Why don't we burn trash instead of burying it in a landfill?

Question

Wouldn't it save space and time?

Answer 1

It creates a lot of population. And some places do burn trash, but it can be expensive and the machinery is high maintenance. Plus the garbage needs to be sorted before incineration so things that can't be burned or items that could explode or give off poisonous fumes don't enter the fire.

Burying garbage in a landfill is a simple, natural way to dispose of trash. It naturally decays and in theory it never wastes the land. Some dumps collect the methan from the decay to create their own power. And some landfills that are closed can be covered in topsoil and turned into a park or forest.

Answer 2

After the flood of '93 along the Mississippi, people brought what was left of their property, the trash found floating down the river etc. to a central spot on Quinsippi Island. They created a burning mountain of trash because there was waaay too much for the landfill to handle. You couldn't imagine the smoke - or the smell - or the time it took to do it.

I imagine there is a way to cut down on dangerous emissions, etc, burning the stuff inside with specially designed chimneys. It would be cool if they could somehow use it to run power plants, etc. But I have a feeling it's cost prohibitive.

Answer 3

There is probably too much trash to burn... In theroy it's a great idea but when you think about all the trash that is generated everyday it would be impractical.. Plus there is the fact that the smoke would be polluting the air as there was be sooo much of it.. And there is alot of stuff in trash that can't be burnt and would blow up...

Answer 4

I do believe they use to. BUT it was causing air pollution. Items were being burned with lead, asbestos, dangerous chemicals, etc.
We use to be all natural. Only cotton, woods, glass., were dumped; maybe metals of old beds. We were still polluting, just not so bad. Even burning in the back yard was normal and making a compost pile with the garbage. Garbage dumps were a place one went to on rare occasions.
Now all is dumped. Even items some people buy, then decided they don't like and just toss. Waist

Answer 5

I stay in a rural section too, the position we pay for trash pickup. additionally they take some recycling. all of your trash might want to be recycled I guess. we won't be able to burn trash in this section. Open burning is only no longer allowed. We take our cans to the community fireplace dept, the position they have a recycling bin, and our papers pass to the church automobile parking zone, the position they're paid funds for a bin of papers anytime this is complete. Any food products get composted in our backyard. there is too a lot "sturdy stuff" for it only to be burned, and it hurts the ecosystem too! even if you do not have recycling service, won't be able to you're taking it someplace? Fill your trunk and placed your trash to sturdy use.

Answer 6

Excellent question! It actually depends on the material involved. Recycling of still-useful materials is still not so widespread as ought to be the case. I happen to be conservation-minded myself, favoring, as components of the solution:

1. Burning/incinerating the non-toxic combustible trash component as a practical fuel (e.g., for power generation, heat source for industrial processes, &c.)--which would have a side benefit of reducing new coal and petroleum consumption in fixed installations;

2. Replenishing sources where practicable, e.g. planting trees and shrubs in sufficient numbers to backfill logging attrition;

3. Recycling and reprocessing so much useful metals, petrochemicals, &c. as the state of the related chemical engineering arts permits.

Unfortunately, some waste chemicals, e.g. dioxins, are both extremely difficult to reprocess and too toxic to bury. I would still like to see quantum improvements in thermal efficiency in some industrial processes to reduce the fuel requirements to on or around theoretical minima; less fuel burned equals CO2 output reduction to what surrounding vegetation can stabilize. With grasses the main absorbant of CO2 in practical terms, I would recommend that all landscapers study the balances between trees, bushes and grasses in future projects to minimize, to a reasonable extent, water requirements.

Answer 7

Regardless of how trash is eliminated, burning adds to the greenhouse effect and burying it contaminates the water. The best way is to use less, bring your own bags to the store and do not except the plastic ones, If all of us, in one small way mulipled will make a difference.

Answer 8

I was thinking the same thing. Burning is worse for global warming than landfills. Yes, I am a treehugger.

Answer 9

In NYC which probably has almost as much garbage as some small towns if not more each day it's considered a crime. It is said to lead to air pollution and the fine can be as much as 1000 dollars.

Answer 10

It's impractical; ever see how much trash is generated in one day by a large city? The air pollution would be horrible.