The charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of the methods used in each country to
dispose of harmful waste.
It is clear that in both the UK and Sweden, the majority of dangerous waste products are buried
underground. By contrast, most hazardous materials in the Republic of Korea are recycled.
Looking at the information in more detail, we can see that 82% of the UK’s dangerous waste is put
into landfill sites. This disposal technique is used for 55% of the harmful waste in Sweden and only
22% of similar waste in Korea. The latter country recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is far
more than the other two nations.
While 25% of Sweden's dangerous waste is recycled, the UK does not recycle at all. Instead, it dumps
waste at sea or treats it chemically. These two methods are not employed in Korea or Sweden, which
favour incineration for 9% and 20% of dangerous waste respectively.
The charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of the methods
used
in each country to
dispose of harmful waste.
It is
clear
that in both the UK and Sweden, the majority of
dangerous
waste
products
are buried
underground. By contrast, most hazardous materials in the Republic of Korea
are recycled
.
Looking at the information in more detail, we can
see
that 82% of the UK’s
dangerous
waste
is put
into landfill sites. This disposal technique is
used
for 55% of the harmful
waste
in Sweden and
only
22% of similar
waste
in Korea. The latter country recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is far
more than the other two nations.
While 25% of Sweden's
dangerous
waste
is recycled
, the UK does not recycle at all.
Instead
, it dumps
waste at sea or treats it
chemically
. These two methods are not employed in Korea or Sweden, which
favour
incineration for 9% and 20% of
dangerous
waste
respectively
.