IDEA Submission to the Joint Oireactas Committee on Recycling of Household Waste, Aug 2005

Recycling of Household Waste in Ireland
Submission by Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association [IDEA]
www.ideaireland.org Registered Charity No. 14368

Waste is not a concept that is recognised in Nature where, as a result of billions of years of co-evolution, one organism’s waste is another organism’s food. In this way, energy is recycled in a perpetual self-sustaining circle. Mankind historically lived within this circle until the advent of the industrial revolution about 200 years ago when the use of fossil fuel energy and the development of the synthetic chemicals allowed him to step outside of this circle, leading to the disastrous circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day. However, as we now realize, Nature’s concept of Zero Waste is the only sustainable way forward and should be our medium to long-term aspiration.

As well as ‘Re-cycle’ we should not forget ‘Reduce’ and ‘Re-use’. In addition, ‘Re-design’ of products and materials so as to facilitate the other three should be mandatory, i.e. promoting industrial ecology. It has been said that lax disposal regulations is effectively a production subsidy to manufacturers and the same could be applied to the design of consumer goods, packaging, etc. All items for sale should be designed with end-of-use in mind.

Household garbage/residues may be liquid, semi-solid, solid/dry. Liquids and semisolids are sewage [black water] and washing and bathing [grey] water. These should be recognised as a valuable resource and treated as such. Methods of re-cycling/re-using appropriately treated human faecal and urinary material for crop production [biomass] require urgent consideration, particularly in the light of imminent peak oil production leading to the loss of cheap artificial fertilisers.

Grey water re-cycling, utilising well-established technology, should also be strongly encouraged in the light of current fresh water shortages, which are likely to be exacerbated by the advent of global warming, particularly in summer months. Building regulations for new houses should be amended urgently and grants for retrofitting in existing housed should be considered.

Toxicity of Household Residues

IDEA is concerned that there is inadequate recognition of the toxicity inherent in many household products, fittings and furnishings. There are an estimated 80-100,000 synthetic chemicals in high volume production and use in industrialised societies. Only a small fraction -less than 10% - of these have been tested for human or animal toxicity. Hundreds of these chemicals are present in our homes, despite the fact that many are known to be toxic. Recent research has shown that each individual in the world carries a representative sample of these chemicals in their body, up to a total of 400 separate chemicals in more heavily contaminated areas, as a result of absorption/ingestion from air, water [including rain], earth and food. These may act as carcinogens [cancer causing], endocrine [hormone] disrupters, reproductive toxicants [causing abortions, stillbirths, foetal abnormalities], neurotoxins [affecting the brain], hepatotoxins [affecting the liver], etc., or a combination of these.

Some Known Toxins in the Home

Formaldehyde
Phthalates
Volatile organics [often solvents]
Alkylphenols
Glycol ethers
Phenols
Bisphenol A
Lead
Mercury
Dioxins
Polychlorinatedbiphenyls [PCBs]

These are to be found in:

Household chemicals e.g. Pesticides
Paints & varnishes
Cleaners & Detergents, and spot removers
Nail polish remover
Shoe polish
Perfumes
Glues
Air fresheners & deodorisers
Household furnishing/fittings
Bonded woods [plywood, chipboard, etc.]
Carpets
Vinyl mouldings
Wallpaper
Hobbies Painters
Potters lead
Leaded glass
Car repairs/painting
Electronics/electrics

Many of these items are relatively innocuous when in correct use but, when disposed of incorrectly, they accumulate and pose a great risk.

International Experience

In the USA, the EPA have identified 27,000 Hazardous Waste Sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA or ‘Superfund’ sites], and these are only a fraction of the total number. One fifth of these, over 5,000, are Municipal Solid Waste [MSW] sites. Under the Act the Federal Government are legally responsible for these sites and are currently spending $4.2 billion per annum in remediation and compensation costs. They have also spent an estimated $14 billion since 1990 cleaning and restoring rivers and streams across the nation, but there is little evidence that they are winning the battle! It has also been estimated that the cost of cleaning up a hazardous waste site is 10-100 times greater than the cost of originally treating the waste in the most efficient possible way. This is without factoring in the cost of treating ill-health and the possible premature death of populations in the vicinity. The WHO estimated in 2003 that 3 million children under 5 years of age die per annum due to "environmental hazards", and of course there will be much greater numbers who never reach their full potential mentally and/or physically, due to acute or chronic illness. Research done in Dakar, Senegal in 2003 and recently reported indicated that eggs from free-range chickens reared near a local MSW landfill contained dioxins in concentrations 11 time greater than the EU limits.

In the Irish context, what are the risks associated with the hundreds of unlined, unsupervised and abandoned landfill sites around every town and city in the country, not to mention with the numerous un-authorised dumps that seem to be so prevalent? Is there any monitoring or plans to monitor groundwater contamination for the relevant chemicals/metals? What of the bulging black bags with spilling contents, TVs, fridges, etc., that adorn the quiet lanes and byways outside every town and village in the country? It is safe to say that they are all contributing to the burden of chemicals that each of us carries. What is being done about them? How are they to be prevented?

The Way Forward

It can be seen from the above that urgent action is required for social, economic, aesthetic and health reasons. The current disjointed, snails-pace, piece-meal actions are totally inadequate. A centrally directed, comprehensive, co-ordinated national Action Plan requiring a significant capital investment is necessary immediately. Incineration should be banned on health and climate-change grounds. It is also a deterrent to re-cycling. Bring Centres have to be monitored and maintained, and should be sited within easy walking distances of population centres because:

Many people do not have cars
Public transport is abysmal except on main routes
Walking is healthy
Driving is unhealthy, polluting, adds to climate change and may be difficult with the advent of peak oil.

Separation/segregation, preferably in the home, is the key, followed by correct carefully controlled re-cycling/re-use.

Yokohama, Japan [population 3.5 million] in May 2005 sent a 27 page booklet to every household in the city detailing trash sorting into 10 categories and 500 items. Kamiksatu, a small town of 2,500 people, also in Japan, aims to have zero waste by 2020 with currently 44 re-cycling categories and an 80% reported re-cycling rate which volunteer inspectors help to enforce.

If Japan, New Zealand, Seattle, etc., can do it, so can we!

Philip Michael MICGP
for IDEA
Millbrook Med Centre,
Bandon,
Co. Cork Tel 023 41132