On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >> >> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need to take
>> >> >> >>>> to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines for the
>> >> >> >>>> purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I could take 1 bag
>> >> >> >>>> at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down, some.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who owned
>> >> >> >>> them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't making any money
>> >> >> >>> off them. (Or not enough money, same thing either way.) Now I have
>> >> >> >>> to take them all to the local waste disposal authority's buy back
>> >> >> >>> site. Which has been shut down for at least a year now because of COVID.
>> >> >> >>> <typing>
>> >> >> >>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was taken by
>> >> >> >>> an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest facility now is
>> >> >> >>> a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with your
>> >> >> >> trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the mid-1990s
>> >> >> >> did both. My current one even has single-stream recycling, so that
>> >> >> >> I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum, glass, ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
>> >> >> >Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a bottle
>> >> >> >we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The whole point of
>> >> >> >which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single stream
>> >> >> >for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade plastic &
>> >> >> >metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost. And woe the
>> >> >> >address that doesn't separate correctly in to the different bins!
>> >> >> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of Standards
>> >> >> come up with a standard recycling stream that includes oily pizza
>> >> >> boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and start fining
>> >> >> recycling companies that can't deal with it.
>> >> >
>> >> >We burn that. What else would you do with it?
>> >>
>> >> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
>> >> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
>> >
>> >Very well: specify.
>> >
>> >But food packaging paper doesn't recycle well anyway.
>>
>> You're phrasing it wrong. Recycling companies do a poor job of
>> recycling food packaging paper.
>
>You do not know a better way. The correct way is
>to use it as fuel.

"Correct" by what standard? And why am _I_ obligated to do the job of
a team of experts in pulp and paper processing? Offer a billion
dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better way and
a better way will likely be found right quick.

>> >> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it down
>> >> and use to make other plastic artifacts.
>> >> >Given, for a start, everything in that bin is covered with
>> >> >oily Styrofoam beads, and trickles of soda.
>> >>
>> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
>> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
>> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
>> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
>> >
>> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
>> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
>>
>> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
>>
>> >Who is so much
>> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
>>
>> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
>> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
>> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
>>
>> >And how
>> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
>> >on your behalf?
>>
>> How much is it going to cost?
>
>Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
>in your house to receive your trash items and handle
>them for individual recycling? Because that's what
>needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
>and bathe you, too.
>
>And as for respecting them?
>
>In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
>!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
>or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.

If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.

>If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
>Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
>that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
>and peed in it.

So why are we providing the Third World with raw materials gratis
anyway?

>> >The residual waste stream includes human and
>> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
>> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
>> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
>>
>> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
>> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
>>
>> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
>> any product that was recycled out of that.
>
>You don't mind the little bits of glass then...

Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
"Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
dumping the bin in the truck?

>And glass tableware is made with different formulas
>from food retail bottles and jars.

Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
or window glass. So how does this present an issue?

>Only the food storage
>glass is suitable for recycling. Indeed, there is glass
>ovenware; good luck "melting" that.

Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant? If the glass used
in ovenware can't be melted then how do you think the ovenware is
formed? You might want to do a bit of googling. Try "Pyrex" and
"hard glass" and "soft glass" and "borosilicate".

You might find this to be instructive:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImUvNxlxGGc>

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> >> >> >> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need to take
> >> >> >> >>>> to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines for the
> >> >> >> >>>> purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I could take 1 bag
> >> >> >> >>>> at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down, some.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who owned
> >> >> >> >>> them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't making any money
> >> >> >> >>> off them. (Or not enough money, same thing either way.) Now I have
> >> >> >> >>> to take them all to the local waste disposal authority's buy back
> >> >> >> >>> site. Which has been shut down for at least a year now because of COVID.
> >> >> >> >>> <typing>
> >> >> >> >>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was taken by
> >> >> >> >>> an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest facility now is
> >> >> >> >>> a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with your
> >> >> >> >> trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the mid-1990s
> >> >> >> >> did both. My current one even has single-stream recycling, so that
> >> >> >> >> I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum, glass, ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
> >> >> >> >Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a bottle
> >> >> >> >we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The whole point of
> >> >> >> >which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single stream
> >> >> >> >for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade plastic &
> >> >> >> >metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost. And woe the
> >> >> >> >address that doesn't separate correctly in to the different bins!
> >> >> >> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of Standards
> >> >> >> come up with a standard recycling stream that includes oily pizza
> >> >> >> boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and start fining
> >> >> >> recycling companies that can't deal with it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We burn that. What else would you do with it?
> >> >>
> >> >> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
> >> >> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
> >> >
> >> >Very well: specify.
> >> >
> >> >But food packaging paper doesn't recycle well anyway.
> >>
> >> You're phrasing it wrong. Recycling companies do a poor job of
> >> recycling food packaging paper.
> >
> >You do not know a better way. The correct way is
> >to use it as fuel.
>
> "Correct" by what standard? And why am _I_ obligated to do the job of
> a team of experts in pulp and paper processing? Offer a billion
> dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better way and
> a better way will likely be found right quick.

You pay up; it's your argument.

> >> >> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it down
> >> >> and use to make other plastic artifacts.
> >> >> >Given, for a start, everything in that bin is covered with
> >> >> >oily Styrofoam beads, and trickles of soda.
> >> >>
> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
> >> >
> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
> >>
> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
> >>
> >> >Who is so much
> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
> >>
> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
> >>
> >> >And how
> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
> >> >on your behalf?
> >>
> >> How much is it going to cost?
> >
> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
> >and bathe you, too.
> >
> >And as for respecting them?
> >
> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
>
> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.

If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.

I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
is wrong.

> >If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
> >Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
> >that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
> >and peed in it.
>
> So why are we providing the Third World with raw materials gratis
> anyway?

Evidently, so that if you're visiting India and you
want a bottle of warm piss, you can get one.

Or at least: water that wasn't put in the bottle
from a proper chemically treated water supply
like "Dasani".

> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
> >>
> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
> >>
> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
> >
> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
>
> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
> dumping the bin in the truck?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >> >> >> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need to take
>> >> >> >> >>>> to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines for the
>> >> >> >> >>>> purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I could take 1 bag
>> >> >> >> >>>> at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down, some.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who owned
>> >> >> >> >>> them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't making any money
>> >> >> >> >>> off them. (Or not enough money, same thing either way.) Now I have
>> >> >> >> >>> to take them all to the local waste disposal authority's buy back
>> >> >> >> >>> site. Which has been shut down for at least a year now because of COVID.
>> >> >> >> >>> <typing>
>> >> >> >> >>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was taken by
>> >> >> >> >>> an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest facility now is
>> >> >> >> >>> a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with your
>> >> >> >> >> trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the mid-1990s
>> >> >> >> >> did both. My current one even has single-stream recycling, so that
>> >> >> >> >> I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum, glass, ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
>> >> >> >> >Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a bottle
>> >> >> >> >we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The whole point of
>> >> >> >> >which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single stream
>> >> >> >> >for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade plastic &
>> >> >> >> >metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost. And woe the
>> >> >> >> >address that doesn't separate correctly in to the different bins!
>> >> >> >> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of Standards
>> >> >> >> come up with a standard recycling stream that includes oily pizza
>> >> >> >> boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and start fining
>> >> >> >> recycling companies that can't deal with it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We burn that. What else would you do with it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
>> >> >> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
>> >> >
>> >> >Very well: specify.
>> >> >
>> >> >But food packaging paper doesn't recycle well anyway.
>> >>
>> >> You're phrasing it wrong. Recycling companies do a poor job of
>> >> recycling food packaging paper.
>> >
>> >You do not know a better way. The correct way is
>> >to use it as fuel.
>>
>> "Correct" by what standard? And why am _I_ obligated to do the job of
>> a team of experts in pulp and paper processing? Offer a billion
>> dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better way and
>> a better way will likely be found right quick.
>
>You pay up; it's your argument.

