Paper or Plastic?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

A one-handed economist? How quaint.

According to the EPA:

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.

Yes, we have fewer, larger and more sophisticated landfills and heavy regulation. This is all to the good. And, yes, strides have been made since the 1980s. In recycling and waste reduction. Packaging reduction guidelines? Please, tell me more.

I'll agree that most waste is commercial. And the most troublesome waste is commercial (or indutrial, to be exact). Location of larger landfills generates its own set of problems, the biggest being NIMBY. I remain neutral as to whether this centralization is better or not. It seems to foster better control of the waste stream, and thus better ability to avoid unwanted loss of control of things like toxic wastes, but the level of organizational integration raises concerns of excessive economic power...there tends to be more of a monopolistic and higher price control. It seems that way to me.

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.

So what!? Instead of a "spot in Kansas", it's fukken bigger than a state. An entire corner of Kansas. A couple of counties, maybe more. That's what.

Just out of interest, my dubious math seems to indicate that would be equivalent to burying the state of Nevada under approximately 5 ft. of trash. The entire state, border to border. Five feet thick, solid.

Start now, it'll last a thousand years.

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.

And a lame one in my estimation, for exactly that reason. Nobody's going to be around to doublecheck that claim, so it's specious and pointless to our discussion. It ain't the size of the hole, it's where you put the hole, what you put in it and how you protect yourself from negative consequences of those two decisions.

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

Nothing, I suppose. It just seems that we could reduce the rate at which we need to do that. I'm also uncomfortable with the whole idea that consuming that generates trash helps build recreational areas. It seems to use parks as a reward for profligate waste generation.

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

Bingo. I agree heartily. And what is the source of the largest portion of that industrial waste? (I honestly don't know.)

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

Bravo! You're actually doing better than I. The real culprit is what cleaning solutions are you using? And here, I'm no better than most and probably worse than some. My biggest contribution is reducing putresibles in my waste stream. Actually, plastic makes up most of what I put into the garbage, my one grocery bag (kraft paper) per week.

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

Y'know... This one stumps me. You have a point. I actually think I need to change my direction on this, and I acknowledge this. I guess was really irks me is that plastic is being wasted and its such a symbol of the toxic waste in our culture. Petrochemicals have done wondrous things for human society, but it was yet another blessing which has come with an enormous curse. They, in the process of producing the miracles of technology and applied science, also produced some of the most noxious and dangerous substances around. Plastic is not one of these, but the chemicals necessary to make them are, and the waste products of the entire process are dangerous to deal with and to dispose.

Then, when buried, the likelihood of buried plastic bags releasing the nutrients locked up in its molecular structure being released into the soil and nourishing new life is extended beyond most other human objects that become waste. By factors of hundreds, if not thousands.

It seems that there should be some better answers. Perhaps when the petroleum which is the source of the petrochemical industry becomes so costly that other means of accomplishing the same objects will be used.
Let's hope we haven't permanently poisoned ourselves before that time arrives.

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?

See rant above.

Basically, I guess I think it's a foolish use of resources.

Well, in the process of burying it is when it "hurts the ecosystem". It plunks down a whole bunch of things that were not part of the ecosystem and effectively destroys that ecosystem. That is, in and of itself, no big deal, as it happens every day. The problem arises because of the potential of poisoning the ecosystem for an indeterminate time into the future, which is a real possbility and a reason that liners are required and careful regulation of landfills is required. That increases the cost considerably....the cost cannot go too high, or those disposing could go outside your system (aka dump the shit in the ravine and run). There are some amazing "return to natural state" mining programs going on, I'm not sure why they could not be applied in such situations....I'd bet they are, but it ain't cheap.

There are alternatives to doing things the way they are done now.

The alternative is to think about the waste we generate, ask ourselves if it's really necessary and change our behavior to make the best choices for ourselves, the other beings that share the planet with us, and all our futures. Do we really need ketsup and mustard in plastic tear-open one serving (or less) packets?

C'mon....really? How much? As much as handles on our shopping bags?

[Gurdur]

Just a quick note on what's wrong with being non-bidegradable.

In landfill sites, a large layer of nonbiodegradables starts playing hob with
1) the water table below
2) water collection above
3) and of course the ecology of the area
4) and formation of methane within degradable layers trapped between nondegradables

In large landfill sites, the ecology can get buggered badly very quickly. The formation of methane pockets is a very real problem in landfill sites --- think bad, bad fires and explosions --- they really do happen. Landfill sites often need to be rigorously controlled for methane. The nondegradables jinx the calculations if the landfill site was not filled in very carefully.

That brings us to the problem of care, which hits in all sorts of ways. With all respect, the USA is not known as a country of firm, standardized regulations and controls, and abusers of landfills have been known to exist (I understate). So you can get large amounts of the various toxic stuffs, and again with large amounts of nondegradables you're going to get nasty problems with pockets of toxics. Plus the water problems. Think poison swamps.

