threshold of bronchial reactivity and / or by accentuating the irritation of the nasal mucosa or ocular and can also act on the pollen grains, for example via deformation or rupture of the wall of the pollen grain, which would then allow them to penetrate deeper into the respiratory system than whole pollen grains.

Effects of air pollution on health

Effects of air pollution on health are observed as follows:

• an exposure of a few hours to a few days (acute, so-called short-term exposure) to this pollution: ocular or respiratory irritation, asthma attacks, exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory disorders that may lead to hospitalization, and the most serious cases at death;
• a multi-year exposure (chronic, so-called long-term exposure) to air pollution; in this case, the health effects can be defined as the contribution of this exposure to the development or aggravation of chronic diseases such as: cancers, cardiovascular and respiratory pathologies (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure) , neurological disorders, etc.

Health and economic impacts of air pollution

According to the WHO, air pollution is the main environmental risk for health in the world. For example, exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution leads to premature death each year (“premature death” because exposure to air pollution shortens life) by about 6.5 million people.

In the WHO Europe area (53 countries), it is estimated that about 600 000 deaths per year are related to air pollution (482 000 are due to outdoor air pollution and 117 200 to indoor air pollution). According to a study published in 2015 by WHO and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the economic cost of these 600 000 premature deaths as well as diseases caused by indoor and outdoor air pollution in the WHO’s Europe area in 2010 reached 1.6 trillion (or 1.6 trillion) US dollars.

Does improving air quality really translate into improved health?

Several epidemiological studies have analyzed the health impact of a decrease in pollution levels. These so-called intervention studies confirmed that the health benefits were very real when the air quality improves.

For example, the Irish government’s ban on the sale of bituminous coal in Dublin in 1990 resulted in a net decrease in particulate matter concentrations, coupled with a 6% decline in total mortality in the following 6 years intervention.

The decline in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations in the United States between the early 1980s and the early 2000s was accompanied by an improvement in life expectancy, with a gain of over 7 months of life expectancy following the lowering of atmospheric concentrations of PM2.5 particles by 10 μg / m3, which represented a total of 15% of the improvement in life expectancy during this period.

Focus on biomass combustion (residential heating)

In a report published in 2015, WHO states that residential wood or coal heating is a significant source of air pollution both outside and inside buildings (except in the case of efficient heating appliances for the reduction of polluting emissions).

In France, PM2.5 emissions from wood heating were more than halved between 1990 and 2013. Nevertheless, the residential-service sector accounted for 51% of national PM2.5 emissions in 2016.

In addition to particles (especially fine and ultrafine particles, so easily transportable particles over long distances of up to several hundred kilometers), and particulate compounds such as carbon black and organic carbon, the combustion of biomass leads to the emission of various gases with toxic potential for human health in outdoor air and which are in particular carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds ( benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein …), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (aldehydes, phenols …), metallic elements (mercury, arsenic, lead …), dioxins and furans.

According to WHO, particles from wood combustion are associated with an exacerbation of respiratory diseases, particularly asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchitis and otitis media.

According to the literature, there is no reason to consider biomass burning particles to be less harmful to health than other urban sources of pollution, but there are few studies on the effects of biomass burning. cardiovascular effects of these particles. On the other hand, there is evidence linking wood burning to certain respiratory symptoms.

Therefore it is crucial to have efficient waste management systems in place so that all waste goes to the proper places, and does not get burnt or thrown in rivers or the sea.