Milk in Plastic Jugs: Bad idea?
Brettster
Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink a lot
of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said, "Next
time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." (She's mainly
concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what sounds
like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
Thanks!
Brett
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Brettster wrote:
My mom told me once that putting chocolate in milk negated all of the
vitamins, and made it Very Bad For You. I didn't find out until just
recently, when the dairy farmers started their chocolate milk campaign,
that she was lying.
Moms say things sometimes. It's in the manual. I'm sure I'll
understand when I'm a mom.
I can't imagine how any container, whether plastic or cardboard, would
affect the effectiveness of the vitamins in milk. I have noticed,
however, that milk stays fresh longer in plastic than in cardboard.
Wave around the term "salmonella" a little, and see if that chills her
out.
L & k,
Amy
James Gifford
> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I
> drink a lot of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic
> bottles. She said, "Next time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read
> that milk in plastic jugs significantly reduces the effectiveness of
> vitamins in the milk."
Exposure to light does break down some of the nutrients in milk. (I'm
sure someone else herein can fill in the grisly biochemical details.)
It's not the plastic per se; it's the plastic's transparency vs. the
relative opacity of cardboard.
Many stores had/have special lights in the milk section that reduce this
breakdown. Store shelves are the only place milk containers are exposed
to light for significant periods of time-- at home, they're usually kept
in the dark. The problem (for the stores) is that these lights are a
ghastly yellowish color that turn buyers off, so many that did it for a
while have gone back to shiny white lights.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gif...@nitrosyncretic.com |
| |
| ROBERT A. HEINLEIN: A READER'S COMPANION available 8 May 2000! |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for details & the Heinlein FAQ |
Tank
markets their milk in opaque yellow plastic jugs. They say that
blocking the light keeps it more wholesome, vitamins, etc., etc.
Personally, I would love to use cardboard containers, but the
plastic one cheaper. The 1 gal paper container isn't that great,
and it is often 50 cents or more higher to by 1/2 gal paper
cartons.
I wish we had a milk machine like in the restaurants, where
the milk comes in the 5 gallon plastic bags. :)
- Tank
Remember to pillage before you burn
Big Iron5
>Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink a
>lot
>of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said,
>"Next
>time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
>significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." (She's
>mainly
>concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what sounds
>like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
I've heard that, too, although I dunno how much there is to it -- the light
supposedly destroys some of the vitamins. One or two milk concerns out here
have begun to make their plastic bottles opaque for this reason.
Lord Jubjub
<glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>Brettster wrote:
>
>> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink
>> a lot
>> of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said,
>> "Next
>> time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
>> significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." (She's
>> mainly
>> concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what
>> sounds
>> like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
>
>My mom told me once that putting chocolate in milk negated all of the
>vitamins, and made it Very Bad For You. I didn't find out until just
>recently, when the dairy farmers started their chocolate milk campaign,
>that she was lying.
Actually, she's telling the truth--sort of. Oxalic acid in chocolate
binds to the calcium preventing your body from absorbing in. But there
is only enough oxalic acid is chocolate milk to bind to a small amount
of the calcium.
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves
James Gifford
>> Exposure to light does break down some of the nutrients in milk. (I'm
>> sure someone else herein can fill in the grisly biochemical
> The grisly details (without going into a lot of detail because I
> don't know the chemistry involved) are...
Pretty grisly. Thanks. :)
Phinious
I am a bit skeptical about how severe the nutrient breakdown is in plastic
jugs due to the exposure to light.
I saw a few television commercials (a few years back) making claims that
milk in plastic jugs was a bad idea because of the light thing. These spots
where sponsored by --guess who-- some council of paper milk carton
manufactures.
I am sure they have some sort of agenda here.
Kinda reminds me of the stink the paper industry caused over the use of foam
in cups and food service containers.
Phinious
"Big Iron5" <bigi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000324152533...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> Brettster writes:
>
> >
> >Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink
a
> >lot
> >of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said,
> >"Next
> >time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
> >significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." >
>
GrapeApe
>time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
>significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk."
I think you are probably okay if the plastic container leans toward being
opaque. Many plastic milk jugs are clear however. Some are yellow. Some have
advertised their yellow jugs for this reason.
Apparently the constant exposure to flourescent lights in markets isn't the
best thing for stuff in the milk. All that UV and all. Not total hogwash.