So..... you may very well point out that rigorous seperation of nondegradables before landfill would solve many problems. And so it would, and so it would. Yet ---- if you're going to seperate everything rigorously out. preferably at point of origin (industrial, home, office) and checked along the way, then you might as well build a couple of the newest garbage-burning power-stations; they can burn the nondegradables without pollution, and produce some electricity with it.

And lack of control over nondegradable garbage means huge problems for the seas -- every ocean on this planet is suffering from plastic bags, runaway plastic netting etc., and they often throttle fish, small whales and dolphins (who try eating them or get trapped in them).

[JoeP]

This thread is a pleasure for so many reasons:

• I often skim over the long involved discussions because I don't have the time and sometimes I don't have the energy to read through the rants. But the ranting here is of fine quality. Both gorfry and lisashea are first-class ranters and in this thread have not only descended to mild personal attacks and "I don't want to speak to you any more", but have recovered and come back to rant again.
• The sudden appearance of the loan ranger with fascinating, detailed and trustworthy information
• The fact that I feel partly responsible, having questioned paper shopping bags

Thank you, ranters, carry on. As you were.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Just a quick note on what's wrong with being non-bidegradable.

In landfill sites, a large layer of nonbiodegradables starts playing hob with
1) the water table below
2) water collection above
3) and of course the ecology of the area
4) and formation of methane within degradable layers trapped between nondegradables

In large landfill sites, the ecology can get buggered badly very quickly. The formation of methane pockets is a very real problem in landfill sites --- think bad, bad fires and explosions --- they really do happen. Landfill sites often need to be rigorously controlled for methane. The nondegradables jinx the calculations if the landfill site was not filled in very carefully.

Heh... One of the parks created where a landfill used to be installed piping which allowed the accumulated methane to escape (and thus avoid the worst of explosive incidents). Of course, by so doing, they made the "park" more of a "green space", because few people wanted to spend much time in a place where wafting methane gas, and its distinctive odor, was a common occurance.

That brings us to the problem of care, which hits in all sorts of ways. With all respect, the USA is not known as a country of firm, standardized regulations and controls, and abusers of landfills have been known to exist (I understate). So you can get large amounts of the various toxic stuffs, and again with large amounts of nondegradables you're going to get nasty problems with pockets of toxics. Plus the water problems. Think poison swamps.

"Understate" is an understatement. The profit motive and the general tendency to cut costs to increase profit has lead to a lot of inadequate protections. Then, attempts at rigorous control of toxic wastes entering the municipal waste stream is fairly recent, so any working landfill or closed landfill from more than 20 years ago is highly likely to be a point source of toxic waste. In Portland's case, that landfill is immediately next to the Columbia River and leaching into the river is already a reality. That landfill was closed 15 years ago. The flip side is that when adequate protections are taken and controls put into place, they increase the cost to the individual consumer of disposing of their waste. Although this should be a disincentive to waste-generating consumption or an incentive to switch to lower waste generating alternatives, all too often the real response is to dispose of waste outside the system....where the problem once again becomes uncontrolled and dangerous.

So..... you may very well point out that rigorous seperation of nondegradables before landfill would solve many problems. And so it would, and so it would. Yet ---- if you're going to seperate everything rigorously out. preferably at point of origin (industrial, home, office) and checked along the way, then you might as well build a couple of the newest garbage-burning power-stations; they can burn the nondegradables without pollution, and produce some electricity with it.

Where I live has, in the last five years, begun doing post-source separation. This is because it was felt that all source separation that could be accomplished had been and the remaining sources probably could not be convinced or trained to do so.

I understand that with co-generation using municipal waste, there is still a toxics problem - the ash. They done wonders at scrubbing the aerosol emissions, but the remnants are still high is toxic elements, most, I understand, the result of plastics and other petrochemicals in the waste stream. Although disposing of much of the bulk, what is left has a more concentrated toxicity.

And lack of control over nondegradable garbage means huge problems for the seas -- every ocean on this planet is suffering from plastic bags, runaway plastic netting etc., and they often throttle fish, small whales and dolphins (who try eating them or get trapped in them).

The most notorious locally is the beer/soda six-pack can holder. This usually clear plastic item has multiple sets of various sized holes (the rings which keep the cans secured), which birds have become entangled and strangled in....I've taken to snipping the ones which pass through my household so that no ring is complete and no animal can become entangled in it.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JoeP

This thread is a pleasure for so many reasons:

• I often skim over the long involved discussions because I don't have the time and sometimes I don't have the energy to read through the rants. But the ranting here is of fine quality. Both gorfry and lisashea are first-class ranters and in this thread have not only descended to mild personal attacks and "I don't want to speak to you any more", but have recovered and come back to rant again.
• The sudden appearance of the loan ranger with fascinating, detailed and trustworthy information
• The fact that I feel partly responsible, having questioned paper shopping bags

Thank you, ranters, carry on. As you were.

