How wet wipes harm the environment. About proper disposal of the most “repulsive” fractions of solid waste. Do wet wipes decompose?

It is no secret that some companies abuse the concepts of “eco-friendly”, “green”, “biodegradable” to downplay the impact of materials and the negative effects that arise after an item ends up in a landfill. In reality, decomposition can take many decades. We invite you to study popular myths about so-called biodegradable things and find out what to choose if you want to really take care of nature.

Compostable VS biodegradable

First, let's figure out what the difference between the words is"compostable" And "biodegradable". The first means that the product is most likely completely safe for nature and after some time it will continue to exist in the cycle of substances, turning into carbon dioxide and water.Compostableproducts are often made from natural materials such as cellulose, corn and potato starches, and other plant-based materials.

It’s a completely different matter with a “biodegradable” thing that is destroyed in nature with the help of bacteria and fungi - here the manufacturer has a lot of ways to evade the question: “When will it decompose?” The decomposition period of some goods can reach 300 years, since the landfill simply does not have the conditions that ensure this process.

It would seem, why is this worse than ordinary bags or disposable plastic goods? Because the production of things from starch and other “biodegradable” materials is irrational in countries where it is impossible to properly compost and recycle them. Also spent on productionmuch more resources – to ensure rapid decomposition of such plastics, special additives are used (for example, d2w), which accelerate the decomposition of the material under the influence of sunlight, heat and oxygen. Such plastic products break down into plastic fragments, which over time turn into microplastics, which penetrate the soil and water and begin to travel along the food chain, ending up in living organisms, including human bodies.

Myths as they are

Myth No. 1. A paper bag is more environmentally friendly than a plastic one.

If after the purchase and the first or second transportation of goods it would not tear, and you could use it for many more years - perhaps! Often this opportunity disappears with the first wetness; the bag easily tears, leaks and goes in the trash. It will not bring any benefit to nature.

Why? After all, this is not plastic, and it will decompose faster.

Yes, indeed, it will decompose much faster than plastic and, after it becomes garbage, will cause less harm to the environment. But let's take a broader view. To create one paper bag leaves about the same amount of energy as three plastic ones. Paper production is one of the most polluting industries. In addition to a large amount of energy, it also requires huge amounts of water, which is seriously polluted by chemicals. The service life, strength and practicality of this bag are inferior to plastic ones, so buy them for a large amount- meaningless.

What are the options?

The best option is to use reusable items. A fabric bag that will last for many years is a really effective way to reduce waste and take care of the environment.

Myth #2: Disposable take-out drink cups are made of paper and are environmentally friendly.

Every morning, thousands of coffees are poured into disposable to-go cups, called paper cups. However, few people think that to ensure integrity and waterproofness under the influence of a hot drink, there is a thin plastic film on the inside. According to the company I-Marketing , annually Russian networks use approximately6 billion“paper” cups, which inevitably end up in landfills and spoil the environment. In addition, the cup lid, made of polystyrene, when heated, can release carcinogenic substances that enter our body along with the hot drink.

And remember: if you throw a “paper” cup into the recycling bin, not only will you be making the recycling plant staff do double work (they will have to sort the cup and landfill it for you, since the film makes it unrecyclable), but you will also You will stain clean waste paper! In addition, polystyrene plastic, from which lids for “paper” cups are made, can be recycled in limited quantities cities in Russia that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

But this problem also has a solution. And you already know him.If you like to drink on the go, get a reusable thermal mug or a small thermos. Zero waste - zero problems.

Movement to eliminate disposable cups in favor of reusable alternatives"My cup, please" explains why it's important to use your thermos mug and provides a map for finding places where you can definitely pour coffee or other drinks into it. Find out exactly how to achieve this from

Myth No. 3. Wet wipes are made from natural materials and do not harm the environment

Wet wipes certainly make our lives easier - they can be used to wipe dirt off the body when there is no water or soap nearby, some have antiseptic properties and are used to treat wounds. But very often people abuse this product and use it even when they can simply wash their hands.

What's the problem? Cloth napkins won't harm anyone.

The main material used to make wet wipes is synthetic. Even in developed countries, there are problems with proper disposal and recycling of synthetics, so they are sent to unsorted waste and landfills. Also, their antibacterial impregnation greatly poisons the soil, and animals can choke on the napkin itself.

However, besides this, there is also many reasons , why there is no point in using wet wipes: they do not cleanse the skin well, clog the drain and can get into the stomachs of animals that mistake the wipes for food.

Are there any alternatives?

You can replace wet wipes with wet paper ordo it yourself reusable wet wipes. Better yet, don’t be lazy and wash your hands, or, as a last resort, use calendula tincture or bactericidal gel (after which bottle for recycling).

Myth #4: Biodegradable utensils and bags quickly end up in landfills.

