5R's to improve the ENVIRONMENT - Recycle

Recycling - Recycling is the process of re-using a given product (beyond its intended use), or producing a new product from a recyclable material.

Why Should We Recycle?

Conservation

All man-made products incorporate raw materials to create the finished product. This involves harvesting the earth's natural resources (e.g. wood, metal) in order to acquire the raw materials.

Deforestation is a prime example of how harvesting natural resources is harming the environment. This could be reduced if we recycle more paper and old wooden products.

Energy Saving

Recycling reduces the amount of energy needed to create a new, similar product. If we didn't recycle paper, more trees would have to be chopped down, transported, and manufactured into the finished product.

This reason why you should recycle is a very important one, as energy conservation is one of the key ingredients for the fight against climate change.

Reduce Pollution

Tied in with energy saving, is the reduction of pollution as a result of manufacturing processes becoming more efficient.

Any reduction in CO2 or other harmful gases is not only a key ingredient for the fight against climate change, but a key ingredient for cleaning the air we breathe.

If we can reduce pollution levels from the manufacturing industry by a significant level, this could have a positive impact on our health.

Landfill Reduction

The more we recycle, the more we can help to reduce the burden on local and national landfill sites. As population levels increase, we will need to find more landfill sites, which will harm the surrounding environment and wildlife.

This is another important reason why we should recycle more, in order to reduce the impact landfills have on the surrounding environment.

 

Understanding the Rules (set by government) for Recycling

The biggest challenge for communities addressing waste prevention and recycling at government facilities is their lack of power to regulate the actions of State and federal agencies. Understanding the rules that apply at each level and educating facility managers about their responsibilities is important when addressing recycling issues.

Local Agencies

Recycling policies vary among local governments. In most cases, the city council or board of supervisors has passed a recycling policy that mandates certain types of in-house recycling programs. Sacramento County recently implemented a recycling ordinance that requires all private haulers to achieve at least 30 percent diversion. The ordinance also covers county facilities, including the county’s two transfer stations.
One key challenge for local governments is implementing recycling programs for community service districts (CSD). CSDs and other special districts are often formed in unincorporated areas and have their own governing body. As a result, CSDs are not under the direct control of a city or county agency. Chapter 764, Statutes of 1999 (AB 75, Strom-Martin) requires CSDs to report to jurisdictions on their programs and tonnages. While the provision doesn’t require CSDs to comply with the IWMA requirements, it does provide information on the activities of CSDs to cities and counties. The local jurisdictions can include this information in their annual reports.
State Agencies
AB 75, implemented in 1999, mandates that State agencies comply with IWMA diversion requirements. Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 42920–42928 contain the following requirements:

• Requires each State agency to develop an integrated waste management plan. State agencies may prepare their own plan or use the model plan developed by the CalRecycle.
• Requires each State agency and each large State facility (individual California State University campuses, community colleges, prisons) to divert 25 percent of its waste by 2002 and 50 percent by 2004.
• Requires each State agency to appoint a recycling coordinator.
• Requires State agencies to provide adequate areas for recycling in State-owned and leased buildings.
• Requires State agencies to report annually on program implementation and diversion rates.

“Agency” includes every State office, department, board, commission, or other agency of the State. In addition to the requirements of AB 75, the following policies and statutes address State agency recycling:

• Executive Order W-7-91 requires California State agencies to buy recycled products and set up recycling programs for recyclable materials, where feasible, and requires the CalRecycle to assist in these efforts.
• Public Contract Code (PCC) sections 12164.5–12167.1 require the CalRecycle to implement and maintain a recycling plan for the Legislature and all State-owned and leased buildings and provide for the recycling of office paper, corrugated cardboard, newsprint, beverage containers, waste oil, and any other recyclable material generated in sufficient quantity.
• PCC section 12165 (d) prohibits establishment of a recycling program by any State office, agency, or its employees without CalRecycle approval.
• PCC section 12167.1 requires State agencies and institutions to report quantities of materials collected for recycling to the CalRecycle.
• PRC sections 42560–42562 require the CalRecycle to initiate a high-grade white office paper recovery assistance program for California State offices by providing training materials and recycling containers, identifying markets for collected materials, and negotiating contracts with local secondary material brokers.