I would prefer that the Congress offer the prize. The government can
afford it.

>> >> >> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it down
>> >> >> and use to make other plastic artifacts.
>> >> >> >Given, for a start, everything in that bin is covered with
>> >> >> >oily Styrofoam beads, and trickles of soda.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
>> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
>> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
>> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
>> >> >
>> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
>> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
>> >>
>> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
>> >>
>> >> >Who is so much
>> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
>> >>
>> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
>> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
>> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
>> >>
>> >> >And how
>> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
>> >> >on your behalf?
>> >>
>> >> How much is it going to cost?
>> >
>> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
>> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
>> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
>> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
>> >and bathe you, too.
>> >
>> >And as for respecting them?
>> >
>> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
>> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
>> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
>>
>> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
>> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
>> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
>> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
>
>If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
>of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
>
>I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
>believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
>is wrong.

Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.

There are only two bins, "trash" and "recycling".

>> >If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
>> >Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
>> >that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
>> >and peed in it.
>>
>> So why are we providing the Third World with raw materials gratis
>> anyway?
>
>Evidently, so that if you're visiting India and you
>want a bottle of warm piss, you can get one.
>
>Or at least: water that wasn't put in the bottle
>from a proper chemically treated water supply
>like "Dasani".

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:54:52 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> >> >> >> >> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need to take
> >> >> >> >> >>>> to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines for the
> >> >> >> >> >>>> purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I could take 1 bag
> >> >> >> >> >>>> at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down, some.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who owned
> >> >> >> >> >>> them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't making any money
> >> >> >> >> >>> off them. (Or not enough money, same thing either way.) Now I have
> >> >> >> >> >>> to take them all to the local waste disposal authority's buy back
> >> >> >> >> >>> site. Which has been shut down for at least a year now because of COVID.
> >> >> >> >> >>> <typing>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was taken by
> >> >> >> >> >>> an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest facility now is
> >> >> >> >> >>> a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with your
> >> >> >> >> >> trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the mid-1990s
> >> >> >> >> >> did both. My current one even has single-stream recycling, so that
> >> >> >> >> >> I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum, glass, ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
> >> >> >> >> >Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a bottle
> >> >> >> >> >we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The whole point of
> >> >> >> >> >which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single stream
> >> >> >> >> >for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade plastic &
> >> >> >> >> >metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost. And woe the
> >> >> >> >> >address that doesn't separate correctly in to the different bins!
> >> >> >> >> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of Standards
> >> >> >> >> come up with a standard recycling stream that includes oily pizza
> >> >> >> >> boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and start fining
> >> >> >> >> recycling companies that can't deal with it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We burn that. What else would you do with it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
> >> >> >> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Very well: specify.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But food packaging paper doesn't recycle well anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're phrasing it wrong. Recycling companies do a poor job of
> >> >> recycling food packaging paper.
> >> >
> >> >You do not know a better way. The correct way is
> >> >to use it as fuel.
> >>
> >> "Correct" by what standard? And why am _I_ obligated to do the job of
> >> a team of experts in pulp and paper processing? Offer a billion
> >> dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better way and
> >> a better way will likely be found right quick.
> >
> >You pay up; it's your argument.
> I would prefer that the Congress offer the prize. The government can
> afford it.
> >> >> >> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it down
> >> >> >> and use to make other plastic artifacts.
> >> >> >> >Given, for a start, everything in that bin is covered with
> >> >> >> >oily Styrofoam beads, and trickles of soda.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Who is so much
> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> >And how
> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
> >> >> >on your behalf?
> >> >>
> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
> >> >
> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
> >> >and bathe you, too.
> >> >
> >> >And as for respecting them?
> >> >
> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
> >>
> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
> >
> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
> >
> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
> >is wrong.
> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.
>
> There are only two bins, "trash" and "recycling".
> >> >If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
> >> >Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
> >> >that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
> >> >and peed in it.
> >>
> >> So why are we providing the Third World with raw materials gratis
> >> anyway?
> >
> >Evidently, so that if you're visiting India and you
> >want a bottle of warm piss, you can get one.
> >
> >Or at least: water that wasn't put in the bottle
> >from a proper chemically treated water supply
> >like "Dasani".
> You mean Hamburg, Pennsylvania tap water?
> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
> >> >>
> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
> >> >
> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
> >>
> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
> >
> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
> >to me, that's fine.
> >
> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?
> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
> >
> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
> provided by a town government in the United States.
> >I do wonder where "chocolate spread jars which can be
> >re-used as drinking glasses" fit in.
> >
> >> >Only the food storage
> >> >glass is suitable for recycling. Indeed, there is glass
> >> >ovenware; good luck "melting" that.
> >>
> >> Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant? If the glass used
> >> in ovenware can't be melted then how do you think the ovenware is
> >> formed? You might want to do a bit of googling. Try "Pyrex" and
> >> "hard glass" and "soft glass" and "borosilicate".
> >>
> >> You might find this to be instructive:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImUvNxlxGGc>
> >
> >My link above addresses the same question.
> >I think it's still a no.
> A "no"? You are asserting despite the major manufacturer of glass
> ovenware SHOWING IN A VIDEO the melting of the glass used that glass
> ovenware cannot be melted?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:54:52 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >> >> >> >> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need to take
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines for the
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I could take 1 bag
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down, some.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who owned
>> >> >> >> >> >>> them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't making any money
>> >> >> >> >> >>> off them. (Or not enough money, same thing either way.) Now I have
>> >> >> >> >> >>> to take them all to the local waste disposal authority's buy back
>> >> >> >> >> >>> site. Which has been shut down for at least a year now because of COVID.
>> >> >> >> >> >>> <typing>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was taken by
>> >> >> >> >> >>> an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest facility now is
>> >> >> >> >> >>> a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with your
>> >> >> >> >> >> trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the mid-1990s
>> >> >> >> >> >> did both. My current one even has single-stream recycling, so that
>> >> >> >> >> >> I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum, glass, ...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
>> >> >> >> >> >Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a bottle
>> >> >> >> >> >we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The whole point of
>> >> >> >> >> >which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single stream
>> >> >> >> >> >for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade plastic &
>> >> >> >> >> >metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost. And woe the
>> >> >> >> >> >address that doesn't separate correctly in to the different bins!
>> >> >> >> >> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of Standards
>> >> >> >> >> come up with a standard recycling stream that includes oily pizza
>> >> >> >> >> boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and start fining
>> >> >> >> >> recycling companies that can't deal with it.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >We burn that. What else would you do with it?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
>> >> >> >> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Very well: specify.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >But food packaging paper doesn't recycle well anyway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're phrasing it wrong. Recycling companies do a poor job of
>> >> >> recycling food packaging paper.
>> >> >
>> >> >You do not know a better way. The correct way is
>> >> >to use it as fuel.
>> >>
>> >> "Correct" by what standard? And why am _I_ obligated to do the job of
>> >> a team of experts in pulp and paper processing? Offer a billion
>> >> dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better way and
>> >> a better way will likely be found right quick.
>> >
>> >You pay up; it's your argument.
>> I would prefer that the Congress offer the prize. The government can
>> afford it.
>> >> >> >> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it down
>> >> >> >> and use to make other plastic artifacts.
>> >> >> >> >Given, for a start, everything in that bin is covered with
>> >> >> >> >oily Styrofoam beads, and trickles of soda.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
>> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
>> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
>> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
>> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Who is so much
>> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
>> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
>> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And how
>> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
>> >> >> >on your behalf?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
>> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
>> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
>> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
>> >> >and bathe you, too.
>> >> >
>> >> >And as for respecting them?
>> >> >
>> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
>> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
>> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
>> >>
>> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
>> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
>> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
>> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
>> >
>> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
>> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
>> >
>> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
>> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
>> >is wrong.
>> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
>> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.
>>
>> There are only two bins, "trash" and "recycling".
>> >> >If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
>> >> >Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
>> >> >that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
>> >> >and peed in it.
>> >>
>> >> So why are we providing the Third World with raw materials gratis
>> >> anyway?
>> >
>> >Evidently, so that if you're visiting India and you
>> >want a bottle of warm piss, you can get one.
>> >
>> >Or at least: water that wasn't put in the bottle
>> >from a proper chemically treated water supply
>> >like "Dasani".
>> You mean Hamburg, Pennsylvania tap water?
>> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
>> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
>> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
>> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
>> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
>> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
>> >>
>> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
>> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
>> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
>> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
>> >
>> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
>> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
>> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
>> >to me, that's fine.
>> >
>> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
>> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
>> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?
>> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
>> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
>> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
>> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
>> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
>> >
>> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
>> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
>> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
>> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
>> provided by a town government in the United States.
>> >I do wonder where "chocolate spread jars which can be
>> >re-used as drinking glasses" fit in.
>> >
>> >> >Only the food storage
>> >> >glass is suitable for recycling. Indeed, there is glass
>> >> >ovenware; good luck "melting" that.
>> >>
>> >> Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant? If the glass used
>> >> in ovenware can't be melted then how do you think the ovenware is
>> >> formed? You might want to do a bit of googling. Try "Pyrex" and
>> >> "hard glass" and "soft glass" and "borosilicate".
>> >>
>> >> You might find this to be instructive:
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImUvNxlxGGc>
>> >
>> >My link above addresses the same question.
>> >I think it's still a no.
>> A "no"? You are asserting despite the major manufacturer of glass
>> ovenware SHOWING IN A VIDEO the melting of the glass used that glass
>> ovenware cannot be melted?
>
>You might want to look into South Korea, where households are required to
>strictly separate various classes of recyclables, and fined if they don't.
>
>They've pushed to cost of separation onto households, and away from the
>trash collection service.
>
>https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/south-korea/housing/setting-up-home/waste-recycling
>https://www..wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_South_Korea

