"clot" wrote in news:FDuIi.32317$ka7.19810@newsfe4- gui.ntli.net:
Personally,I do not believe we should be burying our refuse in the ground. It should all go to a reprocessing plant where everything not combustable gets removed for reuse and the combustables get burned to generate electricity/process steam.Then the ash can be put into roadway paving and construction materials.
Beats me. I've never read about the detailed mechanics of the process - just that it *has* been found in groundwater plumes which picked up the chemical from landfills where it was KNOWN that mercury was dumped. Based on this information, people sometimes lose the use of their well water.
Don't know. Doesn't matter to me at the moment.
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:TnuIi.16548$ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny:
probably not a high enough volume for them.
put a refundable fee on them like soda bottles and cans.
How much would the fee have to be to get you to drive 35 miles?
on 9/20/2007 12:26 PM Jim Yanik said the following:
I completely agree. It seems that the US is always the last to embrace new environmental technology. Ever notice those pipes sticking out of the mounds in old landfills? They are there to exhaust methane gas into the atmosphere. Couldn't we use methane?
...
A given point source would depend on local chemistry, but an example from some mine tailings piles is the Hg forms a highly soluble Hg-CN complex and makes it into the water in that form. There are bound to be other water-soluble salts/compounds at most any landfill if not much cyanide, specifically.
You are correct that metallic or inorganic Hg isn't much of a problem in that form because it is poorly absorbed by the digestive tract and therefore, mostly simply eliminated. But, methylmercury?an organic form is highly toxic to the nervous system. Methylmercury is produced from inorganic mercury by methylation, a microbial process enhanced by chemical and environmental variables, such as the presence of organic matter and oxygen. To compound the problem, this form of mercury biomagnifies to high concentrations at the top of food chains.
Many places are. And, au contraire to the last to adopt, much of the technology has been developed here. Compare water and air quality presently to 50 or 100 years ago despite the expansion of the economy and population to get a more balanced view...
--
People who try and explain away the dangers of mercury have probably never heard of this:
Maybe you should take a look at the current crop. While I am sure there are still some duds out there, the ones I have don't exhibit any of those issues.
Just out of curiosity, what %age of cans actually get returned for the fee. I've been looking around for that stat in another context and can't find it/.
Undoubtedly indeterminate. At the moment, the return value is so low compared to the scrap price as to be totally ineffective as an incentive. Even when first introduced it had only a marginal impact as the value wasn't seen by most as enough to make up for the inconvenience of lugging them back. And even w/ current record or near-record scrap prices, the bulk, even if recycled, go to the no-pay recycle collection points rather than being collected individually for scrap.
I've not looked, but one would assume there could be some information available on the amount of recycled Al and how much of that was can stock and compare that to the amount of can stock produced. That wouldn't be highly precise, undoubtedly, but at least a ballpark guesstimate. Lived near the Alcoa can stock rolling mill in Alcoa, TN, for quite some time and they use almost all recycled feed material iirc. Don't remember annual production, but it'll make a bunch of cans. Hauled the molten Al in large heated vats on flatbed trailers from the melt facility to the mill--always thought it would be a real treat for one of them to get into an accident on the I40/I75 interchange in west K-town and avoided being close to them scrupulously. Suspect 90% of the idjits barreling along at 80 mph plus had no idea what they were tailgating or cutting in and out of traffic around...
--
If they are to be used "base down", where will someone use them? Almost all light fixtures are used base UP, with a few that are mounted horizontally such as many bedroom fixtures. About the only place that "base down" exists is table lamps.
I should note that the one that blew sparks and smoke, was one of the rare fixtures where the base WAS down. In the bathroom.
Both that have burned are GE brand. As far as someone mentioned about the "Dollar Store" brands, that would most likely be the "LOA" (Lights of America) brand. While other brands likely exist, I have never seen any other brands besides these two.
I should note that if I complain, GE will send a coupon for a free replacement, but that wont help after a house fire. I have gotten several "free bulb coupons" from GE to date, but I have never gotten the full life stated on the package from any of them. I only complain in extreme cases, such as the ones that have smoked, and the ones that burn out within a short time after purchase. I dont write the install date on them, but probably should. However, since I am going to get rid of them, I wont have to deal with this hassle any longer. I already bought a few 4 foot florescent tube "shop lights" for my garage. At least those are much safer, and still save on the electric bill. But in the house, there is little option. Either hang an ugly "shop light" or use standard bulbs.
Alvin
...
For california:
Actually, that probably isn't true still. I haven't compared value of the scrap to the return but for an individual one the return may still be higher. It's the inconvenience thing that's controlling I think.
