Paper or Plastic?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We mostly use plastic as well these days.

And handles are very expensive, you want the poor grocery stores to lose profit for customer convenience? What's wrong with you?

Plastic is long-term landfill filler. Paper is relatively quick to biodegrade. Sure, you can go ahead and claim that a plastic bag can be reused, but then so can a paper one. Then, you can claim that plastic sacks can be reused more times...and I'd agree. But, the nature of the user is that they tend to use it once and throw it away (at least in western nations like the US and SA); thus, plastic creates more, and more difficult to handle, waste.

Bottom line, when I remember, I request paper bags (we usually have that choice in these parts).

Note: If handles on paper grocery sacks cuts into profit margins, why is it that the lower-margin stores are the ones that offer them? That seems to have been the case here, at least; the leading stores tried to shift customers to plastic, while the discount outlets (like Trader Joe's) ignored plastic and went for handles on the paper sacks.

Oh... Yes, I know that the plastic used for plastic shopping bags can be recycled, but the recycle market for plastic film is far more volatile and unpredictable than the market for kraft paper (which is the "plain brown paper"), and when the market is down, they get dumped into the usual waste stream, where the plastic doesn't break down for several millenia after being buried in the landfill.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Plastic is long-term landfill filler. Paper is relatively quick to biodegrade. Sure, you can go ahead and claim that a plastic bag can be reused, but then so can a paper one. Then, you can claim that plastic sacks can be reused more times...and I'd agree. But, the nature of the user is that they tend to use it once and throw it away (at least in western nations like the US and SA); thus, plastic creates more, and more difficult to handle, waste.
Bottom line, when I remember, I request paper bags (we usually have that choice in these parts).

The argument I have heard against paper is that trees have to be cut down. I don't think those bags are made from recycled paper, although that would be the "greenest" choice.

My grocery store has a big bin at the front door where you can bring your plastic bags and they recycle them. I keep some because they are useful, and then I periodically gather the extras and put them in the bin when I go shopping.

Note: If handles on paper grocery sacks cuts into profit margins, why is it that the lower-margin stores are the ones that offer them? That seems to have been the case here, at least; the leading stores tried to shift customers to plastic, while the discount outlets (like Trader Joe's) ignored plastic and went for handles on the paper sacks.

I was being sarcastic. Handles are more expensive and big retailers cut every little corner they can because they are so money hungry. And yes, often smaller stores go for the niceties and better service to compete. It's a well known tactic in retail that if you can't compete with the big boys pricewise, you outservice and/or outquality them.

But, I don't think of Trader Joe's as a discount market, they seem to have harder to find gourmet type items, at least here so it's not as easy to directly price compare.

Oh... Yes, I know that the plastic used for plastic shopping bags can be recycled, but the recycle market for plastic film is far more volatile and unpredictable than the market for kraft paper (which is the "plain brown paper"), and when the market is down, they get dumped into the usual waste stream, where the plastic doesn't break down for several millenia after being buried in the landfill.

I agree, but why is it not breaking down really a problem? We certainly aren't running out of landfill space or anything.

[Dingfod]

Those crappy biodegradable cornstarch based plastic sacks can only be reused a few times if handled very carefully; don't poke a hole in one or it's done. Wild Oats supermarket plastic sacks might last 10 or 20 times as long, they're some kind of heavy duty plastic, definitely not throwaway like Walmart sacks.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The argument I have heard against paper is that trees have to be cut down. I don't think those bags are made from recycled paper, although that would be the "greenest" choice.

Yes... No matter what paper, some trees will need to be cut down. Yet, trees will grow back, I've yet to see a timely replacement of petrochemicals.

Of all the papers, there are only two which have higher levels of recycled paper content than kraft paper (brown paper & cardboard) and that's toilet tissue and newspaper. Brown paper bags are far, far greener a choice than a plastic film bag.

My grocery store has a big bin at the front door where you can bring your plastic bags and they recycle them. I keep some because they are useful, and then I periodically gather the extras and put them in the bin when I go shopping.

As do two out of four of mine. The problem is that recycled plastic is, as I noted, a volatile market. One month, it pays decently and the next they don't want any more, so they don't pay anything....net result: the retailer takes the accumulated plastic and tosses it in the dumpster and it becomes trash. This happens with plastic a lot more than paper, because paper recycling has more developed reprocessing and recycling systems in place. The thing is, even if paper is trashed, it breaks down in a matter of weeks, if not less.

I was being sarcastic. Handles are more expensive and big retailers cut every little corner they can because they are so money hungry. And yes, often smaller stores go for the niceties and better service to compete. It's a well known tactic in retail that if you can't compete with the big boys pricewise, you outservice and/or outquality them.