California State Administration Manual Chapter 1990 informs employees at State facilities of CalRecycle policies and procedures regarding the prevention of solid waste generation. It also describes the reuse or recycling of solid waste as an alternative, along with related State agency and individual State facility responsibilities.
The CalRecycle is responsible for overseeing AB 75 implementation and assisting State agencies in the development of their programs (see State Agency Recycling Program).
Federal Agencies
On October 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12873, “Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention.” On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13101, which strengthened the implementation and enforcement of recycling requirements. Although the executive orders primarily addressed the purchase of recycled products, the orders also established policies for the development of recycling programs. Order 13101 includes the following provisions:

• Requires each agency to include recycling provisions in the acquisition of all leased space and in the construction of new federal buildings.
• Requires each agency to initiate a recycling program that is compatible with State and local recycling requirements.
• Allows executive agencies to retain a share of proceeds from the sale of recycled materials.
• Requires each agency to establish goals for both waste prevention and recycling and to report on progress in its annual report.

“Agency” includes all executive agencies as defined in U.S. Code Title 5, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 105, including the Department of Defense. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of recycling and procurement programs at federal agencies.

Recycling Etiquette

Recycling can sometimes be confusing and it can be difficult to know whether you are following all the right rules. Improve your recycling efforts by learning some recycling etiquette rules and check out which type of collection is best and why different areas recycle and collect in different ways.

Why is recycling provision so variable across the UK?

The government does not specify how recycling targets should be met, so it’s up to the local authority to implement schemes suited to their area. Services and facilities thus vary greatly, from separated waste collection to the single kerbside “green box” system. Variation seems endless, and it’s due to the following:

• Cost – Investment in new recycling facilities is expensive, so cash-strapped councils stick to established recycling processes, (paper, glass).

• Targets – Statutory recycling targets are weight-based, shifting focus onto heavier waste streams (glass, metal) at the expense of lighter plastics.

• Logistics – Collection can be problematic in rural (long distances between homes, scarcity of recycling facilities) and urban areas (limited space, tower blocks).

• No nationwide framework – Industry bodies, charities and campaign groups encourage best practice but there is still a lack of government guidance.

Which type of collection is best?

Recycling collection schemes aim to, firstly, divert more waste from landfill and, secondly, facilitate efficient, profitable recycling. However, the debate rages on the proper method for meeting these targets:
The case for “co-mingled” collections
A 2005 study by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) showed that the quantity of paper collected for recycling rose when collections moved from single-material to multi-material. Clearly, separating recyclables takes time, whereas co-mingled (mixed waste) collections are easier for the householder, and boost overall recycling levels.
To collect the material accepted in co-mingled schemes individually, kerbside collection lorries would need to be highly compartmentalised. Co-mingled kerbside collections reduce the number of trips householders make to recycling centres. Both factors make co-mingled collections more energy-efficient.
The case for separation
Costs increase as more collection and separation is required for the recovery process. Furthermore, co-mingled waste leads to an increased risk of contamination. Different types of material are in contact with each other, and a single kerbside box may result in householders being less attentive when sorting recyclate. The recycling box becomes more of a second dustbin, with hygiene and cross-contamination both issues to be considered.
The solution?
A good compromise is the dual bag method adopted by several local authorities. Powys County Council, for example, provide households with two bags – a red one for plastics and metal, a black one for paper, card and textiles. Partial separation makes the process more efficient for the council, without placing a burden on householders.

What’s in your Rubbish Bin?

A large percentage of households still do not recycle enough and throw everything that they consider ‘rubbish’ into their ordinary bin.
Much of this waste can be recycled and should be disposed of separately to general household waste. Look inside this rubbish bin to see how much of the contents should actually have been recycled. Check our list on the right to see how to recycle different materials.

• Recycling is not just separating your green glass from your brown or collecting newspapers. Send your ink jet and laser printer cartridges back for recycling – many cartridge companies will even provide you with postage free return shipping.

Items to recycle?

• To identify recyclable products, the universal recycling logo/symbol was introduced. The logo can be used for a variety of different reasons, for example, a recycling symbol with a percentage inside identifies a product made from recyclable material, and doesn't necessarily mean it can be recycled.
  Some materials are much harder to recycle than others. Plastic based products can be very hard to recycle, when compared with paper based products.
  For materials which are hard to break down, if we need these products for a vital purpose, then we should purchase durable goods which will last for a very long time, reducing the need to replace the item in the near future.Check out this great list of items you never thought to recycle.

Car parts

• Car Batteries: "An automotive battery, also referred to as a lead-acid battery, contains about 21 pounds of lead, three pounds of plastic and one gallon of sulfuric acid. These items can be toxic if handled improperly.
• Vehicle Tires: "North America still faces a backlog of hundreds of millions of old tires, quickly piling up outside filling stations and in backyards near you. The EPA estimates that 290 million scrap tires are generated annually, representing two percent of all solid waste, and that some 265 million are sitting in stockpiles right now."
• Motor Oil
• Cars, boats, ATVs, etc.