Why...Joe... I didn't know you cared. Thanks...LadyShea is an excellent interlocutor.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

A one-handed economist? How quaint.

Not sure what you mean by one handed. He is mentioned in a number of environmental impact articles and studies. Not just that one quote, though that's the most common one.

Packaging reduction guidelines? Please, tell me more.

Oh, actually reducing the weight or size of packaging for various products

Since 1977, the weight of 2-liter plastic soft drink bottles has been reduced from 68 grams each to 51 grams. That means that 250 million pounds of plastic per year has been kept out of the waste stream.

Here is some information for manufacturing waste reduction epa

I'll agree that most waste is commercial. And the most troublesome waste is commercial (or indutrial, to be exact). Location of larger landfills generates its own set of problems, the biggest being NIMBY. I remain neutral as to whether this centralization is better or not. It seems to foster better control of the waste stream, and thus better ability to avoid unwanted loss of control of things like toxic wastes, but the level of organizational integration raises concerns of excessive economic power...there tends to be more of a monopolistic and higher price control. It seems that way to me.

From what I have read, New England already has a problem with monopoly in landfill business. The name Waste Management Inc. (WMI) comes up alot and has some people worried about corruption and pollution.

Having public waste management instead of private would help, but I am not sure how many areas, if any, have public landfills.

So what!? Instead of a "spot in Kansas", it's fukken bigger than a state. An entire corner of Kansas. A couple of counties, maybe more. That's what.

Just out of interest, my dubious math seems to indicate that would be equivalent to burying the state of Nevada under approximately 5 ft. of trash. The entire state, border to border. Five feet thick, solid.

Yes, if garbage weren't buried it would be a problem. A hole the size indicated would take up approximately 1/6 of Kansas, but distribute that over the 30 or so states that have large unpopulated areas and the landfill problem doesn't seem nearly so insurmountable.

And a lame one in my estimation, for exactly that reason. Nobody's going to be around to doublecheck that claim, so it's specious and pointless to our discussion. It ain't the size of the hole, it's where you put the hole, what you put in it and how you protect yourself from negative consequences of those two decisions.

I think it's a good illustration. The EPA works closely with landfills on location issues, and seems to working with industry to reduce waste at the source. Things are being done. here are some companies that have reduced industrial waste.

Nothing, I suppose. It just seems that we could reduce the rate at which we need to do that. I'm also uncomfortable with the whole idea that consuming that generates trash helps build recreational areas. It seems to use parks as a reward for profligate waste generation.

I don't think the parks were a reward, so much as using space that might once has remained a NIMBY unused wasteland. Depending on location and toxin management they could also be wildlife refuges. Landfills are not stable enough to build on I don't think, but something positive can be put there.

Bingo. I agree heartily. And what is the source of the largest portion of that industrial waste? (I honestly don't know.)

I don't know. In my reading at the EPA looks like several types of manufacturing processes produce lead, and reducing lead is a huge priority.

Bravo! You're actually doing better than I. The real culprit is what cleaning solutions are you using? And here, I'm no better than most and probably worse than some. My biggest contribution is reducing putresibles in my waste stream. Actually, plastic makes up most of what I put into the garbage, my one grocery bag (kraft paper) per week.

I bought these microfiber cleaning cloths. The fabric itself is so amazing most things can be cleaned with just water. For most household cleaning I use an orange oil based biodegradeable product. I sanitize with rubbing alcohol, it's cheap and goes a long way. Not sure of its environmental impact though.

We have very hard water here, so I have to use some harsh chemicals and the Mr. Clean MagicErase in the bathrooms, but shouldn't need to do so once we move.

Y'know... This one stumps me. You have a point. I actually think I need to change my direction on this, and I acknowledge this. I guess was really irks me is that plastic is being wasted and its such a symbol of the toxic waste in our culture. Petrochemicals have done wondrous things for human society, but it was yet another blessing which has come with an enormous curse. They, in the process of producing the miracles of technology and applied science, also produced some of the most noxious and dangerous substances around. Plastic is not one of these, but the chemicals necessary to make them are, and the waste products of the entire process are dangerous to deal with and to dispose.

Aren't petrochemicals a natural resource though?

The alternative is to think about the waste we generate, ask ourselves if it's really necessary and change our behavior to make the best choices for ourselves, the other beings that share the planet with us, and all our futures. Do we really need ketsup and mustard in plastic tear-open one serving (or less) packets?

C'mon....really? How much? As much as handles on our shopping bags?

I try to make greener choices without becoming a slave to it. I think there is a happy medium.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not sure what you mean by one handed. He is mentioned in a number of environmental impact articles and studies. Not just that one quote, though that's the most common one.

