Ebola medical waste to your backyard?

[WhatInThe]

A problem with Ebola medical waste has arose because some states don't want it or to burn it for fear of airborne mutation. And of course California is among the leaders of the do not burn crowd.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-ebola-waste-disposal-20141020-story.html

To me it should stay in the state where it started because of simple odds. Instead of taking the most direct route to a chlorine or ultraviolet light bath then a incinerator the scenic route increases the odds that a hospital's Ebola waste will wind up joining the Overturned Tractor Trailers Association.

The more it's handled and more it touches is more chance of contamination and spread period. Simple odds. And besides do you really want someone else's waste in your backyard.

 

[Denise1952]

I totally agree with not taking it somewhere else. I wonder who'll win out on that bright idea

 

[tnthomas]

Sounds like an over-reaction by the hospital representatives, there are TONs of infectious waste generated in California every day and the Ebola waste will just be dealt with same as the rest.

 

[QuickSilver]

Fear mongering... is all it is. Ebola for all it's nastiness is a rather fragile virus. It is killed easily with regular household bleach.. SO how is it going to survive incineration? Crazy talk. Who has what to gain by keeping the AMerican public afraid and half hysterical?

 

[Vivjen]

Am I being very naive?
surely California has to dispose of it's medical waste according to statute? Why is this any different?

 

[WhatInThe]

Am I being very naive?
surely California has to dispose of it's medical waste according to statute? Why is this any different?

Supposedly before the anti incineration laws hospitals were allegedly burning a lot of less hazardous waste, in other words they were burning some trash as well. But that trash doesn't have to be transported by a big truck burning a lot of fuel and spewing a lot of exhaust. California is a perfect example of not in my backyard.