Electronics:

• Cell Phones: There are tons of services nowadays that will grab you old cell phones. Get them out of your junk drawer and let Recellular, Cell Phones for Soldiers, or RBRC take them off your hands.
• Monitors
• Printers and Print Cartridges: Many of the major manufacturers offer recycling programs in which users can return empty cartridges. The used cartridges are separated and then either recycled or disposed of.
• Cables: Ha! Nothing! This kills me. Who wants to start a business?
• iPod: Apple’s commitment to responsible environmental citizenship includes ensuring that an iPod is properly disposed of at the end of its useful life. The recycling program covers your iPod or any cell phone — regardless of the manufacturer or model.

Household items: This list will most likely be long...

• Old CDs or DVDs
• Plastic Utensils
• Shoes
• Batteries: Call2Recycle - "Dry-cell batteries include alkaline and carbon zinc (9-volt, D, C, AA, AAA), mercuric-oxide (button, some cylindrical and rectangular), silver-oxide and zinc-air (button), and lithium (9-volt, C, AA, coin, button, rechargeable). On average, each person in the United States discards eight dry-cell batteries per year."
• Drywall - Are you tearing out walls or finishing your basement? Well, that scrap drywall can be recycled!
• Appliances - Do you have an old oven, refrigerator, stove or freezer and appliance repair is out of the question? Check out ARCA -the Appliance Recycling Center. If they won't take it, they can tell you who can!
• Clothing Hangers - This is a highly recyclable item but I could not find a solid site that I'm comfortable sending you to. Check with your local city manager or government.
• Eyeglasses
• Foam Packaging
• Paint
• Carpeting
  

Other Ways of Recycling:

• Old Jeans (check the website out!)
• 
  CFL Bulbs

Sources: http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/energy_definitions/definition_of_recycling.html

http://recycling-guide.org.uk/rrr.html

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/recycle/recycle_logo_symbol.html
http://www.wisebread.com/twenty-five-things-to-do-with-old-jeans
http://www.ehow.com/how_9169_recycle-eyeglasses.html
http://www.carpetrecovery.org/faqs.php
http://www.arcainc.com/
http://www.call2recycle.org/call2recycle/
http://www.world.org/reuse/plastic.utensils
http://www.soles4souls.org/

Domino effect of extinction

Extinctions Could Have Domino Effect, Study Says

In a study released today, researchers warn that the loss of plants and animals currently listed as threatened or endangered could have a domino effect on other species that depend on them.

The scientists estimate if the nearly 12,200 animals and plants worldwide currently listed as threatened or endangered were to disappear, another 6,300 "affiliate" species could also be lost..

Such specialization makes affiliate species especially vulnerable to extinction should the host species die out, the scientists say.

The researchers believe these dependent species should now be included in current extinction estimates. They add that coextinction (the loss of one species resulting from the loss of another) is a largely unexamined and potentially substantial contributor to the current global extinction crisis.

The team used a model based on known coevolved relationships between organisms such as fig trees and the fig wasps that pollinate them, and parasitic butterflies and their host ants. The analysis identified a further 6,300 endangered species.

The study also highlights at least 200 plants and animals that have already been lost through coextinction.

Co-author Navjot Sodhi says an examination of the skins of extinct animals would likely reveal many more examples of coextinct creatures.

"A parasite on the dodo could have gone coextinct if the dodo was its only host bird," said Sodhi, a biologist at the National University of Singapore.

While the plight of parasitic lice and mites are unlikely to attract outpourings of public sympathy, more charismatic insects are also at risk.

Adapted from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_extinctions.html

Extinction of animals-Human factor

Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts

Conservationists say rate of new species slower than diversity loss caused by the destruction of habitats and climate change

The IUCN lists west African giraffes as an endangered species. Conservationists say the rate of new species is slower than diversity loss. Photograph: Graeme Robertson

For the first time since the dinosaurs disappeared, humans are driving animals and plants to extinction faster than new species can evolve, one of the world's experts on biodiversity has warned.

Conservation experts have already signalled that the world is in the grip of the "sixth great extinction" of species, driven by the destruction of natural habitats, hunting, the spread of alien predators and disease, and climate change.

However until recently it has been hoped that the rate at which new species were evolving could keep pace with the loss of diversity of life.

Speaking in advance of two reports next week on the state of wildlife in Britain and Europe, Simon Stuart, chair of the Species Survival Commission for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature – the body which officially declares species threatened and extinct – said that point had now "almost certainly" been crossed.

