| Discuss | Portal | Aaron | My SA |
| Read Discussions | Create New | Last 20 | View Archives | Search |
...
...
|
|
| |||||
| ||||||
|
...
...
|
| < 635 | | | 634 | | | 633 > |
Recycling Is Crap
|
 Since i was a wee child, i fervently believed that recycling was the way to go. you probably also believe this - however its bullshit. read on for fun facts! |
| i just watched an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit dealing with recycling. They make a very damning case against recycling. Did you know that the energy used in collecting, transporting, sorting, cleaning, and processing most recyclables is greater than just starting with the raw materials? That means most of your recycled paper caused more pollution, was more expensive to make and is of lesser quality than 'virgin paper'? The same is true of plastic. The only thing worth recycling is aluminum cans. Did you know recycling waste is more expensive than just dumping it in a land fill (by around 3x)? Did you know recycling programs lose money, not make money? Did you know we have got PLENTY of landfill space? Did you know that modern landfill standards require 8 feet of clay and gravel lining? According to the EPA, the failure rate is 1 in a billion - think a lotto winner being struck by lightning. Even so, locations are selected to prevent water table contamination in the event of the astronomically impossible happening. Whats more, the methane produced is harvested and used as fuel. Did you know that there are 3 times as many trees as there were in 1920. Granted, the new trees are much younger growth - duh. However, the vast majority of paper production comes from trees planted for the purpose of making paper. The example they gave is that we aren't running out of potatoes because we grow them to eat. Trees are renewable. In fact, if "virgin paper" demand went up, they have to plant more trees. Let me be clear: recycling does not save trees. |
 |
Dronelord - #1 Tue, Jan 17th 2006 @ 9:53 PM 58 words |
| I always thought that recycling was hyped up, but I thought it did some good. Penn and Teller are your source? What was their source? Did they give any? Because without any credible sources...they may be doing a little hyping up of their own. Just a thought, not a slam against you Greg. |
|
|
Greg - #2 Tue, Jan 17th 2006 @ 10:51 PM 24 words |
| no, its all fair. you can find the episode on bit torrent. Ill hit back tomorrow with the names of the people they interviewed. |
|
|
Dronelord - #3 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 7:27 AM 80 words |
| Wow, I just saw on the morning (Good Day Oregon, I was channel surfing!)news that Seattle is cracking down on home owners and businesses that do not recycle. A recycle worker will look through your dumpster or your trash can and if there is "X" amount of recyclable material in your trash, you will get a fine. I couldnt believe it. I would recycle, like glass and stuff, but my apartment complex does not offer any recycling. |
 |
Jim - #4 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 7:40 AM 74 words |
| If the Seattle program comes to Portland your apartment complex will pretty much have to offer it. I saw the same report. If you have more than 10% recyclables in your trash you will get two warnings and then a $50 fine. Homeowners won't get fined but may not get their trash picked up. The garbage men just slap a sticker on your can saying you can't have recycleables in your trash. |
 |
Rob - #5 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 1:30 PM 132 words |
| I think people should be given a choice whether they wish to recycle or not, based on the facts presented to them. The government's part, if any, might be to offer a tax deduction or some sort of incentive, similar to what they do for hybrid cars. This kind of forced participation smacks of the same things that the global warming/Kyoto Protocol doomsayers are trying to unload on us - government-mandated bills that we will have to pay, even though the evidence does not prove that humans have any power to control, change or affect it in any meaningful way. Let people decide how they wish to participate, based on the evidence, and provide some incentive if need be. But punishing people for not complying? No. |
|
|
Greg - #6 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 5:18 PM 243 words |
| kyoto/global warming is a 'nother ball of wax. A. global warming is bad - like civilization crushing bad. b. we know its getting LOTS warmer and c. we know that our emissions help make it warmer. Maybe the repubs are right in saying our emissions only add a fraction of the warming, but thats like a guy pissing into a sinking boat and saying "What? most of its comming in through that hole in the side!" re: sources on recycling one of the primary sources was Daniel Benjamin from clemson university. They quoted a piece printed in the new york times [dunno the author] "recycling may be one of the most wasteful activities in modern america" [!!] They also interview Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk and Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. the NYTimes is pretty non conservative, clemson is rated 34th of the nation's 162 public doctoral-granting universities - not not exactly a diploma mill, and the CEI is essentially a libertarian think tank with TONS of corporate sponsors (meaning, ignore what they have to say when there is money to be made, but listen when there isn't. while attacking global warming there is more money to be LOST than made - so listen damnit.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson_University |
 |
Aaron - #7 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 7:19 PM 102 words |
| Recycling may be inefficient, but the infrastructure is there. Does it make more sense at this point to individually stop using it in protest, or go ahead and use it because it is there? I mean, I get your point, but really, it's a bit after the fact, isn't it? Gasoline engines use about 30% of the available energy in the gas they consume, but what other options are there right now? What I am saying is: what's the solution? How to scale that solution up so it's actually effective on a large scale? |
|
|
Dronelord - #8 Wed, Jan 18th 2006 @ 8:06 PM 153 words |
