[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - kurtster - May 31, 2025 - 11:02pm
 
Rumble: The Indians Who Rocked the World - ScottFromWyoming - May 31, 2025 - 9:12pm
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - oldviolin - May 31, 2025 - 8:57pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - May 31, 2025 - 5:04pm
 
Republican Party - kurtster - May 31, 2025 - 4:07pm
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - May 31, 2025 - 3:45pm
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - May 31, 2025 - 3:41pm
 
M.A.G.A. - Red_Dragon - May 31, 2025 - 3:01pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - May 31, 2025 - 1:16pm
 
New Year's Eve at druid labs: photos on-line - Antigone - May 31, 2025 - 10:40am
 
Today in History - kurtster - May 31, 2025 - 10:16am
 
NYTimes Connections - maryte - May 31, 2025 - 9:38am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - May 31, 2025 - 9:21am
 
Gardeners Corner - GeneP59 - May 31, 2025 - 9:21am
 
Artificial Intelligence - Egctheow - May 31, 2025 - 6:54am
 
Way Cool Video - Proclivities - May 31, 2025 - 6:44am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Coaxial - May 30, 2025 - 7:33pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - n4ku - May 30, 2025 - 6:26pm
 
Israel - R_P - May 30, 2025 - 3:28pm
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - May 30, 2025 - 2:20pm
 
Health Care - Steely_D - May 30, 2025 - 1:47pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - May 30, 2025 - 12:30pm
 
Living in America - oldviolin - May 30, 2025 - 12:18pm
 
DIY - oldviolin - May 30, 2025 - 11:37am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 30, 2025 - 11:36am
 
Canada - Red_Dragon - May 30, 2025 - 11:26am
 
Economix - R_P - May 30, 2025 - 10:07am
 
Framed - movie guessing game - ptooey - May 30, 2025 - 9:51am
 
Russia - Red_Dragon - May 30, 2025 - 9:18am
 
SCOTUS - Red_Dragon - May 30, 2025 - 9:16am
 
Midterms 2026 - Proclivities - May 30, 2025 - 6:08am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - wossName - May 30, 2025 - 6:06am
 
The DOC M.D. EP - Steely_D - May 30, 2025 - 5:38am
 
Things You Thought Today - Steely_D - May 29, 2025 - 8:03pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Red_Dragon - May 29, 2025 - 4:54pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - May 29, 2025 - 1:58pm
 
COVID-19 - ScottFromWyoming - May 29, 2025 - 1:16pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - GeneP59 - May 29, 2025 - 9:25am
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - May 29, 2025 - 8:04am
 
New Music - R_P - May 28, 2025 - 12:54pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - May 28, 2025 - 7:43am
 
Buddy's Haven - black321 - May 28, 2025 - 6:56am
 
Memorial Day - buddy - May 27, 2025 - 7:04pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 27, 2025 - 4:39pm
 
May 2025 Photo Theme - Action - fractalv - May 27, 2025 - 4:23pm
 
Concert Reviews - black321 - May 27, 2025 - 1:10pm
 
FLAC Streaming - roam215 - May 27, 2025 - 10:06am
 
Birthday wishes - GeneP59 - May 27, 2025 - 8:44am
 
Spambags on RP - Proclivities - May 27, 2025 - 8:38am
 
Breaking News - buddy - May 26, 2025 - 6:58pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - sunybuny - May 26, 2025 - 6:30pm
 
Flower Pictures - oldviolin - May 25, 2025 - 12:39pm
 
Photography Chat - Alchemist - May 25, 2025 - 12:20pm
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 25, 2025 - 8:23am
 
Education - Proclivities - May 25, 2025 - 6:21am
 
Fascism In America - geoff_morphini - May 24, 2025 - 7:10pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - Isabeau - May 24, 2025 - 5:09pm
 
Democratic Party - Isabeau - May 24, 2025 - 4:44pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - May 24, 2025 - 10:27am
 
Recipes Shared at Radio Paradise - Isabeau - May 24, 2025 - 8:46am
 
Tax the Rich! - miamizsun - May 23, 2025 - 3:43pm
 
car DVD player touch screen bluetooth ipod - casperrues - May 23, 2025 - 6:45am
 
Masculinists? - Isabeau - May 22, 2025 - 5:14pm
 
My Favorites - Export and/or stream link? - jarro - May 22, 2025 - 3:26pm
 
Who is singing? - oldviolin - May 22, 2025 - 12:02pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - May 22, 2025 - 12:01pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - oldviolin - May 22, 2025 - 10:08am
 
