How to Properly Dispose of Batteries

Srikar Potlapalli

I’m sure all of you have been told to not throw away batteries into the trash, but do you know the reason why you have been told this? Most of you would guess that the chemicals in the batteries would leak out in landfills and are either harmful to the environment or harmful to other people. While this is a reasonable explanation why batteries should not be thrown into the trash, it does not apply to all types of batteries. It is important to understand how to properly dispose of batteries so that the environment is properly protected.

To begin, there are mainly three different types of batteries: dry-cell, rechargeable, and auto. Each of these different types of batteries have different rules and regulations surrounding their disposal. For example, dry-cell batteries, also known as single-use batteries (or non rechargeable), can actually be thrown away in the trash. However, it is still a better choice to recycle these types of batteries at a collection site so the materials can be used to make new batteries. Another type of battery is a rechargeable battery. These types of batteries can be found in laptops, cellphones, or power banks, and they must be recycled because they contain unsafe chemicals. Reusable batteries are also more efficient than single-use batteries because they can be recharged and used multiple times. Because of this, using rechargeable batteries is better for the environment than using single use batteries because rechargeable batteries use less metal. Lastly, auto batteries (lead-acid batteries) are the types of batteries used in automobiles, and it is illegal to improperly dispose of them.

Each of these types of batteries are supposed to be disposed of in different ways, and there are companies and organizations that collect batteries so that you don’t have to worry as much about the whole process. All you have to do is follow a few steps. If you would like to recycle single use batteries or rechargeable batteries, you have a few options to choose from: you can call your local solid waste district to find out if your community has a collection program or upcoming event, you can Search the area for recycling centers that accept batteries, or you can find a mail-in recycling program that accepts batteries. On the other hand, recycling auto batteries is a little different than recycling the other types of batteries. This is because Texas law requires businesses that sell lead-acid batteries to accept your old one when you purchase a new battery.

In conclusion, batteries are something we use everyday, but they can be replaced. On the other hand, our environment is something that cannot be replaced, so we should do everything in our power to protect it. Does your family use reusable batteries? Have you ever thrown away batteries in the trash? Have you ever gone out of your way to contact a company to recycle your batteries?

Sources:

http://takecareoftexas.org/hot-wire/what-do-i-do-used-batteries

https://www.batterysolutions.com/news/dispose-old-batteries-right-way/ https://www.seeker.com/why-cant-you-throw-away-batteries-1792532234.html

How Does Soccer Affect the Environment?

Shaan Rahman

The year is 2018. Friends, family, and even enemies gather around a small screen in the basement of a Croatian cabin to watch the World Cup Final. Unfortunately, France strikes first and the Croatian sprit sinks. The sinking spirit is a common feeling tonight, as Croatia loses in a historic 4-2 defeat to France. This World Cup was one of the best competitions the world has witnessed as 3.5 billion people watched it—shattering records. However, this begs the question: What is the environmental cost of having such a brilliant sport competition?

Although the sport is mainly just 22 men running around kicking a ball, nearly half the world watched this World Cup. But in order to have the World Cup, teams must have equipment, such as balls, kits (jerseys), and boots (cleats). The production of these items are not exactly environmentally friendly. For instance, soccer balls are not good for the environment as you cannot throw them in the recycling bin and call it a day. Additionally, they take nearly 50 years to decompose due to the leather and plastic mix of the exterior. As far as the interior of the ball, there is a rubber sack inside that contains latex, which can be found in plants. The need for a huge number of balls could lead to deforestation or a loss of biodiversity. The jerseys are just as bad for the environment. They are mass produced for the teams, as each player has a new jersey every game. Additionally, each of these players has 2 or 3 back ups in case they rip or they want to give one away to a fan. On top of this, millions of jerseys are sold to fans all across the world. For example, the Nigerian jersey had 3 million pre-orders and sold out in three minutes. The environmental effects of the factories which produce these jerseys are quite obvious. These factories are releasing CO2 emissions into the air and causing mass air pollution. Unfortunately, the environmental effects don’t stop there.