But, I don't think of Trader Joe's as a discount market, they seem to have harder to find gourmet type items, at least here so it's not as easy to directly price compare.

Well, I guess we must be replete with "gourmet" type groceries, what with Wild Oats, New Seasons and Zupan's (which all supply both paper and plastic). Trader Joe's is distinctly "discount" when compared to these "upscale" stores. Hell, their stuff is often cheaper than the same or similar "gourmet" items at Safeway, Albertson's and Fred Meyer.

I agree, but why is it not breaking down really a problem? We certainly aren't running out of landfill space or anything.

Check again. Don't you remember the trash barge from NYC that floated about the Atlantic and Caribbean for several months, looking for a place to offload? Here in Portland, we now have to ship our garbage 200 miles upriver. On barges. Transshipped twice. Talk about $$. All because no acceptable landfill could be located any closer. Waste generation and it's handling is one of this country's growing problems.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Yes... No matter what paper, some trees will need to be cut down. Yet, trees will grow back, I've yet to see a timely replacement of petrochemicals.

Of all the papers, there are only two which higher levels of recycled paper content than kraft paper (brown paper & cardboard) and that's toilet tissue and newspaper. Brown paper bags are far, far greener a choice than a plastic film bag.

I would agree

Well, I guess we must be replete with "gourmet" type groceries, what with Wild Oats, New Seasons and Zupan's (which all supply both paper and plastic). Trader Joe's is distinctly "discount" when compared to these "upscale" stores. Hell, their stuff is often cheaper than the same or similar "gourmet" items at Safeway, Albertson's and Fred Meyer.

I just shop at Vons. I have only been into a Trader Joe's once and yes, I categorized it with the Wild Oats type market.

Check again. Don't you remember the trash barge from NYC that floated about the Atlantic and Caribbean for several months, looking for a place to offload? Here in Portland, we now have to ship our garbage 200 miles upriver. On barges. Transshipped twice. Talk about $$. All because no acceptable landfill could be located any closer. Waste generation and it's handling is one of this country's growing problems.

Those are regulatory and logistical problems, as you said "waste handling". There is plenty of empty land in the US for landfill use if they can figure out a way to process and ship it efficiently and states can work together. Hell, 95% of Nevada is open, empty desert. The government has figured out ways to get nuclear waste here from all over the country, surely it can be done with garbage.

-----------------------

Also, why are we having this discussion here? This is a lighthearted thread and I made a joking comment based on my years in retail. You, once again, seem to be getting all angry and short with me about some pet peeve of yours.

[Dingfod]

Can't disturb the Desert Tortoise habitat. My company built a compressor station near Jean, NV. They had to build little 1 foot high fences along the road and a culvert occasionally to allow the tortoises to cross under the road to the station; government regulations.

That said, I know of entire valleys in Northwestern Utah that could be filled to their 10,000 foot brim and wouldn't harm a living thing.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those are regulatory and logistical problems, as you said "waste handling". There is plenty of empty land in the US for landfill use if they can figure out a way to process and ship it efficiently and states can work together. Hell, 95% of Nevada is open, empty desert.

I daresay, it's probably more than that. I'd say a lot of trash has already been dumped in Nevada. There is a huge pile of trash around the intersection of US 95 and I-515.

One person's "open, empty desert", ready for landfills, is another's "pristine wilderness" providing idyllic living circumstances for a variety of creatures.

It's more than regulatory and logistical problems. Most major American metropolitan areas are facing the filling and closure of their landfills in the next ten years. Either they will be forced to deal with it another way (burning, say...*cough*cough*) or locate and build yet another landfill... I hear there are plenty of empty valleys in Alabama, too. How about in YOUR backyard?

The government has figured out ways to get nuclear waste here from all over the country, surely it can be done with garbage.

They have? You sure coulda fooled me. Tell 'em to come pick up those stinkin' radioactive fuel rods at Trojan ASAP, wouldja? We've been waiting fifteen years on the promise they'd have it all fixed up for us ten years ago.

Also, why are we having this discussion here? This is a lighthearted thread and I made a joking comment based on my years in retail. You, once again, seem to be getting all angry and short with me about some pet peeve of yours.

I dunno... The topic came up. I did not realize that you were the arbiter of what is discussed and what is not. Or even what is lighthearted or not. Excuuuuuuse me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I daresay, it's probably more than that. I'd say a lot of trash has already been dumped in Nevada. There is a huge pile of trash around the intersection of US 95 and I-515.

One person's "open, empty desert", ready for landfills, is another's "pristine wilderness" providing idyllic living circumstances for a variety of creatures.