Poetry Forum - Red_Dragon - May 22, 2025 - 7:15am
 
Barter for Healthcare - Isabeau - May 22, 2025 - 5:59am
 
Are you ready for some football? - rgio - May 22, 2025 - 5:51am
 
From The Land of Beez.... - miamizsun - May 21, 2025 - 1:43pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - sunybuny - May 21, 2025 - 7:32am
 
Joe Biden - GeneP59 - May 20, 2025 - 6:30pm
 
TV Specials You Are Looking Forward to Or That You Recommend - R_P - May 20, 2025 - 3:46pm
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Proclivities - May 20, 2025 - 12:16pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Recycle Bin Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post to this Topic
KurtfromLaQuinta

KurtfromLaQuinta Avatar

Location: Really deep in the heart of South California
Gender: Male


Posted: May 19, 2025 - 9:31pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

After about 2 years of fundraising, a local group was able to donate this glass crusher to our recycling center. So now rather than pay to haul glass 500 miles to Salt Lake City to be melted down, which few/zero communities do this far away, or rather than pay to bury it somewhere (after hauling it there), we can crush it back to sand and gravel. It's very very unnerving to stick your hand into a pile of sand after watching glass bottles go in one end and the sand comes out and the rock-salt-sized cullet in another bin and it's not sharp at all. Very unnerving. But it's cool. The machine spits labels and caps and corks into a third bin and that is a tiny amount of chaff per ton of sand. Anyway they asked my opinion on something basic and I wound up helping them with their campaign; meet "Sandy Crusher," our new addition at Powell Valley Recycling Center!

Full disclosure: I did not draw the cartoon. I use an illustrator in Indonesia for stuff like this and he asked a lot of questions but I thought he did a great job of anthropomorphizing the machine. So much so that when I suggested adding the face to the machine itself, the committee all sort of giggled and went for it! 

Coolness!


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: May 19, 2025 - 1:21pm

After about 2 years of fundraising, a local group was able to donate this glass crusher to our recycling center. So now rather than pay to haul glass 500 miles to Salt Lake City to be melted down, which few/zero communities do this far away, or rather than pay to bury it somewhere (after hauling it there), we can crush it back to sand and gravel. It's very very unnerving to stick your hand into a pile of sand after watching glass bottles go in one end and the sand comes out and the rock-salt-sized cullet in another bin and it's not sharp at all. Very unnerving. But it's cool. The machine spits labels and caps and corks into a third bin and that is a tiny amount of chaff per ton of sand. Anyway they asked my opinion on something basic and I wound up helping them with their campaign; meet "Sandy Crusher," our new addition at Powell Valley Recycling Center!
Full disclosure: I did not draw the cartoon. I use an illustrator in Indonesia for stuff like this and he asked a lot of questions but I thought he did a great job of anthropomorphizing the machine. So much so that when I suggested adding the face to the machine itself, the committee all sort of giggled and went for it! 
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 12:42pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!"  Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution?  If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. 
I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic.  Maybe i just need to change my perception. 

You stepped into the middle of a conversation with some fairly specific accusations with a vague Uh, plastics aren't great for the environment, m'kay? comment. Your examples so far are complaints of some kind of unspecified pollution and "the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators".

Sorry if I unwittingly included you as a supporter of the microfiber attack ad. If you'd like to broaden the attack on plastics you're going to have to provide a bit more detail than that, and maybe explain why you think incinerators are relevant.

A pile of trash isn't pretty, but other than the aesthetics it isn't really a large-scale threat to the environment.* Mother nature doesn't care what it looks like and doesn't care what we think about it. And why is the pile of trash the fault of the people who made the objects and not the fault of the people disposing of them improperly?

*Yes, I've seen pictures of birds with six-pack holders around their necks. That goes on the negative side of the ledger. On the positive side are the are things like the ease of recycling, lower energy use in their production than alternatives, minimal production waste compared to alternatives, energy savings from transport and handling, better product hygiene when used in containers, and the design possibilities they open up for the products that make our lives better. One is very visible, the others not, but just as real. On balance plastics are quite positive for the environment.