"Measuring the rate at which new species evolve is difficult, but there's no question that the current extinction rates are faster than that; I think it's inevitable," said Stuart.

The IUCN created shock waves with its major assessment of the world's biodiversity in 2004, which calculated that the rate of extinction had reached 100-1,000 times that suggested by the fossil records before humans.

No formal calculations have been published since, but conservationists agree the rate of loss has increased since then, and Stuart said it was possible that the dramatic predictions of experts like the renowned Harvard biologist E O Wilson, that the rate of loss could reach 10,000 times the background rate in two decades, could be correct.

"All the evidence is he's right," said Stuart. "Some people claim it already is that ... things can only have deteriorated because of the drivers of the losses, such as habitat loss and climate change, all getting worse. But we haven't measured extinction rates again since 2004 and because our current estimates contain a tenfold range there has to be a very big deterioration or improvement to pick up a change."

Extinction is part of the constant evolution of life, and only 2-4% of the species that have ever lived on Earth are thought to be alive today. However fossil records suggest that for most of the planet's 3.5bn year history the steady rate of loss of species is thought to be about one in every million species each year.

Only 869 extinctions have been formally recorded since 1500, however, because scientists have only "described" nearly 2m of an estimated 5-30m species around the world, and only assessed the conservation status of 3% of those, the global rate of extinction is extrapolated from the rate of loss among species which are known. In this way the IUCN calculated in 2004 that the rate of loss had risen to 100-1,000 per millions species annually – a situation comparable to the five previous "mass extinctions" – the last of which was when the dinosaurs were wiped out about 65m years ago.

Critics, including The Skeptical Environmentalist author, Bjørn Lomborg, have argued that because such figures rely on so many estimates of the number of underlying species and the past rate of extinctions based on fossil records of marine animals, the huge margins for error make these figures too unreliable to form the basis of expensive conservation actions.

However Stuart said that the IUCN figure was likely to be an underestimate of the problem, because scientists are very reluctant to declare species extinct even when they have sometimes not been seen for decades, and because few of the world's plants, fungi and invertebrates have yet been formally recorded and assessed.

The calculated increase in the extinction rate should also be compared to another study of thresholds of resilience for the natural world by Swedish scientists, who warned that anything over 10 times the background rate of extinction – 10 species in every million per year – was above the limit that could be tolerated if the world was to be safe for humans, said Stuart.

"No one's claiming it's as small as 10 times," he said. "There are uncertainties all the way down; the only thing we're certain about is the extent is way beyond what's natural and it's getting worse."

Many more species are "discovered" every year around the world, than are recorded extinct, but these "new" plants and animals are existing species found by humans for the first time, not newly evolved species.

In addition to extinctions, the IUCN has listed 208 species as "possibly extinct", some of which have not been seen for decades. Nearly 17,300 species are considered under threat, some in such small populations that only successful conservation action can stop them from becoming extinct in future. This includes one-in-five mammals assessed, one-in-eight birds, one-in-three amphibians, and one-in-four corals.

Later this year the Convention on Biological Diversity is expected to formally declare that the pledge by world leaders in 2002 to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 has not been met, and to agree new, stronger targets.

Despite the worsening problem, and the increasing threat of climate change, experts stress that understanding of the problems which drive plants and animals to extinction has improved greatly, and that targeted conservation can be successful in saving species from likely extinction in the wild.

This year has been declared the International Year of Biodiversity and it is also hoped that a major UN report this summer, on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity, will encourage governments to devote more funds to conservation.

Professor Norman MacLeod, keeper of palaeontology at the Natural History Museum in London, cautioned that when fossil experts find evidence of a great extinction it can appear in a layer of rock covering perhaps 10,000 years, so they cannot say for sure if there was a sudden crisis or a build up of abnormally high extinction rates over centuries or millennia.

For this reason, the "mathematical artefacts" of extinction estimates were not sufficient to be certain about the current state of extinction, said MacLeod.

"If things aren't falling dead at your feel that doesn't mean you're not in the middle of a big extinction event," he said. "By the same token if the extinctions are and remain relatively modest then the changes, [even] aggregated over many years, are still going to end up a relatively modest extinction event."

Adapted from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve

Extinction of animals

Extinction vs Endangered

An extinct animal species is a species of animal with no living members. Extinct species range from long-departed animals like the dinosaurs to recently extinct animals like Costa Rica's Golden Toad. Extinct species have no natural path to re-existence. An endangered animal species is a species of animal considered to have a high risk of becoming extinct in the near future.

Why are some animals extinct?