Many companies are really thinking about protecting the environment by eliminating or replacing single-use plastic tableware with more environmentally friendly alternatives, such as starch. Starch spoons are not much more expensive than plastic ones and seem to be less dangerous to nature and humans. Unfortunately, there are a couple of “buts”.

Firstly, this material is compostable in the presence of targeted collection and conditions for composting, since starch spoons, in addition to starch, also contain “fastening” compounds that are potentially hazardous to nature if they end up in a landfill. That is, by throwing such dishes into unsorted garbage, and not composting them at home, in the country or in a special place, we are sending to a landfill, again, a potentially dangerous thing, but also produced from food crops. This leads to the second “but”: starch is obtained from potential food - corn, potatoes, etc. These resources are also very valuable when there is a shortage of food in many places on Earth. The situation is the same with packages more difficult : Many stores offer “oxo-degradable” bags, which also pollute the environment with microplastics, but disintegrate into them within a couple of months.

But will all this fall apart in the end?

Yes, but it is unknown when and mixed with all the substances that pollute the soil and water. In this case, oxo-degradable bags will add even more dangerous microplastics to the mix.

What to do?

Influence delivery services, cafes and restaurants. Disposable tableware and bags should become a thing of the past, giving way to compact and durable reusable utensils that you want to take with you, and beautiful shopping bags.

Myth No. 5. Cotton swabs, pads and other hygiene items must be disposable

The production of cotton swabs annually costs about 32 billion liters water. This makes their one-time use irrational, because both the rod made of polypropylene and the soft synthetic material will take an extremely long time to decompose in a landfill, namely about 400 years.

How to clean your ears then?

You can purchase a bamboo or iron stick, on which it is convenient to wrap the required amount of cotton wool (ear cleaner or mimikaki). This device is much more convenient and possibly safer for your ears, although cleaning your ears with chopsticks and other foreign objects is not recommended. Also, it is worth purchasing reusable makeup remover discs and just rinse them well or wash them after use.

If polypropylene takes 400 years to decompose, can you also use disposable straws?

Yes, and it is also desirable refuse from disposable plastic tableware, cutlery, balloons and paper handkerchiefs. In many cafes, iron or glass straws (even from pasta) have begun to appear, which can be used many times. You can also buy them for yourself - it’s more pleasant to drink from such a straw, and the kit often comes with a brush to make cleaning easier. The production of other things, again, is irrational - the ball will burst very soon and end up in the animal’s stomach, forests are dying for the sake of making paper scarves and napkins.

Yes, perhaps it’s worth reconsidering your whims for the sake of saving nature, because such a consumer culture is useless will not lead to good .

Prepared by Marat Shakhgereev

Image source: Depositphotos

Looking ahead. On the proper disposal of the most “repulsive” fractions of solid waste, problematic from an epidemiological and aesthetic point of view

Everything in a person should be beautiful: his face, his clothes, his soul, his thoughts...
A. P. Chekhov

Perhaps someone will accuse the author of an unhealthy interest in unearthing “all kinds of abominations,” of exaggerating a problem that is not so significant compared to other, more significant ones, of cleanliness and “an obsession with cleanliness and hygiene.” But I consider the problem of the “most disgusting” household waste to be very relevant in modern living conditions. In our poor rich industrial world, in search of physical and spiritual purity, aesthetics and harmony... However, look for yourself.

Introduction
Type 1. Waste hygiene and contraceptive products
Subtype 1.1. Toilet paper
Subtype 1.2. Used feminine hygiene products (pads and tampons)
Subtype 1.3. Baby diapers
Subtype 1.4. Used sanitary napkins (wet, non-woven)
Subtype 1.5. Used contraception (condoms)
Type 2: Used medical products (household medical waste)
Subtype 2.1. Used dressing materials (cotton wool, plaster)
Subtype 2.2. Used syringes (needles) for injections
Subtype 2.3. Other used medical products used on an outpatient basis for various diseases and pathologies
Type 3. Light industrial products and personal hygiene items that have lost their consumer properties
Subtype 3.1. Underwear
Subtype 3.2. Daily dental hygiene and skin care items
Resume