| Nice work with providing sources Greg. I would have to agree with Aaron. Even if recycling only worked or benefit us 10% of the time, isn't that 10% better than doing nothing at all? Why don't we just put all of our waste on rockets and blast them into the sun every year. I have seen it done safely before. It was in Superman 4 where Superman wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons so they launch all the nukes into space and Superman puts them all in a net and hurls them into the sun. But, what Superman didn't know is that Lex Luther took a strand of his hair and used his DNA to make his own supervillan when the nuke with the DNA hit the sun. My point? Well, isn't it obvious, I like Superman. |
|
|
Greg - #9 Thu, Jan 19th 2006 @ 2:21 PM 143 words |
| solution: recycling cans is good, lets keep doing that - but tell everyone you know that recycling paper glass and plastics actually hurt the environment. Think about those huge trucks picking up your recycling, then trucking it to recycling centers. Think about the smog belching factories reprocesing it. Think about the chemical sludge left over from de-inking and bleaching your old news paper. Thats the biggest thing - it all hurts the environment!! If you want, bring up that it costs us about 8 billion a year to do it too. the best evidense ive heard for the economic effects of recycling is the homeless. If recycling paper and plastics turned a profit, you could make money collecting the stuff and turning it in. You can see homless people picking up aluminum cans all the time, but they pass over everything else. |
|
|
Rob - #10 Thu, Jan 19th 2006 @ 2:43 PM 71 words |
Superman 4, Dronelord? Would you like to give us a synopsis of Batman & Robin while you're at it? Maybe a little Leonard Part 6? Caddyshack 2? I sense a quote from "Meathead" from Meatballs 2 coming... Oh wait a minute. I also sense that most of you were not yet in the womb during the Meatballs era.  |
|
|
Rob - #11 Thu, Jan 19th 2006 @ 2:50 PM 97 words |
| Greg, as long as you are getting legitimate environmental facts from entertainment sources, I suggest you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. A fiction book, yes, but it revolves around the global warming issue. He goes so far as to footnote every fact he has in the book, and all of the charts he provides are from actual research studies. I think what he did was research global warming to death and became so passionate about the ignorance and misinformation out there, he wrote a book around it. It really is very interesting and eye-opening. |
|
|
Greg - #12 Thu, Jan 19th 2006 @ 10:14 PM 64 words |
| awesome, ill just go order that book off amazon and read it then sometime next week can continue debating this. ...or you could maybe cite something i could go find? hook me up with one of these awesome foot notes. wikipedia has some good information on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming |
 |
Shay - #13 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 5:49 AM 72 words |
| This is what my friend had to say about your article. I thought it was funny enough to share..... Same old recycled Republican redneck inbred dumbshit Cro-Magnon, brainless, tight-assed, paranoid, flag waving, head-in-the-sand, whoremaster, fetus lover, people-hater, earth-killing crap. Put him in a lined landfill, so there will be a one-in-a-billion chance of him ever leaking out. . |
|
|
Dronelord - #14 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 8:27 AM 6 words |
| Nothing wrong with waving the flag. |
|
|
Shay - #15 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 8:55 AM 41 words |
He is the most Far Left person I know. He totally cracks me up. He was the big "boat rocker" at my job but he left to do bigger better things  |
|
|
Rob - #16 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:27 AM 86 words |
| It is no Jurassic Park, Greg, I'll tell you that much. From a fiction novel standpoint, it is downright boring. But if you read it from a "fun way to present facts" perspective, you might find it more interesting. The protagonist of the story is a normal layperson "of course there is global warming" kind of guy. Over the course of the book he meets various people that open his eyes. The further you get into the book, the more interesting the refuted facts are. |
|
|
Rob - #17 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:31 AM 122 words |
| This is the kind of thing that makes me suspect, when I read your link: "A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures." A "small minority". That leads the reader into believing that there are just one or two nust out ther that are not with the program. Why not just tell people "there are scientists that believe global warming is due to human activity, and others that refute the theory? I see this a lot in the news, unnecessary adjectives that lead the reader to pick a side, rather than state the facts. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an unbiased reference? |
|
|
Rob - #18 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:38 AM 155 words |
| Here's another one: "At present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community." "Just so you know, folks, because we want you to believe that global warming is solely due to human activity, there really is hardly anybody refuting this - those that have come up with other theories make up a very, very small and ignorant membership of our population. What you do need to know is that mosts scientists do believe in human activity causeing global warming." Define "small minority", Wikipedia. Einstein - one guy - came up with the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps his theory should be debunked because just one guy came up with it? I would be willing to bet there are thousands if not tens of thousands of scientists that have refuted the human activity theory - but the media does not give them the same press advantage. |
|
|
Rob - #19 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:42 AM 90 words |
| One of the interesting things Crichton shows in the book is how easily graphs and charts can be manipulated - and I know this myself, being a statistician. Evidence is presented for the human activity theory side, for example, showing a sharp rising line in a graph. But that may be due to the starting year on the graph. So specific groupings of years can be used to demonstrate a sharp rise. But if you normalize the graphs and the years, you get a much more subtle up-or-down trend. |
|
|
Rob - #20 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:54 AM 192 words |