Lalbert1
<gif...@nitrosyncretic.com> writes:
>Brettster wrote:
>> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I
>> drink a lot of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic
>> bottles. She said, "Next time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read
>> that milk in plastic jugs significantly reduces the effectiveness of
>> vitamins in the milk."
>
>Exposure to light does break down some of the nutrients in milk. (I'm
>sure someone else herein can fill in the grisly biochemical details.).....
The grisly details (without going into a lot of detail because I don't know the
chemistry involved) are that because of exposure to the store lighting, some of
the vitamins in milk will break down and cause some flavor changes. The most
loss is riboflavin, and it occurs in a light catalyzed oxidation. After
extended periods of time the fats in milk can also break down due to light
oxidation. Both of these oxidations cause slight changes in the taste of the
milk, but most likely you will taste microbiological spoilage before you taste
lipid oxidation.
Les
Jeff Janes
: > Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink a lot
: > of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said, "Next
: > time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
: > significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." (She's mainly
: > concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what sounds
: > like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
: I can't imagine how any container, whether plastic or cardboard, would
: affect the effectiveness of the vitamins in milk.
Some vitamins are light-sensitive (vitamin D, for example). Plastic bottles
allow in more light than cardboard. I wouldn't get my knickers in a knot
worrying about it, but it is plausible.
Jeff
--
Jeff Janes
email: ja...@scripps.edu
Asterbark
>The grisly details (without going into a lot of detail because I don't know
>the
>chemistry involved) are that because of exposure to the store lighting, some
>of
>the vitamins in milk will break down and cause some flavor changes. The most
>loss is riboflavin, and it occurs in a light catalyzed oxidation. After
>extended periods of time the fats in milk can also break down due to light
>oxidation. Both of these oxidations cause slight changes in the taste of the
>milk, but most likely you will taste microbiological spoilage before you
>taste
>lipid oxidation.
>
I can taste the difference in the milk in the jug at the front of the display
(more exposed to the lights) from one that's been stored in the case behind it.
~"Milkmaid"
Aster
Dana Carpender
Lord Jubjub wrote:
> In article <38DBB955...@purdue.edu>, Amy Elizabeth Gleason
> <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >Brettster wrote:
> >
> >> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink
> >> a lot
> >> of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said,
> >> "Next
> >> time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
> >> significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk." (She's
> >> mainly
> >> concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what
> >> sounds
> >> like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
> >
> >My mom told me once that putting chocolate in milk negated all of the
> >vitamins, and made it Very Bad For You. I didn't find out until just
> >recently, when the dairy farmers started their chocolate milk campaign,
> >that she was lying.
>
> Actually, she's telling the truth--sort of. Oxalic acid in chocolate
> binds to the calcium preventing your body from absorbing in. But there
> is only enough oxalic acid is chocolate milk to bind to a small amount
> of the calcium.
And it is true that light destroys riboflavin (B2). Translucent plastic jugs
are better than clear glass milk bottles, and paper is more protective than
plastic.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Andrew Gore
>>"Next
>>time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
>>significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk."
>
>I think you are probably okay if the plastic container leans toward being
>opaque. Many plastic milk jugs are clear however. Some are yellow. Some have
>advertised their yellow jugs for this reason.
>
>Apparently the constant exposure to flourescent lights in markets isn't the
>best thing for stuff in the milk. All that UV and all. Not total hogwash.
>
I noticed looking at a site selling antique milk bottles, that
was not unusual for the jugs to be made from brown glass. Maybe thats
why.
N Jill Marsh
> Personally, I would love to use cardboard containers, but the
> plastic one cheaper. The 1 gal paper container isn't that great,
> and it is often 50 cents or more higher to by 1/2 gal paper
> cartons.
There is a chain of corner stores in Ontario that sells their milk in
plastic containers that you pay a deposit on and can return later, just
like glass bottles. The containers are ground up and recycled, so you
get a new bottle every time. The pastic is pebbled, and just translucent
enough so that you can see a milk level in it.
Of course, it's cheaper to buy milk by the four litre (~gallon?) packs.
The three plasic bags that the milk is packaged in are a translucent blue
colour, and they are sold inside a thin pastic bag with a opaque pattern
on them. The blue bags are recyclable, but they are really good plastic
that washes up well and make good freezer/food storage bags.
njm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining
with the light of pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's
brain power. He virtually lives on fish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Farmer
-> >The grisly details (without going into a lot of detail because I
-> don't know >the >chemistry involved) are that because of exposure to
-> the store lighting, some >of >the vitamins in milk will break down
-> and cause some flavor changes. The most >loss is riboflavin, and it
-> occurs in a light catalyzed oxidation. After >extended periods of
-> time the fats in milk can also break down due to light >oxidation.