• Climatic Heating and Cooling-Climate Change is caused by a number of things. The effect that climate has on extinction is very big. The biodiverse Earth can't keep up with the rapid changes in temperature and climate. The species are not used to severe weather conditions and long seasons, or a changing chemical make-up of their surroundings. As more species die, it is only making it more difficult for the survivors to find food. The warmer climates we are used to present-day are perfect for diseases and epidemics to thrive.
• Changes in Sea Levels or Currents-The changes in sea levels and currents is a result, in part, of the melting freshwater. The denser, saltier water sinks and forms the currents that marine life depends on. Ocean floor spreading and rising also affects sea level. A small rise in the ocean floor can displace a lot of water onto land that is all ready occupied. The gases from the volcanic activity can also be absorbed by the water, thus changing the chemical composition, making it unsuitable for some life.
• Asteroids/Cosmic Radiation-Asteroids hit the earth with extreme force. The reverberations can be felt around the world. The impact site is completey destroyed.
• Cosmic Radiation is radiation being emitted from outer space and the Sun. It is hypothesized that being exposed to too much cosmic radiation can mutate genes, which can potentially weaken a species' genepool in the future. Since the radiation comes from space and the Sun, it is extremely difficult to avoid the radiation. Supernova remnants is one source of cosmic radiation.
• Acid Rain-Acid rain forms when sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides are put out into the atmosphere. The chemicals get absorbed by water droplets in the clouds, and eventually fall to the earth as acid precipitation. Acid rain increases the acidity of the soil which affects plant life. It can also disturb rivers and lakes to a possibly lethal level.
• Disease/Epidemic-Each species has defense mechanisms like immunities and the ability to fight disease. With the changing climate and landscape certain species are losing their ability to fend off disease. They are becoming more susceptible to disease and epidemics, which can lead to their eventual extinction.
• Spread of Invasive Species-Invasive species invade foreign territory. They use resources that the other species depend on. Once competition gets too great, the survival of the fittest plan will begin, and one of the species, usually the natural one, will die off.
• Increased human population
• Destruction/Fragmentation of Habitat
• Pollution
• Climate Change/Global Warming

What can we do?

• Do not buy animal products such as a tiger's claw, elephants tusk etc. Because the animals are cruelly killed for their body parts.
• Try to support organisations such as world wildlife fund as they too strive for the prevention of animal extinction except on a larger scale.
• If you know people who seek pleasure through sports such as hunting, discourage them by explaining the consequences of their actions.
• Do not buy product that are tested on animals. By doing so we can also prevent animal cruelty.

Sources:

http://www.uwec.edu/jolhm/EH4/Extinction/CausesLink.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Do-Your-Part-to-Prevent-Animal-Extinction

http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/extinct-animals.html

Reducing pollution

Pictures: Green Walls May Cut Pollution in Cities

A living wall bursts with vegetation at Paris's Musée du Quai Branly—a type of green wall that's catching on in some big cities.

These vegetated surfaces don't just look pretty. They have other benefits as well, including cooling city blocks, reducing loud noises, and improving a building's energy efficiency. (See a complete list of green wall benefits.)

What's more, a recent modeling study shows that green walls can potentially reduce large amounts of air pollution in what's called a "street canyon," or the corridor between tall buildings.

For the study, Thomas Pugh, a biogeochemist at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, and his colleagues created a computer model of a green wall with generic vegetation in a Western European city. Then they recorded chemical reactions based on a variety of factors, such as wind speed and building placement.

The simulation revealed a clear pattern: A green wall in a street canyon trapped or absorbed large amounts of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter—both pollutants harmful to people, said Pugh. (Related: "Pictures: 10 Green-Tech City Solutions for Beating the Heat.")

Compared with reducing emissions from cars, little attention has been focused on how to trap or take up more of the pollutants, added Pugh, whose study was published last year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

That's why the green-wall study is "putting forward an alternative solution that might allow [governments] to improve air quality in these problem hot spots," he said.

—Christine Dell'Amore

Adapted from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/pictures/130325-green-walls-environment-cities-science-pollution/

noise, radioactive, soil and thermal pollution

Noise pollution
Noise pollution is displeasing or excessive noise that may disrupt the activity or balance of human or animal life
--Sources--

• construction sites
• Loud music
• Transportation eg Cars, motorcycles, buses
• Household eg Blender, vacuum cleaner, washing machine and air conditioner

--effects--

• Health problems eg Hearing loss, headache, poor concentration, fatigue from lack of sleep, loss of psychological well being\

--Actions--

• Construction of soundproof rooms for noisy machines in industrial and manufacturing installations must be encouraged. This is also important for residential building—noisy machines should be installed far from sleeping and living rooms, like in a basement or garage.
• Use of horns with jarring sounds, motorbikes with damaged exhaust pipes, noisy trucks to be banned.
• Noise producing industries, airports, bus and transport terminals and railway stations to sighted far from where living places.
• Community law enforcers should check the misuse of loudspeakers, worshipers, outdoor parties and discos, as well as public announcements systems.
• Community laws must silence zones near schools / colleges, hospitals etc.
• Vegetation (trees) along roads and in residential areas is a good way to reduce noise pollution as they absorb sound.
• Encourage use of public transport
• Be considerate to others

Radioactive pollution

The radioactive pollution is defined as the physical pollution of air, water and the other radioactive materials.