Understood, but most of Nevada is not protected wilderness and is owned by the government, anyway.

It's more than regulatory and logistical problems. Most major American metropolitan areas are facing the filling and closure of their landfills in the next ten years. Either they will be forced to deal with it another way (burning, say...*cough*cough*) or locate and build yet another landfill... I hear there are plenty of empty valleys in Alabama, too.

Again, many cities have closed landfills and made them into beautiful parks, golf courses, and other recreational areas and simply opened new ones. Some states ship their trash to neighboring states with more landfill space without issue. It has been done, so it can be done. Just a matter of the agencies involved getting their shit together.

They have? You sure coulda fooled me. Tell 'em to come pick up those stinkin' radioactive fuel rods ASAP, wouldja? We've been waiting fifteen years on the promise they'd have it all fixed up for us ten years ago.

Yucca Mountain has been approved. We are still fighting it, especially now that they found some of the scientific documents were falsified, but the Feds seem like they ain't budging. They supposedly have all the logistics for shipping it here ready to go.

I dunno... The topic came up. I did not realize that you were the arbiter of what is discussed and what is not. Excuuuuuuse me.

I am not as upset about discussing it as I was your tone (or at least the tone I perceived). You were getting kinda rude with me and I don't understand why.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Understood, but most of Nevada is not protected wilderness and is owned by the government, anyway.

So, that makes it okay to pile up all the coffee grounds, old computers, used tampons and other detritus of modern humanity? Next time you're at the courthouse, just throw that half-eaten sandwich on the floor...it's not protected wilderness and it's owned by the government, so who cares?

Again, many cities have closed landfills and made them into beautiful parks, golf courses, and other recreational areas and simply opened new ones. Some states ship their trash to neighboring states with more landfill space without issue. It has been done, so it can be done. Just a matter of the agencies involved getting their shit together.

Sorry, I guess we'll just have to disagree. It's more than agencies getting their shit together (probably to ship to some other agency for disposal), it's finding places to put growing amounts of shit. It's great that so many landfills are being used for public recreational spaces....but that is not the issue. The issue is operating landfills. Nobody seems to want to live next door...what with the odiferousness and the large volume of heavy truck traffic. NIMBY comes in in a big way when it comes to locating new landfills.

Yucca Mountain has been approved. We are still fighting it, especially now that they found some of the scientific documents were falsified, but the Feds seem like they ain't budging. They supposedly have all the logistics for shipping it here ready to go.

Why are you fighting it, if it's unprotected and government land?

I am not as upset about discussing it as I was your tone (or at least the tone I perceived). You were getting kinda rude with me and I don't understand why.

Well, you've had problems with my "tone" before. I think I've been fairly even tempered on this, while trying to point out that you have some rather self-centered positions on this issue of where you toss your trash.

Go ahead...kill innocent Desert Tortoises...they seem to be less important than your old used tampons.

[viscousmemories]

I used to opt for paper over plastic in the early 90's, but I swear an environmental engineer I knew told me they were really equally damaging to the environment in different ways. But the landfill argument makes a lot of sense. The further you have to go to dispose of waste the more resources have to be consumed to do it. So it seems logical to favor biodegradable shopping bags. I think I will from now on.

[godfry n. glad]

An environmental engineer, huh? For who, Gulf? DuPont? GAF? I'd like to have heard his/her rationale. I've heard the argument that any recycling is energy wasteful, but never that paper was as dangerous a waste product as plastic film.

What I really would like to see is a major societal rethink about packaging. Consider how much excess packaging our purchased products come in. While I understand the need for sanitary packaging of some foodstuffs, why do plastic toys need to be triple packaged in paper and plastic that takes a sharp implement to unpackage it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So, that makes it okay to pile up all the coffee grounds, old computers, used tampons and other detritus of modern humanity? Next time you're at the courthouse, just throw that half-eaten sandwich on the floor...it's not protected wilderness and it's owned by the government, so who cares?

What does a sandwhich on the floor have anything to do with burying garbage in the desert? Believe me, the desert is a reslient ecosystem and will grow back right over the top of the landfill.

What do you think they just make mountains of garbage? No, it's buried. The test site, where they detonated fucking A-bombs, has grown back. I am sure Mother Earth can handle some synthetics and plastics. In fact, the test site would make excellent landfill space.

Sorry, I guess we'll just have to disagree. It's more than agencies getting their shit together (probably to ship to some other agency for disposal), it's finding places to put growing amounts of shit. It's great that so many landfills are being used for public recreational spaces....but that is not the issue. The issue is operating landfills. Nobody seems to want to live next door...what with the odiferousness and the large volume of heavy truck traffic. NIMBY comes in in a big way when it comes to locating new landfills.

