Why landfill mining could be the next big thing...

If the UK keeps dumping rubbish at its current rate it will run out of landfill space by 2018. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

A new project that will reuse 16.5m tonnes of rubbish from a Belgian landfill site could help solve a host of environmental problems. This is quite an intresting sustainability news that I'd come across recently.

It might sound like a load of old rubbish, but landfill mining could be the next resources idea to sweep Britain and the rest of Europe. UK company Advanced Plasma Power (APP) has formed a joint venture to dig up a giant landfill site in Belgium, and will recycle half the rubbish and convert the rest into renewable electricity. The project, which will become operational by 2014, is thought to be the first of its kind in the world.

Other companies are also examining the viability of similar projects across the Continent to free up much needed landfill space and because the value of recycled metals which can be recovered has risen.

The 30-year project will reuse 16.5m tonnes of municipal waste dumped since the 1960s at the landfill site near Hasselt in eastern Belgium. APP will use its plasma technology to convert the methane produced by the rubbish, which is more than 20 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide, into usable gas. This will fuel a 60MW power plant capable of supplying 60,000 homes.

The idea of digging up old rubbish is not new. The chief executive of one British landfill operator told the Guardian he had considered it 15 years ago. But the increasing shortage of landfill space, a need to produce more electricity renewably and higher metal prices are now combining to make firms consider it more seriously.

If Britain keeps throwing away rubbish at current rates, it will run out of space by 2018. Landfill taxes will almost double in the next five years in an effort to delay this point. The costs of landfill mining are only likely to become economic on a large scale in Britain if companies can recoup this tax in return for emptying the site. But the process can be dangerous, particularly if asbestos or other hazardous waste is found on older sites, while trapped methane can ignite when released.

Paul Davies, an environmental law partner at City law firm Macfarlanes, said: "The greatest challenge aside from dealing with the cost-benefit of materials recovery is overcoming health and safety risks posed by boring down into sites where, in many cases, for older "mature" sites, there are inexact records of what lies below."

So friends what do you think about this?

What is a carbon footprint?

Carbon footprint has become a popular term nowadays but what does it actually mean?

Footprints carved in wood. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters

Carbon footprint is a horribly abused phrase, so it's worth spelling out exactly what it means.When talking about climate change, footprint is a metaphor for the total impact that something has. And carbon is a shorthand for all the different greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. The term carbon footprint, therefore, is a shorthand to describe the best estimate that we can get of the full climate change impact of something. That something could be anything – an activity, an item, a lifestyle, a company, a country or even the whole world.

CO2? What's that?

Man-made climate change, or global warming, is caused by the release of certain types of gas into the atmosphere. The dominant man-made greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is emitted whenever we burn fossil fuels in homes, factories or power stations. But other greenhouse gases are also important. Methane (CH4), for example, which is emitted mainly by agriculture and landfill sites, is 25 times more potent per kilogram than CO2. Even more potent but emitted in smaller quantities are nitrous oxide (N2O), which is about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide and released mainly from industrial processes and farming, and refrigerant gases, which are typically several thousand times more potent than CO2.

In the UK, the total impact on the climate breaks down like this: carbon dioxide (86%), methane (7%), nitrous oxide (6%) and refrigerant gases (1%). Given that a single item or activity can cause multiple different greenhouse gases to be emitted, each in different quantities, a carbon footprint if written out in full could get pretty confusing. To avoid this, the convention is to express a carbon footprint in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e. This means the total climate change impact of all the greenhouse gases caused by an item or activity rolled into one and expressed in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same impact.

Beware carbon toe-prints

The most common abuse of the phrase carbon footprint is to miss out some or even most of the emissions caused, whatever activity or item is being discussed. For example, many online carbon calculator websites will tell you that your carbon footprint is a certain size based purely on your home energy and personal travel habits, while ignoring all of the goods and services you purchase.

Similarly, a magazine publisher might claim to have measured its carbon footprint but in doing so looked only at its office and cars while ignoring the much greater emissions caused by the printing house that produces the magazines themselves. These kinds of carbon footprint are actually more like carbon 'toe-prints' – they don't give the full picture.

The carbon footprint, as I have defined it, is the climate change metric that we need to be looking at. The dilemma is that it is also impossible to pin down accurately. We don't stand a hope of being able to understand how the impact of our bananas compares with the impact of all the other things we might buy instead unless we have some way of taking into account the farming, the transport, the storage and the processes that feed into those stages. So how should we deal with a situation in which the thing we need to understand is impossibly complex?

Sick Building Syndrome

????????Are you experiencing this????????

Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) is also known as tight building syndrome. Over the years buildings have become more airtight or sealed through advances in architecture. Sick Building Syndrome is a medical condition caused by poor indoor air quality, interior, exterior and biological contamination. The condition causes you to feel generally unwell and uncomfortable when indoors with the symptoms getting worse the longer you are in a particular room or building.

?????????Symptoms of SBS????????