It's an inside joke; I was trained as an economist and worked as one for five years. President Truman is said to have complained that every time he asked for advice from an economist, he'd get the "on one hand, this could be done; while on the other hand, this could be done." Economists - good ones - should be adept at offering up alternatives, rather than supporting a specific case. Truman, and many others since, have complained that what they needed was a "one-handed economist", so he could get a single, straight answer. What you have here is a "one-handed economist"...one who is advocating a particular position on an issue.

Oh, actually reducing the weight or size of packaging for various products

Well, that is heartening, but as usual way too small of a response. I still she huge numbers of consumer products which are vastly over-packaged (in my estimation).

Here is some information for manufacturing waste reduction epa

From what I have read, New England already has a problem with monopoly in landfill business. The name Waste Management Inc. (WMI) comes up alot and has some people worried about corruption and pollution.

LOL! Yes... That's the contractor who built and maintains the Portland Metropolitan area landfill (the one 200 miles up the Columbia River, in eastern Oregon) is WMI. I actively campaigned to have them disallowed as a bidder for the contract in that they, at that time, were under indictment in seven states for restraint of trade and competitive intimidation (basically, use of force and/or the threat of force to dissuade much smaller competitors from bidding against them). They got the contract anyway and have been under very close scrutiny of the agency which licenses and controls waste disposal in the area, as well as the state attorney general's office. The rumor is that they have extensive mob connections on the east coast.

Having public waste management instead of private would help, but I am not sure how many areas, if any, have public landfills.

It's difficult to tell, such animals as public agencies tend to suffer bureaucratic bloat. There are economic reasons for private operators to reduce costs, but if there is no real competition (which is often the case, in that locating more than one landfill in a given metro area becomes exceedingly costly) the motivation to keep costs down is lost.

Yes, if garbage weren't buried it would be a problem. A hole the size indicated would take up approximately 1/6 of Kansas, but distribute that over the 30 or so states that have large unpopulated areas and the landfill problem doesn't seem nearly so insurmountable.

Okay, bury it. Create a layer five feet thick over the entirety of the state of Nevada...all 109,000 square miles. I like Nevada better than Kansas, because I won't get stiffed the cost of shipping it all the way to Kansas and we can make all those east coasters pay the freight. And...Nevada has more "unpopulated" areas than average state, so it will displace fewer of the populators. And, Las Vegas is trash already.

One of the problems is the most of those generating all that trash are a long, long way away from where these "unpopulated" areas are. Another is that "unpopulated" areas are rarely truly "unpopulated".

I think it's a good illustration. The EPA works closely with landfills on location issues, and seems to working with industry to reduce waste at the source. Things are being done. here are some companies that have reduced industrial waste.

I think it's biased "spin". I've already noted the 1000 year timeline, but if stated as "it would require a hole bigger than a state and deeper than most buildings in the US are tall." It's "gee-whiz" argumentation in reverse.

I don't think the parks were a reward, so much as using space that might once has remained a NIMBY unused wasteland. Depending on location and toxin management they could also be wildlife refuges. Landfills are not stable enough to build on I don't think, but something positive can be put there.

Well, one of our oldest has a lilac garden on it. And, there's nothing wrong with open space and oxygen-generating trees, even if folks won't enjoy the occasional wafts of stench from the methane.

I don't know. In my reading at the EPA looks like several types of manufacturing processes produce lead, and reducing lead is a huge priority.

All heavy metals are a problem. Mercury is on the increase as well, as are a lot of esoteric metals used in computer manufacture...as planned obsolescence feeds the number of old pcs entering the waste stream.

I bought these microfiber cleaning cloths. The fabric itself is so amazing most things can be cleaned with just water. For most household cleaning I use an orange oil based biodegradeable product. I sanitize with rubbing alcohol, it's cheap and goes a long way. Not sure of its environmental impact though.

We have very hard water here, so I have to use some harsh chemicals and the Mr. Clean MagicErase in the bathrooms, but shouldn't need to do so once we move.

Aren't petrochemicals a natural resource though?

As I understand it, petroleum is the natural resource and petrochemicals are the synthesized compounds that are made from petroleum. So, no.

I try to make greener choices without becoming a slave to it. I think there is a happy medium.

And I try to educate on greener choices. But I'm not above being educated myself.

[Gurdur]

Yet another small not (do pardon the interruption, please).

Silicon Valley et al are responsible not just for "exotic" toxics, but for big problems with non-exotics ---- especially like arsenic (from gallium arsenide, used in LED's, signal diodes etc.).

Next off, just wanted to note that the German government, for example, introduced a 10 cent tax charge on every plasic shopping bag --- this reduced their use a lot, and encouraged people to use and re-use cloth shopping bags, i.e. to bring their shopping bags with them, rather than being given one automatically.

[LadyShea]

"it would require a hole bigger than a state and deeper than most buildings in the US are tall."

It is only bigger than Rhode Island and Connecticut which are both tiny and smaller than some cities. And what does depth have to do with anything? Wells and mines are often deeper than buildings too. All the illustration was pointing out is that in a country of our size, there is plenty of appropriate, unpopulated space for landfills.