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 22:44:47 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 21:02:13 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/30/2021 5:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need
>>>>>>>>>> to take to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines
>>>>>>>>>> for the purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I
>>>>>>>>>> could take 1 bag at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down,
>>>>>>>>>> some.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who
>>>>>>>>> owned them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't
>>>>>>>>> making any money off them. (Or not enough money, same thing
>>>>>>>>> either way.) Now I have to take them all to the local waste
>>>>>>>>> disposal authority's buy back site. Which has been shut down for
>>>>>>>>> at least a year now because of COVID.
>>>>>>>>> <typing>
>>>>>>>>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was
>>>>>>>>> taken by an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest
>>>>>>>>> facility now is a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with
>>>>>>>> your trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the
>>>>>>>> mid-1990s did both. My current one even has single-stream
>>>>>>>> recycling, so that I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum,
>>>>>>>> glass, ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
>>>>>>> Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a
>>>>>>> bottle we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The
>>>>>>> whole point of which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single
>>>>>>> stream for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade
>>>>>>> plastic & metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost.
>>>>>>> And woe the address that doesn't separate correctly in to the
>>>>>>> different bins!
>>>>>> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of
>>>>>> Standards come up with a standard recycling stream that includes
>>>>>> oily pizza boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and
>>>>>> start fining recycling companies that can't deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We burn that. What else would you do with it?
>>>>
>>>> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
>>>> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
>>>>
>>>> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it
>>>> down and use to make other plastic artifacts.
>>>
>>> Why do you think they haven't tried?
>
> If they have tried they have not tried hard enough. The problem isn't
> the chemistry, the problem is mechanical. Bags get tangled in the
> machinery, styrofoam bursts into a cloud of pellets, straws just fall
> out. That's a company not doing its job, not valiant effort that
> failed.
>
>>> "Moreover, there are 2 types of plastics: thermoset vs.
>>> thermoplastics. Thermoplastics are plastics that can be re-melted
>>> and re-molded into new products, and therefore, recycled. However,
>>> thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an
>>> irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat
>>> you apply, they cannot be remelted into new material and hence,
>>> non-recyclable."
>>>
>>> "The same piece of plastic can only be recycled about 2-3
>>> times before its quality decreases to the point where it can no
>>> longer be used."
>
> Plastic bags are not thermoset and the same technique that created the
> long chains in the first place should be able to reestablish them.
>>
>>> The solution is to not use plastics for single-use purposes.
>>>
>>If only in practice EVERYTHING wasn't single-use today.
>
> No, the solution is to kick the recycling companies in the butt and keep
> kicking them until they're actually doing their job. The town I inhabit
> wants us to recycle not because it's good for the planet but because
> it's good for the budget. They pay somehing like 1/4 as much for
> recycling as they do for disposal. And it seems that they're getting
> what they pay for.

The real problem is that it mostly costs more to recycle than it does to
make new stuff even counting in some kind of landfill tax.

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 14:54:52 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Who is so much
> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> >And how
> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
> >> >> >on your behalf?
> >> >>
> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
> >> >
> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
> >> >and bathe you, too.
> >> >
> >> >And as for respecting them?
> >> >
> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
> >>
> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
> >
> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
> >
> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
> >is wrong.
> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.

Well, if someone somewhere wants that stuff,
you can mail it to them.

If no one anywhere wants it, then it can't really
be recycled.
Well - about 18 years ago, they were telling us
that a British freeway was built on old pulp romance
novels. And others, but apparently they wanted
us to know about the romance. It's human interest.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3330245.stm>

There's also talk about making roads from little bits
of plastic that are no good for anything else... this seems
to me to be leaving in the Environment a quantity of
little bits of plastic that are also no good for the Environment,
but would they be doing that if it was stupid?

And unsuitable glass, actually.

Now, does this count as recycling, or as landfill?

> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
> >> >>
> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
> >> >
> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
> >>
> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
> >
> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
> >to me, that's fine.
>
> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
>
> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?

According to Wikipedia, it's our name for a "waste
collection courtyard", which is charming but glosses
over who is collecting waste from whom. I think some
things do get picked up, which worries me; at least one
TV I've owned was repaired incompletely before it came
to me, and so I'd prefer that household appliances that
I sever my relationship with on those terms are put
beyond use, as one says. I mean, they are anyway.

> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
> >>
> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
> >
> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
>
> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
> provided by a town government in the United States.

