POST 00835E : DESTRUCTION OF PLASTIC SYRINGES
Follow-up on Posts 00819E, 00824E, 00830E and 00832E
20 September 2005
_____________________________________
Ville Lehto (mailto:[email protected]) from Finland contributes
again on the topic, commenting on Anil Varshney's suggestions (Post
00830E). It is followed by a short comment by the moderator...again!
_____________________________________
Sorry for my late reaction again! I saw posting 00830E, and I have to
admit I was quite surprised with Anil's recommendation.
The uncontrolled burning of plastics in general is seldom pollution-free.
Burning a small amount at a time creates a small amount of emission at a
time. Indeed dividing the amount of material in smaller loads doesn't help
if the total amount is the same (many small loads of waste, many small
amounts of emissions), unless it somehow improves the process (like less
syringes, more air in a tin box).
What emissions are created depends on the inputs (waste, fuel). Without any
preheating the temperature is unlikely to reach 800 C (at least from the
beginning) and furans and dioxins are likely to form should there be any
chlorine-containing components involved. In addition to the inputs also the
burning conditions (temperature, air supply, humidity...) affect the
results. As these conditions are not fixed in the uncontrolled burning,
also the results (emissions) will vary.
Saving the forests by forgetting about the safety boxes is a question of
values. We can't achieve perfect environmental performance and perfect
safety at the same time. Instead there is a trade off situation where any
extreme value seldom turns out to be the best. When it comes to safety
boxes, my personal opinion is that the value of the enhanced safety is
bigger than the lost environmental value of the amount of the trees needed
to manufacture them, especially if the material is taken from a source that
meets the requirements of sustainable forestry. But as mentioned this is a
question of values, and probably everyone has an own opinion about where to
draw the line.
I agree with Anil about the benefits of on-site solution. Many times the
costs and emissions created by the additional steps like transporting are
higher than the achieved benefits. Naturally when all the requirements for
recycling exist (large amounts, short distances, buyer for the recycled
material) it is good to take the material back to the industrial system.
I hope this is useful!
Kind regards,
Ville Lehto
Marketing Manager
Mediburner Ltd ,
Oulu , FINLAND
---------------------------
Moderator's comment :
This whole issue of the best way to dispose of sharps doesn't seem clear to
me at all. Both Anil and Ville agree on benefits of solutions at the point
of use. But it is obvious that burning syringes whether in the safety-box
or in a tin container will produce persistent pollutants, thus contrary to
the Stockholm Convention. Burning of safety boxes doesn't reach by far a
high enough temperature to be clean. Added up all over the world, then it
means pollution on a significant scale. Are organizations signing
international agreements and then turn a blind eye on practices they recommend?
It seems that the vaccine delivery systems in place could be conveniently
used to collect safety boxes at a negligible marginal cost and then boxes
incinerated in a controlled manner whether at district or provincial level
where adequate facilities exist, instead of on-site. Isn't it what WHO
indeed recommends, I believe?
______________________________________________________________________________
Visit the TECHNET21 Website at http://www.technet21.org
You will find instructions to subscribe, a direct access to archives, links to reference documents and other features.
______________________________________________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to : mailto:[email protected]
Leave the subject area BLANK
In the message body, write unsubscribe TECHNET21E
______________________________________________________________________________
The World Health Organization and UNICEF support TechNet21. The TechNet21 e-Forum is a communication/information tool for generation of ideas on how to improve immunization services. It is moderated by Claude Letarte and is hosted in cooperation with the Centre de coopération internationale en santé et développement, Québec, Canada (http://www.ccisd.org)
______________________________________________________________________________
There are no replies made for this post yet.