 
Emissions - found in the gases released or ash -  from incinerators include dioxins, heavy metals and other toxins, resulting from burning plastics as well as metals.   As for blame, there is enough to go around for both manufacturers and consumers...I admit I'm not up to speed with the full costs of pollution on plastics or alternatives (back to my comment that it could still be the best material for packaging...), but it would be nice if there was better transparency for consumers and manufacturers to make more informed choices. 
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 12:23pm

 oldviolin wrote:

or is it the other way around?

 
Usually.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 12:04pm

 black321 wrote:
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!"  Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution?  If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. 
I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic.  Maybe i just need to change my perception. 

You stepped into the middle of a conversation with some fairly specific accusations with a vague Uh, plastics aren't great for the environment, m'kay? comment. Your examples so far are complaints of some kind of unspecified pollution and "the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators".

Sorry if I unwittingly included you as a supporter of the microfiber attack ad. If you'd like to broaden the attack on plastics you're going to have to provide a bit more detail than that, and maybe explain why you think incinerators are relevant.

A pile of trash isn't pretty, but other than the aesthetics it isn't really a large-scale threat to the environment.* Mother nature doesn't care what it looks like and doesn't care what we think about it. And why is the pile of trash the fault of the people who made the objects and not the fault of the people disposing of them improperly?

*Yes, I've seen pictures of birds with six-pack holders around their necks. That goes on the negative side of the ledger. On the positive side are the are things like the ease of recycling, lower energy use in their production than alternatives, minimal production waste compared to alternatives, energy savings from transport and handling, better product hygiene when used in containers, and the design possibilities they open up for the products that make our lives better. One is very visible, the others not, but just as real. On balance plastics are quite positive for the environment.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 11:53am

 Red_Dragon wrote:



 
WBMBIT?
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 11:51am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I recently moved into some new Levis 501 jeans. I also recently joked that these jeans will be in my estate sale.

I would posit that a much more environmentally shitty thing to wear is cheap jeans. One pair of jeans in my closet is nominally also Levis 501s but they are Chinese knockoffs that appeared in Costco. They're uncomfortable, look ugly, are thin and ... will go un-worn for the most part, unless I remember to pull them out to do yardwork. I also have a few pairs of other jeans that are just junky and don't hold up like the good Levis. All of those required the growing, processing, shipping, labor as the good ones, but the result is not a product with the same durability or utility. 

I have a microfiber jacket that I have worn every ski day for the past decade. You cannot begin to convince me that it's a bigger threat to the environment than those knockoff Levis jeans. 

 
You with the subjective practicalities and the objective yard work...or is it the other way around?


black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 11:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."  

What greenhouse gasses? Where did trash incinerators come into this?

In what way is something that "virtually never" breaks down a threat? Are rocks threats? The petroleum the plastics came from—should we dig it up and, I don't know, rebury it as a hazardous material?

I'm asking you to justify the action you want to take. With like, actual evidence. Science and stuff.

And if you get it wrong expect to be called on it. there are no end of activists out there demanding things, demanding an end to things, demanding that everybody stop what they're doing and remake the world in an image they find appealing but have no clue how to implement—or if it would even be any better. Build solar roads! Power cars with compost! Stop using cell phones because they cause brain cancer!

They can produce slick videos. They can be persuasive. But for the most part they can bask in the feel-good glow of activism without the responsibility of having to actually implement any of the things they think are such great ideas for the rest of us.

Because they don't know what they're talking about.

Demand evidence when someone tells you there is a crisis. The sky is falling? Show us a piece.

 
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!"  Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution?  If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. 
I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic.  Maybe i just need to change my perception. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 10:36am

 black321 wrote:
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."  

What greenhouse gasses? Where did trash incinerators come into this?

In what way is something that "virtually never" breaks down a threat? Are rocks threats? The petroleum the plastics came from—should we dig it up and, I don't know, rebury it as a hazardous material?

I'm asking you to justify the action you want to take. With like, actual evidence. Science and stuff.

And if you get it wrong expect to be called on it. there are no end of activists out there demanding things, demanding an end to things, demanding that everybody stop what they're doing and remake the world in an image they find appealing but have no clue how to implement—or if it would even be any better. Build solar roads! Power cars with compost! Stop using cell phones because they cause brain cancer!

They can produce slick videos. They can be persuasive. But for the most part they can bask in the feel-good glow of activism without the responsibility of having to actually implement any of the things they think are such great ideas for the rest of us.