Introduction

Periodically, in publications of Greenpeace and other environmental public organizations There are discussions about how carelessly most city residents spend natural resources on their hygiene procedures and level of comfort: long washing in the shower or regular soaking in the bathroom; brushing teeth and shaving with an unforgivably large volume of water leaking out in vain; flushing a full toilet tank when “a little bit could have been done”; wasteful consumption of gas and electricity to achieve room temperatures above standard and much more. Calls to limit consumption in everyday life, sometimes resulting in such extremes as agitation for a “zero” haircut in order to save resources on washing your hair, or refusal of hair removal for women for the same purpose, in my opinion, are rather one-sided. After all, each person not only consumes resources for hygiene and aesthetics, but also produces various biological waste, O future fate which it is not customary to worry about, but which, if handled improperly, can pose quite a serious environmental, sanitary and epidemiological hazard and a negative aesthetic impact.
And what is the “aesthetic pleasure” for those involved in the conveyor sorting of waste, which is still carried out at some enterprises? You can often hear that the people working there are degraded, asocial, accustomed to everything and ready to do dirty, low-skilled work for pennies, which they immediately rush to spend on booze. But is it permissible, no matter what the contingent of workers, to create conditions under which the work of processing useful recyclables is inextricably linked with the obvious impurities that pollute it? And since a significant part of solid waste can be mixed with extremely unsightly components, the idea is strengthened in people’s minds that “this dirt and infection” should be buried somewhere far away (at a landfill or in a regular landfill), or burned (despite the danger pollution atmospheric air combustion products). The presence of only used toilet paper in the total composition household waste enough to make a garbage container perceived as something disgustingly dirty and smelly, and not as a container for 80% recyclable materials.
The reader, perhaps accusing me of preoccupation with “toilet problems,” will certainly object that spoiled food products can also have a disgusting smell and appearance and pose a sanitary and epidemiological danger. Of course, the problem of organic fractions of solid waste is comprehensively important (in the EU there is a ban on dumping organic waste at landfills (solid waste landfills) in order to reduce emissions greenhouse gases enshrined in law - Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2006/12/EC of April 5, 2006 on Waste), but the same fecal pollution initially carries a much greater sanitary and epidemiological danger than ordinary food waste, not to mention aesthetic aspects. For example, those few conscientious dog owners who pick up excrement from their pets while walking generally throw this organic “treasure” in a plastic bag into a general trash container or trash can.
Within the framework of the identified problem, I would like to present a classification of the most unpleasant elements of household waste (the problem of which is not only not solved, but, as a rule, is not even highlighted in the framework of consideration of the issue of introducing waste sorting), an analysis of the accepted in Russia and the best possible practices for their neutralization and disposal , a review of foreign practices for handling such problematic waste.
The text turned out to be quite long, therefore, for easier comprehension, it is divided into separate series.

Type 1. Waste hygiene and contraceptive products

Things, or rather, hygiene consumables, from this section are used by everyone to one degree or another, regardless of gender and age. And try to give them up by switching to burdock leaf, lint and sphagnum!

Subtype 1.1. Toilet paper

In Russia...

This “unaesthetic” waste of consumption is perhaps the most widespread of its kind. In the introduction, in order to prepare the reader for the fact that we will not be talking about the most beautiful, but very necessary, I have already given an example of the obvious unaestheticness and sanitary and epidemiological problems of this waste.
In most households with plumbing, used toilet paper goes down the drain and eventually ends up as sludge at a wastewater treatment plant. Perhaps on at the moment this is the most civilized way of removal of this waste. In St. Petersburg, sludge from wastewater treatment plants is burned using modern equipment. And, although the environmental safety of most combustion technologies today is not at its best high level, for waste containing large amounts of pathogenic microflora, thermal neutralization is often the only acceptable method.
In gardens and dacha lands, as a rule, such waste is openly burned. Of course, this practice introduces a certain amount of pollutants into the atmosphere (nitrogen dioxide, soot and other impurities). But compared to the operation of traditional stove heating systems, as well as the burning of dry leaves and garden trimmings, emissions from burning toilet paper do not seem so significant.
In many public non-residential buildings, due to the large number of toilet users (for fear of clogging the sewer line), it is practiced to throw used toilet paper into the trash bin. I believe that I am not alone in my disgust when, entering a public restroom, I see the inscription “ toilet paper Don’t throw it in the toilet!”, and next to this very plumbing fixture is a trash can filled to the brim with used pipifax. Where will the contents of this bucket go after the “cleaning” staff takes care of maintaining order in the booth? It's not hard to guess what's in the nearby trash container. From where it will most likely be poured into a landfill along with the rest of the “morphological composition of solid waste” and rolled on top by a bulldozer. And then, perhaps, soil monitoring samples will show that the soils in the immediate vicinity of the landfill are contaminated with E. coli and other pathogenic microflora. And the point here is not only and not so much about rats and seagulls, but about people.

But international hygiene product magnate Procter & Gamble is making clear its long-term commitment to reducing its environmental impact by using only reusable or recyclable materials in its products and packaging, achieving zero indicator of the amount of consumer waste disposed of by disposal in landfills, reaching a zero indicator of the amount of industrial waste disposed of by disposal of landfills, etc. At the same time, today the lion's share of the products of this company in many countries ends up not only in landfills, but and in unauthorized landfills, mixed with large volumes of unclaimed secondary resources.

Subtype 1.3. Baby diapers

In Russia...