-> Both of these oxidations cause slight changes in the taste of the
-> >milk, but most likely you will taste microbiological spoilage before
-> you >taste >lipid oxidation. >
-> I can taste the difference in the milk in the jug at the front of the
-> display (more exposed to the lights) from one that's been stored in
-> the case behind it.
More exposed to heat as well. Also the older milk is often put up front
to ensure sale before pull date.
-> ~"Milkmaid"
-> Aster
Perry
Lalbert1
Gore) writes:
No. When milk was sold in bottles they were always clear glass, never brown
glass. The brown jugs you see at the antique site were for something other
than milk.
Les
Perry Farmer
-> news3.nwnexus.com!nwnews.wa.com!nntp2.savvis.net!news.premier1.net!uu
-> net!sea.uu.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!
-> news-east.rr.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.kiva
-> net!not-for-mail
-> From: Dana Carpender <dcar...@kiva.net>
-> Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams
-> Subject: Re: Milk in Plastic Jugs: Bad idea?
-> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:18:52 -0500
-> Organization: Kiva Networking
-> Lines: 40
-> Message-ID: <38DCCACC...@kiva.net>
-> References: <20000324121027...@ng-md1.aol.com>
-> <38DBB955...@purdue.edu>
-> <jubjub-1549AF....@news.flash.net>
-> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial171.bton.kiva.net
-> Mime-Version: 1.0
-> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
-> X-Accept-Language: en
-> Xref: news3.nwnexus.com alt.fan.cecil-adams:157784
-> Lord Jubjub wrote:
-> > In article <38DBB955...@purdue.edu>, Amy Elizabeth Gleason
-> > <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
-> >
-> > >Brettster wrote:
-> > >
-> > >> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day.
-> > >> a lot
-> > >> of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. S
-> > >> "Next
-> > >> time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
-> > >> significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk.
-> > >> mainly
-> > >> concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes
-> > >> sounds
-> > >> like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
-> > >
-> > >My mom told me once that putting chocolate in milk negated all of the
-> > >vitamins, and made it Very Bad For You. I didn't find out until just
-> > >recently, when the dairy farmers started their chocolate milk camp
-> > >that she was lying.
-> >
-> > Actually, she's telling the truth--sort of. Oxalic acid in chocolate
-> > binds to the calcium preventing your body from absorbing in. But t
-> > is only enough oxalic acid is chocolate milk to bind to a small amount
-> > of the calcium.
-> And it is true that light destroys riboflavin (B2). Translucent
-> plastic jugs are better than clear glass milk bottles, and paper is
-> more protective than plastic.
And probably very little difference in that regard if used before pull
dates, all other things equal in the way of storage.
In the case of plastic, there is the possibility of taste being given
off by the plastic itself, although that too should be minimal at low
temperatures.
-> -- Dana W. Carpender
Perry
Perry Farmer
-> >>"Next
-> >>time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
-> >>significantly reduces the effectiveness of vitamins in the milk."
-> >
-> >I think you are probably okay if the plastic container leans toward
-> >opaque. Many plastic milk jugs are clear however. Some are yellow.
-> >advertised their yellow jugs for this reason.
-> >
-> >Apparently the constant exposure to flourescent lights in markets is
-> >best thing for stuff in the milk. All that UV and all. Not total hog
-> >
-> I noticed looking at a site selling antique milk bottles, that
-> was not unusual for the jugs to be made from brown glass. Maybe thats
-> why.
Or could it be that the glass was recycled without regard to its source.
Perry
James Gifford
Does this mean that women with breast implants have poorer quality milk?
ChimericMouse
> If it were a matter of light exposure making milk totally nutritionally
> useless then I might worry about it. But as for this vitamin
> instability stuff, just take a multivitamin every day and forget
> about it.
>
> -Teg
We store complete media for yeast and bacteria (which contain just about
everything you'll find in a vitamin supplement) in clear glass bottles
for months without any adverse effects. I'm guessing, then, that
photodecomposition of the vitamins in your milk is far too slow to have
any real effect on your health. If the effect was significant, the bugs
would promptly inform us (by dying.)