But the same stuff, and the same issues.

You told me and I don't believe you. But see this
from Glasgow City Council.
<https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26968>
Select "purple bin" - yes really... it's a no for:
Light bulbs
Drinking glasses
Plates
Cups
Pyrex glass

This isn't actually my bins: as I said, one of mine
takes glass and other stuff. This purple bin is just glass.

> >> Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant? If the glass used
> >> in ovenware can't be melted then how do you think the ovenware is
> >> formed? You might want to do a bit of googling. Try "Pyrex" and
> >> "hard glass" and "soft glass" and "borosilicate".
> >>
> >> You might find this to be instructive:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImUvNxlxGGc>
> >
> >My link above addresses the same question.
> >I think it's still a no.
>
> A "no"? You are asserting despite the major manufacturer of glass
> ovenware SHOWING IN A VIDEO the melting of the glass used that glass
> ovenware cannot be melted?

How much use would it be if it could?

I expect it won't survive the expansion of the Sun
to red giant end stage without getting squashy:
the relevant point in the meantime is that the
glassmakers don't want it back.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 18:53:00 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 22:44:47 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 21:02:13 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/30/2021 5:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 16:30:15 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:31:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2021 6:20 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2021 23.40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 8:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a large bag of bottles and another of cans that I need
>>>>>>>>>>> to take to the supermarket for redemption. They have machines
>>>>>>>>>>> for the purpose. I should get a new used vehicle, first. I
>>>>>>>>>>> could take 1 bag at a time via bus. Maybe when it cools down,
>>>>>>>>>>> some.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We used to have some of those machines around here. The guy who
>>>>>>>>>> owned them (or whatever) pulled them all because he wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> making any money off them. (Or not enough money, same thing
>>>>>>>>>> either way.) Now I have to take them all to the local waste
>>>>>>>>>> disposal authority's buy back site. Which has been shut down for
>>>>>>>>>> at least a year now because of COVID.
>>>>>>>>>> <typing>
>>>>>>>>>> Bleep! Its permanently closed now! Apparently the space was
>>>>>>>>>> taken by an upgrade to their sorting capabilities. The nearest
>>>>>>>>>> facility now is a ten mile drive each way! <censored>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow. You don't have curbside recycling pickup right along with
>>>>>>>>> your trash pickup? Every trash company that I've had since the
>>>>>>>>> mid-1990s did both. My current one even has single-stream
>>>>>>>>> recycling, so that I no longer need to sort into paper, aluminum,
>>>>>>>>> glass, ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, there's curbside pickup of recyclables. But there's almost no
>>>>>>>> Redemption Value buy back sites to get back that $0.05 or $0.10 a
>>>>>>>> bottle we have to pay for a drink container and the like. The
>>>>>>>> whole point of which was to give people an incentive to recycle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the local waste authority has been moving AWAY from single
>>>>>>>> stream for years. We have "Trash" (Landfill), paper, food-grade
>>>>>>>> plastic & metal (that "food-grade" is very strict) and compost.
>>>>>>>> And woe the address that doesn't separate correctly in to the
>>>>>>>> different bins!
>>>>>>> If our Congress was any good they would have the Bureau of
>>>>>>> Standards come up with a standard recycling stream that includes
>>>>>>> oily pizza boxes, Styrofoam, plastic bags, and soda straws and
>>>>>>> start fining recycling companies that can't deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We burn that. What else would you do with it?
>>>>>
>>>>> They need to figure out a way to deal with oily paper instead of just
>>>>> throwing up their hands and saying "we can't deal with it".
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the rest, it's all plastic of one kind or another, melt it
>>>>> down and use to make other plastic artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think they haven't tried?
>>
>> If they have tried they have not tried hard enough. The problem isn't
>> the chemistry, the problem is mechanical. Bags get tangled in the
>> machinery, styrofoam bursts into a cloud of pellets, straws just fall
>> out. That's a company not doing its job, not valiant effort that
>> failed.
>>
>>>> "Moreover, there are 2 types of plastics: thermoset vs.
>>>> thermoplastics. Thermoplastics are plastics that can be re-melted
>>>> and re-molded into new products, and therefore, recycled. However,
>>>> thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an
>>>> irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat
>>>> you apply, they cannot be remelted into new material and hence,
>>>> non-recyclable."
>>>>
>>>> "The same piece of plastic can only be recycled about 2-3
>>>> times before its quality decreases to the point where it can no
>>>> longer be used."
>>
>> Plastic bags are not thermoset and the same technique that created the
>> long chains in the first place should be able to reestablish them.
>>>
>>>> The solution is to not use plastics for single-use purposes.
>>>>
>>>If only in practice EVERYTHING wasn't single-use today.
>>
>> No, the solution is to kick the recycling companies in the butt and keep
>> kicking them until they're actually doing their job. The town I inhabit
>> wants us to recycle not because it's good for the planet but because
>> it's good for the budget. They pay somehing like 1/4 as much for
>> recycling as they do for disposal. And it seems that they're getting
>> what they pay for.
>
>The real problem is that it mostly costs more to recycle than it does to
>make new stuff even counting in some kind of landfill tax.

However our government has decided to cram recycling down our throat
whether it makes sense or not. If we're going to do it we may as well
do it _right_.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 14:54:52 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
>> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
>> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
>> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
>> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Who is so much
>> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
>> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
>> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And how
>> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
>> >> >> >on your behalf?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
>> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
>> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
>> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
>> >> >and bathe you, too.
>> >> >
>> >> >And as for respecting them?
>> >> >
>> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
>> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
>> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
>> >>
>> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
>> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
>> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
>> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
>> >
>> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
>> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
>> >
>> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
>> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
>> >is wrong.
>> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
>> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.
>
>Well, if someone somewhere wants that stuff,
>you can mail it to them.

I am obligated by law to put it in the recycling bin. It is up to the
people on the other end to deal with it.

>If no one anywhere wants it, then it can't really
>be recycled.

If nobody wants it then the government should not be compelling us to
recycle it under penalty of law,.

>Well - about 18 years ago, they were telling us
>that a British freeway was built on old pulp romance
>novels. And others, but apparently they wanted
>us to know about the romance. It's human interest.
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3330245.stm>
>
>There's also talk about making roads from little bits
>of plastic that are no good for anything else... this seems
>to me to be leaving in the Environment a quantity of
>little bits of plastic that are also no good for the Environment,
>but would they be doing that if it was stupid?

When has the government ever let something being stupid stand in its
way?

>And unsuitable glass, actually.

What makes glass "unsuitable"?

>Now, does this count as recycling, or as landfill?

Repurposing.

>> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
>> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
>> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
>> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
>> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
>> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
>> >>
>> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
>> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
>> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
>> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
>> >
>> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
>> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
>> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
>> >to me, that's fine.
>>
>> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
>> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
>>
>> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?
>
>According to Wikipedia, it's our name for a "waste
>collection courtyard", which is charming but glosses
>over who is collecting waste from whom. I think some
>things do get picked up, which worries me; at least one
>TV I've owned was repaired incompletely before it came
>to me, and so I'd prefer that household appliances that
>I sever my relationship with on those terms are put
>beyond use, as one says. I mean, they are anyway.

Sounds like what we call a "junk yard". The nearest one to me is a
considerable distance away and charges a fee to take anything.

>> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
>> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
>> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
>> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
>> >
>> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
>> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
>>
>> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
>> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
>> provided by a town government in the United States.
>
>But the same stuff, and the same issues.
>
>You told me and I don't believe you. But see this
>from Glasgow City Council.
><https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26968>
>Select "purple bin" - yes really... it's a no for:
>Light bulbs
>Drinking glasses
>Plates
>Cups
>Pyrex glass
>
>This isn't actually my bins: as I said, one of mine
>takes glass and other stuff. This purple bin is just glass.

Our government allows us a gray bin, a blue bin, and a brown bin.

Anything that is to be recycled according to their rules, copied and
pasted from the town web site:
<rules>
"Allowed Materials
The following items are recyclable and may all be placed together in
the blue recycling tipper.:

Glass containers from food and beverage, rinsed free of residue with
the caps and lids removed and discarded. Please no broken containers.
Aluminum cans from food and beverage, foils and tins rinsed free of
residue.
Plastic containers including plastic bottles (with or without caps
attached), plastic tubs & lids, plastic one-use cups (no lids, no
straws).
Paper products including newspapers, magazines, catalogs, mixed paper,
junk mail, computer printed paper and paper products such as cereal
boxes, pizza boxes that are not contaminated with food and/or grease,
cardboard egg cartons, juice boxes, milk cartons, shoe boxes, gift
boxes are all recyclable. Please remove any plastic or wax paper
liners from food boxes. All cardboard should be flattened and no
larger than 2 by 2 or 3 feet. Please remember to break down boxes,
flatten them out and put in the blue recycyling tipper barrel (not the
gray barrel).
Telephone books (New!)
Disallowed Materials
The following items are not recyclable and should be disposed of with
the household trash:

On 1/08/21 8:50 pm, Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
> If you're offered bottled water by a hawker at an
> Indian train station, rest assured that they extracted
> that bottle from the heaps of exported American waste,
> and peed in it.
>

Probably creating a healthier drink than the original.

On 7/31/2021 9:52 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:01:11 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <aftaggh2prfcbvund04smp6eano72ukpg2@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:01:11 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <sb68ggloqpt66kdpol3p4rjgh0ida3o33c@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have possums as well as raccoons. Also beavers, but those are
>>>>> mostly in the parks near water. And, if IIRC what has been reported on
>>>>> Nextdoor, coyotes. Not to mention the raptors.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we do have raptors around here, but mostly they soar high
>>>> over the freeways, waiting for roadkill.
>>>>
>>>> But I did meet one on the street once. Somebody had run over a
>>>> squirrel (what the squirrel was doing on the street rather than
>>>> the overhead wires, I'll never know), and a vulture had landed on
>>>> the street to eat it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it was a ground squirrel.
>>
>> Can't have been. It was a western fox squirrel with golden-brown
>> fur (the vulture had not, at that point, tried to consume the
>> tail).
>>
>> This article complains that fox squirrels are replacing western
>> grey squirrels in California.
>>
>> https://baynature.org/2019/05/28/are-fox-squirrels-replacing-gray-squirrels-in-california/
>>
>> The middle picture is an example of the golden-brown fox squirrel
>> such as the vulture was eating.
>>
>> I can only say that I've lived in California all my life and
>> never seen a grey squirrel.
>
> In Florida I saw a fox squirrel once, one of the neighbors had one in
> a cage for some reason.
>
> In CT I'm seeing the black squirrels with increasing frequency. Given
> that they are moving down from Canada I'm having trouble pinning that
> one on "global warming".

Southern expansion of the Northern tribes. A classic move, be careful
not to get caught in the turf battles.

Lynn

On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
....
> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
> there.
>
> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>
> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
> to do the sorting.

The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
for CLEAN DIESELs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM

Lynn

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>...
>> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
>> there.
>>
>> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
>> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>>
>> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
>> to do the sorting.
>
>The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
>for CLEAN DIESELs.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM

Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
the test.

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >...
> >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
> >> there.
> >>
> >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
> >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
> >>
> >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
> >> to do the sorting.
> >
> >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
> >for CLEAN DIESELs.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
> the test.

I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
without justification. But then it later turned out -
at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
propaganda as well?

J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:01:11 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >This article complains that fox squirrels are replacing western
> >grey squirrels in California.
> >
> >https://baynature.org/2019/05/28/are-fox-squirrels-replacing-gray-squirrels-in-california/
> >
> >The middle picture is an example of the golden-brown fox squirrel
> >such as the vulture was eating.
> >
> >I can only say that I've lived in California all my life and
> >never seen a grey squirrel.
> In Florida I saw a fox squirrel once, one of the neighbors had one in
> a cage for some reason.
>
> In CT I'm seeing the black squirrels with increasing frequency. Given
> that they are moving down from Canada I'm having trouble pinning that
> one on "global warming".

About a decade ago we started noticing black squirrels in a neighborhood a mile or so north, this year is the first I've seen some around my house. Coming down from Canada, you say? Well, I'm not going to try to figure an average migration rate from my one sample.

--
-Jack

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:30:23 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >...
> > >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
> > >> there.
> > >>
> > >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
> > >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
> > >>
> > >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
> > >> to do the sorting.
> > >
> > >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
> > >for CLEAN DIESELs.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
> > Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
> > their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
> > the test.
> I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
> to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
> without justification. But then it later turned out -
> at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
> are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
> propaganda as well?
Decades ago now I knew somebody who had just left some sort of engineering job. He said he was worried about what was then a new initiative within Europe that was favouring cars with small diesel engines, for better fuel economy. He was worried that the changes to diesel engines which made them practical in small (even by European standards) cars also increased the already known problem of toxic diesel fumes. From memory, fuel economy measurement have been rigged too, by developing special engine management code that detects the particular situation of fuel economy tests.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >...
>> >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
>> >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>> >>
>> >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
>> >> to do the sorting.
>> >
>> >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
>> >for CLEAN DIESELs.
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
>> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
>> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
>> the test.
>
>I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
>to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
>without justification. But then it later turned out -
>at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
>are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
>propaganda as well?

Or that diesel, compared to gasoline, is the lesser of two evils?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >...
>> >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
>> >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>> >>
>> >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
>> >> to do the sorting.
>> >
>> >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
>> >for CLEAN DIESELs.
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
>> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
>> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
>> the test.
>
>I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
>to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
>without justification.

Why would the EU rig a test to exclude European diesel cars from sale
in the US, and how could a test in the EU even have that effect? Or
are you unaware that most of the rigged vehicles were sold in the EU
and that the EU went after them with the same fervor as the US?

>But then it later turned out -
>at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
>are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
>propaganda as well?

The issue was oxides of nitrogen.

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 20:48:16 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
> >> >> there.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
> >> >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
> >> >> to do the sorting.
> >> >
> >> >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
> >> >for CLEAN DIESELs.
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
> >> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
> >> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
> >> the test.
> >
> >I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
> >to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
> >without justification.
>
> Why would the EU rig a test to exclude European diesel cars from sale
> in the US, and how could a test in the EU even have that effect? Or
> are you unaware that most of the rigged vehicles were sold in the EU
> and that the EU went after them with the same fervor as the US?
>
> >But then it later turned out -
> >at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
> >are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
> >propaganda as well?
>
> The issue was oxides of nitrogen.