Probably, the current amount of such waste in Russia is quite comparable to the American situation 25 years ago (see below). And this percentage at the source of waste generation (in a container or garbage chute) is quite enough to complicate manual sorting of waste and make some potentially useful raw materials from other fractions unsuitable for processing.
Some especially child-loving people will object that this type waste is not so terrible, since it is produced by the “flowers of life”, which are “pure and infallible by definition.” Yes, possible risk of spread dangerous infections in such materials is slightly lower than in waste from the previous and subsequent paragraphs. But this does not mean that it does not exist at all. And this whole thing doesn’t “smell” of roses. I had to be convinced of this for certain and repeatedly at volunteer eco-cleaning days, cleaning up “picnic” sites for some uncultured young parents.
And, by the way, diapers are not only for children - if we remember the sad thing - for bedridden patients they are an indispensable means of hygiene.
This type of waste is disposed of in the same way as the previous one (1.2).

Abroad...

American researchers-garbologists (from the English garbage - garbage), who, since the early 80s of the 20th century, have conducted studies of large city landfills in order to study the morphological composition of waste and their impact on the environment, found that this type of waste, in combination with plastic packaging from fast food and foam packaging, constitutes no more than 3% of the total morphological composition of landfills.
The modern handling of baby diapers is similar to the handling of adult hygiene products. It is estimated that in the first 2.5 years of life, a child in developed countries, on average, uses a number of diapers that, in terms of environmental impact, is comparable to covering 2100-3500 km in a gasoline-powered car.
Some manufacturers' websites also offer biodegradable (2/3 biodegradable - where the remaining 1/3 goes remains unclear) diapers, touting their dermatological and environmental benefits.

Subtype 1.4. Used sanitary napkins (wet, non-woven)

In Russia...

In the last few years, this product has been represented on the domestic market quite widely. On the shelves of household and hygiene departments of stores there are many colored packages: “wet wipes, refreshing”, “antibacterial”, “make-up remover”, “for intimate hygiene”, etc.
We have to admit that in many cases, when it is not possible to properly wash your hands or something else, such consumables can be very convenient (the word “antibacterial” especially warms the soul; for example, after the same eco-cleaning day, even though you are wearing gloves, you never know What). But. At every cleaning of recreational areas, these vile pieces of paper-rags, smeared with anything, are often found.
Being brought to the general trash container, they will add to the overall morphological composition of solid waste a certain proportion, as a rule, of a polymer composition contaminated organically and/or bacteriologically.
On the website of domestic manufacturers of such products, only manufacturing details for the customer are indicated and the packaging material is described in some detail: multilayer roll materials such as alumina laminate (paper, aluminum, polyethylene) and combined triplex (PET, aluminum, polyethylene). To make the napkins themselves, two types of material are used: crepe paper or non-woven material, impregnated with an unscented or fragrance-added cleansing lotion.
Obviously, such a composite can be classified as practically non-recyclable waste, taking into account its polycomponent nature, organic and possible bacteriological contamination. There are no special methods for processing and neutralizing this waste.

Abroad...

Not much foreign information could be found about wet wipes. It can only be noted that some manufacturers of wet wipes pay special attention biodegradability and environmental safety of its product.

Subtype 1.5. Used contraception (condoms)

In Russia...

This “good” is thrown away, perhaps not as much as a percentage, but on a regular basis. And I am not at all advocating that they should not be used for the sake of reducing the amount of unpleasant waste in the common container. Quite the contrary, precisely because of neglect basic means contraception, our society acquires many additional problems. But in this study That's not what this is about.
Let's look at the most common and easy-to-use barrier contraceptives - condoms. Most of them are made from latex - a natural material containing the sap of Hevea (a genus of evergreen trees of the Euphorbia family), in other words, natural rubber. There are modifications made from artificial polymers, as well as those based on rubber (remember “rubber product No. 2”).
Having repeatedly discovered these used products at community cleanups in the forest and on the picturesque shores of the lake, in the bushes (obviously, the romance of the fresh air is enticing, but for some reason many are not able to clean up such piquant garbage), I wondered about their biodegradability. In the vastness of the Runet, information was found only about the environmental friendliness of balloons made of natural latex: “Careful studies have shown that a latex balloon is completely biodegradable under natural conditions in the same time that it takes for the decomposition of an oak leaf.” One blogger spoke in support of these words in a discussion of the component composition of the garbage collected at the cleanup. He said that once, during his student days, he was on duty to maintain cleanliness in the dormitory courtyard. Careless students threw used condoms right out of the windows there. And the one who was authorized to maintain cleanliness, not wanting to get dirty, raked it all into a pile with a fan rake and sprinkled it with autumn leaves. After winter, the unaesthetic garbage disappeared, mixed with rotted leaves.
However, this type of waste, due to its biological content, also falls under the definition of “ medical waste class B" specified in SanPiN 2.1.7.2790-10.
In addition, when throwing away such waste in a summer recreation area, packaging made of difficult-to-degrade or practically non-degradable materials adds to the “unaesthetic” quality of this garbage, which clearly indicates the intimate leisure of uncultured fellow citizens present.