Mark Brader
> There is a chain of corner stores in Ontario that sells their milk in
> Of course, it's cheaper to buy milk by the four litre (~gallon?) packs.
I remember when they were 3-quart packs, and then 3-liter packs. Of
course, each time they changed it you had to buy a new pitcher to put
the inner pouches into, if you wanted them to fit properly.
> The three plasic bags that the milk is packaged in are a translucent blue
> colour, and they are sold inside a thin pastic bag with a opaque pattern
> on them.
Interesting. None of the brands I've ever bought in Toronto have used
that plastic for the inner pouches; I've only ever seen clear plastic
(transparent and colorless).
> The blue bags are recyclable...
Neither the outer bags nor the inner pouches are marked recyclable here.
I'm not aware of any flexible plastic that's accepted for recycling here.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"You take the bottle out of the box, take the cotton out of the
bottle ... and if they'd just used the box and not used the bottle
... look at this, all these pills would've fitted into the box and
they'd have had room for 3 times as much cotton!" -- Andy Rooney
My text in this article is in the public domain.
N Jill Marsh
> I remember when they were 3-quart packs, and then 3-liter packs. Of
> course, each time they changed it you had to buy a new pitcher to put
> the inner pouches into, if you wanted them to fit properly.
Cut a corner, pour into plastic beer pitcher, rinse out plastic milk bag.
> Interesting. None of the brands I've ever bought in Toronto have used
> that plastic for the inner pouches; I've only ever seen clear plastic
> (transparent and colorless).
Cool, everybody's blue here, what colour are your cows?
> > The blue bags are recyclable...
> Neither the outer bags nor the inner pouches are marked recyclable here.
> I'm not aware of any flexible plastic that's accepted for recycling here.
My township now accepts all plastics, though we have to sort them into one
of two bins when we get to the dump. The first bin is, I think, for
plastics #1 & 2, the rest for everything else. I'll ask for some
clarification at my next quarterly visit.
Mark Brader
> > Interesting. None of the brands I've ever bought in Toronto have used
> > that plastic for the inner pouches; I've only ever seen clear plastic
> > (transparent and colorless).
> Cool, everybody's blue here, what colour are your cows?
<city_slicker> Cows? What are cows? </>
--
Mark Brader "`char **' parameters are packaged in GREEN
Toronto envelopes and placed on the FIFTH shelf."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Torek
Scott Wilson
Amy Elizabeth Gleason <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>Brettster wrote:
>
>> Wife asked me to bring home a half-gallon of milk the other day. I drink a lot
>> of milk, so I bought a gallon in one of those plastic bottles. She said, "Next
>> time, buy it in a carboard carton. I read that milk in plastic jugs
>> concerned for our kids, not for me.) I've learned that sometimes what sounds
>> like hogwash might actually be true, so I'm askin'.
>
>that she was lying.
And hey, if your method of chocolatizing your milk is Ovaltine(tm), then
you are actually adding quite a few vitamins.
>Moms say things sometimes. It's in the manual. I'm sure I'll
>understand when I'm a mom.
>I can't imagine how any container, whether plastic or cardboard, would
>affect the effectiveness of the vitamins in milk. I have noticed,
>however, that milk stays fresh longer in plastic than in cardboard.
>Wave around the term "salmonella" a little, and see if that chills her
>out.
The "less vitamins" comes from the fact that some of the vitamins can
degrade in light. Since the plastic cartons are translucent, they allow
light in. How much of a factor this really is I have no idea. But I
doubt it would be that high, since its not like anyone is leaving the milk
in the sunlight. I imagine the only significant light that the milk gets
is when it is on display at the grocer. And even then, only the ones in
front get that much.
I'd be interested in actual stats about the differences in the vitamins
between milk in plastic or carboard containers. But without stats, my
assumption is "not much".
--
Scott Wilson Be Kind.
swi...@uchicago.edu
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
James Gifford wrote:
>
> On musing over this thread, I wondered...
>
> Does this mean that women with breast implants have poorer quality milk?
I didn't think that women with breast implants were able to produce milk
anymore...
Maybe that's breast reductions. I don't remember. I've been wrong
before...
L & k,
Amy
Sean Houtman
>I didn't think that women with breast implants were able to produce milk
>anymore...
>
>Maybe that's breast reductions. I don't remember. I've been wrong
>before...
Maybe you should test it out. Get one implant, get pregnant, 9 months later,
measure production.