I don't want to live next to a landfill either, that's why I was saying the states should work together to ship their garbage to places with extra space outside of populated areas. I saw on an episode of Bullshit! an expert who stated that all the garbage produced in the US could easily fit in one spot in Kansas for the foreeable future.

Why are you fighting it, if it's unprotected and government land?

Yucca Mountain is not seismically stable and is less than 100 miles from Las Vegas. All of the nuclear waste would have to be trucked in on the roads of the US and be easily targeted for terrorists or even a simple accident could cause a huge problem...what with it being radioactive and all. How that is analogous to garbage in your mind I don't know.

Well, you've had problems with my "tone" before. I think I've been fairly even tempered on this, while trying to point out that you have some rather self-centered positions on this issue of where you toss your trash.

Perhaps we have a personality conflict, I just felt like you came out of the blue with this topic based on me jokingly saying that handles on bags are expensive...then you made comments like and "If handles on paper grocery sacks cuts into profit margins, why is it that the lower-margin stores are the ones that offer them?" which I saw as quite challenging and stern against a joke, and "Check again" like I was making some kind of argument....which I wasn't. Basically I was going off information I have read and seen showing that the "landfill problem" was really not a problem of having no space.

Go ahead...kill innocent Desert Tortoises...they seem to be less important than your old used tampons.

Oh Jesus H. Christ the drama! The tortoises are protected and we have the whole fucking test site to put garbage in. And where the hell did tampons come from? I thought this was a paper or plastic issue.

I don't want to talk to you anymore.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

An environmental engineer, huh? For who, Gulf? DuPont? GAF? I'd like to have heard his/her rationale. I've heard the argument that any recycling is energy wasteful, but never that paper was as dangerous a waste product as plastic film.

Actually sorry, it was an environmental engineering student who rented a room in the same house I did in the early 90's. He convinced me that recycling at all was a Bad Thing™ because at that time (according to him) we had a surplus of recyclables and a dearth of companies using recycled materials, so the energy expended managing the recyclables was more damaging than the overfilling of landfills. Around 2000 someone convinced me that this wasn't an issue, so I started recycling again. But I retained a belief that plastic and paper bags were equally bad for differing reasons.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does a sandwhich on the floor have anything to do with burying garbage in the desert? Believe me, the desert is a reslient ecosystem and will grow back right over the top of the landfill.

You know that it's resilient enough? How do you know that? It has to do with what is known as "The Tragedy of the Commons". Since nobody owns it (which seems to be the same as "the government owns it") we can just dispose of our trash there however we please. Your attitude is just an extension of that very same attitude. It's the same attitude that lead car manufacturers to say, "Hell, there's plenty of air, we can just exhaust the auto crap into the air, the air is a resilient ecosystem and it will dissipate eventually." Or... how about, "We'll just dump this toxic waste into the river and, presto!, it's gone...the river is a resilient ecosystem and will get rid of the toxic waste." That is the mindset you are demonstrating so damned well.

What do you think they just make mountains of garbage? No, it's buried. The test site, where they detonated fucking A-bombs, has grown back. I am sure Mother Earth can handle some synthetics and plastics. In fact, the test site would make excellent landfill space.

Bullshit. What's the half-life of the radioactive isotopes? In order to bury the bullshit you want to place in it, you'd have to have workers who would compact and doze soil. Are you volunteering to work at an atomic test site?

I know what they do with garbage. You cannot just site a landfill whereever you happen to think it's a good idea. A sanitary landfill must have a liner to prevent seepage into the groundwater. How about hazardous wastes? Are those being removed or not? Are you sure?

I don't want to live next to a landfill either, that's why I was saying the states should work together to ship their garbage to places with extra space outside of populated areas. I saw on an episode of Bullshit! an expert who stated that all the garbage produced in the US could easily fit in one spot in Kansas for the foreeable future.

An episode of Bullshit!? An unquestionable sourse, no doubt. Well, USEPA says, "In 2001, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced more than 229 million tons of MSW, which is approximately 4.4 pounds of waste per person per day, up from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960." So, if this one spot in Kansas can take 229 million tons of MSW (which is municipal solid waste) each year for the foreseeable future, it must be one fukken BIG spot....maybe like the entire fukken state of Kansas. (Actually, I'd rather see Nevada take this on, as they seem to have gotten a jump-start on it already.)

Yucca Mountain is not seismically stable and is less than 100 miles from Las Vegas. All of the nuclear waste would have to be trucked in on the roads of the US and be easily targeted for terrorists or even a simple accident could cause a huge problem...what with it being radioactive and all. How that is analogous to garbage in your mind I don't know.