Well, referring to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal>
and what I think I remember being told, the game may
have started with the U.S. slashing permitted NO2 emissions.
I said that this was alleged to be simply to keep European diesel
cars from being sold to U.S. petrol-model customers. VW may
have decided that if the U.S. wasn't playing fair then why should
they. Later, the cheating cars were sold to get around new rules
in Europe, too. Note that the "cheating" consists of meeting
environmental rules in the test laboratory and providing
satisfactory driving on the road. Everybody should be happy :-)

Under "Health consequences" the NO2 emissions are listed
as "Non-lethal", though that isn't the whole story. Then there's
particulates and ozone, but were those mentioned at the start,
or only afterwards?

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 20:41:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 14:54:52 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
> >> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
> >> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
> >> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
> >> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Who is so much
> >> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
> >> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
> >> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >And how
> >> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
> >> >> >> >on your behalf?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
> >> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
> >> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
> >> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
> >> >> >and bathe you, too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And as for respecting them?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
> >> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
> >> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
> >> >>
> >> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
> >> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
> >> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
> >> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
> >> >
> >> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
> >> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
> >> >
> >> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
> >> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
> >> >is wrong.
> >> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
> >> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.
> >
> >Well, if someone somewhere wants that stuff,
> >you can mail it to them.
>
> I am obligated by law to put it in the recycling bin. It is up to the
> people on the other end to deal with it.

Not at all. It is your property. You can keep it.
You can give it away. You can sell it on eBay.
Possibly you're breaking local law if you put it
in the wrong bin, but in that case they probably
just don't take it.

<https://www.nespresso.com/uk/en/recycling>
invites British users of coffee machine "pods"
to send them for recycling by mail. I am in doubt
that this is useful, given the environmental effect
of the shipping. You also can mail potato chip
packets to the manufacturer in boxes (better)
or individually (this seems to be a protest against
the product packaging, you could just not buy
the product).

> >If no one anywhere wants it, then it can't really
> >be recycled.
>
> If nobody wants it then the government should not be compelling us to
> recycle it under penalty of law,.

It's only done by regulation if theoretically someone
does want it - or as some kind of sneaky attack on
imported products, q.v.

In practice, the best bidder to buy your mingled
muck may be someone who simply intends to
burn it, as fuel. Perhaps you could do that, too.

> >Well - about 18 years ago, they were telling us
> >that a British freeway was built on old pulp romance
> >novels. And others, but apparently they wanted
> >us to know about the romance. It's human interest.
> ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3330245.stm>
> >
> >There's also talk about making roads from little bits
> >of plastic that are no good for anything else... this seems
> >to me to be leaving in the Environment a quantity of
> >little bits of plastic that are also no good for the Environment,
> >but would they be doing that if it was stupid?
> When has the government ever let something being stupid stand in its
> way?
>
> >And unsuitable glass, actually.
>
> What makes glass "unsuitable"?

The stuff that glass recyclers don't want to recycle.

> >Now, does this count as recycling, or as landfill?
>
> Repurposing.
>
> >> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
> >> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
> >> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
> >> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
> >> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
> >> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
> >> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
> >> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
> >> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
> >> >
> >> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
> >> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
> >> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
> >> >to me, that's fine.
> >>
> >> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
> >> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
> >>
> >> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?
> >
> >According to Wikipedia, it's our name for a "waste
> >collection courtyard", which is charming but glosses
> >over who is collecting waste from whom. I think some
> >things do get picked up, which worries me; at least one
> >TV I've owned was repaired incompletely before it came
> >to me, and so I'd prefer that household appliances that
> >I sever my relationship with on those terms are put
> >beyond use, as one says. I mean, they are anyway.
> Sounds like what we call a "junk yard". The nearest one to me is a
> considerable distance away and charges a fee to take anything.
> >> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
> >> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
> >> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
> >> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
> >> >
> >> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
> >> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
> >>
> >> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
> >> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
> >> provided by a town government in the United States.
> >
> >But the same stuff, and the same issues.
> >
> >You told me and I don't believe you. But see this
> >from Glasgow City Council.
> ><https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26968>
> >Select "purple bin" - yes really... it's a no for:
> >Light bulbs
> >Drinking glasses
> >Plates
> >Cups
> >Pyrex glass
> >
> >This isn't actually my bins: as I said, one of mine
> >takes glass and other stuff. This purple bin is just glass.
> Our government allows us a gray bin, a blue bin, and a brown bin.
>
> Anything that is to be recycled according to their rules, copied and
> pasted from the town web site:
> <rules>
> "Allowed Materials
> The following items are recyclable and may all be placed together in
> the blue recycling tipper.:
>
> Glass containers from food and beverage, rinsed free of residue with
> the caps and lids removed and discarded. Please no broken containers.
> Aluminum cans from food and beverage, foils and tins rinsed free of
> residue.
> Plastic containers including plastic bottles (with or without caps
> attached), plastic tubs & lids, plastic one-use cups (no lids, no
> straws).
> Paper products including newspapers, magazines, catalogs, mixed paper,
> junk mail, computer printed paper and paper products such as cereal
> boxes, pizza boxes that are not contaminated with food and/or grease,
> cardboard egg cartons, juice boxes, milk cartons, shoe boxes, gift
> boxes are all recyclable. Please remove any plastic or wax paper
> liners from food boxes. All cardboard should be flattened and no
> larger than 2 by 2 or 3 feet. Please remember to break down boxes,
> flatten them out and put in the blue recycyling tipper barrel (not the
> gray barrel).
> Telephone books (New!)
> Disallowed Materials
> The following items are not recyclable and should be disposed of with
> the household trash:
>
> Plastic bags interfere with the recycling equipment and should not be
> placed in the blue tipper barrel. This includes:
> Grocery bags
> Newspaper sleeves
> Paper towel / toilet paper over wrap
> Produce bags, dry cleaning bags
> Zip lock bags
> Styrofoam and other foam products
> Toys, coat hangers, flower pots, pots and pans, cookie sheets, small
> appliances
> Pizza boxes that are contaminated with food and/or grease, paper
> plates, plastic forks, knives and spoons, take-out food containers and
> plastic coated plates
> Window glass, light bulbs, mirrors, and medicine bottles
> Motor oil, antifreeze and window washer containers"
> </rules>
>
> I live in the United States, the Glasgow City Council has no authority
> here.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 20:48:16 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> >> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >...
>> >> >> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
>> >> >> there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
>> >> >> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
>> >> >> to do the sorting.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
>> >> >for CLEAN DIESELs.
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
>> >> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
>> >> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
>> >> the test.
>> >
>> >I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
>> >to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
>> >without justification.
>>
>> Why would the EU rig a test to exclude European diesel cars from sale
>> in the US, and how could a test in the EU even have that effect? Or
>> are you unaware that most of the rigged vehicles were sold in the EU
>> and that the EU went after them with the same fervor as the US?
>>
>> >But then it later turned out -
>> >at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
>> >are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
>> >propaganda as well?
>>
>> The issue was oxides of nitrogen.
>
>Well, referring to
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal>
>and what I think I remember being told, the game may
>have started with the U.S. slashing permitted NO2 emissions.
>I said that this was alleged to be simply to keep European diesel
>cars from being sold to U.S. petrol-model customers. VW may
>have decided that if the U.S. wasn't playing fair then why should
>they. Later, the cheating cars were sold to get around new rules
>in Europe, too. Note that the "cheating" consists of meeting
>environmental rules in the test laboratory and providing
>satisfactory driving on the road. Everybody should be happy :-)

The first US regulation of NOx from motor vehicles occurred in
California in 1971. At the time diesel cars were about 2.5% of the
European market and an oddity driven by a handful of eccentrics in the
US. So it's rather difficult to plausibly argue that there was any
deliberate effort to limit their nonexistent sales. Federal
regulation of NOx came with the Clean Air Act which required a 90%
reduction in NOx emissions by 1975. By 1975 diesel cars were about 4%
of the EU market and still an eccentric's oddity in the US. So again
the notion that this was intended to restrict the nonexistent sales of
diesel cars just doesn't pass the giggle test.