Well, that is heartening, but as usual way too small of a response. I still she huge numbers of consumer products which are vastly over-packaged (in my estimation).

The pop bottle was only one example of packaging reduction, and one that we don't even notice. Small changes can equate to huge reductions overall. The EPAs website talks about source reduction in all kinds of packing materials from cardboard boxes to pallets.

Unfortunately, I also feel many products are over packaged, especially medical products of any kind. Medical waste disposal is a whole industry in and of itself because we are so terrified of washing and sterililizing instruments for repeated use.

To do one fertility shot of one medication I had to go through a cardboard box, a plastic tray covered in a plastic film, a disposable syringe in its own plastic wrapper, another cardboard box with a plastic jar of medicine with a plastic cap. One shot! And I had to do two a day for 7 days. Other meds I used had multi use bottles and a week's supply of syringes in one box, another had little glass cartridges that fit into a pen and only the tiny needle tip had to be replaced instead of throwing away a whole syringe. which was much more eco friendly.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is only bigger than Rhode Island and Connecticut which are both tiny and smaller than some cities. And what does depth have to do with anything? Wells and mines are often deeper than buildings too. All the illustration was pointing out is that in a country of our size, there is plenty of appropriate, unpopulated space for landfills.

Well, you forgot Delaware and the District of Columbia, which interestingly enough, you could put both in with Rhode Island and they'd all fit in your hypothetical hole.

The illustration points out no such thing. It makes a specious and unverifiable claim in support of....what? The depth has everything to do with it. If you make the hole deeper, you can reduce the surface size of the hole and call it smaller. The 37 meters is a deep hole. If you take the surface area of the 37 meter hole and then reduce the depth, then you can hypothetically cover much, much larger surface areas, hence the five solid feet of trash covering the ENTIRE state of Nevada. That's a whole helluva lot of trash.

I still challenge your claim that there are "plenty of appropriate, unpopulated space for landfills" in the U.S. The problem is both "appropriate" and the "unpopulated".

Well, that is heartening, but as usual way too small of a response. I still she huge numbers of consumer products which are vastly over-packaged (in my estimation).

The pop bottle was only one example of packaging reduction, and one that we don't even notice.[/quote]

Oh, yeah... The pop bottle. And the beer bottle. I live in the state that created the bottle bill, and you know what? The effects were so clearly noticeable that it has successfully withstood the attempts of commercial interests to gut the legislation. Now we are seeing a proliferation of plastic bottles on the streets and beaches...why? Because they do not fall under the guidelines of the bottle bill and have no deposit attached.

There are a plethora of fairly easily implementable measures that can be taken, but there is always resistance to most of them, usually because they interfere with profits or convenience.

Small changes can equate to huge reductions overall. The EPAs website talks about source reduction in all kinds of packing materials from cardboard boxes to pallets.

Unfortunately, I also feel many products are over packaged, especially medical products of any kind. Medical waste disposal is a whole industry in and of itself because we are so terrified of washing and sterililizing instruments for repeated use.

To do one fertility shot of one medication I had to go through a cardboard box, a plastic tray covered in a plastic film, a disposable syringe in its own plastic wrapper, another cardboard box with a plastic jar of medicine with a plastic cap. One shot! And I had to do two a day for 7 days. Other meds I used had multi use bottles and a week's supply of syringes in one box, another had little glass cartridges that fit into a pen and only the tiny needle tip had to be replaced instead of throwing away a whole syringe. which was much more eco friendly.

I still think that industrial toxics are a far bigger problem than medical waste. The irony is that, around here, efforts to reduce point source pollution from industrial sources into the air and water have been fairly effective and now the biggest polluter of the river which runs through the center of my city is the city itself. Raw sewage is regularly dumped into the river during steady rainfall....and it rains here a fair amount. It's municipal sewage. We are still finding the leavings of irresponsible industrial polluters and the number of Superfund hazmat sites is proliferating...indicating that even when control and enforcement measures are in place, there are those who ignore them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Well, you forgot Delaware and the District of Columbia, which interestingly enough, you could put both in with Rhode Island and they'd all fit in your hypothetical hole.

Again, I don't see your point. Most states are much, much larger and nobody is suggesting that one enormous hole be dug anyway.

If I said "All of the UK can fit into the state of Oregon" would you nitpick, or view it as just an illustration of how small the UK is or how large Oregon is?

The illustration points out no such thing. It makes a specious and unverifiable claim in support of....what?

In support of the position that the US is not running out of landfill space nor will run out of landfill space in the near future. Basically, it was written at that time to counter some of the hysteria regarding the issue about 20 years ago. According to the alarmists of the late 80's we should already be buried by trash. We aren't.

Obviously we would need to read the entire report and research the professor to decide whether his calculations and thinking are plausible and whether he is credible. In my searches I never found anyone discrediting him or refuting the claim, though. Perhaps there is a refutation. I am not going to argue it with you anymore since neither of us have the facts to base any argument on.

