Brazil

Already the disadvantages are raised custoe the necessity of selection centers. In Brazil, aresponsabilidade to collect garbage is of the cities. To know more about this subject visit Mary Barra. The coletaseletiva programs are implanted by half of communitarian initiatives or the poderpblico. You may want to visit Declan Kelly to increase your knowledge. However, some cities create proper laws prescribed acoleta selective. Although it is municipal deresponsabilidade, given the relevance, the collection of the residues is federal umapreocupao. Decurrent of this context, Resolution CONAMA275/01 was created, that establishes the code of colors to be adopted in the identification decoletores and transporters, as well as in the informative campaigns for the coletaseletiva of garbage (BRAZIL, 2001). When sefala of solid residues, that is, of garbage, exists the theories of the R' s. Some autoresfalam in 3 R' s, others in 4 R' s and others, still, in 5 R' s, after all to qualutilizar? Before deciding which concept of R' s must be applied, becomes to necessriosaber what in general, each one of these classifications means, portantobaseado in Rabbit (2008): 3R' s: To reduce, To reuse and To recycle, used atualmenteo more; 4 R' s: To reduce, To recycle, To reuse and To reintegrate, are on the management of the residues; 5 R' s: To reduce, To reuse, To recycle, To rethink to eRecusar, were adapted to favor processes of Ambient Education, therefore it is umconceito more practical and more applicable in our day the day as consuming.

Therefore, inferirque can the motivation for the implantation of a program of selective collection of lixorene several of these aspects. Practical actions that, in the day the day, they can propitiate reduction of the impact on the planet, improving the current life and contributing it eats quality of life of the next generations. 3. METHODOLOGY 3,1 Method eTipo of Research In this study adopted the model of study of case, considered for Tachizawa and Mendes (2004) ' ' a case study organizao&#039 must serdesenvolvido from the one analysis; '.

The Employees

Attravs of Figure 03, can visualize this affirmation. Figure 03 Histograma of the distribution of data taken for PAIR On the questionnaire applied the workers, Table 05 illustrates the questions and the percentages of the answers given for the workers. Table 05 Answers of the questionnaires with the questions and percentages of the answers They feel I bother caused for the noise They had had PCA training They do not know as to solve the problem They receive protector auricular They do not like to use the protector Welding 95.5% 90.9% 86.4% 100.0% 100.0% 36.4% 4.5% Jateamento 100.0% 85.2% 66.6% 100.0% 88.8% 11.1% 3.7% feels sensation after auditory the work Has problems of convivncia in the home due to the noise Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thus, it can be affirmed in relation to the questions, that: 1- The workers are bothered by the noise and, the insatisfao indices demonstrate that this problem must be treated or at least being mitigated. 2- Taking itself in consideration that the PCA has, amongst others, the purpose to guide how much to the correct use of the EPIS and to show the effect of the noise in the human organism, the result above sample that the employees must use the equipment of auditory protection correctly and has conscience of its importance. 3- The workers of the jateamento team possess a knowledge better technician of the equipment/machines of its area or have greater concern in solving the problem of existing noise in its activity of what the employees of the welding team. 4- As all the employees receive equipment from individual protection and receive training how much to its in agreement use (item 2), it concludes that the workers know to protect themselves not to have auditory problems due to these activities the short one and in the long run.