CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14087
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:50 pm
 


Wullu wrote:
You mean where he maintains that all special interest groups should have to disband after 10 years, because after that point they become more interested in self preservation than the cause they championed?


Leave the "special interests" to science, is all I can say. If there's a problem, let the proof speak for itself, and leave the picket signs and pigs blood at home.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 556
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:54 pm
 


Blue_Nose wrote:
Well, Avro, all I can say is that if you actually gave it a second thought that the hippie environmentalists have duped society based on bad science and policy, you might see the difference between what I'm trying to do, and "kill trees, kill trees".


As compared to the other extreme? Keep dumping your shit into the Juan de Fuca, cause it costs too much money to filter the waste, where there are only select areas where I can collect shellfish due to pollution,...... after all is said and done, you can eat your fuck'n riches. It's all a chain and just because you're at the top doesn't mean you're excluded. You don't need to be a scientific scholar to understand this.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14087
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:11 pm
 


BeaverBill wrote:
As compared to the other extreme? Keep dumping your shit into the Juan de Fuca, cause it costs too much money to filter the waste, where there are only select areas where I can collect shellfish due to pollution,...... after all is said and done, you can eat your fuck'n riches. It's all a chain and just because you're at the top doesn't mean you're excluded. You don't need to be a scientific scholar to understand this.


We're not talking about the "other extreme"... well, you and Avro are.

READ THE REPORT.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 556
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:24 pm
 


so what are you promoting??


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 556
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:28 pm
 


ps. I've read the report....it's sheee eyt.

How can YOU improve the situation?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14087
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:56 pm
 


BeaverBill wrote:
so what are you promoting??


Trying to figure out what's best for the environment... I read this an realized people are tricked by the "hype" all the time, and recycling may be no different.

I'm not saying this was correct. I've only been arguing the points made by this report; I'm not sure if they're true, and I certainly don't live by them. If you must know, I posted this so that reasonable people (like Zip and TD, in this case) could comment on it and help me decide what the real deal was.... I'm not campaigning, nor trying to "win", nor wanting to receive flak from you and Avro. If anything, I want this argument to lose, because our government has legislated recycling, so it's here to stay.

I've received a response from someone at the regional municipality, so I'm off to find his Master's thesis at the library... the results of his analysis were quite different from the PERC report, and I'm curious why.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1573
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:09 pm
 


Blue_Nose wrote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
The garbarge won't remain seperate from the water table if root systems break up the clay, or if there is anyother activity in the soil to disturb it.


That's why the engineers are "extra careful" when they design them.

A membrane of rubber and packed clay? It'll have holes in it pretty damn fast. but perhaps they've made some break throughs, I dunno...

I personally doubt the ability of the membrane to stand up over time.

Quote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
The idea isn't to remove necessary packaging, the idea is to reduce the unnecessary parts or excessive bits, or to when given the oppurtunity, use packaging which uses less materials with the same result.

We should all be driving Smart Cars and eating organically grown food too, but you don't see government inforced regulations for them.

You're right, and I don't see many government regulations on recycling either... In fact I don't know a city with them. (Or rather, know that a city has them)

Quote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
I don't think that this is anything that would be disputed. But the idea to reduce excessive or unnecessary packaging isn't any less of a noble idea.

If nice packaging makes people buy them...


Then those people are idiots, to head off their outrage that they don't have a flashy plastic wrapper we can have some one jiggle their keys for them.

Quote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
Certain types of plastic and glass are self sufficient in their recycling. Many beer bottles to my knowledge are simply cleaned and refilled. And I fail to see how that would be problematic to do. Or somehow pollute more then melthing sand into glass.

Bottles are returned seperately from normal recycling material for that reason - they're worth filling back up. Hence the $0.05.


The article claimed that they weren't, it also claimed that you won't get the deposit back.

Quote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
If that is the case wouldn't it stand to reason that 5 trucks pick up 40 tons of trash and 1 truck picks up 40 tons of recycling. Rather then 6 trucks picking up 40 tons of garbage. Rather then as the author claims that all trucks will be operating below capacity.


The same trucks can't always used for both garbage and recycling is the rational. The compacting trucks would not be able to be used for recyclables.

Perhaps... but at least in my town the cardboard does go into the compressor. In my town most people dropped off their recyclables themselves without any incentives and they ussually mixed it in with their weekend routine, so the marginal cost of transport at least to the local facility was minimal. What cost money, however, was to put things in the landfill.

Quote:
Thematic-Device wrote:
If my experience has not been that almost all recycling programs are self sufficient, if not profitable (the things that cannot be recycled readily tend to not be, hence why only certain types of plastic are recycled)

Your experience contradicts the studies that say that recycling costs 35-55% more than disposal. It might be profitable in some cases, but not the majority.


