Waste disposal problem- How to slove it?

Currently, Malaysia is still using traditional waste method, mainly landfilling, as a way of disposing waste. However, no matter how much land the country owns, it will be exhausted one day. In other words, Malaysia might end up with no more area for landfilling. Clearly, now is the time of a systematic way in disposing waste should be introduced and well devolpoded in Malaysia.

First of all, the three-stream collection system shoud be introduced in Malaysia. Acccording to Collins.J (2002), this method is currently used in those high-achieving cities, such that waste being seperated into organics, dry recyclables and tricky residual. From there, we can make use of these wastes accordingly. For instance, orgainic waste may be used in producing fertilizer or even generates electricity. By the means of advanced technology, hydrocarbon which is the main composition among organic waste may be extracted from organic waste and then used as fuel to generate electricity, while the remaining residual may still be used as the raw material of fertilizer.

Meanwhile, dry recyclables will be sent to a collecting center and be further seperated to paper, plastic, metal, etc. These valuable resources will be sent to respective recyling center for direct recycling purpose. At the same time, the tricky residual, which composed by mainly chemical ingredient, should be handled carefully. Unlike the dry recyclable waste, most tricky residual can not be recycled. Hence, they should be chemically treated until they do not pollute the environment when disposed.

Also, according to Collins.J (2002), New Zealand is quite successful in the zero waste ambition. Malaysia should send a team there to learn their way of disposing waste, and apply what is practical to fit Malaysia's needs. It is always better to learn from other who is more experience, especially the succeed one.

Despite the technology used, what Malaysia really needs to learn is how to educate its people. This highly efficient way of disposing waste can't be used as long as people there do not take the initiative to seperate the waste themselves.

Source: Collins.J (2002, Oct 3rd). Radical plans for waste could herald a big clean-up. The Guardian Weekly. p.25

The Chernobyl disaster. [ Upgraded ]

Essay Prompt: Choose one recent "engineering disaster" that has affected the environment in one country and explain how could it be avoided.

The Chernobyl disaster was the most serious nuclear plant accident in history. On 26 April 1986, together with the explosion of reactor Unit 4 in V.I. Lenin Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station, the radioactive material it released polluted almost all the countries in Europe. The city was abandoned as the area was contaminated with dense nuclide toxic. Overall, 56 people died within a few months, either due to the explosion directly or after being exposed to massive radiation doses (Uranium Information Centre, 2008). Also, it raised the possibility of the people who settled in the affected area getting cancer or passing other problems such as genetic defects to their children. These consequences were caused by the flawed reactor design, coupled with some consecutive serious mistakes that were made by the plant personnel. Obviously, the horrible disaster could have been avoided.

The RBMK-1000 reactor, which was designed in 1954 and operated safely for over 30 years, had several inbuilt design faults(Park, 1989). The combination of water coolant and positive void coefficient of the RBMK was the biggest design fault since that made the reactor just like a “time-bomb”(Park, 1989,p149). A modern reactor is either using gas coolant or set to negative void coefficient, which guarantee no repetition of Chernobyl-like explosion. Furthermore, the RBMK reactor should has more automatic safety features that could not be disabled by an operator, in order to minimizes man-made mistake, just like a modern reactor today. For instance, the control rods should be inserted into the reactor at once automatically when the temperature or pressure goes beyond the standard range, while ensuring the power supply of the control rods and the monitoring system. Therefore, the chance of explosion in modern nuclear plant that triggered by the reactor itself is almost nil.

At the same time, a nuclear power plant should not be built at a densely populated area to prevent people from the exposure of radioactive toxic. “A nuclear reactor site must have a population exclusion zone, for example, no population within 800 meters” (Ramsey & Modarres, 1998, p180). However, the initiative to prevent the material from spreading should be taken, as the disaster taught us. Hence, a fallout shelter which performs that task should be built in any nuclear based facilities, not just at a nuclear power plant. Meanwhile, the possibility of any external factors that affecting safe operation such as aircraft crashing or natural disasters should be taken into account in the design of a nuclear plant( Ramsey & Modarres, 1998). The plant building structure must have some ability to absorb external forces, for example the collision of aircraft or earthquake, and protection against fire in order to gain some buffer time for the automatic safety features to operate.

Another approach to prevent such a disaster from happening again is to ensure that all plant operators are familiar with the safety guidelines, in addition to the knowledge of nuclear science. Take UK as an example: their nuclear plant operators are highly trained graduates who need to work in Central Electricity Generating Board for several years before they receive strict training of nuclear plant operation (Park, 1989). Any newly constructed nuclear power plant should hire those experienced operators as their first badge operators. Also, all experiments with the reactor should be approved by more than one nuclear expert so that the experiment can be done safely. Since the disaster was begun by an unauthorized experiment with the reactor.

In conclusion, no matter how ‘safe’ a nuclear plant it declared, it is still a risky tool for human beings. Therefore, the ultimate method to prevent the disaster is, of course, not to build a nuclear plant at all! This is possible with the development of alternative energy source such as solar power and fuel cells.

References:

Mark Resnicoff.(n.d.) My visit to Chernobyl : 20 Years After the Disaster .Retrieved March 10, 2008, from

http://www.chernobylee.com/articles/chernobyl/my-journey-to-chernobyl-1.php

Park, C.C. (1989). Chernobyl: The long shadow. London and New York: Routledge.

Ramsey, C. B. & Modarres, M. (1998). Commercial nuclear power : Assuring safety for the future. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, INC.

Uranium Information Centre. (2008, Feb). Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 22: Chernobyl Accident .Retrieved March 10, 2008, from

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

Draft

In Singapore and Malaysia, people pronounced 'tree' and 'three' in the same way which is totally wrong. When i showed this to one of my friend from China, he simply don't understand it.

save trees /= save 3s

"Saving Nature, But Only for man"-Charles Krauthammer

I would raise up both my hands for it.

Civilization is a process that destroy nature in order to cater human needs. Its motive is to build an environment that more comfortable for man. Human work hard for centuries to achieve that goal. Sarcastically, it also build an environment that not suitable for human at the same time. Polluted air, polluted water, polluted land, chemical composed food, climate change , and ozone depletion are typical examples.

Therefore, somebody realized it and shout out: " Hey, we can't let this continue; we must save the world! ". So, man began to study what is wrong. Since then, man created a new word-'recycle'. Recycling is recognized as a symbol of environmental friendly action. But is it just because of we want to preserve virgin forest? The answer is no. A simple answer is the cost of recycling is much more cheaper than if we produce the same thing from the raw material. It is a definite result from economic. Also, how many people are using solar power water heater which is more environmentally friendlier? You know the answer, since solar power heater is expensive.


After being educated, most people would agree 'green' is good and essential. But they will only practice it if and only if convenient and economical benefit.