Waste is waste. Some is more difficult to safely deal with than others, but they basically have similar problems. My issue was that it shouldn't matter to you because it's not protected, and it's government land, your earlier stated standards for locating a landfill. Yucca Mountain is just a sophisticated landfill for a specific type of waste. It fits your categories, but now you're adding new specifications....which is exactly what happens with ordinary landfills, too. NIMBY. Somehow you don't see it as problem if it's your ordinary waste, but if it's somebody else's, it's near you, and it's nasty, then you complain. Is that not right?

Perhaps we have a personality conflict, I just felt like you came out of the blue with this topic based on me jokingly saying that handles on bags are expensive...then you made comments like and "If handles on paper grocery sacks cuts into profit margins, why is it that the lower-margin stores are the ones that offer them?" which I saw as quite challenging and stern against a joke, and "Check again" like I was making some kind of argument....which I wasn't. Basically I was going off information I have read and seen showing that the "landfill problem" was really not a problem of having no space.

Oh Jesus H. Christ the drama! The tortoises are protected and we have the whole fucking test site to put garbage in. And where the hell did tampons come from? I thought this was a paper or plastic issue.

I don't want to talk to you anymore.

Fine. Actually, it was not a paper or plastic issue, but a "what do you call this" issue. You oughta know, you started the thread.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I saw on an episode of Bullshit! an expert who stated that all the garbage produced in the US could easily fit in one spot in Kansas for the foreeable future.

Western Kansas could use the whole nations garbage to build mountains, something they lack completely. Even Nebraska has some of the foothills of the Black Hills.


Ski Kansas!

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Western Kansas could use the whole nations garbage to build mountains, something they lack completely. Even Nebraska has some of the foothills of the Black Hills.


Ski Kansas!

Sounds good to me. Kansas could use something of interest. That'd do it, alright.

Ahem....Since I recycle heavily and compost, do you think I could get a break on the minimum transport cost? Kansas is a loooooooong way from here. And, I'm not a skiier, either, so I won't be using those moutains.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

You know that it's resilient enough? How do you know that? It has to do with what is known as "The Problem of the Commons". Since nobody owns it (which seems to be the same as "the government owns it") we can just dispose of our trash there however we please. Your attitude is just an extension of that very same attitude. It's the same attitude that lead car manufacturers to say, "Hell, there's plenty of air, we can just exhaust the auto crap into the air, the air is a resilient ecosystem and it will dissipate eventually." Or... how about, "We'll just dump this toxic waste into the river and, presto!, it's gone...the river is a resilient ecosystem and will get rid of the toxic waste." That is the mindset you are demonstrating so damned well.

You have completely gone off the deep end. I have seen the test site, there are pictures available online, and the plants and animals live there. There are numerous reports and pictures online regarding the flora and fauna there, which includes tortoises, coyotes, antelope and other such creatures normally found in the Mojave. Here's one report Nevada DOE report PDF 2003

Now, if the ecosystem can recover from atomic fucking blasts in less than a century, I am sure it can recover from coffee grounds and tampons (both of which are biodegradeable, most tampons are even flushable) and yes even buried plastic bags and diapers, just because they don't biodegrade doesn't make them harmful if buried. Most consumer garbage is not toxic.

Bullshit. What's the half-life of the radioactive isotopes? In order to bury the bullshit you want to place in it, you'd have to have workers who would compact and doze soil. Are you volunteering to work at an atomic test site?

People work at the test site all the fucking time. You can even tour it if you're so inclined.

A unique national resource, the Nevada Test Site is a massive outdoor laboratory and national experimental center that cannot be duplicated. Larger than the state of Rhode Island, approximately 1,375 square miles, making this one of the largest restricted access areas in the United States. The remote site is surrounded by thousands of additional acres of land withdrawn from the public domain for use as a protected wildlife range and for a military gunnery range, creating an unpopulated land area comprising some 5,470 square miles.

Established as the Atomic Energy Commission's on-continent proving ground, the Nevada Test Site has seen more than four decades of nuclear weapons testing. Since the nuclear weapons testing moratorium in 1992 and under the direction of the Department of Energy (DOE), test site use has diversified into many other programs such as hazardous chemical spill testing, emergency response training, conventional weapons testing, and waste management and environmental technology studies. http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/default.htm

I know what they do with garbage. You cannot just site a landfill whereever you happen to think it's a good idea. A sanitary landfill must have a liner to prevent seepage into the groundwater. How about hazardous wastes? Are those being removed or not? Are you sure?

Oh for fuck's sake. I mentioned the test site as a possibility and it hasn't contaminated the ground water for populated areas. There are thousands of square miles of empty desert in Nevada and the water table is extremely deep...this is a desert remember? We do not get our drinking water from the ground anyway.