The fact is that Volkswagen cheated and Volkswagen got caught and they
forever destroyed what was left of their "nice car company" image. And
their lying about their motivation didn't help.

>Under "Health consequences" the NO2 emissions are listed
>as "Non-lethal", though that isn't the whole story. Then there's
>particulates and ozone, but were those mentioned at the start,
>or only afterwards?

Oxides of nitrogen are part of the chemistry that results in
photochemical smog.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 20:41:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 14:54:52 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 05:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 12:30:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 03:50:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> >> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 22:57:01 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In a properly managed society, IMO, there would be one waste bin all
>> >> >> >> >> of whose contents get sorted and reused or destroyed as appropriate.
>> >> >> >> >> Yes, it means the reyclers have to work harder. So why should _they_
>> >> >> >> >> get an easy ride on the backs of the rest of us?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Turn it around. Why should someone else handle
>> >> >> >> >your trash responsibly if you don't?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Because I'm paying them to handle the trash, they're not paying me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Who is so much
>> >> >> >> >beneath you that they deserve to do that?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Beneath"? We're paying trash experts to deal with trash. If they
>> >> >> >> consider doing the job they are paid for to be "beneath" the people
>> >> >> >> who are paying them that shows that they have an attitude problem.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >And how
>> >> >> >> >much are you willing to pay for that work to be done
>> >> >> >> >on your behalf?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How much is it going to cost?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Oh, well... How much will it cost to have someone stay
>> >> >> >in your house to receive your trash items and handle
>> >> >> >them for individual recycling? Because that's what
>> >> >> >needs to be done. Maybe have them cook and clean
>> >> >> >and bathe you, too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And as for respecting them?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In practice, your recyclables tend to be picked through
>> >> >> >!by hand by prisoners, or workfarers, or the destitute,
>> >> >> >or foreigners, or destitute foreigners.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If that's what recycling companies are doing then we should fine them
>> >> >> for that as well. Humans should not be doing this, this should be
>> >> >> autoamted. Yes, figuring out how to do it may take some work. So
>> >> >> does making an airplane fly itself and yet we've done that.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you make machines do it, all you get is an army
>> >> >of deeply aggrieved robots. Not good.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm saying, it's your waste, you sort it - if you genuinely
>> >> >believe that making other people do it for you, as I described,
>> >> >is wrong.
>> >> Other people already sort it. They just do a half-assed job and so
>> >> won't take most stuff that really should be recycles.
>> >
>> >Well, if someone somewhere wants that stuff,
>> >you can mail it to them.
>>
>> I am obligated by law to put it in the recycling bin. It is up to the
>> people on the other end to deal with it.
>
>Not at all. It is your property. You can keep it.
>You can give it away. You can sell it on eBay.
>Possibly you're breaking local law if you put it
>in the wrong bin, but in that case they probably
>just don't take it.

The town takes it. Any other option involves me spending money to get
rid of it.

><https://www.nespresso.com/uk/en/recycling>
>invites British users of coffee machine "pods"
>to send them for recycling by mail. I am in doubt
>that this is useful, given the environmental effect
>of the shipping. You also can mail potato chip
>packets to the manufacturer in boxes (better)
>or individually (this seems to be a protest against
>the product packaging, you could just not buy
>the product).

That's nice. What's the international shipping on a nespresso pod?
And is the coffee any better than a keurig pod?

>> >If no one anywhere wants it, then it can't really
>> >be recycled.
>>
>> If nobody wants it then the government should not be compelling us to
>> recycle it under penalty of law,.
>
>It's only done by regulation if theoretically someone
>does want it - or as some kind of sneaky attack on
>imported products, q.v.

It is done by regulation because it has been decided by the government
that we must be made to recycle whether we like it or not.

>In practice, the best bidder to buy your mingled
>muck may be someone who simply intends to
>burn it, as fuel. Perhaps you could do that, too.

Nope. Town doesn't allow burning.

>> >Well - about 18 years ago, they were telling us
>> >that a British freeway was built on old pulp romance
>> >novels. And others, but apparently they wanted
>> >us to know about the romance. It's human interest.
>> ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3330245.stm>
>> >
>> >There's also talk about making roads from little bits
>> >of plastic that are no good for anything else... this seems
>> >to me to be leaving in the Environment a quantity of
>> >little bits of plastic that are also no good for the Environment,
>> >but would they be doing that if it was stupid?
>> When has the government ever let something being stupid stand in its
>> way?
>>
>> >And unsuitable glass, actually.
>>
>> What makes glass "unsuitable"?
>
>The stuff that glass recyclers don't want to recycle.

What stuff is that?