--causes--

• Production of nuclear weapons - radioactive materials used in this production have high health risks and release a small amount of pollution. Thanks to good current health-standards this release is not significant and is not a danger to us unless an accident occurs. Standards have not always been so high, however, as in Fernald, Ohio.
• Decommissioning of nuclear weapons - the decommissioning of nuclear weapons causes slightly more radioactive pollution than in the production, however, the waste (alpha particles) is still of low risk and not dangerous unless ingested.
• Mining of radioactive ore (uranium, phosphate etc.) - mining these involves crushing and processing of the radioactive ores and this generates radioactive waste which emits alpha particles. This waste is of low risk unless ingested.
• Coal ash - it may come as a surprise that coal ash can be very dangerous. Some coal contains more radioactive material than usual and is often referred to as 'dirty' coal; when this is burnt the ash becomes more radioactive as the radioactive particles do not burn well. This level of radioactivity is less than in phosphate rocks, however, due to small amounts being released into the atmosphere and its ability to be inhaled, this ash is significantly more dangerous.
• Medical waste - a number of radioactive isotopes are used in medicine, either for treatment or diagnostics. These can be left to decay over a short period after which they are able to be disposed of as normal waste.
• Nuclear power plants - nuclear power plants under current standards produce little radioactive pollution due to safety precautions that must be adhered to. Accidents at these power plants can cause dangerously high radioactive pollution, such as in the case of Chernobyl, the most well-known and worst nuclear disaster in history and the more recent Fukushima, after the earthquake and tidal wave in Japan.

--effects--

On the Environment

► When soil is contaminated by radioactive substances, the harmful substances are transferred into the plants growing on it. It leads to genetic mutation and affects the plant's normal functioning. Some plants may die after such exposure, while others may develop weak seeds. Eating any part of the contaminated plant, primarily fruits, poses serious health risks. Since plants are the base of all food chains, their contamination can lead to radioactive deposition all along the food web. Similarly, when radioactive waste is washed up in a water source, it can affect the entire aquatic food web.

► Both terrestrial and aquatic radioactive contamination can culminate in human consumption. Since humans are apex predators, the accumulation of radioactive materials on the last rung of the food chain would be maximum.

On Human Beings

► The impact of radioactive pollution on human beings can vary from mild to fatal; the magnitude of the adverse effects largely depends on the level and duration of exposure to radioactivity. Low levels of localized exposure may only have a superficial effect and cause mild skin irritation. Effects of long, but low-intensity exposures include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of hair, bruises due to subcutaneous bleeding etc.

► Long-term exposure or exposure to high amounts of radiation can have far more serious health effects. Radioactive rays can cause irreparable damage to DNA molecules and can lead to a life-threatening condition. Prolonged exposure leads to a large number of molecules in the body being ionized into free radicals. Free radicals promote the growth of cancerous cells, i.e. tumors, in the body. People with heavy radiation exposure are at a very high risk for cancers.

► The rapidly growing/dividing cells, like those of the skin, bone marrow, intestines, and gonads are more sensitive towards radioactive emissions. On the other hand, cells that do not undergo rapid cell division, such as bone cells and nervous cells, aren't damaged so easily.

Skin cancer, lung cancer and thyroid cancer are some of the common types of cancers caused by radiation.

► The effects of genetic mutation are passed on to the future generations as well. In other words, if the parents are exposed to nuclear radiation, their child could have severe congenital birth defects, both physical and mental. This is tragically illustrated in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the aftereffects of nuclear radiation were carried on for generations, and thousands of children were born with physical abnormalities and mental retardation. The radiation also brought about a spike in cancer; the region still (after more than 65 years) has a much higher rate of cancer and congenital abnormalities than the rest of Japan.