I don't know about hazardous wastes, how are they disposed of in our landfills now?

All I was suggesting is that there is much empty land, throughout the country, not just here, that could become large regional landfills under the same guidelines as current smaller local landfills. What's the difference if the garbage goes into 50 small landfills or one great big one?

An episode of Bullshit!? An unquestionable sourse, no doubt. Well, USEPA says, "In 2001, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced more than 229 million tons of MSW, which is approximately 4.4 pounds of waste per person per day, up from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960." So, if this one spot in Kansas can take 229 million tons of MSW (which is municipal solid waste) each year for the foreseeable future, it must be one fukken BIG spot....maybe like the entire fukken state of Kansas. (Actually, I'd rather see Nevada take this on, as they seem to have gotten a jump-start on it already.)

How much of that garbage is entirely or partially biodegradeable? Where is that garbage going now? And, IIRC the expert based it on the information below.

From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
MYTH NO. 1: We are running out of landfill space. All of the garbage America produces in the next 1,000 years would fit in a landfill that occupies less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the continental United States. http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s165/s165.html

They took the 1/10 of 1% and made it a spot on the map, putting it in Kansas.

Waste is waste. Some is more difficult to safely deal with than others, but they basically have similar problems. My issue was that it shouldn't matter to you because it's not protected, and it's government land, your earlier stated standards for locating a landfill. Yucca Mountain is just a sophisticated landfill for a specific type of waste. It fits your categories, but now you're adding new specifications....which is exactly what happens with ordinary landfills, too. NIMBY. Somehow you don't see it as problem if it's your ordinary waste, but if it's somebody else's, it's near you, and it's nasty, then you complain. Is that not right?

Waste is waste? Toxic, radioactive waste and coffee grounds are equal in your eyes, are they? A truck carrying comsumer garbage getting blown up and a truck carrying nuclear waste getting blown up are of equal danger to the public? Is that what you're really saying? An earthquake at a landfill in California and an earthquake at a nuclear waste depository are equally dangerous?

Are you serious?

Fine. Actually, it was not a paper or plastic issue, but a "what do you call this" issue. You oughta know, you started the thread.

You brought up the plastics and such and went off on some kind of tirade in response to I don't know what. Fine, we can discuss that, but why do you get so goddamned personal and nasty right off that bat? Why did you make up an argument to have.

I quote..."Sure, you can go ahead and claim that a plastic bag can be reused, but then so can a paper one. Then, you can claim that plastic sacks can be reused more times...and I'd agree."

Who is "you" in that sentence? Who were you talking to in that quote? You started arguing with nobody as a reponse to a quote from me about handled paper bags being expensive and that most stores use plastic anyway. Was this aimed at me and therefore arguing something I never said, or was it just a rant for no reason?

[viscousmemories]

Um, Shea... I think the NCPA is shady. Don't know where I got that idea, but here's something I found just now:

Corporate Front Group Alert: National Center for Policy Analysis Seeks to Undermine Global Warming Legislation
12-Jul-04
corporate front groups

Here's another all-Republican, all corporate front group that calls itself a "think tank": National Center for Policy Analysis. Try to find where their funding comes from, and all you will get is a crude "pie" showing that most comes from "foundations", followed by corporations. No foundations are named - probably because they are all rightwing money-funnelers - and no corporations, either (ExxonMobil probably tops the list). Scroll through the list of "experts" - all are conservative businessfolk of some sort - no real scientists. Their token "doctor" led the fight to defeat Clinton's health care reforms. But the media eats their propaganda up. http://www.ncpa.org/abo/ Just check out this list of citations! Now the NCPA is trying to undermine global warming legislation.

-source

Here's their own blurb:

The National Center of Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.

-source

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Um, Shea... I think the NCPA is shady. Don't know where I got that idea, but here's something I found just now:

Here's their own blurb:

Shady ain't the half of it.

These folks are standing up for voluntary personal accounts, which they say is "good for Social Security." Damn...Even Dumbya the wonder chimapanzee has admitted that such a claim is wrong.

They are also pushing for a value-added tax to raise additional federal revenue. That's a national sales-tax. Tax the poor to support the rich.

These folks are running dogs licking the butts of those who think of themselves as "the ruling class." Sycophants to the rich and powerful.