Abroad...

Regarding environmentally sound handling of used condoms, some recommendations are given in the English-language article “Common Sense: Condoms and the Environment.” It is strictly not recommended to flush used contraceptives down the drain due to the risk of blockage. Even if clogging does not occur, the used remediate will end up on waste treatment plant screens or in sludge. That is, it will end up in the same composition of solid waste, delivering additional unpleasant emotions to the employees of the water treatment plant, or, having overcome the water outlet, it will pollute the reservoir. Attention is also drawn to the fact that condoms can be biodegradable (latex or calfskin, although, it seems to me, the latter is some kind of archaic exotic) and non-biodegradable (polyurethane and other polymer compositions). The author of the article does not recommend trying to compost biodegradable contraceptives on your own. open spaces, due to the attractiveness of this kind of “treasure” for various animals that will begin to dig up intimate garbage. It is considered optimal to wrap the used contraceptive in a piece of toilet paper or paper towel and throw it in the general trash. It is also noted that the packaging of these products is made of plastic and foil, which does not decompose.
Information about how carefully such problematic waste is handled in practice in developed countries is quite general. In Germany, for example, such waste ends up in the so-called. “other waste”, collected in black bins, the contents of which are removed every 2-4 weeks. Apparently, the management of such waste consists of its thermal destruction or burial in specially equipped landfills, depending on the adopted management scheme in a particular area. That is, separately collected recyclable materials in Germany and a number of other developed countries are largely separated from such unsavory waste already at the stage of their formation.
And only in one English-language article devoted to the communal problems of the Indian city of Pune (the city is located 150 km east of Mumbai and has approximately 5 million inhabitants), it was possible to find information about “unsightly” waste as a significant communal problem requiring a special solution. Thus, nine city sludge treatment stations report the problem of large quantities of used condoms entering wastewater treatment plants, especially on weekends and holidays. On average, the number of condoms collected at all water treatment plants per week is about 20,000, which have to be separated from the sludge and sent to a landfill. Representatives of the Pune government's environmental and sanitation departments have announced their intention to formulate a policy for the management of used condoms and sanitary absorbents, which are biomedical waste and should be disposed of separately from other types of household waste.

Type 2: Used medical products (household medical waste)

In Russia...

The rules for handling them are prescribed in the above-mentioned SanPiN 2.1.7.2790-10. These rules are quite general, universal in nature, and also do not take into account the need to introduce the best available technologies in this area. But even the basic requirements for the disposal of hazardous medical waste from medical institutions listed in SanPiN are often met unsatisfactorily: according to various estimates, only 1-3% of healthcare facilities in the Russian Federation have special installations for waste disinfection, other institutions neutralize infected waste using artisanal methods. Often, the total mass of medical waste of different hazard classes, without sufficient pre-treatment, is buried in solid waste landfills or landfills under the guise of low-hazard household waste.

Subtype 2.1. Used dressing materials (cotton wool, plaster)

It should be borne in mind that hazardous medical waste is generated not only in medical institutions. Obviously, even minor household injuries in absolutely or relatively healthy people cause the appearance of class “B” medical waste in a mixed trash bin: cotton wool, bandages, plasters soaked in blood and medicinal and disinfectant ointments. It seems like little things, but it’s unpleasant to find them in the volume of valuable recyclable materials. And if this slightly injured person is sick, say, with hepatitis B, then it’s still not safe.