Sean
Asterbark
Don't do it, Amy! Bra shopping is hard enough, and you can't walk sideways all
the way through life.
Aster
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Asterbark wrote:
> Don't do it, Amy! Bra shopping is hard enough, and you can't walk sideways all
> the way through life.
The left one is bigger to begin with... Thought I had cancer when I
discovered this as a young teen...
There's a place in Valparaiso, IN that makes custom bras. I have yet to
check it out (due to lack of fundage) but think it would be WONDERFUL...
L & k,
Amy
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Sean Houtman wrote:
>
> From: Amy Elizabeth Gleason glea...@purdue.edu
>
> >I didn't think that women with breast implants were able to produce milk
> >anymore...
> >
> >Maybe that's breast reductions. I don't remember. I've been wrong
> >before...
>
> Maybe you should test it out. Get one implant, get pregnant, 9 months later,
> measure production.
In order to truly test, I'd have to get one implant and one reduction.
I think I'd look pretty silly...
L & k,
Amy
Rich Clancey
+ Lalbert1 wrote:
+ >> Exposure to light does break down some of the nutrients in milk. (I'm
+ >> sure someone else herein can fill in the grisly biochemical
+ >> details.).....
+ > The grisly details (without going into a lot of detail because I
+ > don't know the chemistry involved) are...
+ Pretty grisly. Thanks. :)
All chemistry is grisly.
--
:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:
rich clancey r...@world.std.com rcla...@massart.edu
On an autumn evening one remembers more of childhood
than at any other time of year.
- Graham Greene -
:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:
spect...@my-deja.com
Seriously, I know a shill that claims to have done just that. Better
to promote the PS industry ("but...why do you have such long teeth?"
saith Red Riding Hood to the Big Bad Wolf). After haunting a newsgroup
for two years, she got pulled into court. People said, "why did
she lie about all these women in the group?" Well gosh darn, that
is what shills do.
Btw, the chance of going breastfeeding cripple after a breast
reduction is at least a full order of magnitude greater than
the same after the breast augmentation (and so is the actual
degree of scarring of the remnant). If it happens after breast
enlargement, it is an *accident.* But with breast reduction, damage
to the ducts connecting to the nipples, as well as their removal
along with other healthy tissues ("mostly fat", as a PS will say,
ahem) is the normal result of the operation. The primary cause
of breastfeeding disability in the US is iatrogenic (doctor
caused) and this factor consists mostly of breast reduction
surgeries. Groups that have a high incidence of breast reduction
in America have an extremely high rate of breastfeeding
disability (overweight white women, white women as opposed
to the other races). The good news is that *intact women* are
almost always able to breastfeed, that **naturally occuring* disabiliy
of breast function is quite rare*, as one sees in a group of
women like the black Americans or the white Hutterite women.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Greg Goss
>In order to truly test, I'd have to get one implant and one reduction.
>I think I'd look pretty silly...
Uh, no. Good scientific method requires that one breast be left
untouched. Well not UNTOUCHED (otherwise might interfere with the
get-pregnant part) but not modified.
Unless you've got three of 'em, you should only test one of the
hypotheses per pregnancy.
Greg Goss
>I'm not aware of any flexible plastic that's accepted for recycling here.
here (Vancouver BC Canada), several of the local stores (Superstore &
Safeway (grocery), London Drugs (small appliances)) have receptacles
to accept their own plastic bags.
Rich Clancey
+ My township now accepts all plastics, though we have to sort them into one
+ of two bins when we get to the dump. The first bin is, I think, for
+ plastics #1 & 2, the rest for everything else. I'll ask for some
+ clarification at my next quarterly visit.
My town accepts just about everything on earth, and all mixed
together, as "recyclable". But I wonder if any of the stuff actually
gets used again. The scavengers pick out the aluminum cans, which we
know are actually recycled.
Newspapers get recycled when the price is right, but it
usually isn't worth it to anybody to bother to extract the ink, so
newspapers tend to sit around warehouses. Glass simply doesn't get
recycled, since it's easier to buy sand than to try to sort waste
glass by color. With all the different plastics mixed in with each
other, it would be an expensive process to sort them out by grade.
The big "recycling" company in Boston was just dumping
everything into a warehouse for years, then had a big fire a couple of
years ago.
Is recycling a fraud?
Greg Goss
>Glass simply doesn't get
>recycled, since it's easier to buy sand than to try to sort waste
>glass by color. With all the different plastics mixed in with each
>other, it would be an expensive process to sort them out by grade.