The environmental effects of building stadiums are slowing down, as many teams are opting for environmentally friendly stadiums. But that does not change the waste occurring inside the stadiums. Let’s take Wembley Stadium—an iconic stadium for English Football. Its capacity is about 90,000. The average waste that is littered there is around 90,000 as well, but only 45,000 can be recycled. That is just one stadium. There are over 4,500 soccer stadiums all around the world, contributing a similar amount of waste through littering. Another example of stadiums producing large amounts of CO2 was the Wigan vs Manchester United game. The stadium’s carbon footprint was equivalent to around 60 tons.Additionally, the games hosted in these stadiums attract thousands of fans all across the world. The traveling damage on the environment is quite high. Just from the 2018 World Cup, there were about 2.1 million tons of CO2 produced. Going back to the Wigan vs Manchester United game, the travel footprint was around 5,000 tons. The numbers for this game are closer in value to most games, as it is not super “hyped up” like the World Cup. 

Luckily, it is not all awful for soccer fans. Many teams are changing their ways of transportation to games via large electric buses in order to cut down on CO2 emissions. Additionally, teams are building stadiums and regulating plastic use in order to have a smaller footprint. For example, Tottenham Hotspurs—more commonly known as Spurs—eliminated the use of any plastic items such as straws, bags, stirrers, and cutlery in their stadium on opening day. This set an example for many other teams around Europe, and has slowly made a change in how soccer stadiums use plastic.

Soccer is a brilliant sport that can attract more than half the world’s population. But is it worth the immense environmental effects on the planet? Was this eye-opening? How should the carbon emissions of traveling to stadiums be reduced? If you were president of a soccer team, would you do what Spurs did and risk losing money to save the environment?

Sources: http://www.climateaction.org/news/tottenham-hotspur-will-eliminate-single-use-plastics-from-new-stadium

https://www.soccerbox.com/blog/environmental-impact-of-football

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/22/nikes-nigerian-world-cup-jersey-breaks-sales-records.html

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/the_life_of_a_soccer_ball.pdf

https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/football/football-2018-world-cup-watched-by-record-35-billion-people-fifa

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zm8p9x/how-bad-is-football-for-the-environment

How Hospitals are Contributing to Environmental Contamination

Sanjana Poonuru

Modern medicine has been advancing at an exponential rate, with a constant stream of cures and vaccines being researched and the development of new therapies and treatments. However, as medicine continues to advance, it’s important to consider the impact of the popularization of medical practices: namely, the disposal of possibly contaminated equipment. As the world’s population continues to grow the need to provide medical care and services to these people will also continue to grow, which in turn will increase the amount of medical waste being incorrectly disposed of. At present, the disposal and dumping of medical waste is a major issue.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines medical waste as “waste generated by health care activities including a broad range of materials, from used needles and syringes to soiled dressings, body parts, diagnostic samples, blood, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and radioactive materials.” While 85% of medical waste is said to be non hazardous, the remaining 15% could create devastating impacts on both the environment and human health. Used and dirty syringes regularly wash up on beaches or lake shores. Improper antibiotic disposal can expedite the reproduction of antibiotic resistant bacteria, for which new and effective antibiotics have yet to be discovered. Some leftover radioactive liquid from therapy is also thrown into common landfills, which could cause a plethora of unpredictable consequences.

In many health care clinics and hospitals across developing countries, all medical and non-medical waste can often be mixed together and then burned in incinerators. This is harmful for the environment as it results in carbon dioxide being released into the earth’s atmosphere. If not incinerated many medical waste products, such as sharps (needles, scalpels, lancets, broken glass, razors etc) can end up in regular landfill sites and garbage dumps. Waste workers are exposed to potential needle stick injuries and infection when containers break open inside garbage trucks or when needles are mistakenly sent to recycling facilities. Used transit needles can transmit serious diseases, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis. If poisonous toxins leak out of the site, drinking-water sources risk becoming contaminated. Once contaminated the site then becomes more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming to purify. 

In response to this growing problem experts recommend three main strategies which can all be applied simultaneously. The first strategy should be a concerted effort by the health profession itself to efficiently minimise their medical waste. Minimised waste means that less waste needs to be disposed of correctly and the environmental and health concerns related to incorrect disposal are reduced. Secondly, health professionals and policy-makers should work together to raise awareness around proper medical waste disposal techniques and the dangers of incorrect disposal. They can then work towards implementing and promoting effective alternative waste disposal as opposed to basic incineration and landfill dumping. Finally, safe and environmentally-sustainable waste management options should be selected in order to ensure that people directly involved with medical equipment and waste are properly protected and are not at any undue risk. This can include those who work in collecting, handling, storing, transporting, treating and/or disposing of waste.