Subtype 2.2. Used syringes (needles) for injections

There is also a significant contingent of people who constantly have to perform various medical procedures at home, and sometimes outside the home. These are not necessarily elderly bedridden patients. Often these are young, energetic people, teenagers, children, appearance whom one can hardly guess that they are “awarded” with baggage chronic diseases, live only thanks to replacement therapy medicines and various medical manipulations, carried out as casually and regularly as “relatively healthy person»has the habit of brushing his teeth and taking a shower.
For example, in some diseases (insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, various severe pain syndromes, etc.) people are forced to constantly inject themselves with vital medications. Obviously, the most hazardous household waste for individuals requiring such therapy will be injection devices with blood-contaminated needles. There is no need to believe in such a deep consciousness of people, exhausted by their own health problems, which will prompt them to take used materials that fall under the definition of “class B medical waste” for disposal at the nearest or attached health facility. And practically no health care facility, even if desired, does not provide such an opportunity (remember: only 1-3 (!)% of health care facilities in Russia have the ability to safely dispose of highly hazardous and potentially hazardous medical waste on their territory, in accordance with SanPiN).
There is also another, asocial, contingent of people with whom the layman, illiterate in medical matters, primarily associates self-injections. These are, of course, injection drug addicts. It should be noted that waste from drug injections poses a much greater danger than waste from injections of drugs used for various non-communicable diseases (of course, there are also combined forms of diseases), since people who use intravenous drugs are a reservoir of pathogens of hepatitis B, C, D and HIV infection.
How many of you have never seen thin syringes with green rods scattered in the park, on the playground, in the front door...? Sometimes they are found in mailbox. Never fumble around in a darkened drawer in search of a letter or receipt lying around: you may well stumble upon the needle of a contaminated drug syringe! True, infectious disease researchers have long established the fact that HIV is poorly resistant to environmental conditions and quickly dies outside the human body. However, for the purposes of preventing injection transmission of HIV, it should be assumed that a used syringe or hollow needle (unsterilized) may contain live virus for several days. Other dangerous viruses, such as hepatitis B, are much more resistant to external environment than HIV. In the external environment at room temperature, the hepatitis B virus can persist for up to several weeks: even in a dried and invisible blood stain, on a razor blade, or the end of a needle.
It is obvious that with possible manual sorting of solid household waste, such inclusions not only cause extremely unpleasant emotions, but can also be very dangerous to health.

Subtype 2.3. Other used medical products used on an outpatient basis for various diseases and pathologies

In this group of waste, one can recall many unpleasant and even shocking objects for a relatively healthy average person. For example, fragments of an IV system, elements of dialysis units used at home, used test strips for determining the level of glucose and other substances in blood and other biological fluids, etc.
At the same time, even the simplest and most common devices, for example, for the treatment of ENT organs (pipettes, spray bottles) can be a source of foreign pathogenic flora.
What about disposable handkerchiefs thrown into the general trash? There can certainly be a host of unpleasant living creatures from the microcosm: from the simplest ARVI to highly pathogenic influenza and even tuberculosis.
Or, for example, such small-scale waste as contact lenses that have reached the recommended wearing period? It seems to be a negligible waste of polymer material (is there such a thing as negligible waste of regularly produced products?), but at the same time it was in contact with the mucous membrane and lacrimal secretion of a person.
Perhaps, highlighting such waste against the background of other, global, problems with the same waste is “catching fleas” at the present stage of technological development in the sphere of waste management household waste. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to deny the sanitary and epidemiological problems of the masses of solid household waste.

Abroad...

About materials on foreign experience I will tell you briefly how to solve this type of waste problem.
For example, the report “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States” categorizes medical waste generated by households as “other mixed nondurable waste.” In 2005, the amount of such waste in the USA was about 4.3 million tons or 1.7% total number Solid waste.
Security Department environment and Public Health, Colorado, issued a special bulletin in 2005 on the management of healthcare waste (including used injection materials) generated in the home. It strongly recommends not throwing such waste into general garbage, but contacting specialized organizations for their disposal (however, it does not say how expensive the disposal of such waste is for citizens and what percentage of the population uses such services). This document also states that, if it is impossible to contact one of the specialized organizations, medical waste (especially those containing sharps, contaminated with blood or other biological materials) should be packaged in some tightly closed container made of thick plastic or tin. At the same time, it is not recommended to use a container made of recyclable material (it is likely that it may be mistakenly sorted at the station), and, if such containers are used, they should be clearly marked with information about the contents with a potential infectious hazard.

Type 3. Light industrial products and personal hygiene items that have lost their consumer properties

Subtype 3.1. Underwear

In Russia...

Such a common element of women's wardrobe as nylon tights and others hosiery, as a rule, very quickly loses its consumer properties, simply breaks. Sometimes such a product is generally disposable. If you are a woman who at least sometimes wears a skirt outside the summer season, then you will probably remember how sometimes with annoyance you throw new tights or stockings into the trash bin, which accidentally got caught on the furniture the day you removed them from the plastic-cardboard packaging. IN Soviet era nylon products were in short supply and were worn more carefully, and holes and “arrows” were sometimes sewn up repeatedly. In everyday life, the product of their recycling of steps “reuse” was also popular - knitted washcloths for dishes and door mats made from old tights and stockings cut into strips (Fig. 3.1).

Rice. 3.1. Rug made of nylon tights (

Everything that is created on earth from artificial objects was created by a person who thought a lot about his creation. But it often happens that this person did not think through or did not think through everything. By missing some important details, his creation may ultimately result in a disaster, as is the case, for example, with plastic bottles. A similar situation occurs with wet wipes...

Wet wipes have become so popular that many people start to panic if they are not on sale at the nearest kiosk. But are they good for the environment? In fact, these disposable wipes spread bacteria, clog city drains and clog the stomachs of hungry animals. Avoid them at all costs!

