Save Tigers

Hypothesis: Residents close to solid waste disposal sites suffer from a higher level of gastro-intestinal disorders.
Rationale: Modern societies generate large quantities of waste that have to be either dispersed, as with sewage discharged into rivers, or sequestered as with solid waste landfill sites. Inevitably some people have to stay in the vicinity of sites where concentrations of wastes build up, such as near solid waste disposal sites on the outskirts of cities these people may be at health risks, for instance, through some waste products leaching into their water supply. Consequently, they may exhibit greater incidence of health disorders.
Methodology: Select for comparison two localities: one close to a city solid waste disposal site, and another one of similar socio-economic status, but far away from any solid waste disposal site. Select 25 households in each locality of people who would be willing to maintain a record of health or sickness of their family members. Design a diary for maintaining such a record in consultation with faculty members of a Social and Preventive Medicine department in a local medical college. Compare the health records of people in the two localities with respect to incidence of gastro-intestinal diseases.
Follow up: Compare the drinking water supplied in the two localities with respect to their microbial content. Do similar studies on respiratory disorders in two localities, one downwind of an air polluting industry, and another Introduction..
There is a large body of literature on the potential adverse health effects of different waste management options, particularly from landfill and incineration. There is little on potential problems resulting from environmental exposures from composting and very little on recycling. Although much research has focused on the health of the general population, particularly those living near a waste disposal site, occupational health problems of the workforce involved in waste management are also important to consider.
Much of the health literature on the toxicity of the individual substances highlighted above relates to occupational or accidental exposure and thus generally to higher levels of exposure than those expected from waste disposal methods. Many of the substances, such as cadmium, arsenic, chromium, nickel, dioxins and PAHs are considered to be carcinogenic, based on animal studies or studies of people exposed to high levels. Evidence that these substances cause cancer at environmental levels, however, is often absent or equivocal. In addition to carcinogenicity, many of these substances can produce other toxic effects (depending on exposure level and duration) on the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, skin, reproduction, etc. For other pollutants such as SO2 and PM10, air pollution studies have indicated that there may be effects on morbidity and mortality at background levels of exposure, particularly in susceptible groups such as the elderly. Chemicals such as dioxins and organochlorines may be lipophilic and accumulate in fat-rich tissues and have been associated with reproductive or endocrine-disrupting endpoints.

Conclusion
A continuing rise in the rate of waste production is no longer acceptable – hazardous waste affects the health of millions of people and poisons large areas of our planet. In many places people live surrounded by garbage and landfills. It is essential that governments and corporations face up to waste, using what we know about reduction, recycling and reuse, but also

developing new technologies that eliminate waste.