With all the good sand going to glass manufacture, we could run short.
One of the local recycling outfits was selling their coloured glass to
a local paving operation that used it instead of a fine gravel in
their roads.
Lalbert1
> My town accepts just about everything on earth, and all mixed
>together, as "recyclable". But I wonder if any of the stuff actually
>gets used again. The scavengers pick out the aluminum cans, which we
>know are actually recycled.
>
> Newspapers get recycled when the price is right, but it
>usually isn't worth it to anybody to bother to extract the ink, so
>newspapers tend to sit around warehouses. Glass simply doesn't get
>recycled, since it's easier to buy sand than to try to sort waste
>glass by color. With all the different plastics mixed in with each
>other, it would be an expensive process to sort them out by grade.
>
> The big "recycling" company in Boston was just dumping
>everything into a warehouse for years, then had a big fire a couple of
>years ago.
>
> Is recycling a fraud?
I don't know if it's a fraud, but there is some evidence that it is a bunch of
nonsense. Back in June or July of 1996 John Tierny, a staff writer for the New
York Times, wrote a Sunday Magazine cover story about recycling. He said that
it may be the most wasteful activity in America. Tierny stated some compelling
evidence to support his claim that recycling was a bunch of nonsense. The
article created a fire-storm and generated more mail than any peice the
magazine section ever published. I can't remember the details, but I was in
the glass industry at the time and I had doubts about the recycling of glass.
The article convinced me that a lot of recycling is not necessary.
If you can find a copy of the article (web searches turn up references to it,
but not the article itself) then you will probably also stamp recycling as
"Suspicions Confirmed".
Les
Lalbert1
(Lalbert1) writes:
>....Back in June or July of 1996 John Tierny, a staff writer for the New
>York Times, wrote a Sunday Magazine cover story about recycling.....
Follow-up to my original post: The Tierny article is titled, "Recycling
Garbage", and it appeared in the N.Y. Times magazine on June 30, 1996.
Les
Shawn Wilson
"Rich Clancey" <r...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:FsFEK...@world.std.com...
> Is recycling a fraud?
Pretty much. If recycling were an efficient use of resources it would be
profitable to pay people for their recyclables. For the most part, people
aren't and recycling isn't.
My personal favorite scare story is that half of America's landfills have
five years or less of capacity. Well, duh. Landfills are generally built
with a ten year capacity.
mlo...@civetsystems.com
> "Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Is recycling a fraud?
> >
> >Pretty much. If recycling were an efficient use of resources it would be
> >profitable to pay people for their recyclables. For the most part, people
> >aren't and recycling isn't.
>
> Oh yeah? And the same with water too, I suppose. Well, you're right, as usual.
> There is an endless supply of bauxite for aluminum and silver and gold and
> nickel and all those other things we dig out of the ground.
Since we aren't shooting aluminum or silver or gold or nickel into the
sun, we will always have the SAME supply of those good we always had.
> >My personal favorite scare story is that half of America's landfills have
> >five years or less of capacity. Well, duh. Landfills are generally built
> >with a ten year capacity.
>
> The end run you've made around the truth hides the fact that some people just
> don't want us to keep throwing everything away, I for one.
So don't. Just don't lie about your motivation. Nonexistent landfill
exhaustion is not a motivation.
M.
JmG
>> Is recycling a fraud?
>
>Pretty much. If recycling were an efficient use of resources it would be
>profitable to pay people for their recyclables. For the most part, people
>aren't and recycling isn't.
Oh yeah? And the same with water too, I suppose. Well, you're right, as usual.
There is an endless supply of bauxite for aluminum and silver and gold and
nickel and all those other things we dig out of the ground.
>My personal favorite scare story is that half of America's landfills have
>five years or less of capacity. Well, duh. Landfills are generally built
>with a ten year capacity.
The end run you've made around the truth hides the fact that some people just
don't want us to keep throwing everything away, I for one.
J
--
If Marijuana Gave Old Men Boners it Would be Legal Now.
JmG
>> The end run you've made around the truth hides the fact that some people just
>> don't want us to keep throwing everything away, I for one.
>
>So don't. Just don't lie about your motivation. Nonexistent landfill
>exhaustion is not a motivation.
Other than not wanting to see valleys filled with trash we could be using again
and not wanting to deal with thousands of trucks rumbling across the country
hauling that same trash to a dead end, what other motivation could I have?
J (compost rules!)