“Disposable wet wipes are the biggest evil of 2015,” says The Guardian. These wipes are essentially an instant soapy washcloth that requires no rinsing, is designed to sanitize, and is simply thrown away after use. They became extremely popular - too popular, in fact.

Parents carry baby wipes in their strollers and use them whenever needed. Nursing staff and classroom teachers frequently wipe down surfaces with antibacterial wipes. Travelers stock up on wipes to wash their hands on the road.

They're everywhere, with wet wipes sales reaching £500 million a year in the UK alone.

And these small and so widely used super-convenient wipes create huge problems.

4 reasons why you should stop using wet wipes.

1. Ecological chaos

Just because wet wipes are technically "disposable" doesn't mean they magically disintegrate; instead, they simply disappear somewhere else, out of our sight, where they continue to wreak havoc on the environment.

Wet wipes contain plastic fibers that are not biodegradable. For example, when tissues end up in the ocean, they are eaten by sea creatures such as turtles, who mistake them for jellyfish and eventually die. (The same thing happens with plastic bags.)

“Wild animals often eat the plastic that fills their stomachs and eventually starve to death,” says Charlotte Coombs from the Marine Conservation Society (MCS).

Wipes are washing off beaches around the world. MCS estimates that there were approximately 35 wipes per kilometer of beach in the UK in 2014 - up 50% on 2013.

2. Clogged toilets and sewers

Many users mistakenly throw wet wipes down the toilet, thereby clogging and clogging the drain. According to Guardians, residents of a small Kent town have buried 2,000 tons of wet wipes in the sewer.

When the drains are clogged with wet wipes, grease accumulates. In 2013, a piece of congealed fat the size of a bus was found in a London sewer.

3. Toxic chemicals

Wipes can cause rashes in inconvenient places, Reuters reports. The Mayo Clinic report cited the example of one man, a mail carrier, who "had a rash around his anus so painful that he could not walk for months... It turned out that he frequently used wet wipes, some of which contained methylchloroisothiazolinone."

Baby wipes contain preservatives and fragrances that should not come into contact with human skin, particularly the skin of infants and young children. Environmental report claims hidden dangers of antibacterial wipes.

4. Spread of bacteria

When hospital staff use wet wipes to wipe down surfaces, it essentially spreads bacteria further. Researchers from Cardiff University have discovered that wet wipes give bacteria a second life. Looks like good old soap and water would be a much better alternative.

WET WIPES HARM YOUR SKIN

Researchers were able to find out that the napkins themselves contain a serious threat to the body, which in no case should be ignored. This statement applies to absolutely all napkins, and even those intended for babies, and should be completely safe.

This hygiene product has been studied very carefully by dermatologists. Based on the results, experts insist that wet wipes can be harmful. The reason is cases of serious allergic skin reactions, which have recently become more common. Moreover, medical statistics confirm that doctors from different countries report similar phenomena.

The press has released data that is truly shocking. Most likely, they should not have become the property of the general public. However, journalists provided this information to the public for review.

In particular, it was reported that wet wipes were associated with more than eleven percent of serious skin reactions that were reported during the past year in three hundred and fifty patients. Previously this topic has been studied many times, but it should be noted that at that time the rates were lower. So, in 2012 the figure was eight and a half percent, and in 2011 there were even fewer reactions, only three and a half percent.

Doctors also raised concerns about the fact that the statistics also include those products that are intended for infants. After all, we are accustomed to thinking that they should a priori undergo more thorough testing so as not to become a source of harm. This information long time unknown to anyone, was announced by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Allergists and dermatologists in the United States conducted a study on the safety of wet wipes that are used to care for the skin of children. To test sanitary napkins, the composition of their impregnation was studied. It turned out that chemicals - fragrances, preservatives and others - are harmful to a child’s delicate skin.

American pediatricians strongly recommend that parents eliminate or significantly limit the use of wet wipes to care not only for the skin of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, but also for school-age children, as well as adults prone to allergic reactions.

Chemicals for sensitive skin, they turn out to be powerful irritants and very often doctors mistake irritation, contact dermatitis, allergic rashes for psoriasis, impetigo, eczema, without knowing about the real reason skin reactions caused by wet wipes.

Scientists from the University of Connecticut have established a connection between dermatitis on the face, buttocks, and arms of children with methylisothiazoline.

This preservative is included in the impregnation of wet wipes with an antibacterial effect. It was noticed that after stopping the use of such napkins, skin manifestations in babies went away on their own within a week.

Pediatricians recommend replacing the use of wet wipes with regular, simple, standard water procedures. And use modern wet wipes only in extreme cases, when there is no other opportunity to carry out skin care (travel, trips, walks) by choosing high-quality, non-antibacterial wipes.