Although the disposal of medical waste may not be of the utmost importance in comparison to aquatic pollution or carbon dioxide emissions, it’s important that medical items are disposed of in a manner that is both safe and healthy and environmentally responsible. Incorrectly disposed medical waste could eventually create issues far more serious and difficult to combat than any other major environmental problems. How do you feel about this situation? Do you also think it’s ironic how hospitals work tirelessly to help others but also contribute to substantial environmental deterioration? What do you think about the proposed solutions? Can you think of any other methods or innovations that might help with managing waste disposal?

After reading many of the comment, I want those who are saying that the coronavirus is more of an issue currently to consider how the improper disposal of covid-19-contaminated equipment could potentially lead to more infection. If this equipment is not handled properly it puts waste workers at risk of infection. Waste management continues while we are in quarantine, and if those workers catch the virus they then risk spreading it to other workers and potentially, us.

Citations:

https://www.senseandsustainability.net/2017/09/29/dumped-medical-waste-hazardous-to-the-environment/

https://www.epa.gov/rcra/medical-waste

https://www.medprodisposal.com/medical-waste-disposal/what-is-medical-waste-medical-waste-definition-types-examples-and-more/

Do a Favor, Ditch the Flavor

Flavored Coffee Hurts the Environment?

By Audrey Nguyen

          Recently, I've grown to like the taste of coffee, specifically flavored coffee that isn't too bitter yet not too sweet for my tastebuds! However, isn’t it quite suspicious how coffee can be “naturally flavored” to taste like hazelnuts and pumpkin spice? I mean they obviously use some natural ingredients, but the trademark scents of these types of coffee are way too strong to be created from only just natural spices. Turns out that the secret to this “natural flavor” is a chemical called propylene glycol.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much regulation on the use of the “natural” label on coffee and other food products. In fact, artificial emulsifiers and preservatives, including propylene glycerol, are classified as “incidental additives’ meaning that the manufacturer is not required to list these ingredients on food labels. Because the FDA has not fully defined what the term “natural” means, many companies have been able to get away with adding significant amounts of propylene glycol since naturally infusing flavor into coffee requires much effort and money. This misuse of the label consequently causes more people to buy these products, resulting in more and more propylene glycerol to be released into the environment.

          So what exactly is propylene glycol? It’s basically a colorless, petroleum-based liquid that absorbs very well, which is why it’s easy to flavor coffee beans with this substance. Unfortunately, this high absorbency becomes an issue when we dispose our propylene glycol coated coffee remains. Most of the releases of propylene glycol are from the manufacturing plants and from the waste of the products that contain it. This chemical can mix completely with water, causing it to soak into the soil which allows it to enter into many organisms. Propylene glycol can be harmful to us and other animals because it makes our bloodstreams more vulnerable to chemicals since propylene glycol increases our skin’s capacity to absorb. Considering that we encounter numerous harmful chemicals every day, we must be cautious of the indirect consequences of consuming propylene glycol even though this chemical may not be causing problems directly.

         Although the natural label is misused, we can help prevent propylene glycol from entering our environment. Instead of buying coffee with added flavors, we can try to buy raw coffee beans that are actually naturally flavored. For example, if you’re into fruit-flavored coffee, you can buy Ethiopian coffee beans since they have a distinctive berry tang. If you’re more into chocolate-flavored coffee, then try a Brazilian coffee blend, known for its subtle cocoa taste. So let’s do the environment a favor: ditch the propylene glycol flavor!

Questions: If you drink coffee, would you consider switching to all-natural coffee? How should the use of propylene glycerol in coffee and other food products be reduced? What are some ways we could spread the message about the harmful effects of additives like propylene glycol on the environment?

Sources: https://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/02/the-dark-side-of-flavored-coffee-how-flavored-coffee-is-made.html

https://www.ewg.org/foodscores/content/natural-vs-artificial-flavors/ https://www.honeycolony.com/article/propylene-glycol/ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1120&tid=240

How has COVID-19 Affected Earth's Environments?