♦ Headaches

♦ Mental fatigue, trouble concentrating

♦ Irritability♦ Lethargic

♦ Tiredness, feeling drowsy

♦ Feeling dizzy ♦ Feeling sick

♦ Breathing difficulties, coughing, wheezing

♦ Dry or sore throat

♦ Dry or sore eyes

♦ Blocked sinuses, blocked nose and runny nose, sensitive to smells

♦ Dry or itchy skin, skin rash

♦ Cold or flu like symptoms

♦ Aching muscles, stiff joints

Contributing Factors

♦ Air tight rooms where the windows cannot be opened and doors are sealed for fire safety

♦ Artificial heating, ventilation and cooling systems

♦ Inadequate fresh and constant ventilation

♦ Working in a new building which has been built to be airtight

♦ Poor or defect HVAC systems (combined heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems found in commercial buildings)

♦ Constantly low or high levels of humidity and extremes in room temperature

♦ Humidity and temperature levels which rise and fall quickly

♦ Tobacco smoke

♦ Chemical cleaning agents

♦ Adhesive, solvents

♦ Pesticides

♦ Carbon dioxide that you and everyone around you exhales

♦ Printers, photocopiers, faxes, computers and other electrical equipment

♦ Machinery
♦ Upholstery, furnishings, carpets and rugs

♦ Paint and surface finishes ♦ Synthetic materials

♦Furniture

♦ Open filing and shelving

♦ Chemically treated timber

♦ Artificial lighting (causing glare, reflection and flickering

♦ Dust

♦ Lack of cleanliness

♦ Disrepair and maintenance

Organic Food: Good for You and the Environment

When we think about consuming the freshest and healthiest food possible, it is important to consider two questions. One – what makes organic food natural? And the other – what impact do your shopping choices have on the environment?

If you’re reading this article, you are probably someone who wants to become more health conscious and to make healthier choices in your eating habits and lifestyle. You are likely to be interested in foods containing as little chemicals, preservatives, additives, or pesticides as possible. And certainly you would prefer eating foods that are not irradiated or genetically modified. In general, you want to eat food that is by nature’s arrangement, all natural.

Organic food gives you all the things you are looking for, grown naturally the way nature intended it. When you buy organic foods, you don’t have to worry because organic farmers follow strict standards to grow the most natural fruits and vegetables. They don’t use synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, hormones, antibiotics, sewage sludge, irradiation, or any genetically modified organisms. Just look for the “USDA/Organic” label, and you can be confident that stringent guidelines have been followed to bring you that wholesome natural product. Down to Earth is proud to offer you an enormous selection of such organic products.

Along with this awareness of wanting to eat healthy foods usually comes a concern for how we treat the environment. As we become more educated about how conventional farming methods destroy top soil and pollute our waters, etc., it is only natural to want to buy food that has been grown by sustainable agricultural methods that avoid the unnecessary pollution caused by chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Genetically Modified Organisms are another concern. Through scientific intervention to “improve” crops, mankind has potentially opened a Pandora’s box by messing around with Mother Nature. The long-term damages caused by these biological experiments could be irreversible. While government agencies argue they are perfectly safe, the jury is still out. One example of the damage that can be done by “arranging” nature is when people brought mongooses to Hawaii to get rid of the rats. It did not work, we still have plenty of rats, and now, unfortunately, there are not as many native birds!

Drinking water in United States is contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs?

An investigation by the Associated Press (AP) has revealed that the drinking water of at least 41 million people in the United States is contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs. It has long been known that drugs are not wholly absorbed or broken down by the human body. Significant amounts of any medication taken eventually pass out of the body, primarily through the urine. "People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," EPA scientist Christian Daughton said.

While sewage is treated before being released back into the environment, and water from reservoirs or rivers is also treated before being funneled back into the drinking water supply, these treatments are not able to remove all traces of medications. And so far, the EPA has not regulated the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, meaning that there are no laws in existence today that protect consumers from this increasingly dangerous chemical contaminant of the water supply.

Drugs given to animals are also entering the water supply. One study found that 10 percent of the steroids given to cattle pass directly through their bodies, while another study found that steroid concentrations in the water downstream of a Nebraska feedlot were four times as high as the water upstream. Male fish downstream of the feedlot were found to have depressed levels of testosterone and smaller than normal heads, most likely due to the pharmaceutical contamination in their water. "It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?" said EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson.

While the concentration of drugs in drinking water tends to be low, some medications, such as hormones, are able to operate potently even at concentrations of one part per billion. To make matters worse, there is evidence that the chlorine commonly used to treat drinking water may make some pharmaceutical chemicals more toxic. Thus, the typical claim that "pharmaceuticals are only present in very low concentrations, and therefore could not be dangerous" holds no water. Not only are some chemicals potentiated (made more toxic) by other chemicals in the water, but to date, there have been absolutely no studies looking at the increased danger posed by combinations of pharmaceuticals now being found.