Good source, LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

The NCPA site is the first I came across, however the information is found on many sources and is attributed to one report attributed to Clark Wiseman

Although many landfills are close to capacity, this is because they are designed to have a short life span. There is no shortage of room for landfills. Clark Wiseman of Washington State's Gonzaga University points out that a single square of land, 114 km on each side and about 37 metres deep, could accommodate all of the garbage generated in the United States for the next 1000 years (Wiseman, 1990). This is one tenth of one percent of the land area of the continental US

Source of information: Wiseman, Clark A. (1990). US Wastepaper Recycling Policies: Issues and Effects. Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper ENR 90-14.

Source of Quote here

Good source, LadyShea.

How about the primary source? Got any criticisms against it?

[LadyShea]

Earlier you said this "I've yet to see a timely replacement of petrochemicals".

What did you mean, exactly? Did you mean plastic uses more petrochemicals than paper to manufacture?

Paper bags use high amounts of wood, petroleum, and coal. A single paper bag uses the energy equivalent of 550 kJ of wood as feedstock. It also uses 500 kJ of petroleum and 350 kJ of coal for process energy. The total amount of energy used by a single paper bag is 1,680 kJ.

The feedstock materials in plastic bags are natural gas and petroleum. Two plastic bags use 990 kJ of natural gas, 240 kJ of petroleum, and 160 kJ of coal. The energy used for two plastic bags is 1,470 kJ. Two plastic bags use 87% the amount of energy used by one paper. http://www.ilea.org/

ILEA Mission Statement
The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA) is an environmental advocacy organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Like many environmental organizations, we are fundamentally motivated by a desire to save the maximum possible portion of Earth's biodiversity, and to maintain a healthy environment for humanity.

[The Lone Ranger]

If I may be so bold, there's a great deal of misunderstanding about what goes into landfills and how long it takes for it to biodegrade. Between 1987 and 1995, archaeologists from the University of Arizona ran The Garbage Project, in which they systematically excavated 15 landfills across North America and measured the contents of the landfills and the rates of decomposition. The results were somewhat surprising.

For one thing, they found that fast food packaging, disposable diapers, and paper/plastic bags took up only a very small portion of landfill space. They concluded that if fast food packaging, disposable diapers and plastic grocery bags were banned, there'd be no appreciable effect on landfill volume.

The second-largest category of landfill space was Construction/Demolition debris -- that takes up a whopping 20% or so of a typical landfill's volume, but it isn't even listed as a component in the EPA's national estimates of the refuse that goes into Municipal Solid Waste landfills.


The biggest component of landfill space? Paper.

And here's the thing: in the nearly anoxic environment of a typical landfill, paper decomposes very slowly. The researchers often pulled decades-old newspapers out of landfills that were still perfectly legible. This is especially true in the more arid parts of the country, where decomposition occurs at what can only be described at a snail's pace.

(If you want paper -- or just-about anything, actually -- to biodegrade, you must keep it fairly moist, and you must turn it frequently, to allow oxygen to get to it so that the decomposing bacteria can do their jobs.)

***

I have some of those string sacks. They're expansible and can hold much more than a typical grocery bag. Plus, one of the local stores actually gives me a (very small) discount when I use them, since they don't have to give me a grocery bag.

Cheers,

Michael

[LadyShea]

Thanks Micheal, I read something about a "Garbage Archealogy Guru" from Arizona State, but didn't have time yet to look him up.

Interesting findings. One thing I don't really toss much is paper. I read the newspaper online, so don't subscribe. One sided prints I no longer need and old faxes I turn into scratch pads using the blank side, then shred it and save it for shipping material.

I am also as paperless as I can get with regards to work and such, storing everything digitally...my boss was confused as to why I didn't need a filing cabinet when I started working from home

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The NCPA site is the first I came across, however the information is found on many sources and is attributed to one report attributed to Clark Wiseman

How about the primary source? Got any criticisms against it?

As presented, yes. I doubt that anyone can predict out 1000 years, first off. But given that, he has suggested that the hole be a given size. I'd be curious as to what rate of accumulation he took into consideration. Was it shrugged off as "at current rates"? Or was there a consideration of population increase and per person generation?

Second, did you consider the size of the hole being posited? 114 km = 71 mi. So, that's 71 miles square, or 5016 square miles. That's at a uniform depth of 37 m, or 121 ft. That's an area larger than at least one state. 12 storeys deep. That spot in Kansas is suddenly several counties large.

Third, the point is that such could never be done, but there is a pressing demand to find places that can take our garbage. We WILL continue to produce it, but our attitude seems to be one of "out of sight, out of mind" and once it's gone, it's no longer an issue. Just find another place.

What we require in terms of space for disposal of our waste is piddling compared to the rest of the world. But no matter where we decide to put it there will be a cost for us and a cost for somebody else. The point is that if we remove a huge amount of it and reuse it, we don't keep having to find new places, as quickly, to get rid of it.