The depth has everything to do with it. If you make the hole deeper, you can reduce the surface size of the hole and call it smaller. The 37 meters is a deep hole. If you take the surface area of the 37 meter hole and then reduce the depth, then you can hypothetically cover much, much larger surface areas, hence the five solid feet of trash covering the ENTIRE state of Nevada. That's a whole helluva lot of trash.

Yes, it is, but it is a tiny percentage of the overall landmass of the continental US.

I still challenge your claim that there are "plenty of appropriate, unpopulated space for landfills" in the U.S. The problem is both "appropriate" and the "unpopulated".

The unpopulated part is easy. Montana has over 145,000 square miles of land and less than 1,000,000 people. It takes 6 hours to drive from Las Vegas to Reno and there is NOTHING in between. 109,000 square miles and less than 2.5 million people, 75% of which live in the Las Vegas area. Texas, Oklahoma, most of the Southern states, even much of the Pacific Northwest have vast tracts of unpopulated land.

As for the appropriateness, I am not an expert and don't know what is needed.

Oh, yeah... The pop bottle. And the beer bottle. I live in the state that created the bottle bill, and you know what? The effects were so clearly noticeable that it has successfully withstood the attempts of commercial interests to gut the legislation. Now we are seeing a proliferation of plastic bottles on the streets and beaches...why? Because they do not fall under the guidelines of the bottle bill and have no deposit attached.

I don't know what the bottle bill is. This was simply an example of source reduction by manufacturing lighter weight bottles.

There are a plethora of fairly easily implementable measures that can be taken, but there is always resistance to most of them, usually because they interfere with profits or convenience.

I heartily agree.

I still think that industrial toxics are a far bigger problem than medical waste.

Again I was just using a real life example. Medical waste is over 3 million tons per year, all because we have been scared by the germ phobics into thinking it's only sterile and safe if it's disposable.

The irony is that, around here, efforts to reduce point source pollution from industrial sources into the air and water have been fairly effective and now the biggest polluter of the river which runs through the center of my city is the city itself. Raw sewage is regularly dumped into the river during steady rainfall....and it rains here a fair amount. It's municipal sewage. We are still finding the leavings of irresponsible industrial polluters and the number of Superfund hazmat sites is proliferating...indicating that even when control and enforcement measures are in place, there are those who ignore them.

Heavy fines are the only way I can think of. If complying is cheaper than not complying, they will comply. Or move their factories to countries without regulations (which is happening more and more often).

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, I don't see your point. Most states are much, much larger and nobody is suggesting that one enormous hole be dug anyway.

If I said "All of the UK can fit into the state of Oregon" would you nitpick, or view it as just an illustration of how small the UK is or how large Oregon is?

I guess it would depend upon what polemical point I was trying to make, just like the stupid statement about a "spot in Kansas". That was meant to make the problem look insignificant. It isn't, because every square foot of land in the US is NOT appropriate for such a use. The attitude conveyed is that we can just dig a hole anywhere and be just fine....which is the attitude that leads to contamination of drinking water by fukken stupid idiots who don't think about such things.

In support of the position that the US is not running out of landfill space nor will run out of landfill space in the near future. Basically, it was written at that time to counter some of the hysteria regarding the issue about 20 years ago. According to the alarmists of the late 80's we should already be buried by trash. We aren't.

Keep slashing public service budgets and naysaying doing anything corrective and we will be. Just look at the public streets in most major metropolitan areas. Trash everywhere. Soon our streets will look like Israel's - lined with flattened plastic water bottles.

Unless somebody had pulled the alarm in the 1980's many places WOULD be in the process of being buried in their own trash. As it is, many are hauling it to other places, because they cannot deal with it in their own shit within their juristiction. "Just send it someplace else, there's plenty" is usually followed shortly thereafter by, "WHYTHE FUCK AM I PAYING SO MUCH TO GET RID OF TRASH?" Too fukken many people are so fukken shortsighted.

Obviously we would need to read the entire report and research the professor to decide whether his calculations and thinking are plausible and whether he is credible. In my searches I never found anyone discrediting him or refuting the claim, though. Perhaps there is a refutation. I am not going to argue it with you anymore since neither of us have the facts to base any argument on.

Yes, it is, but it is a tiny percentage of the overall landmass of the continental US.

The unpopulated part is easy. Montana has over 145,000 square miles of land and less than 1,000,000 people. It takes 6 hours to drive from Las Vegas to Reno and there is NOTHING in between. 109,000 square miles and less than 2.5 million people, 75% of which live in the Las Vegas area. Texas, Oklahoma, most of the Southern states, even much of the Pacific Northwest have vast tracts of unpopulated land.

You, LadyShea are a short-sighted specieist. Bullshit...There is something in ALL that area. Just because you don't happen to recognize it as anything other than a place to take a shit doesn't mean there isn't something there.