In other words, nobody knows the level of risk that may be associated with the chemical cocktail of pharmaceuticals now being found in the water supply. No one can say with any degree of honesty that the drug contamination is safe, meaning that the real risks to human remain entirely unknown!

Air Pollution Linked to Low IQ in Children

When many doctors downplay the role of toxicity in the body and underestimate the damage it causes, it's nice to see research pointing to these effects. Researchers recently found that mothers who breathe in more polluted air during their pregnancy were more apt to have children with lower IQs.

Two hundred and forty nine children were studied and the IQ difference between the high pollution group and the low pollution group was about four to five points. Four to five points doesn't sound like much, but when you understand that only thirty points marks the difference between genius and average, you can understand the significance.

Patrick Breysse, an environmental health specialist at Johns Hopkins' school of public health, thinks that air quality might be part of the reason that wealthier children tend to do better in school than children from poorer neighborhoods, as poorer families tend to live in more polluted areas.

It's interesting though that only air pollution was accounted for in this study. It'd be curious to see the results if they accounted for things like: eating organic, natural foods verses pesticide-laced, processed foods or like drinking nutrient-rich fruit and vegetable juices instead of coffee or coke. While few are immune from such habits, the latter are also more likely to be consumed regularly in low income areas.

The larger picture implication is that the chemical toxins that pollute our environment also pollute our bodies, and make us at least a little mentally slower. Pesticides and chemicals in processed foods and soft drinks also qualify as chemical toxins.

Wouldn't it be interesting if most of the population would actually rank at or near the genius level, if not for the consistent exposure to chemicals and toxins of all sorts while in the womb and throughout life?

If air pollution accounts for four to five points, it'd be easy to see where the lack of pesticides and chemical-ridden processed foods would easily add on another five or possibly ten points. The absence of mercury, a toxin known to affect the brain and found in vaccines and teeth fillings, could easily tack on another five points too. The list of known poisons that today's humans regularly put in and on their bodies is astounding and reducing them would be fairly simple if we made some concerted efforts.

Even physicians are catching on and understanding that what they thought was harmless, really is not.Dr. Michael Msall, a University of Chicago pediatrician, said, "We are learning more and more about low-dose exposure and how things we take for granted may not be a free ride."

A lower IQ wasn't the only thing researchers found connected with air pollution. In previous research, the same researchers found that exposure to air pollution while in the womb was associated with genetic abnormalities that may increase the risk for cancer, a smaller newborn head size and even reduced birth weight. The researchers also linked air pollution with developmental delays at age three and asthma in children.

RED ALERT - Water cycle is speeding up!!!

Last night, i accidentally came across a very interesting article entitled "Expect More Floods as Global Water Speeds Up". The article was written by Sandra L. Postel and published at Nat Geo News Watch. The author began the article with such surprising and yet evidence-supported finding;

"Using satellite observations, NASA and university researchers have found that rivers and melting ice sheets delivered 18 percent more water to the oceans in 2006 than in 1994."

Now, based on the figure itself (i.e. almost 20%), it is indeed a huge increase in fresh water volume flowing into the oceans. In other words, the volume is estimated as equivalent to one Mississippi River in a year. Looking at the volume increment, some might think that this represents good news as human will be enjoying abundant freshwater supply due to the fact that some parts of the world are facing critical water shortage.

But the main problem lies on this statement;

".... most of the increase is occurring in places where extra water isn't needed, like the wet tropics or the remote Arctic, or is being delivered through torrential storms that overwhelm human infrastructure and coping capacities...."

Now, i believe that we could imagine the main issue evolving around this finding. The disastrous flood in Pakistan would be a good example of such problem. Massive rains have been observed during the most recent flood which involved a fifth of Pakistan area. Please compare the next two pictures which might be able to provide a good picture of such catastrophic flood. The pictures were taken at floods around Manchhar Lake in Pakistan on 18th September 2010.

Next, compare the following picture which was taken on 15th September 2010 (three days earlier) from the same area.


In guiding the readers towards the main reason of such phenomena, the author has directly pointed out the information on why the cycle is speeding up. Let's look at her explanation below;

".....As the atmosphere warms from the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it can hold more moisture. As a result, more water evaporates from the oceans, leading to thicker clouds that then dump more rainfall over the land. That heavier-than-normal rain can then produce massive flooding as it runs back toward the sea, where the cycle begins all over again....."

As the scientific evidence mounts that more severe floods and droughts are on the horizon, getting on with ways of adapting to climatic change becomes just as urgent as slowing the pace of that change. Frankly speaking, slowing down the pace of water cycle change would be the most important task in handling such matter. To be honest, i'm wondering on what could be done to minimize the pace of such change? If the answer is YES, would it make much difference? Hope to hear some views on this matter.

LAST QUESTION: Do you think that we are going to face similar "troubled waters problem " at east coast of Peninsular Malaysia during the next monsoon period?