Emily Pearson

Although the Coronavirus has been devastating to humans across the globe, it has had some unintended positive effects on our environments shedding light on ways we could possibly change our ways in the future. These environmental effects have provided a beacon of hope for many in a dark time, and have caused people to be more appreciative of the nature around them.

One positive effect has been that carbon emissions and air pollution are down in affected nations as a result of the virus. China and Italy, two countries that have been hit especially hard, have seen massive drops in carbon emissions as a result of the virus. Within these countries there has been less travel by air, and land as people are confined within their homes. China has also seen massive drops in nitrogen dioxide, a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, as factories have been shut down and there is less vehicle use. However, experts warn that emissions will bounce back following the quarantines. How countries respond to the pandemic will have massive effects in the future of green energy. Energy companies will be less likely to invest in green energy projects following the pandemic if subsidies or packages aren't offered by the government. This pandemic although devastating provides an excellent opportunity for real change.

Another effect that has been popular on social media is the Venice Canals in Italy. As fewer tourists visit Italy, and natives are confined to their homes, the sediment in the canals has settled and the water has become more clear. Natives can also now see small fish swimming in the canals. Sadly, the change in the canals' visibility is not due to improved water quality. The lack of boat traffic has stopped the sediment from being stirred up. However, it has been a positive experience for many Venice natives as they watch nature seemingly take back the canals. This event to them is a beacon of light in the global pandemic and has opened their eyes to the effects they have on their environment.

The quarantine caused by the Coronavirus has also had a profound affect on the wildlife in Japan and Thailand that rely on tourists to feed them. In Japan, Nara Park is a popular attraction where tourists can pay to feed the sika deer which have been trained to bow before receiving food. As people are refraining from travelling, these deer are not being fed by tourists. They are leaving the park and roaming the city looking for food. This is not safe for the deer that rarely leave the park because they could be struck and killed by a car or ingest something that could be toxic for them, and locals are conflicted about whether they should continue to feed the deer or not.

 In Thailand, macaques that are usually fed by tourists have been brawling in the streets. They have become accustomed to being fed by humans, and so become overaggressive when they are not. These brawls suggest that resources are scarce for the macaques, and so they are fighting over what remains. However, scientists assure that the animals will be fine if left alone. Their diets are flexible and they can fend for themselves. Feeding animals can unintentionally create populations larger than can naturally be sustained. The pandemic has shed light on how our actions can affect wildlife living in cities for better or worse.

These events happening across the globe have emphasized the effect that we have on the world around us. They also provide us with an opportunity to change our ways before it is too late. As people look out their windows and watch nature reclaim the world we have left behind they become more passionate to preserve it.

Questions:
What is one way that governments can make changes now to push for a move to renewable energy after the pandemic?
Do you think feeding animals in cities has had an overall negative effect on them?
Has being in quarantine made you more appreciative of nature overall?
Will you make any changes in your life when the pandemic is over to reduce your carbon footprint?

Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-s-carbon-emissions-suddenly-dropped-recently-but-not-for-the-best-reasons
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/venice-canals-clear-water-scli-intl/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/science/hungry-monkeys-deer-coronavirus.html

Why We Should Be Careful When We Dispose of Medication

Mira Browning

In this day and age, many people have old prescription drugs laying around their houses that are years old. These drugs are usually forgotten about until one goes to clean out the medicine cabinet, and then those pills are flushed down the toilet, or disposed of some other irresponsible way, and forgotten about. Nobody considers the harmful effect each little tablet has on the environment.

Drugs that are flushed down the toilet can leach into the water supply and contaminate it. Many pharmaceutical-related chemicals have been found in waterways and drinking water across the country. These chemicals can harm humans, as well as marine ecosystems. A study by the University of Illinois tells us that chemicals from drugs flushed into waterways causes unusual growth patterns,  abnormal behaviors, and disruption of reproduction cycles in marine life.

Medications that are disposed of irresponsibly can also leech into the groundwater through a septic system. Treatment systems are designed to remove foreign substances from the water before redistributing it back to the public water supply, but these systems have not been equipped to remove drugs. Because of our inability to fix this problem, nearly 40% of the nation’s water supply is permeated by pharmaceuticals through aquifers deep underground, according to an Associated Press investigation.

In order to prevent this issue from damaging the environment even more, there are several ways to dispose of medications safely. 

