Where does paint all go?

[tabbypurr]

classic :) All too believable

[T i m]

<snip>

Quite, and it's suggested that '1 litre of soya milk uses 752 less litres of water than 1L of cows milk (or 'baby cow growth fluid').

A soya based 'burger' uses 2192 less litres of water than a beef burger.

And feeding the people on soya directly is a much better (more efficient, inc lower methane / waste washout into the waterways / sea) use of the land than feeding it to beef and us then eating the beef.

This becomes particularly pertinent when global warming reduces the water available in some areas.

Cheers, T i m

[tabbypurr]

it would take me forever. We don't eat crisps. If crisp packets were aggregated for parcelled disposal, most other things would be too. The value of the space required would far outstrip the value added by doing this, even if one ignored the extra labour sorting everything.

no it just is. You're putting the trivial before the nontrivial.

it absolutely is

it's not maintaining the planet at all. The planet is fine whether packets are buried or washed & melted.

Even if one is passing, which for most people is not the case, it still takes time & energy.

Moving crisp packets from landfill to a remelt operation is pretty trivial, yes.

if it is being stored it's because those in charge of it believe it needs to be stored.

2 problems we have little of and none of respectively

/every/ disposal option has downsides. Remelt wastes money that could be spent on more useful things.

if so they'll ultimately be mined. It's not a sound argument to not use valuable land now.

FWIW I'd like to see a comprehensive recycling/repair machine developed. One day it'll happen.

you could always start with the market value

heh, it's usually the other way round

no, we should just not recycle them. That's the sensible option for now.

cost, whether kitty tolerates eating the same flavour 4 times in a row etc. You know, the genuine issues.

so vague as to be meaningless

Explaining things once seldom gets the message across. People aren't going to know what the problem is unless collectors leave a label stating clearly what the issue is. The reality is those running such schemes cba to make them work.

School education needs a huge overhaul imho

NT

[tabbypurr]

it is totally the point. Most of the things that really matter to human wellbeing cost money. Wasting it is counter productive.

the remelt operation makes money selling plastic goods

All recycled plastic products only use a minority of recy for obvious reasons

it's business as usual

that and more profit are the entire points of the operation. Just stating the obvious.

they're making profit, like every successful business venture. It's what business is for

NT

[T i m]

It is in this case.

And?

So is wasting resources like plastic by burying them or burning them.

But that's not *why* they are 'in business'. The sale of anything they make from their recycling only goes to help fund the recycling. I doubt they would ever recoup the total cost of the process of making crisp packets from any recycling process (unless they can turn plastic and foil into gold).

Of course, but that recycled products exist means that the materials aren't lost from the system (at that point) but reused.

Nope, it's recycling, not making crisps.

Except the chances are they aren't making 'more profit' from the recycling, more likely just recovering some of the costs (whilst doing a good thing, not wasting resources).

Yes, making and selling crisps.

Do you think any Council 'makes a profit' from any of it's recycling services? Given they aren't providing the raw materials by your logic they all must be?

Again, the chances are they are at best only going to be offsetting the *cost* of providing the various waste collection services whilst collecting recycling materials for the benefit of ratepayers >

mankind.

As an experiment we crushed all our ally cans over several months and after gathering 3 dustbins full, we put them in bags and took them to the scrap metal recyclers. I think they gave us around ~£2 for them. Now, even though we did it as an experiment and in our free time, it showed us it was 'better' to simply put them out for the Council to collect and sell as they stood more chance of making it viable because of the quantities they were dealing with. By viable I mean being able to sell, even at a net loss rather than having to pay a lot to put them in an ever diminishing stock and increasing cost of landfill.

Cheers, T i m

[tabbypurr]

You are just too naive to have a constructive discussion with on this topic.

[T i m]

;-)

Many other things are:

See above. Everybody does their 'bit', that's the point.

So you say.

Nope.

For how long (and we are talking of the planet as the home for human life, not some other weasel thing).

Yes, but relatively little and far less than the alternatives in effort and cost. Landfill holes don't dig, line, compress, cover, compress and cap themselves you know?

It is, if it's done by the people, just as easy as putting them in a bin and having a binman carry them to the yard, unload, possibly sort, reload then from the yard to a landfill site.

Quite, often till they can work out how to best process it and that doesn't include burying or burning in many cases.

From your POV.

Of course?

From your POV. Others must disagree with you or they wouldn't be doing it.

And so even less efficient than dealing with them today (which is what they are doing).