>> >Now, does this count as recycling, or as landfill?
>>
>> Repurposing.
>>
>> >> >> >> >The residual waste stream includes human and
>> >> >> >> >animal excrement, broken glassware (doesn't recycle),
>> >> >> >> >rotten food, other horrors... would you, personally,
>> >> >> >> >accept any product that was "recycled" out of that?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Excrement and rotten food should be composted, not wasted. And in
>> >> >> >> what universe does broken glass not melt as easily as unbroken glass?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And if the recyclers were doing their job properly then I would accept
>> >> >> >> any product that was recycled out of that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't mind the little bits of glass then...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would there be "little bits of glass"? And why is there not now
>> >> >> "Little bits of glass" in single-stream recycling? Are you so naive
>> >> >> that you believe that no glass ever gets broken during the process of
>> >> >> dumping the bin in the truck?
>> >> >
>> >> >One of my household bins accepts steel and aluminium cans,
>> >> >certain plastics, and glass. I assume wherever it goes, it has
>> >> >little pieces of glass in everything, and if none of it comes back
>> >> >to me, that's fine.
>> >>
>> >> >However, I prefer to put my used glass, by colour, into
>> >> >the collection bins at the "civic amenity site".
>> >>
>> >> WTF is a "civic amenity site"?
>> >
>> >According to Wikipedia, it's our name for a "waste
>> >collection courtyard", which is charming but glosses
>> >over who is collecting waste from whom. I think some
>> >things do get picked up, which worries me; at least one
>> >TV I've owned was repaired incompletely before it came
>> >to me, and so I'd prefer that household appliances that
>> >I sever my relationship with on those terms are put
>> >beyond use, as one says. I mean, they are anyway.
>> Sounds like what we call a "junk yard". The nearest one to me is a
>> considerable distance away and charges a fee to take anything.
>> >> >> >And glass tableware is made with different formulas
>> >> >> >from food retail bottles and jars.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nothing in the rules for single-stream recycling where I live prohibit
>> >> >> glass tableware from going in the bin. They don't allow light bulbs
>> >> >> or window glass. So how does this present an issue?
>> >> >
>> >> >Explained. Please check your service's instructions.
>> >> ><https://www.friendsofglass.com/gb/ecology-gb/is_more_better/>
>> >>
>> >> I have told you what the instructions say. That "ecology-gb" has some
>> >> opinin or other is a matter of crashing indifference to a service
>> >> provided by a town government in the United States.
>> >
>> >But the same stuff, and the same issues.
>> >
>> >You told me and I don't believe you. But see this
>> >from Glasgow City Council.
>> ><https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26968>
>> >Select "purple bin" - yes really... it's a no for:
>> >Light bulbs
>> >Drinking glasses
>> >Plates
>> >Cups
>> >Pyrex glass
>> >
>> >This isn't actually my bins: as I said, one of mine
>> >takes glass and other stuff. This purple bin is just glass.
>> Our government allows us a gray bin, a blue bin, and a brown bin.
>>
>> Anything that is to be recycled according to their rules, copied and
>> pasted from the town web site:
>> <rules>
>> "Allowed Materials
>> The following items are recyclable and may all be placed together in
>> the blue recycling tipper.:
>>
>> Glass containers from food and beverage, rinsed free of residue with
>> the caps and lids removed and discarded. Please no broken containers.
>> Aluminum cans from food and beverage, foils and tins rinsed free of
>> residue.
>> Plastic containers including plastic bottles (with or without caps
>> attached), plastic tubs & lids, plastic one-use cups (no lids, no
>> straws).
>> Paper products including newspapers, magazines, catalogs, mixed paper,
>> junk mail, computer printed paper and paper products such as cereal
>> boxes, pizza boxes that are not contaminated with food and/or grease,
>> cardboard egg cartons, juice boxes, milk cartons, shoe boxes, gift
>> boxes are all recyclable. Please remove any plastic or wax paper
>> liners from food boxes. All cardboard should be flattened and no
>> larger than 2 by 2 or 3 feet. Please remember to break down boxes,
>> flatten them out and put in the blue recycyling tipper barrel (not the
>> gray barrel).
>> Telephone books (New!)
>> Disallowed Materials
>> The following items are not recyclable and should be disposed of with
>> the household trash:
>>
>> Plastic bags interfere with the recycling equipment and should not be
>> placed in the blue tipper barrel. This includes:
>> Grocery bags
>> Newspaper sleeves
>> Paper towel / toilet paper over wrap
>> Produce bags, dry cleaning bags
>> Zip lock bags
>> Styrofoam and other foam products
>> Toys, coat hangers, flower pots, pots and pans, cookie sheets, small
>> appliances
>> Pizza boxes that are contaminated with food and/or grease, paper
>> plates, plastic forks, knives and spoons, take-out food containers and
>> plastic coated plates
>> Window glass, light bulbs, mirrors, and medicine bottles
>> Motor oil, antifreeze and window washer containers"
>> </rules>
>>
>> I live in the United States, the Glasgow City Council has no authority
>> here.
>
>Well, what isn't "Allowed" is not allowed. Apparently they
>find it worthwhile to provide a "Not allowed" list because
>otherwise they get that stuff in the recycle bin anyway.
>
>It could be argued in court, but when they accept
>"Glass containers from food and beverage", I do not
>think that glass bowls, wine glasses, or Pyrex are meant,
>although these do contain foods or beverages when used.

On 8/3/2021 6:37 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 20:48:16 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 04:22:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:45:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/1/2021 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> If you want to live in a country that has trash police please move
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is how we become a police state, by creating more and more and
>>>>>> more petty bureaucrats whose duty it is to micromanage our lives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the almighty State wants recycling, it's up to the almighty State
>>>>>> to do the sorting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Green Police by Cheap Trick, an amazing prescient commercial by Audi
>>>>> for CLEAN DIESELs.
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM
>>>> Especially considering that they got busted when it turne out that
>>>> their "clean diesels" weren't clean, they were just rigged to fake out
>>>> the test.
>>>
>>> I think I saw it argued that the test was rigged first
>>> to exclude European diesel cars from sale in the U.S.
>>> without justification.
>>
>> Why would the EU rig a test to exclude European diesel cars from sale
>> in the US, and how could a test in the EU even have that effect? Or
>> are you unaware that most of the rigged vehicles were sold in the EU
>> and that the EU went after them with the same fervor as the US?
>>
>>> But then it later turned out -
>>> at least as we're currently told - that diesel fumes
>>> are full of deadly particles. But could that be petrol
>>> propaganda as well?
>>
>> The issue was oxides of nitrogen.
>
> Well, referring to
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal>
> and what I think I remember being told, the game may
> have started with the U.S. slashing permitted NO2 emissions.
> I said that this was alleged to be simply to keep European diesel
> cars from being sold to U.S. petrol-model customers. VW may
> have decided that if the U.S. wasn't playing fair then why should
> they. Later, the cheating cars were sold to get around new rules
> in Europe, too. Note that the "cheating" consists of meeting
> environmental rules in the test laboratory and providing
> satisfactory driving on the road. Everybody should be happy :-)
>
> Under "Health consequences" the NO2 emissions are listed
> as "Non-lethal", though that isn't the whole story. Then there's
> particulates and ozone, but were those mentioned at the start,
> or only afterwards?

The problem was that Bosch designed a urea generating reactor for their
diesel fuel system that VW, Audi, and quite a few others used. No DEF
(diesel exhaust fluid, water with 30% urea) needed. But the reactor was
undersized and could not meet the required emissions specifications
running continuously. So Bosch solved the problem with software by
shutting down the reactor unless a tailpipe test system was detected.

There is a big long engineering paper that I read a decade ago that went
into this in detail. The Bosch reactor cost about $250 for each car.
The upsized reactor was $400 or $500 each but VW refused to eat the cost
and held Bosch to their cost estimate.

Chemical reactors are funny beasties. They rarely perform as modeled.

Lynn

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 20:41:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
<snippo>
>> I am obligated by law to put it in the recycling bin. It is up to the
>> people on the other end to deal with it.
>
>Not at all. It is your property. You can keep it.
>You can give it away. You can sell it on eBay.
>Possibly you're breaking local law if you put it
>in the wrong bin, but in that case they probably
>just don't take it.

Or charge a fine. Or leave a nasty note.

But this is not really an answer to the objection. The OP has already
decided to get rid of it; his complaint is that his local gummint has
rules for how he is to do so.

<snippo>

>Well, what isn't "Allowed" is not allowed. Apparently they
>find it worthwhile to provide a "Not allowed" list because
>otherwise they get that stuff in the recycle bin anyway.

Or because they get a lot of people calling in and asking if
such-and-such can be recycled.

Or to establish a positive legal requirement that they can then fine
the violator for violating.

<snip first bit>

>They want bottles and jars with, or as it is, without metal lids.
>Glasgow wants the lids left on: I would say that makes more
>sense if stuff is all mixed in one recycling bin, you don't want
>metal or plastic bits getting inside the glass containers.
>But Glasgow gives glass its own bin, so I'm puzzled.

They finally allowed lids and caps to be recycled here -- provided
they are still attached to a recyclable container.

Maybe they found a market for them. The metal lids seem especially
promising in that regard.

Maybe they were appalled by how many bottle caps were ending up in the
trash.

Maybe they just got tired of the complaints.

Here, they stopped taking plastic bags in the City pickups -- but QFC
(ie, Kroger) has, for some time, accepted plastic bags, and they
aren't /that/ hard to accumulate and take down in the reusable
shopping bags.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."