The first option is a drug take-back program. These programs are good ways to get rid of unneeded medications. Several times per year, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hosts a National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day to provide a safe, convenient and responsible way for disposing medications. Since 2010, the DEA has collected over 9 million pounds of prescription drugs. 

Another option is drug collection kiosks. These are being set up at retail locations and hospitals as a convenient way to dispose of drugs at places that know what to do with them. For example, Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreens and Lake Forest, Illinois-based waste disposal company Stericycle Environmental Solutions recently teamed up to install more than 600 drug collection kiosks in Walgreens stores nationwide to provide a safe, convenient and free way for consumers to return unused medication. To dispose of medication at a kiosk, all one has to do is package the pills and drop it into the opening of the kiosk. It’s simple and easy, and it keeps the environment safe. It is important to keep in mind that most medications, vitamins, ointments, liquids and lotions can be accepted, while needles, inhalers, hydrogen peroxide and illegal drugs cannot be.

Questions: What is another way you can think of that is a safe way to dispose of drugs? What should treatment systems do to filter out drugs in the water supply? Have you ever flushed medication down the toilet? How many leftover pill bottles do you have just sitting around your house right now?

Citations: 

https://www.verywellhealth.com/safe-drug-disposal-2615032

http://www.takebackyourmeds.org/why/medicines-in-the-environment/

https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/the-dangerous-of-improper-drug-disposal/

New Ways to Dispose Bodies

Arjun Dandekar
As more and more humans are born on Earth, it logically follows that more and more people are dying. Many different cultures have their own way of disposing of bodies, however, these methods can have compounding environmental consequences. As a result of these environmental consequences, many environmental scientists have been tasked with finding newer, eco-friendly ways to dispose of bodies, while even helping ecosystems grow. To capitalize on this trend, one state is in the process of legalizing this method of decomposition and a company in Seattle is expected to start receiving corpses.



The environmental issues with the way cultures currently dispose of bodies largely revolve around the chemicals that are released and the resources that are used. For example, the process of burial, one of the more common post-death services, necessitates the usage of harmful chemicals for the embalming process, requires the use of large sums of land and resources to manage the burial sites, and are very costly. Another common ritual is cremation: the burning of the body. This process releases, although more eco-friendly than a burial, still releases harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, and is also rendered as "sterile" (the ashes do not continue the cycle of nutrients). Cremation uses almost two entire tanks of fuel to burn a single body and doesn't contribute anything back to the environment.



Allowing the body to naturally decompose can solve the environmental issues associated with traditional rituals. The company that is known for this process "Recompose" has released estimates stating that this process of decomposition saves around one metric ton of carbon dioxide that would've occurred with cremation. Furthermore, the process is surprisingly fast and doesn't require a plethora of resources to complete. Rather than adding other microbes and bacteria to break down the body, scientists simply stimulate an environment that catalyzes the microbes that naturally form on the body (even when you are alive). This speeds up the process of decomposition as long as the right nutrients are provided and sustained over time. An experiment that was done at Washington State University found that the bodies decomposed to skeletons after 4-7 weeks of continuous decomposition.



More states around the US are starting to lean towards cremation as their preferred post-death method. This signals a healthy change from the resource-exhausting burial process that has been the cultural staple of many different states. However, cremation is still a process that puts harmful chemicals into the environment while also consuming substantial amounts of fuel to complete. Rather than settling for a "lesser of the two evils", the US should continue to make attempts to legalize natural body decomposition as a relatively cheap, eco-friendly alternative that is a mutual win for all associated parties. While natural body decomposition is a relatively new idea, many scientists are intrigued to see what may come out of this discovery in a legislative sense.  As we progress as a society, it is important that we take a look at many cultural staples and assess their impact on the environment with the hopeful end-goal of emulating an eco-friendly solution that satisfies the people and the environment.

Questions: If you had to choose a method for a post-death ritual, what would you choose? Do you think the cultural importance outweighs the environmental impact? What newer methods of body disposal do you think could also solve the environmental issue currently at hand? Do you think that the States should legalize this process?

Citations:
https://www.businessinsider.com/burying-dead-bodies-environment-funeral-conservation-2015-10#eco-friendly-alternatives-do-exist-6
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/turning-human-bodies-into-compost-works-small-trial-suggests
https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-state-human-compost-bodies-into-soil-2019-5
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-funeral-future-help-heal-environment-180957953/