| I just want to say one more thing though before I get back to work. Crichton has a very good author's not at the end, something to think about. It is not about picking a side and then defending it using all manner of evidence tweaked to prove a point, nor should it be about how many people believe one thing or another. When you have something that can so dramatically, drastically and possibly dangerously affect us (and I mean the economic and environmental impacts of implementing climate change ideas - there are interesting anecdotes in the book about how certain species have been wiped out - or certain environments - BECAUSE of humans tampering with the environment to supposedly fix it), it behooves us all to study it, and not be so easily led one way or the other. If legitimate evidence is produce refuting a common theory, that evidence deserves focus and further study, lest we all make a costly mistake. Could humans be the reason for global warming? Yes. But could it also just be a cyclical thing that the earth goes through? Certainly you wouldn't dispute that. |
|
|
Shay - #21 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 12:58 PM 105 words |
| Very well said! I completely agree with your last post. I am all about conserving/recycling because that's my personal choice and something that I feel very strongly about. I would rather be careful and attentive to my actions as a human right now since I am not the only living creature sharing this Earth. I can’t imagine living a life without concern or regard to how my choices will eventually play out. I just don’t want to reach a point when we no longer have a choice because it’s to late to rebuild and repair the damage we have done. |
 |
Lexy - #22 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 1:16 PM 207 words |
| Goodness me! Is SaneAsylum back to it's old tricks? Hello! Good to see you! I was cleaning out my bookmarks, and I nearly deleted you all, my dears! I must say, I feel that now would be a good time to mention a popular Republican construct that is often invoked during science-talk: "Sound Science". It is paralysis by analysis. The argument often goes: "well, we don't know much about that do we? not really 100% on that, are we? wouldn't want to do the wrong thing, would we? let's just keep things the way they are until we are really, really, really sure, shant we?" You don't want this person on your ship pulling lookout duty: "Aren't we about to hit that iceberg?" "Hmmm, are you sure it's an iceberg?" "Well, yeah, I mean, look at it." "It could be styrofoam." "In the Arctic?" "And it's pretty foggy right now, so it could be anything." "Yeah - well, let's change course anyway." "And waste fuel? Are you crazy? Besides, we'd be late to port." CRASH! (everyone dies) Kisses! |
|
|
Shay - #23 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 1:20 PM 4 words |
| You totally rock Lexy! |
|
|
Lexy - #24 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 1:34 PM 4 words |
| So do you, sweetie! |
|
|
Greg - #25 Fri, Jan 20th 2006 @ 11:48 PM 966 words |
| rob - wikipedia used the phrase "small minority" because thats the unbiased truth. Im sorry that you'd like it to sound like your side has an equal number of reputable scientists, but it doesn't. Five years ago, in the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, 1600 of the world's senior scientists sounded an unprecedented warning: Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms. the 1600 isn't just commy grad students either! check out the list of JUST NOBEL LAUREATES: NOBEL LAUREATES * Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977 * Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972 * Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970 * David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975 * Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987 * Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980 * Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967 * J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989 * James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988 * Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964 * Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981 * Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989 * Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986 * Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990 * John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975 * James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980 * Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995 * Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980 * Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989 * Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988 * Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996 * Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975 * Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974 * Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967 * Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988 * Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991 * Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973 * Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992 * Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973 * Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980 * Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990 * Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960 * Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979 * Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985 * Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986 * Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974 * Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981 * Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979 * David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981 * Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988 * Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985 * Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990 * John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962 * Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985 * Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982 * Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959 * Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992 * Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996 * Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988 * David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996 * Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986 * Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987 * Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973 * Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986 * Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995 * William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976 * Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992 * Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984 * R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984 * Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988 * Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984 * Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995 * Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975 * Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990 * Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978 * Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970 * Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991 * Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968 * Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995 * Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996 * George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974 * Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962 * John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986 * Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977 * Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989 * Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976 * Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993 * Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994 * Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986 * Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995 * F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995 * Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982 * Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980 * Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981 * Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951 * Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978 * Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996 * Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993 * Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988 * Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983 * Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990 * E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990 * Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976 * James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981 * Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987 * Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964 * Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984 * John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982 * Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954 * Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981 * Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978 * Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996 link but just *maybe* you're right and its all group think and all those guys are morons. The fact of the matter is, we may be heading toward civilization ending turmoil and upheaval.... but "it may not be our fault" so lets keep poking holes in a sinking boat. ....or what lexy said much better. shay - thats funny. I showed your post to my friend and he said you're a stupid cunt with necrotic clamidia. Also that personal insults without any substance to a rebuttal are the hallmarks of a coward and a moron. smooches! also, i hate fetuses.  |
 |
Sarah - #26 Sat, Jan 21st 2006 @ 5:32 PM 21 words |
Wow...  |
|
|
Shay - #27 Mon, Jan 23rd 2006 @ 11:28 AM 14 words |
| you have friends greg? |
|
|
Shay - #28 Mon, Jan 23rd 2006 @ 11:41 AM 27 words |
| personal insults w/ out any substance to a rebuttle are also hilarious. Don't be so sensitive. |
 |
Steve - #29 Mon, Jan 23rd 2006 @ 3:01 PM 14 words |
| Grag is a TOOL!!! |
|
|
Steve - #30 Mon, Jan 23rd 2006 @ 3:02 PM 7 words |
| Greg^ opps and I can't spell. |
|
|
Greg - #31 Mon, Jan 23rd 2006 @ 5:57 PM 66 words |
| you have friends greg? smile my mom says im cool. Don't be so sensitive. smile if it makes ya feel any better, i wasn't hurt, just showing you that your friend didn't prove anything. steve - oh shit man. ...that burns every time.  |
|
|
Steve - #32 Tue, Jan 24th 2006 @ 6:09 AM 90 words |
| Yeah maybe but your still a dumbass Greg. Burning you is not my intention I am just pointing and laughing at you with the rest of the people who visit this site. Your so stupid Greg, no likes you why dont you just go to another site and bother them. Your such a piece of shit you're really not worth anything. I am surprised your mother even loves you. You dont have the sense god gave a common dog. |
|
|
Jim - #33 Tue, Jan 24th 2006 @ 11:00 AM 18 words |
| Boy I sure am glad we've gotten back to indepth and well thought out discussions on SA. |
|
|
Shay - #34 Tue, Jan 24th 2006 @ 11:44 AM 16 words |
| at least we are all here. |
|
|
Greg - #35 Tue, Jan 24th 2006 @ 4:48 PM 52 words |
| "Your so stupid Greg" made my day. im glad i get you all riled up though - you're an angry buddhist! And honestly, im really pleased you've moved beyond "is a tool". That was an 80 word insult! |
|
|
Steve - #36 Wed, Jan 25th 2006 @ 6:30 AM 45 words |
| Yes Greg your stupid. Who's "riled" up I'm just making fun? Oh Greg-o cant take it. He's going to cry.... thats sad. (Pointing and Laughing at the small man.) |
|
|
Greg - #37 Wed, Jan 25th 2006 @ 1:23 PM 8 words |
| you're really grabbing at straws there dog. |
|
|
Steve - #38 Wed, Jan 25th 2006 @ 2:09 PM 21 words |
| I grabbed your mom but she didnt like the first time. |
|
|
Dronelord - #39 Wed, Jan 25th 2006 @ 6:06 PM 71 words |
| This post originally started off about recycling. It is interesting to see how conversations take a turn for the worse. I just took out my trash, with some cans in it, and I wish that my craptacular apartment complex would have some recycle bins near the big dumpster. But, since I live in the ghetto, they would probably be tipped over or rumaged through by homeless people or vandals. |
|
|
Steve - #40 Fri, Jan 27th 2006 @ 9:42 AM 24 words |
| This post originally started off about recycling. It is interesting to see how conversations take a turn for the worse. PUSSY |
|
|
Steve - #41 Fri, Jan 27th 2006 @ 9:52 AM 12 words |
| sorry droneload couldnt resist. I always make fun of little greg-o. |
|
|
Dronelord - #42 Fri, Jan 27th 2006 @ 6:46 PM 20 words |
| May I now turn your attention to Why does Steve suck? |
Greg #634
Tue, Jan 17th 2006