Eh?

If by 'machine' you mean 'system', if so I agree.

See, years ago, if you pulled down a building, it would nearly all get dumped. Now, all the materials are separated (steel, copper, aluminium, plastics) and sold to 1) recycle them and 2) offset the cost to the demolition firm (they factor this into their pricing of the job). The concrete gets crushed into a smaller aggregate and often left on site, sold to the developers to use as a valuable material. Less vehicles, better for the locals and environment and less waste all round.

You could, many wouldn't. See, things are often worth more to some than any monetary value. I could easily have bought a new washing machine to replace my failing one but instead I took a nearly new (13 months) one that was broken, repaired it and used it for the next 8 years. I didn't do that to save time or money (although I did), I did it because it was better all round.

Well there you go then ... and I'm guessing you don't always do it to save time or money? A car is a classic example of that were replacing a small bit can keep all the other bits from having to be recycled.

<snip>

Why, when there is a company that is recycling them 'now'?

Then get a dog. ;-)

Issues that pale into insignificance when we have filled all the holes with our rubbish and the sky's are black from burning the rest.

Again, I suspect just to you. ;-)

<snip>

Then we need to look closer at our education system?

And they sometimes do.

No, they actually do, by re distributing the leaflets, putting up advertising, social media and newsletters and the like. They are desperate to make it work because they need it to work, or risk putting the rates up and losing votes at the next election.

On that we agree 100% then. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[ARW]

I think most of the collection points are at schools and the kids are told that the packets will be recycled.

It keeps them happy.

[Andy Burns]

I thought my ears were deceiving me yesterday, when I heard on the radio about Tesco removing plastic outer wrappers from multibuy tins, supposedly this was going to save 350 *MILLION* tonnes of plastic per year!

The BBC have now corrected this to 350 tonnes on their website, The Independent is still going with the 350 million number, did Tesco f*ck up the press release?

[Tim Streater]

Ah, so you are agreeing with me that butter is no more natural than margarine.

[Tim Streater]

A typical T r o l l bumpersticker.

[T i m]

<snip>

This is the classic response with left brainers, those with cognitive bias, they think *they* are the only ones with the right answers, the right POV when *because* of their restricted views they are often the furthest from such.

So what they then do is the hit-n-run / peanut gallery thing and then run away (to lick their wounds, not because they concede they could be wrong, but because they don't understand why everyone doesn't roll over and agree with them). ;-(

No wonder they never learn anything (especially how other people can see things differently to them and be right).

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Do you have proof that they aren't then?

As does the money they earn for the school for doing so.

But you knew that didn't you?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

And that's all you can offer is it Jimmy? (Oh, and I know the answer to that btw).

I wonder at what point you (and your kind) will work out the difference between Twatter and a *discussion* group?

Cheers, T i m

[Max Demian]

Why?

It's natural for 35% of humans.

[Max Demian]

They could describe a bag of sugar as "no added sugar" if they wanted to.

[T i m]

<snip>

Not to drink the lactate of another species it isn't?

We might do it, but it's not 'natural' and it's especially not natural after we have weaned?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Quite. ;-)

I think he's getting confused between 'Unsweetened' / 'No added sugar(s)' and 'Sugar free'.

I think he is saying that the Alpro Oat original contains 'natural sugars' :

"Our Oat drink is a great source of plant fibre and contains no added sugars*. One taste and you?ll know, our oats are oatstanding! GOOD FOR YOU**

• contains naturally occurring sugars

Naturally Lactose Free 100% plant-based Vegetarian Naturally low in fat Naturally low in saturated fat Without added sugars or sweeteners. Rich in Fibre A source of calcium. Contains vitamins B2, B12 and D."

... and the Alpro Oat Unsweetened:

"It?s rich in fibre and calcium, with no sugars and absolutely no sweeteners.

Naturally Lactose Free 100% plant-based Vegetarian Naturally low in fat Naturally low in saturated fat Sugar free Without added sugars or sweeteners. Rich in Fibre A source of calcium. Contains vitamins B2, B12 and D. Source of calcium and vitamins D and B12. Vitamin B12 contributes to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue."

So I'm guessing he wonders why it's not called 'Sugar free' ... ?

The problem with that is some people then assume it has artificial sweeteners when it doesn't (either).

Cheers, T i m

[tabbypurr]

I guess that's one way to confirm what I said :) Have a good day.

[ARW]

Maybe enough to pay for three new pencils for the school then?