The study also claims that you don't get the full deposit back, and that the deposit is to pay for recycling, not for its actual purpose, to create an incentive for people to recycle their bottles.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14087
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:59 pm
 


Well, most of the points we're still on seem to be regional, TD, so I only have a few points to make:

The rubber membrane isn't flimsy at all... it would be similar to the EPDM (rubber membrane) roofing systems that are popular now for many flat roofs. Rocks would not poke through them very easily.

Recycling is legislated through the Nova Scotia Environment Act. I'm sure we're not the only ones, but maybe we're just special.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2279
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:14 pm
 


I still think it's just a case of of diminishing responce.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 556
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:00 pm
 


...just to render this thread dead, Here's something only slightly related......GOD BLESS LARD!

Quote:
Hello my dear
Can I peel your skin
Put it in my mouth
And bite it
I am the gallant captain
Of the Vulcanus two thousand

Fell down the trash chute
At my job
Woke up on this garbage barge
Thousand tons of urban waste
Is now our pirate ship

Fire from the catapults
Pampers squashed in great big balls
Clustered globs of medical waste
Rain down on cafes

Give us all your treasure now
Or we'll paint your whole town brown
Everywhere they're glad to pay
Se we'll go away

Yeah, yeah
We wipe the world

Join hands and dance
Curl up our toes
And squish sludge into wine

Drink and belch
Gene Simmons style
Methane goes down just fine

Rule the world from the high seas
Kidnap dwindling vaccines
No one dares blow up our ship
They'd have to clean the mess

Yeah, yeah, yeah
We wipe the world
Yeah
We wipe the world

Hundred sixty million tons
Of American trash each year
Thousand football fields
Thirty stories high
Where will you put it all

Not in my backyard
Not in my backyard
Oh god


While your head's in virtual sand
More of our ships sail each day
You all do your part so well
Feed us trash and we will blackmail

Two billion tires
Bottles and cans
And paper plates
Sixteen billion diapers
They all gotta go someplace

'Nuff aluminum
In three months
To build airline fleets

Take a hint from
Your local roach
Join us and mutate

Yeah, yeah, yeah
We wipe the world
Yeah, yeah, yeah
We wipe the world
Yeah, yeah, yeah
We wipe the world


It rings better with the music. LONG LIVE JELLO & AL. LARD!! (....and of course, William S. Boroughs)


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:48 am
 


The Environmental Protection Agency reports the United States produces approximately 220 million tons of garbage each year. This is equivalent to burying more than 82,000 football fields (1 football field = 5351 square meters) six feet deep in compacted garbage.

Reworked this is slightly more than 800 Million cubic meter. When divided by 10 000 x 10 000 (your 10kmx10km value) we find 8 meters per year =26 feet per year. If this stayed constant? for 100 years it will be 2600 feet, not 225!

Assumption EPA made was that density of garbage is 0.274 ton per(cubic meter).

Maybe your other facts are also similar to garbage?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14087
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:43 am
 


This is an old one...
GandalfGrey wrote:
The Environmental Protection Agency reports the United States produces approximately 220 million tons of garbage each year. This is equivalent to burying more than 82,000 football fields (1 football field = 5351 square meters) six feet deep in compacted garbage.

Reworked this is slightly more than 800 Million cubic meter. When divided by 10 000 x 10 000 (your 10kmx10km value) we find 8 meters per year =26 feet per year. If this stayed constant? for 100 years it will be 2600 feet, not 225!

Assumption EPA made was that density of garbage is 0.274 ton per(cubic meter).

Maybe your other facts are also similar to garbage?
100 square miles, not kilometers.

Other than that, I'm not sure what the discrepancy may be. The source of that figure is apparently heavily disputed by the science community.

Since this thread, I've learned to take any research performed by economists with a grain of salt.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:20 am
 


Sorry, my mistake (outside of the USA I thought nobody used miles anymore...) -reworked to 100 square miles, then 800 Million cubic meter, when divided by 16 000 x 16 000 (the 10milex10mile value) we find 3.125 meters per year =10 feet per year. If this stayed constant? for 100 years it will be 1000 feet, not 225!

By the way, have you seen the incredible garbage continent in the pacific ocean? Kept in place by ocean currents, it collects most of the garbage that falls into the ocean and does not degrade-this is a huge wakeup call for those who think garbage is not their problem-imagine what this will look like in another 10 years?

This from Wikipedia (about 500 000 returns if you search google):The North Pacific Gyre (also known as Tyler Diachok's North Pacific Subtropical Gyre) is a swirling vortex of ocean currents comprising most of the northern Pacific Ocean. It is located between the equator and 50º N latitude and occupies an area of approximately ten million square miles (34 million km²). (3000x3000miles)

This has led to the accumulation of flotsam and other debris in huge floating 'clouds' of waste which have taken on informal names, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the Eastern Garbage Patch or the Pacific Trash Vortex. While historically this debris has biodegraded, the gyre is now accumulating vast quantities of plastic and marine debris.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5740
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:40 pm
 


If the expense of the Bali conference had been directed to cleaning up the Pacific plastic raft the world would be a better/nicer place.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.