Scrap Recycling Forum

Did you ever see the people firing the plastic? In my country it happens every where. It is major cause for pollution. Please avoid firing the plastic materials.

Yes I saw the people burning the plastic bags and plastic materials. It regularly happen in my country. Some people burning the plastic material just for fun.

Ya I too saw many people burning the plastic material just for fun. I have tried to give awarness to them but no use at all.

Yes, even I my country many peoples where firing the plastic I don't know why this is happening regularly. And some people were firing just for fun. I think government must take serious action on those who fire plastic. Because firing plastic is the major cause for the pollution.

That is a big no no! when you burn plastic it release the toxic on atmosphere like C2O since we don't much forest now a days it becomes a toxic.

It is a very common practice of burning plastics. It is a major cause of pollution and it is very harmful to the atmosphere.

In Tamilnadu (india) people celebrate a festival called "Boghi" by burning all the old materials in their houseold like plastics, garments, wood. This is a serious issue as even some flights were not able to fly due to poor vision created by the gases (produced because of burning). I think people have misunderstood the concept, they should celebrate the festival by recycling the old products instead of burning them.

i haven't seen burning plastic but i have seen a huge dumping ground where i can see only plastic and also loads of insects around and dumb animals eating it thinking it is food.

A controversial, estrogen-like chemical in plastic could be harming the development of children’s brains and reproductive organs, a federal health agency concluded in a report released Tuesday.

The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, concluded that there was “some concern” that fetuses, babies and children were in danger because bisphenol A, or BPA, harmed animals at low levels found in nearly all human bodies.

An ingredient of polycarbonate plastic, BPA is one of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in industry today. It can seep from hard plastic beverage containers such as baby bottles, as well as from liners in cans containing food and infant formula.

The federal institute is the first government agency in the U.S. to conclude that low levels of BPA could be harming humans. Its findings will be used to help regulators at federal and state environmental agencies to develop policies governing its use.

The draft report followed an 18-month review that was fraught with allegations of bias, heated disputes among scientists and the firing of a consulting company with financial ties to the chemical industry.

Some scientists suspect that exposure early in life disrupts hormones and alters genes, programming a fetus or child for breast or prostate cancer, premature female puberty, attention deficit disorders and other reproductive or neurological disorders.

In its new report, the National Toxicology Program, which reviewed about 500 laboratory animal experiments, concluded that there was “some concern” that fetuses, babies and children were at risk from BPA. It rated as “negligible” the concern for adults.

When animal fetuses or newborns are exposed, BPA “can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland and the age at which females attain puberty,” the agency’s draft report says.

“These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health,” it said. “However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed.”

Plastics industry representatives stressed that the agency found “no serious or high-level concerns.” They call the lab animal experiments inconclusive and flawed.

Steven G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council’s polycarbonate/BPA group said the findings “provide reassurance that consumers can continue to use products made from bisphenol A.”

“The limited evidence for effects in laboratory animals at low doses primarily highlights opportunities for additional research to better understand whether these findings are of any significance to human health,” he said.

In the key area of reproductive health, the agency reported more concern about the potential dangers to children than its advisory panel did.

The advisory panel in August found “minimal” concern about effects on the prostate and puberty after siding with the plastics industry and disqualifying many animal studies that showed effects. That drew criticism from scientists who conducted the research.

But in the new report, the National Toxicology Program overruled its panel, elevating its finding about human prostates and puberty to “some concern.” It also for the first time expressed concern about effects on human mammary glands, which the panel had not addressed.

The findings “break new scientific ground” by validating the low-dose animal tests, said Anila Jacob, senior scientist at Environmental Working Group, an activist group. It “reflects a significant body of science showing that BPA may play a larger role than previously thought in a host of common health problems, including prostate cancer, breast cancer and early puberty,” she said.

Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive scientist at University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA, said the new report was “very, very much in line” with a consensus statement signed by 38 scientists last year that said the chemical could be harming babies’ brains and reproductive tracts.

“This is going to ripple around the world,” vom Saal said. “The bottom line is there really is a convergence of opinion that is occurring.”

Canada is expected soon to declare BPA a toxic substance, which would be followed by proposals to control its use. California and other states have considered but not adopted bans on BPA in products.

A year ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that the government was basing its BPA decision on a summary of the science drafted by a private company, Sciences International, which had financial ties to more than 50 chemical companies and groups. The company was then fired. National Toxicology Program officials audited the report and found it unbiased, so it was used to reach its conclusions.

"This plastic is V-0, VW-1, etc. rated--How come it burned in a fire caused by an electric fault?" This question is commonly asked. The plastic in question can be PVC wire insulation, or the plastic parts of an outlet, wall plate, or various other insulating materials which are in close proximity to current-carrying parts. We can assume the rating of the plastic part was correctly determined in a laboratory. Better yet, a person can conduct an ad hoc small-flame test and find that, indeed, the item burns only very little and certainly does not spread fire. So why did it burn unexpectedly in a real incident or spread flame?
To understand the situation requires that we realize one important aspect of UL 94 and various other small-flame tests: All of these tests are conducted on specimens which are at room temperature. A different situation can happen in the case of an electric fault. The electric fault will preheat the plastic to a temperature much higher than room temperature. When a preheated specimen is confronted with an igniting flame, rapid flame spread can occur. At least two electric fault categories can cause this type of behavior:
(1) a poor connection, for example, at a screw terminal of an outlet or at a place where a wire is crimped onto the prong of a male plug.
(2) broken wires in a flexible cord. Substantial heating may occur if only a single strand remains.
Probably other fault modes also exist that can lead to the same outcome, but these two have received at least some scientific study (although nowhere near enough!).

There is nowhere near enough research to comfortably quantify this phenomenon, but at least sufficient research exists so that the basic concepts are validated:

[1] Lupton, E. C., Tahlmore, C. D., and Obsasnik, J., Some Differences Noted in the Flammability of Wire Constructions between Testing at Room Temperature and at Elevated Conductor Temperatures, pp. 1-3 in Proc. of 24th Intl. Wire and Cable Symp.,U.S. Army Electronic Command, Cherry Hill, NJ (1975). NTIS No. ADA 017 787. This study, although brief, documents that substantially worse fire propagation results are obtained if specimens are preheated, as compared to their room-temperature performance.

[2] Sletback, J., Kristensen, R., Sundklakk, H., Navik, G., and Munde, R., Glowing Contact Areas in Loose Copper Wire Connections, pp. 244-248 in Proc. 37th IEEE Holm Conf. on Electrical Contacts, IEEE (1991). This study documents that temperatures of around 1200°C can be found at glowing screw connections.

[3] Oda, S. J., Progress Report--Fire Initiation Potential of Failing Electrical Receptacles (Report 78-92-K), Ontario Hydro, Toronto (1978). This study documents ignitions of combustibles due to glowing connections.

[4] Nagata, M., Firing Current and Energy Input of Polyvinyl Chloride Covered Cords Having Disconnected Element Wires [in Japanese], Bull. Japanese Assn. Fire Science and Engrg. 33:1, 1-7 (1983). This study documents the mechanism by which PVC-insulated cords ignite when all strands are broken except for the final strand.