--Actions--

• Geological disposal – this is, effectively, the burying of radioactive material. Large geologic formations are located and tunnels as deep as 1000m underground are drilled. Rooms are then excavated at the bottom of these and radioactive material is stored here until it has decayed enough to not be dangerous any more. Radioactive waste has also previously been dumped into the world’s oceans but following the sixteenth meeting of the LDC (London Dumping Convention) in 1993, the dumping of radioactive waste into the sea is banned, permanently.
• Transmutation – transmutation of radioactive waste is the process of consuming this radioactive waste and turning it into less harmful waste. This is currently not used very often due to high costs, however, research is being done to make the process more efficient and more economically viable. This currently is our most environmentally friendly radioactive waste management technique and, as such, when perfected will effectively solve the problem of radioactive waste.
• Re-use of radioactive waste – some radioactive isotopes, such as strontium-90 and caesium-137 are able to be extracted for use in other industries such as food irradiation. The re-use of radioactive waste means that the quantity of waste produced is reduced, so this serves as another good environmentally friendly management scheme.
• Space disposal – space disposal is not currently used to reduce radioactive pollution, due to the potential problems which could occur when attempting to carry out the procedure. If, for example, a rocket used to launch the waste fails (and bear in mind that many rockets would have to be used due to the large amount of radioactive waste) then huge amounts of radioactive material would be released into the atmosphere, causing significant health risks to people within thousands of miles of the launch. Sometime in the future this may be possible, however, for now, it is best for us to avoid space disposal

Thermal pollution

Thermal pollution is an increase in the temperature of a body of water because of human or environmental causes

--causes--

• Industrial Effluents- Industries require cooling water for heat removal and cooling purposes. This heated water when discharged into the water system increases the temperature of water body.
• Nuclear Power plants-Nuclear power plants emit large quantity of heat and traces of radioactive substances which increases the temperature of water bodies.
• Coal- fired power plants- It is one of the major source of thermal pollution.
• Domestic sewage-When the domestic sewage is disposed off into water bodies like river, lakes etc it increases the temperature of receiving water.
• Radioactive waste- Dumping of radioactive waste in marine system increases the temperature when these substances radiate energy.
• Removal of trees along the shore line  increases solar incidence and  hence warms up  the water along with deforestation

--effects--

• Thermal shock: Due to decrease in DO levels there is suffocation of plants and animal species which creates anaerobic conditions .The sudden change in the temperature causes harm to the aquatic organisms.

• Thermal enrichment:  The heated water is used for irrigation purposes to extend plant growing seasons. The warmer water also increases the metabolic rate of aquatic organisms (which in turn decreases the life expectancy of these organisms). The speedy growth is beneficial for commercial purposes

--actions--

• Construction of cooling ponds --artificial water bodies for cooling due to radiation, convection and radiation.
• Construction of cooling towers for radiation.
• Use cogeneration where the heat  is recycled.
• Use Less Electricity-Generation of electric power uses the largest percentage of cooling water, thus reducing the amount of electricity that is used will reduce thermal pollution. Although there is an increasing number of power-generating plants, the amount of thermal pollution has not increased at the same rate because of improved efficiency of power plants and the increased use of hydropower. An increase in the use of nuclear power won't reduce the need for cooling waters since they also use cooling water.
• Reduce Temperature and Volume of Discharge-Heated water can be cooled before releasing it, and less can be released to cause less damage. Unfortunately, the cheapest and easiest way to get cooling water is to withdraw it from a nearby body of water and then release it back into the body of water heated. The warmer temperature water lowers the oxygen content of the water, which increases the respiratory rates of aquatic organisms and weakens them so that they are more vulnerable to disease and death. Releasing the heated water near the shoreline doesn't lessen the problem since this may disrupt spawning and kill fish
• Store and Reuse Heated Water-It would reduce thermal pollution if those using cooling water were to empty the heated water into shallow ponds or canals, wait for it to cool and then reuse the water; land availability is a hindrance to this method, but this is the idea behind using cooling towers. A cooling tower is an efficient way to reduce thermal pollution because it transfers the heat from the water into the atmosphere. Cooling towers are wet or dry. The rejection of heat into a dry tower is evaporative and raises the relative humidity. According to the Cooling Technology Institute, the cooling potential of a wet surface is much better because there is less evaporative heat transferred into the atmosphere.
• Discharge in Less Vulnerable Zones-Discharging in less vulnerable zones is not the best way to reduce thermal pollution. In the past scientists have called it thermal enrichment to release heated water, most scientist don't consider it enrichment at all and feel that addition to any zone causes thermal pollution. Certainly, however, there would be fewer fish and aquatic organisms killed by thermal shock if there were fewer fish and organisms in the area where the water is discharged.

