Where does paint all go?

With talk of pollution and microplastic, I see paint degenerate particularly outside, surly much of it is in microscopic flakes and this has been going on for years. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, where do many things go? Rocks become stones, which become pebbles, which become sand, which becomes microscopic sandy dust and the inorganic component of soil. How does this differ from the harmful microscopic grains of degenerated plastic - and, presumably, paint?
--
Ian

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:39:11 +0000, Ian Jackson

While I can understand why large pieces of plastic floating in the sea can be hazardous to marine life (complete plastic bags ingested by turtles, whales etc, and seals and dolphins becoming entangled in lost or discarded fishing nets, for example), the dangers of finer plastic is not immediately obvious, not to me at least. I would expect most of it to pass right through and be crapped out as with ordinary marine food residues. And if some does get absorbed into the organs of the marine life, is it actually doing any harm? And if we eat said marine life, is it actually going to harm us? I suspect the answer to both those questions is no and no.
And does the plastic never break down in the sea; is it there 'for ever' as we're so often being told? Well, no. It breaks down into finer and finer pieces, certainly, but that just exposes more surface for the plastic-munching bacteria to get at and hasten the eventual decomposition of the plastic. The lifetime of plastics in the oceans is finite.
See for example, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/18/plastics-science-is-winning/
My own view is that we should take an intelligent view of plastics. They are, after all, an essential component of modern living, but we should use less where we can, and recycle where we can't.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/01/2020 10:33, Chris Hogg wrote:

and simply burn where we can't recycle.
--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And push for packaging to be in *clean burn* plastics.

--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:08:50 +0000, Tim Lamb

Ok, I'll admit to buying a bottle drink when we are out and have been caught out but 1) we often re-use the bottle several times and 2) will always recycle them properly. Even to the point of not trusting that the likes of McDonalds sorting their waste and taking it home so that we can be sure we have done it properly (rather than just throwing it out the window of their car at some point on their way home ... where they typically have a bin outside their own house?).
If we do buy a plastic bottle of drink it's rarely just water out of principal. Do they say bottled water is 1000 times more expensive than tap water and often not as well tested as tap water?
I often see people heaving huge multipacks of water into the shopping trolleys or car boys and think they must be mad or something?
I often buy the Salisbury's 2% lager that has recently gone up to £1.25 for 4 cans. How can 4 cans of lager, that is mostly water, be less than a bottle of plain water?
The answer of course is that some people buy bottled water because they think it's better for them, are too lazy to re-fill an existing bottle or think it tastes better (when where they have done blind tests, 'most people' prefer tap water). ;-)
What a mad world we live in ...
Cheers, T i m
p.s. Since I saw it mentioned here, we care saving crisp / snack packets as I believe Walkers will take them is 5kg batches. We are looking for a good way to store them as they can take up a bit of room unless compressed somehow (and we don't want to knot them up as I'm not sure how they re-process them).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
T i m wrote:

I do buy a little of Sainsbury's cheapest fizzy water. The amount we use is so low that pratting about with Sparklets is not a sensible or economic option.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
snipped-for-privacy@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, quite, and at least it isn't just plain (still) water (that was my real point).
I 'get' the 'I'm caught out and thirsty' thing, even for plain water, it's the people who you see lugging what must be gallons of often (still) water home from the shops when they have the same stuff for 1/1000th of the cost (of the water, let alone the environmental costs of it's packaging and *transportation* [1]) coming out of their taps at home.
Cheers, T i m
[1] And these same people generally do having water coming out of a tap at home, this isn't Africa and they aren't wild camping away from a stream! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

especially "Fijian water".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:27:06 +0000 (GMT), charles

Good grief.
"... The Cleveland Water Department ran tests comparing a bottle of Fiji Water to Cleveland tap water and some other national bottled brands. Fiji Water reportedly contained 6.31 micrograms of arsenic per litre, whereas the tap water of Cleveland contained none.[27] In a 2015 test of Fiji Water bottled in November 2014, performed and reported by the company, the reported arsenic level was 1.2 micrograms per litre, below the FDA limit of 10 micrograms per litre.[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_Water
This is another thing that gets me, the conspicuous consumption of stuff, just because you can and / or because of how others 'rate' you because of it.
In the same way the 'done thing' when you are selling an expensive house is to fit a new kitchen to sell it and the fist thing any new owner will do is rip out the brand new kitchen and fit a new one, the 'old' stuff going in the skip (that's part of the effect), not being offered to friends or on Freecycle etc.
Like you hear of celebs having stuff 'flown in' especially for them or only wearing their clothes once (before binning, not recycling them).
I don't begrudge them having the money to do it, I am frustrated that they don't have the social conscience not to do it.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I do. What film 'stars' and sports fools are paid is completely stupid.
Same with the best of the 'presenters' etc on the BBC etc too.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/01/2020 18:58, T i m wrote:

My parents' old kitchen went to their newly purchased property in France and stayed there until they sold it 29 years later - so they had a 1970's, light green kitchen until last year!
When I bought this house, I kept the existing kitchen for some years (changing the worktops and damaged sink) and only replaced the rest when I needed more cupboards and could not match them. Two of the doors were retained to re-do our electric cupboard in the hall and have just been re-varnished.
We are now another 15 years on and about to redo the kitchen. The carcasses will remain, but the worktop near the sink has begun to swell and needs changing anyway as we are replacing a cooker with a separate oven and hob, the end one is too narrow since we rearranged the layout and the third one is too short and so has a joiner where it was extended for an extra cupboard. The cupboard door foils have begun to peel and the laminate flooring has suffered from a bit too much water after years of mopping and a couple of recent floods from a faulty washing machine.
I think we are getting a reasonable life out of most of it.

I don't send clothes to recycling, but they are worn until they are past it (even my children's clothes are kept for when I send them under the floor - my arthritic knees mean that crawling under the floor is reserved for me carrying out terminations of cables and the like), then relegated to "work" clothes and finally rags for cleaning. My wife tends to wear clothes until they start to come apart (I am lucky - she hates clothes shopping).

It is a totally different mindset. We re-use many things and keep others going long after many people would have discarded them, but it takes an odd mindset to buy things and use them once. I have difficulty even buying special tools that may be only used once and do my best to work around such problems, even though it can cause difficulties trying to do some jobs.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/01/2020 13:50, Chris J Dixon wrote:

It's no use cutting back on plastics if you create another problem by using alternative consumables (such as "sparklet" capsules) that require much more resources for recycling and probably create more climate altering gasses during manufacture.
Its very much like people that give up dairy products for health or climate crisis reasons but then start using plant based dairy substitute products sourced from ingredients transported from the other side of the planet and are heavily modified in industrialised processes that use salt, sugar and other "healthy" ingredients to make them palatable.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then that depends on the overall footprint of each.
eg, It could well be that the 'fake milk' requires a faction of the space to produce (compared with cows milk), a fraction of the water and actually produces far less of the worst greenhouse gasses (methane V CO2), then we may all still be better off overall (and no cow hormones in fake milk for example).
https://www.alpro.com/uk/products/drinks/oat-drinks/oat-original/
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/01/2020 10:30, T i m wrote:

How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is labelled unsweetened?
Factor in the destruction of the soil structure by constantly growing crops. Leaving the ground fallow and growing grass for a couple of years and then using grazing animals for maintenance during this time may be beneficial for the country.
It may be impractical to plant crops when the whole of the countryside is full of wind and solar farms.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they use apple juice in the sweetened ones instead of solid suger. You may feel this is sophistry.

--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You aren't very bright are you?
"* contains naturally occurring sugars"
Do you think they *add* lactose to cows milk?
(And they let these people vote ... <rolls eyes>). ;-(

Of course.

But it may not, if grazing animals (even if also for milk or meat production) takes up say 20x the land in the first place and produce loads more methane (than say a combine harvester produces CO2).

Makes no difference.

Whilst they are planting crops under solar farms (agrivoltaics), solar farms may be better positioned on land that may not be idea for growing crops in the first place (inaccessible by big machines, rocky, dry or contaminated).
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/01/2020 13:40, T i m wrote:

So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two? Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?
You do seem to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added sugar.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, you really are thick, or just trolling?

It's not *added* is it you nutjob, it's there already! (FFS!).

Oh dear oh dear. Back to your cognitive bias problem again? ;-(
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unsweetened
"unsweetened: with no sugar or other sweet substances added:"
How difficult life must be (or easy as they are always right irrespective of how much the facts contradict them) for the left brainers ... ;-(
That means no ADDITIONAL sugars have been added (in any form).
Sheesh ... and they let these people vote ... ;-(
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Soya (or other grain such as oats) contains vey ltiile free sugar, but apple joice is added to the not-unsweetened one. Which does contain various sweet-tasting sugers.
Why a purely mechanical extract of suigar cane is not "natural" is a bit of a mystery to me - especially as olive oil is obtained by a rather similar process, and is, apparently, natural. AFAiCS the only thing that is not "natural" is witchcraft.
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.