Even in these cases, a regular, dry, soft cloth moistened with plain water will be more effective and safe than dubious antibacterial wet wipes soaked in harmful substances. If irritation, redness, or rash occurs, use of these wipes should be discontinued.

Bacteria, fragrances, preservatives - what else are dangerous baby wipes?

What to look for in the composition? What substances in wet wipes can be harmful? Product-test.ru expert Elsa Akhtyamova will answer these questions:

“Not all components included in baby wipes may be safe for the baby’s health. For example, alcohols (such as ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol). In the composition you can see it under the names: alcohol, denatured alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol. If it is found in the baby wipes that you are planning to buy, then it is better to put this pack aside. In high concentrations, alcohols are known to be very drying and irritating to the skin, and can also damage the skin barrier. In addition, children very often experience irritation and diaper rash; wipes with alcohol will severely burn the skin.

Phthalates, phthalic acid - used to ensure that the napkin is as soft and elastic as possible. In tests on mice, phthalates accumulated in the liver and other organs and tissues, and also led to disruption of hormone production in the body. It has not yet been proven that they actually cause harm to humans, but it is still recommended to avoid these substances in children’s hygiene.

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), otherwise known as sodium lauryl sulfate, is recognized as one of the most irritating detergents found in cosmetics and is often included in sanitary napkins. It can cause dryness, irritation, itching, and also increase the penetration of other substances. Many cosmetic companies are already abandoning its use, replacing it with softer betaines and other active ingredients.

Of course, it is advisable to avoid potentially allergenic fragrances such as limonen, linalol, menthol, mint, grapefruit oil, hexyl cinnamal, lemon, butylphenyl methylpropional, etc. It is better to give preference to unscented hygiene products, especially if the baby is prone to allergic reactions "

Now, we hope you understand that imaginary convenience and comfort can cause great harm to your skin and the skin of your children. After all, we somehow lived without these chemical wipes, and were healthier!

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And VKontakte

People throw everything down the drain. Some unpleasant plumbing finds include: plastic bottles, bricks and even clothes. Of course, reasonable residents would never dispose of waste in such a barbaric way. But who would have thought that harmless items like dental floss or a face mask could cause blockages.

Today website I have prepared a list of things that under no circumstances should be thrown into the sewer.

1. Toilet paper

There are serious debates about whether or not toilet paper can be flushed down the toilet. Most experts are inclined to believe that this will not cause any harm, but only if the house has a central sewer system. However, if a septic tank was designed during construction, then throwing foreign objects into it is strictly prohibited.

However, in different countries Attitudes to this sensitive issue are also different. Traveler and enthusiast Matt Kitson created a whole page where he explains in which countries you can flush toilet paper and where it is better not to do so.

2. Dental floss

Dental floss is made of fibrous material. Therefore, it can collect inside sewer pipes and form blockages. In addition, throwing the thread down the drain is very unecological - synthetic fiber does not decompose and is harmful to the environment.

3. Chewing gum

Chewing gum does not dissolve in water, and it can easily stick to the pipes and form a clog. It is for these reasons that chewing gum should not be thrown down the drain or washed down the sink.

4. Fish

The situation when the dead aquarium fish flushed down the drain seems quite normal. However, this is not very good idea- the bodies of unfortunate fish can clog the drain, and it is also extremely unhygienic.

Representatives of Canadian public utilities have gone further: they are asking Albertans not to flush live fish down the toilet. Experts note that goldfish, flushed down the toilet by careless owners, take over ponds, displacing local wildlife.

5. Plaster

An ordinary adhesive plaster has a rather complex composition. It is made from an alloy of fats, wax, resins, rubber and other ingredients in various variations. This “cocktail” does not dissolve in water and can cause clogged sewer pipes.

6. Contact lenses

Contact lenses are made of a polymer material that does not decompose for many years. Of course, a tiny lens is unlikely to clog a sewer pipe, but it can cause harm to the environment. Experts estimate that every year more than 20 tons of lenses end up in sewers and pollute water.

7. Cat poop

Sewers are designed to remove water-soluble waste, which includes pet excrement. However, experts strongly do not recommend flushing the contents of a cat's litter box down the toilet. After an hour or two, the cat's waste turns to stone and can get stuck in the labyrinth of sewer pipes. Remember: all contents of the tray must be disposed of together with solid household waste.

8. Chlorine bleach

Chlorine-based plumbing cleaners are very aggressive. So aggressive that they can damage pipes if used too often. In fact, the toilet does not need daily cleaning with industrial products. Instead, it is preferable to use vinegar - it will help get rid of lime deposits.

9. Face mask

Clay-based face masks should not be washed down the sink. Small particles settle on the inner surface of the pipes and, over time, contribute to the formation of a large clog. It is better to remove the top layer of the mask with a napkin, and the remaining fine particles rinse with water - they are safe for the sewer.