Because they don't know what they're talking about.

Demand evidence when someone tells you there is a crisis. The sky is falling? Show us a piece.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 10:13am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job.  Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. 
Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored.  If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging.  Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.

Then how do you know your diagnosis (that "plastic is not great for the environment") is even valid?

You heard it (and repeated it) from people you trust. Are they scientists? If so why don't they have alternatives?

Last time I hauled stuff to the dump I had to pay for it. There are already numerous schemes to discourage littering (which seems to be the only part of the refuse chain where costs are externalized); why don't they count? If those measures are inadequate why not enhance them rather than a blanket condemnation of plastics?

 
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."  
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:59am

I recently moved into some new Levis 501 jeans. I also recently joked that these jeans will be in my estate sale.

I would posit that a much more environmentally shitty thing to wear is cheap jeans. One pair of jeans in my closet is nominally also Levis 501s but they are Chinese knockoffs that appeared in Costco. They're uncomfortable, look ugly, are thin and ... will go un-worn for the most part, unless I remember to pull them out to do yardwork. I also have a few pairs of other jeans that are just junky and don't hold up like the good Levis. All of those required the growing, processing, shipping, labor as the good ones, but the result is not a product with the same durability or utility. 

I have a microfiber jacket that I have worn every ski day for the past decade. You cannot begin to convince me that it's a bigger threat to the environment than those knockoff Levis jeans. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Gilead


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:54am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a large bird. I think the gist is that the birds died of malnutrition. Or simply died, and the contents of their bellies was interesting.

Photo source: Smithsonian 

NatGeo

 
Yes, they ingest more plastic than food.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:52am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:

Those are not microfibers, those are large objects—some large enough to make me suspicious that the image is fake.

Every garbage dump has vast flocks of seagulls around it picking them over for food. Every garbage dump has large numbers of waste objects like those. Garbage dumps do not have large numbers of dead seagulls who choked on plastic objects.

 
It's a large bird. I think the gist is that the birds died of malnutrition. Or simply died, and the contents of their bellies was interesting.

Photo source: Smithsonian 

NatGeo


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:46am

 black321 wrote:
 the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change.  
   

rhahl wrote:
Cotton and wool come to mind.
 
When I clean the lint trap in my dryer, it's full of powdery cotton (mostly). Do we know that smaller particles of cotton and wool aren't also washed into the ocean by the same process as the plastic microfibers in the video?

We are constantly being told that raising livestock is not good for the environment, wool must have a nonzero environmental impact. Cotton is a great fiber, but it's also not grown without doing a lot of damage.

This is all worth thinking about. If you want to put clothing on several billion humans in the most environmentally friendly way, I think your solution needs to be a bit more comprehensive than what this video is doing. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:46am

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Those are not microfibers, those are large objects—some large enough to make me suspicious that the image is fake.

Every garbage dump has vast flocks of seagulls around it picking them over for food. Every garbage dump has large numbers of waste objects like those. Garbage dumps do not have large numbers of dead seagulls who choked on plastic objects.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Gilead


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:40am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Then how do you know your diagnosis (that "plastic is not great for the environment") is even valid?
 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:35am

 black321 wrote:
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job.  Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. 
Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored.  If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging.  Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.

Then how do you know your diagnosis (that "plastic is not great for the environment") is even valid?

You heard it (and repeated it) from people you trust. Are they scientists? If so why don't they have alternatives?

Last time I hauled stuff to the dump I had to pay for it. There are already numerous schemes to discourage littering (which seems to be the only part of the refuse chain where costs are externalized); why don't they count? If those measures are inadequate why not enhance them rather than a blanket condemnation of plastics?
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 9:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
re. the questions...let's go back to the basic point: our over-reliance of plastic for temporary storage of consumables, apparel...is not so great. 

Then propose an alternative and explain why it's better.

 
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job.  Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. 
Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored.  If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging.  Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.
rhahl

rhahl Avatar



Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 8:59am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
re. the questions...let's go back to the basic point: our over-reliance of plastic for temporary storage of consumables, apparel...is not so great. 

Then propose an alternative and explain why it's better.

 
Cotton and wool come to mind. Plastics can be used to make more plastics or burned.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2017 - 8:46am

 black321 wrote:
re. the questions...let's go back to the basic point: our over-reliance of plastic for temporary storage of consumables, apparel...is not so great. 

Then propose an alternative and explain why it's better.
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next