Reason the EPA would prefer incineration to land filling as a means of eliminating waste?
454816
Incineration reduces the waste to ashes which require much less space for disposal whereas landfills take up 100's of acres and are considered dangerous to the groundwater.\n\ndownside to incineration: the polution you avoid puttin on the ground in a landfill is now in the air we breath....
843840
Allows for the rapid purging of deleterious alles.
1092895
yes. Everyday! People create waste. From the water we spit in the sink to the dying dead skin cells we shed. \n\nWaste waste waste!\n\nEven if id say no. there are more waste disposal companies. Not most of these new towns have strict recycling policies. It can get expensive. But then again it depends on where you live. And no- theres no plenty of land available to become landfill and get covered in grass. If we create more waste everday- then every land area will becaome landfills. Landfill sometimes reek through the water supply too. Danger!\n\nDo you know it is also a fact how political this problem can get. Waste management can be quite expensive in other countries. Worst! Some goverment officials stick to the old throw it away method because of politics and money! aauugh!
252094
Personally, I'm for infill not sprawl. Sprawl takes over good farmland. It's also a waste of resources. We need to preserve our planet and take as little from it as possible. Rural areas need to stay rural. Cities need to become compact. There are great opportunities for mass transit(lessoning oil consumption and curbing emissions in dense cities. If we continue urbanizing rural areas, there will be more need for cars to drive across vast suburbia. We can't be so dependant on oil so much. I love the scenery of rurual areas and want to see nature preserved.\n\nSprawl disturbs me extremely, being influenced by it myself. Our neighbors who own 50 acres filed a measure 37 claim(basically throwing all land use policies down the drain) and are trying to subdivide. Not only will sprawl occur, but the added amount of people may depleat the aquifier, which I am afraid of since we get our water by well. It is happening all around me. Every month I notice more houses sprawling into the coutryside.\n\nI would be very interested in everyone's thoughts on this subject and what we can do about it.
986364
The US EPA has stricter regulations concerning emissions, runoff, cleanup, and disposal than the majority of other countries.Some countries have no environmental laws whatsoever. To say the USA is the world's biggest polluter is very, very far from the truth.
641214
It's a huge pit where cities take their garbage.  They line the pit with clay or plastic to stop toxic chemicals from leaking into the soil.  They run the garbage over with bulldozers to compress it as much as possible.  And when it is full (it usually takes years or decades to fill up), they cover it with plastic and then dirt and sometimes vegetation.  A landfill is a way to efficiently bury huge amounts of garbage without impacting the environment.
628336
as opposed to polluted water?
553344
They are a natural part of the environment. If you are proposing getting rid of them, I would like to review your plans first.
154094
Proper waste management covers all aspects of the disposal or re-cycling of materials that humans consider useless.\nHuman waste is only one aspect.  Industrial, automotive, hazardous, medical, chemical and even radioactive waste must all be considered.  This is especially important in urban areas when the concentration of people is the largest.\nThis is necessary to protect public health and the environment.  It also keeps us from burying ourselves in our own waste.
352374
We can recycle so that today's garbage could be tomorrow's stuff.\nDon't throw out - recycle!
233344
More demand for necessities like food, water, etc. resulting in more waste and less space.
452335
Your best site would be the Office of Solid Waste at the US Environmental Protection Agency.\n\nhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/
243105
Because it's much better for the environment. Incidentally, if you put a brick in the tank you can reduce the amount of water your toilet uses. Thanks 'Blue Peter'! :)
888184
Because they require very exacting conditions for their disposal.  It's not like you can just throw them in a bag and toss them out.  A lot of times, burning them just creates more toxic material.
334577
Well, if you're considering burning fossil fuels like coal and oil, then it wouldn't pose much danger because they only release carbon dioxide and water vapours into the atmosphere and this release of CO2 apparently helps to maintain the CO2 cycle.\nHowever, there are organic compounds (some used as fuels), including polymers like 'polytetrafluoroethene' that are non-biodegradable and so cause a litter problem in landfill sites. And if we burn them, they release toxic gases like carbon monoxide which can cause cancer and hence damage the environment.
75981
Disposal methods also vary widely. In Australia, the most common method of disposal of solid waste is to landfills, because it is a large country with a low-density population. By contrast, in Japan it is more common for waste to be incinerated, because the country is smaller and land is scarce.\n\nMany local authorities (especially in urban areas) have found it difficult to establish new landfills, due to opposition from adjacent landowners. Few people want a landfill in their local neighbourhood. As a result, solid waste disposal in these areas has become more expensive as material must be transported further away for disposal.
831727
Both are present in small amounts in soils and rocks.  Spillage from waste dumps can be a source also.