That is the most insensitive thing I think I've ever heard come from somebody who I was under the impression thinks of themselves as an animal-lover. There is plenty of life, variety, and drama going on out there...you're just oblivious to it.

Also, Texas, Oklahoma and Montana and everywhere inbetween east of the Continental Divide is above the Oglalla Aquifer. That's the ground water that serves much of the rural area with drinking water and the water which is used for food crop irrigation. Place a landfill with inadequate protections and controls and you've got a potential recipe to poison thousands of people hundreds of miles from the the source, thanks to toxic seepage into the ground water.

I don't know what the bottle bill is. This was simply an example of source reduction by manufacturing lighter weight bottles.

Then you should look into it as an idea. Rather than force manufacturers to make lighter throw away bottles, why not require that bottles be returned and reused? Place a deposit on each bottle that is collected when the product is purchased which can be redeemed when returned to an outlet that sells the product. It not only took a huge quantity out of the waste stream, it cleaned up roadsides and beaches of nasty bottles and aluminium cans. To bad they were replaced by waxed and plastic-coated cups, burger wrappers and shitty, disgusting little condiment packages that all the shit-for-brains throw out the auto window...

I heartily agree.

Again I was just using a real life example. Medical waste is over 3 million tons per year, all because we have been scared by the germ phobics into thinking it's only sterile and safe if it's disposable.

Heavy fines are the only way I can think of. If complying is cheaper than not complying, they will comply. Or move their factories to countries without regulations (which is happening more and more often).

You misread that. The problem is the city. City government. The city is a creature and creation of the state. The state is the enforcement agency. The answer is a multi-billion dollar system upgrade. The half-way measures are presently in process and include attempts to reduce the amount of runoff reaching the storm sewers...Industry has, by and large, complied (at least in these parts). Government...us...has not.

[LadyShea]

You, LadyShea are a short-sighted specieist. Bullshit...There is something in ALL that area. Just because you don't happen to recognize it as anything other than a place to take a shit doesn't mean there isn't something there.

So are you also picketing all building and urbanization because cities displace wildlife?

I tried Godfry, but you are impossible to have a discussion with after some point. I was learning alot on this topic and then you just HAVE to go make it personal.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you also picketing all building and urbanization because cities displace wildlife?

No. I'm not picketing. However, I am supporting those in my state and have actively done so in the past, to implement and enforce state-mandated land-use planning laws that were specifically designed to limit (impede, actually) urban sprawl. It was landmark legislation when it was passed and prevented a lot of unnecessary development in outlying areas.
It was, and is, public support for limiting urbanization. I support the idea of wilderness areas, where human presence is limited, severely.

I was an active political candidate on this very issue.... The issue of establishing an urban boundary, where intensive development was not allowed. This does not mean that it created "unpopulated" areas. It didn't. Farmers were still farming...indeed, one of the rationales for the legislation was to save arable farmland from urban sprawl, to avoid putting our best food-producing land under concrete and asphalt.

[Incidently, this legislation was essentially overturned last year by a coalition of conservative Republicans and anti-tax activists. Oregon's conservative libertarian pentacostal throwback backlash.]

So... I think that's a better answer than the one you asked for.

I tried Godfry, but you are impossible to have a discussion with after some point. I was learning alot on this topic and then you just HAVE to go make it personal.

Yeah... I imagine you're frustrated. I'm frustrated. You seem not to see the obvious. Dammit, you seem to go through your life in a LadyShea bubble...does anything matter, other than LadyShea? That 600 miles you drove was habitated with thousands upon thousands of creatures. The attitude of "there is nothing there" seem to me to want to excuse destroying entire biotic communities so that you and yours can dispose of your waste....when...when....you have other, relatively easy options, which could obviate the necessity for frequently doing so. It's an attitude that supports and excuses throwing trash out the window. "There's nobody there, who cares?" If it's not your environment, it's not important.



(yeah... those easy options are costly and/or annoying. I know.)

[LadyShea]

I do not live in a LadyShea bubble and I care very much about a great many things. I am a wildlife advocate too, just not in exactly the same manner as you so your sanctimonious attitude is grating on my nerves.

I do not believe that one larger landfill will affect the wildlife anymore than the current 25 in Nevada do and you haven't demonstrated how such a thing would be more detrimental. In fact, confining them to one area will leave the rest open to the environment.

How you equate anything I have said with throwing trash out the window I have no idea except that you're pissed and you get nasty and fight dirty when you're pissed. You have been arguing against things I never said and moving the goalposts.

I would like, if possible, for you to address the information I gave you on the Nevada test site as well as answer the questions I asked about your equating garbage to toxic waste at Yucca Mountain, rather than nitpicking examples I have given and accusing me of advocating a bunch a shit I never mentioned and personally attacking me.