Soil pollution

soil pollution is defined or can be described as the contamination of soil of a particular region.  --Causes--

• Industrial wastes such as harmful gases and chemicals, agricultural pesticides, fertilizers and insecticides are the most common causes of soil pollution.
• Ignorance towards soil management and related systems.
• Unfavorable and harmful irrigation practices.
• Improper septic system and management and maintenance of the same.
• Leakages from sanitary sewage.
• Acid rains, when fumes released from industries get mixed with rains.
• Fuel leakages from automobiles, that get washed away due to rain and seep into the nearby soil.
• Unhealthy waste management techniques, which are characterized by release of sewage into the large dumping grounds and nearby streams or rivers.

--effects--

• Decrease in soil fertility and therefore decrease in the soil yield. How can one expect contaminated soil to produce healthy crops?
• Loss of soil and natural nutrients present in it. Plants also would not thrive in such soil, which would further result in soil erosion.
• Disturbance in the balance of flora and fauna residing in the soil.
• Increase in salinity of the soil, which therefore makes it unfit for vegetation, thus making it useless and barren.
• Generally crops cannot grow and flourish in polluted soil. Yet, if some crops manage to grow, they would be poisonous enough to cause serious health problems in people consuming them.
• Creation of toxic dust is another potential effect of soil pollution.
• Foul smell due to industrial chemicals and gases might result in headaches, fatigue, nausea, etc., in many people.
• Soil pollutants would bring in alteration in the soil structure, which would lead to death of many essential organisms in it. This would also affect the larger predators and compel them to move to other places, once they lose their food supply

--Actions--

• Promote Bio Fertilizers: To increase agricultural yield, most farmers took to using chemical fertilizers. No doubt that the yield did indeed increase, but at the cost of the soil losing its fertility. To restore the fertility of the soil to what it was, will take a very long time, however, one has to start at some point of time. Drastic measures are required for the same. Farmers should be encouraged to start using bio fertilizers. The microorganisms in these fertilizers will help in increasing the fertility of the soil.
• Promote Use of Bio Pesticides and Fungicides: To avoid soil pollution, it is important, that along with fertilizers, farmers should shift to bio pesticides and fungicides, also known as herbicides. These products will take a little longer to react, but they do not have adverse effect on the soil. It is best to use manure both as a fertilizer as well as pesticide, as it has far less side effects as opposed to its chemical counterpart.
• Reduce Toxic Waste: If one has to look at the soil pollution facts, it will be seen that toxic waste has a big role to play in soil pollution. Hence, industrial toxic waste should be treated to reduce its toxicity before it is disposed off. At the same time, responsible methods should be used for disposing off the waste. The best, however, is to avoid the use of harmful chemicals unless they are of extreme importance.
• Recycle Waste: Although a lot of propaganda has been carried out about recycling waste, not many measures have been taken about the same. If each family has to take it upon themselves to recycle waste, the land pollution caused due to landfills will be reduced considerably. The land so saved can be used constructively for a number of better tasks. 
• Reuse: After plastic was invented, people thought it was convenient to opt for plastic containers, bags, etc., which could be disposed off after use. However, plastic is one of the main cause of soil pollution, as it takes a very long time to disintegrate. Therefore, people should consider shifting to reusable containers like glass, cotton bags, etc. Although paper does disintegrate faster, a lot of trees are cut for producing paper bags. Therefore, it is best to opt for cloth bags. Similarly, instead of using tissue papers in the kitchen, etc., one should opt using cloth napkins, handkerchief, etc. This will go a long way in reducing landfills. 
• Opt for Organic Products: There is no doubt that the organic products are costly as opposed to the chemically grown products. But choosing the organic products will encourage more organic production. This will help in preventing soil pollution.
• Deforestation: To prevent soil pollution, deforestation measures have to be undertaken at rapid pace. Soil erosion is caused, when there are no trees to prevent the top layer of the soil from being transported by different agents of nature like water and air. At the same time, measures should be taken to avoid over cropping and over grazing, as it leads to flood and soil erosion and further deterioration of the soil layer

Sources:

http://eschooltoday.com/pollution/noise-pollution/sources-of-noise-pollution.html

Geography textbook 2D

http://www.thebigger.com/biology/pollution/what-is-radioactive-pollution/

http://joannedoubtfire.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Radioactive-Pollution

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-of-radioactive-pollution.html

http://www.allsubjects4you.com/thermal-pollution.htm

http://www.tutorvista.com/biology/effects-of-thermal-pollution

http://www.ehow.com/info_8161946_ways-stop-thermal-pollution.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/soil-pollution-causes-and-effects.html

howany.com

livestrong.com

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-to-prevent-soil-pollution.html