--
yup. The key issue is what quantities, concentrations, exposure, etc. When I was a kid, mercury as the metal was freely available in school science laboratories. Liquid mercury was used on a large scale as a bearing for filter arms on trickling beds at sewage works. Our exposure to mercury was much greater in the past. The uncontrolled disposal was much greater in the past. Emissions to atmosphere from incinerators and coal fired power stations was much greater. These emissions are both scrubbed and monitored now.
We do need to control its use but I would suggest that we are in danger of getting paranoid about it!
Here in the UK ( and guess similar over The Pond), during the 70's there was a legimate outcry at the exposure of workers to asbestos dust. Controls were rightly brought in. However since that outcry, society has been ripped off by contractors charging high prices for the removal of asbestos from buildings, aided and abetted by ignorant and over-zealous regulators. It is only when there is danger of certain types of asbestos creating a dust that can be inhaled that there is a risk, (and even then the exposure has to be for a significant amount of time).
There was even a concern that we should remove all asbestos cement water supply pipes from the ground! It's the sense of proportion (or lack of it) that concerns me.
You just said what I have been thinking all along. We have recycling centers for alum cans, tin cans, glass, plastic bottles, paper, etc. Why not have another slot for florescent bulbs, batteries, and other things like that. The mercury used in these bulbs should be reusable, so why not do it. Quite honestly I see that being much more important than tin cans and glass. I also believe that ALL burnable trash such as kitchen (food) garbage, paper, non-recy plastics, yard waste, wood, SHOULD be burned to generate power. This must account for the largest percentage of waste anyhow, since we have already removed the cans and glass, and lately most appliances. For example, we now have a place that takes electronics such as computers, to eliminate all the lead solder and other chemical containing capacitors and stuff from the landfills. The computer I am using right now is made from components that they offer for sale to the public. Thats a great idea to help the environment, save having to make more mines to "harvest" lead and other metals, and I like being able to have a place to buy a used (but good) video card, memory, or hard drive for a few bucks.
And since we are discussing this, part of the responsibility of trash should be placed on the SOURCE. Those assenine clamshell packages are a good place to start. Besides being a pain in the ass to open, they are just more plastic pollution, which we as consumers pay for each time we buy something inside of them. Look at these digital camera cards. The cards are an inch square, but come in 6 x 10 inch clamshells. Yes, the reason is because of retail theft. But wouldn't it make more sense for the manufacturers to just provide the stores with a locked display cabinet? Thinks about the extra gasoline that would be saved too. A semi truck could probably haul a million camera cards if they were sold without the clamshells, but now they can only get less than hundred cards in a box. Almost everything in the stores these days contain excessive packaging. If the govt. wants to control what we dispose in our trash, why dont they also start to control the sources of all the trash we as consumers have to handle. I am old enough to remember when a chocolate candy bar came wrapped in paper. If that paper was tossed on the ground, it would decompose in a year or less. If however, someone tosses the new plastic wrappers on the ground, they will stay there forever or until someone disposes of them or burns them.
Finally, it seems that few people realize that all plastics are made using crude oil. We are supposed to curtail our use of fuels, yet how many millions of barrels of oil are used each day to produce plastic packaging, which we toss in the trash the minute it leaves the store. If all plastic packaging was turned back in time to papers, (which are renewable), we would see the gas prices come down real fast.
Alvin
In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some utilities have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about that.
Are the "Dollar Store" brands any different than the others? They are all most likely made in China, and very likely all the same maker. Then the are given a brand name. In my opinion, they are all the same, except for the price. It's just like (flashlight type) batteries. I can buy Duracell or other name brands for $5 (four AAs), or buy a generic package for $2. They all last the same amount of time. They are all likely made at the same place too. Even if the "name brands" last an hour longer, consider that I can buy
2 and a half times the amount if I chooose the generic brand.
"Seems" could be the operative word here. During the 70's, the US was way ahead of Europe with environmental legislation - cats for cars (although the replacement of lead by MBTE in gasoline was a blind alley), banning of pesticides and vehicle safety iniatives. Today, it does seem that the table has turned, environmental initiatives in Europe do appear one step ahead of the US. I read of a new initiative on the EPA site the other day (cannot think what it is was about now!) which was way behind what's going on this side of The Pond.
I guess these things go in cycles.
I'm surprised to hear of uncapped landfills with vented methane though. We value the stuff and capture as much as possible for power generation - more commonly than not using GE generators - though manufactured in Austria.
But it is still be advocated as a good idea? Especially when factor in the costs of storing, moving it around, etc., before recycling?
At the moment, the return value is so low
According to EPA: While recycling has grown in general, recycling of specific materials has grown even more drastically: 50 percent of all paper, 34 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, 45 percent of all aluminum beer and soft drink cans, 63 percent of all steel packaging, and 67 percent of all major appliances are now recycled.
Sorta like Han Solo when Pizza the Hut cast him in carbon. (Or am I getting two movies mixed up again??)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.