[Dingfod]

Tulsa has a trash-to-energy plant that sells electricity and steam to the Sun Oil refinery. As smart as that seems to be, Tulsa still puts a hell of a lot of trash into a landfill in an old quarry north of the city.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would like, if possible, for you to address the information I gave you on the Nevada test site as well as answer the questions I asked about your equating garbage to toxic waste at Yucca Mountain, rather than nitpicking examples I have given and accusing me of advocating a bunch a shit I never mentioned and personally attacking me.

How would you like me to address it? That living one's life on a daily basis driving a huge, knobbed-metal-tire compactor back and forth over trash being compacted into a test hole is low risk? I don't know how many rads of exposure that would mean and I don't know how many rads those working the site currently expose themselves to, either. I certainly wouldn't pick it as a job, given the potential health effects of doing something like what is required to prepare the material being deposited in a sanitary landfill and having that landfill be one of the most radioactive sites on the planet. I guess that's just a personal preference.

Garbage and toxic waste at Yucca Mountain? They're both waste that we have created and need to dispose of in some fashion that will not poison us. The scale of potential risk is vastly different, but the basic issue and the basic process are the same. I wouldn't want a nuclear waste site near my home, either. I wouldn't want a landfill down the street, either. But I'd sure prefer to have both than none at all. I'd like to see them run, or be well regulated, in the interest of the public and the public's safety. So, I say I think waste disposal should be run as a public utility. Much of it already is, being known as sewerage.

We must have a way and a place to dispose of our waste. We will most likely always need someplace to bury materials that are dangerous to us, but that's no reason to do that, willfully, as swiftly as possible and along with a whole lotta other stuff that needn't be disposed of at all. At least as I can see.

We created a demand for new things before the old have outlived their usefulness, the response has been to create things that don't last very long anyway. It all fits very nicely into the capitalist scheme of keeping everybody busy being better at being busy creating things that nobody wants but convincing them to buy them anyway. Of course, them is us.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

How would you like me to address it? That living one's life on a daily basis driving a huge, knobbed-metal-tire compactor back and forth over trash being compacted into a test hole is low risk? I don't know how many rads of exposure that would mean and I don't know how many rads those working the site currently expose themselves to, either. I certainly wouldn't pick it as a job, given the potential health effects of doing something like what is required to prepare the material being deposited in a sanitary landfill and having that landfill be one of the most radioactive sites on the planet. I guess that's just a personal preference.

I didn't mean about locating a landfill there, I meant about the wildlife living there and the recovery of the natural environment even after 40 years of testing. I was using it to illustrate how resilient ecosystems can be. Did you have any thoughts on that?

Garbage and toxic waste at Yucca Mountain? They're both waste that we have created and need to dispose of in some fashion that will not poison us. The scale of potential risk is vastly different, but the basic issue and the basic process are the same. I wouldn't want a nuclear waste site near my home, either. I wouldn't want a landfill down the street, either. But I'd sure prefer to have both than none at all. I'd like to see them run, or be well regulated, in the interest of the public and the public's safety. So, I say I think waste disposal should be run as a public utility. Much of it already is, being known as sewerage.

I understand and as I already stated, agreed that waste disposal should be a public utility. Garbage has long been associated with organized crime syndicates and shady deals and unfair business practices abound.

The reason I have been involved in the fight against the Yucca Mountain respository is that the area is no seismically stable. An earthquake at a nuclear waste facility could lead to a far reaching disaster. It has been found that the Federally appointed scientists falsified studies and reports in order to make it seem safe.

We must have a way and a place to dispose of our waste. We will most likely always need someplace to bury materials that are dangerous to us, but that's no reason to do that, willfully, as swiftly as possible and along with a whole lotta other stuff that needn't be disposed of at all. At least as I can see.

I haven't disagreed. I think reduce, reuse, recycle is a good motto and one I do keep in mind. I also cut up plastic 6 pack rings if I come across them, though I choose not to buy them in the first place occasionally we had one in the office.

We created a demand for new things before the old have outlived their usefulness, the response has been to create things that don't last very long anyway. It all fits very nicely into the capitalist scheme of keeping everybody busy being better at being busy creating things that nobody wants but convincing them to buy them anyway. Of course, them is us.

Once again I agree. I think American consumerism is out of control. Anything (big stuff) I don't need anymore is given away, repaired or reused in some manner, not thrown away. Hell, even the 10 crappy computers I had to get rid of when we closed our office are now being used in mobile computer labs for kids in schools that don't have enough. When I have needed to get rid of furniture, I put it on the curb and someone always takes it home. We have been to the dump twice and that was for major yard work, so trimmings and such.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you also picketing all building and urbanization because cities displace wildlife?

I tried Godfry, but you are impossible to have a discussion with after some point. I was learning alot on this topic and then you just HAVE to go make it personal.

"short-sighted specieist" - guys, this thread is going so well. One of the things I like is that you both have valid points; neither of you are being more pig-headed than the other.

* JoeP resists temptation to wade in ... too much background to check on