Yes... Paper is currently item showing up as a large proportion of the waste stream. It has two possible lives other than being buried in a landfill: recycled into paper again, or burned to produce energy. It shouldn't be buried at all. Archeology into landfills is great. Finding that paper is a huge component is no surprise. And yet, it is the easiest to separate and remove....

Plastic is, by volume, a lesser component. It is, however, on the rise and a relatively recent arrival in the waste stream. It's problem is that, unlike organic items like foods and paper, it's biodegrability is abyssmal. It's even more pernicious in that paper items, once easily recycleable, become much more limited in their reuse, once they are plastic coated, which is increasingly common. The issue is how long it lasts once disposed of, not how much energy goes into making it.....somehow, nobody seems to attach a cost to that and it never gets dealt with in energy usage models.

I have no quarrel with the relative amounts of energy required to make plastic film bags over paper bags. But one takes multiple human lifetimes to breakdown and be reusable in the natural environment, while the other, biodegrades relatively quickly. I have no doubt that vast amounts of paper, like bundled newspapers, could last readably for quite some time.

I shall have to read about the Garbage Project. If it's who I think it is, he was the budding guru when I was just getting out of the business. He was doing great stuff back in 1980's.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

As presented, yes. I doubt that anyone can predict out 1000 years, first off. But given that, he has suggested that the hole be a given size. I'd be curious as to what rate of accumulation he took into consideration. Was it shrugged off as "at current rates"? Or was there a consideration of population increase and per person generation?

I don't know. All I know he is a Professor of Economics and his paper is heavily cited. .

According to the EPA:

The number of landfills in the United States is steadily decreasing—from 8,000 in 1988 to 1,858 in 2001. The capacity, however, has remained relatively constant. New landfills are much larger than in the past.

So we have fewer, but larger landfills already. What I suggested is already happening it seems. There is nowhere on the EPAs website that says we are running out of landfill space, and they also have reduced waste in many ways since the 80's. Most waste is commercial, not residential and packaging reduction guidelines are helping.

Second, did you consider the size of the hole being posited? 114 km = 71 mi. So, that's 71 miles square, or 5016 square miles. That's at a uniform depth of 37 m, or 121 ft. That's an area larger than at least one state. 12 storeys deep. That spot in Kansas is suddenly several counties large.

So what? Nevada has a landmass of 109,000 square miles and Kansas a landmass of 81,000 square miles, Texas 262,000 square miles. Large portions of all three of those states are unpopulated.

Anyway, neither I, nor the professor quoted, ever said we should put all the trash into one state anyway, it was merely used it as an illustration.

Third, the point is that such could never be done, but there is a pressing demand to find places that can take our garbage. We WILL continue to produce it, but our attitude seems to be one of "out of sight, out of mind" and once it's gone, it's no longer an issue. Just find another place.

Yes, find another place and make the old lanfill a park or other recreational area. What's wrong with that?

What we require in terms of space for disposal of our waste is piddling compared to the rest of the world. But no matter where we decide to put it there will be a cost for us and a cost for somebody else. The point is that if we remove a huge amount of it and reuse it, we don't keep having to find new places, as quickly, to get rid of it.

I agree. Industrial waste, of all kinds, especially.

Yes... Paper is currently item showing up as a large proportion of the waste stream. It has two possible lives other than being buried in a landfill: recycled into paper again, or burned to produce energy. It shouldn't be buried at all. Archeology into landfills is great. Finding that paper is a huge component is no surprise. And yet, it is the easiest to separate and remove....

Agreed, and I personally do not throw away much paper. I use rags for cleaning instead of paper towels even most of the time.

Plastic is, by volume, a lesser component. It is, however, on the rise and a relatively recent arrival in the waste stream. It's problem is that, unlike organic items like foods and paper, it's biodegrability is abyssmal. It's even more pernicious in that paper items, once easily recycleable, become much more limited in their reuse, once they are plastic coated, which is increasingly common. The issue is how long it lasts once disposed of, not how much energy goes into making it.....somehow, nobody seems to attach a cost to that and it never gets dealt with in energy usage models.

Okay, what is the harm in that it doesn't biodegrade? What do you see as the problem? What is the cost?

I have no quarrel with the relative amounts of energy required to make plastic film bags over paper bags. But one takes multiple human lifetimes to breakdown and be reusable in the natural environment, while the other, biodegrades relatively quickly. I have no doubt that vast amounts of paper, like bundled newspapers, could last readably for quite some time.

You brought up petrochemicals and I was just addressing it. Again, what issue do you see as becoming a problem with plastics not breaking down? Do you think it can actually hurt the planet? If it's buried can it hurt the ecosystems? If so how?