Tim Robinson
says...
> r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey) wrote:
> >Glass simply doesn't get
> >recycled, since it's easier to buy sand than to try to sort waste
> >glass by color. With all the different plastics mixed in with each
> >other, it would be an expensive process to sort them out by grade.
>
The only thing that could possibly worry me less is saying we might run
short on carbon.
--
Tim Robinson <timt...@ionet.net>
http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr
The two secrets to success: 1) Never tell all you know.
Shawn Wilson
"JmG" <jmg...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:48ijes43ga7hecr4v...@4ax.com...
> >So don't. Just don't lie about your motivation. Nonexistent landfill
> >exhaustion is not a motivation.
>
> Other than not wanting to see valleys filled with trash we could be using
again
Pound on that straw man...
Shawn Wilson
> >> Is recycling a fraud?
> >
> >Pretty much. If recycling were an efficient use of resources it would be
> >profitable to pay people for their recyclables. For the most part,
people
> >aren't and recycling isn't.
>
> Oh yeah? And the same with water too, I suppose. Well, you're right, as
usual.
> There is an endless supply of bauxite for aluminum and silver and gold and
> nickel and all those other things we dig out of the ground.
Look, we can expend X resources recycling materials or Y resources creating
new materials. For most recycled goods, X >> Y, making recycling a wasteful
and inefficient use of resources.
> >My personal favorite scare story is that half of America's landfills have
> >five years or less of capacity. Well, duh. Landfills are generally
built
> >with a ten year capacity.
>
> The end run you've made around the truth hides the fact that some people
just
> don't want us to keep throwing everything away, I for one.
And some of us (like me for instance) are sick and tired of nincompoops like
you insisting on a wasteful use of resources (namely recycling) when the
same ends can be achieved more efficiently.
Bob Ward
I see you don't bother (as usual) to address the whole issue - what
about the landfills? How economical and efficient is it to keep
burying more and more trash?
Shawn Wilson
"Bob Ward" <bob...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:pbckes8h56r43j85v...@4ax.com...
> I see you don't bother (as usual) to address the whole issue - what
> about the landfills? How economical and efficient is it to keep
> burying more and more trash?
Very. It's not like the landfills are unusable after they're filled.
Bob Ward
What happens when we run out of canyons to destroy?
Dutch Courage
"Shawn Wilson" writes:
>Look, we can expend X resources recycling materials or Y resources creating
>new materials.
Hmm. Or, we can expend X renewable resources, or X easy to come by resources
recycling, or Y market price doesnt reflect true cost resources creating new,
say. There isn't any more land coming our way, for example, or aluminum ore,
and trees don't exactly grow on trees.
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>> I see you don't bother (as usual) to address the whole issue - what
>>> about the landfills? How economical and efficient is it to keep
>>> burying more and more trash?
> What happens when we run out of canyons to destroy?
Then we build mountains.
In the real world, we simply aren't going to run out of landfills space
for ages. Sure, the ones closest to the biggest cities will eventually
fill up and new, further ones will have to open, but there will not be a
dearth of sapce that could be filled for more than seven generations.
The big problem is that landfills are a dumb system. A valley is scraped
out, lined with rubber, covered in sand and pipes, then the garbage is
place there, ultimately to be covered with more sand and another layer of
rubber then some soil. The garbage is hermetically sealed up and left, to
be preserved for the ages, protected from ever decomposing.
A far better system I'ver read bout involves a shroud that covers a square
of land fill. Carbon rod are driven thru the depth of the fill, and a
powerfull current is run through them, heating the trash to glassification
temeratures. The shroud keep oxygen from getting tot he mix, so the
gasses that are driven off are highly combustible. These are piped of for
use generating electricity. The amount of electricity generated exceeds
the amount used to the point where selling it pays for fume scrubbing.
The leftover material traps any heavy metals in the glass. When you're
done, you can start piling garbage on again, since the volume reduction is
dramatic.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
rob...@bestweb.net
>There isn't any more land coming our way,
But it isn't going away, either.
The only problem with landfill is that the SURFACE it TEMPORARILY occupies
may be valuable for other purposes due to location.
Robert
http://www.bestweb.net/~robgood
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA
>
> >On 2000-04-04 hpstr...@aol.commissar(DutchCourage) said in part:
> >
> > >There isn't any more land coming our way,
> >
> >But it isn't going away, either.
>
>
> >
> >The only problem with landfill is that the SURFACE it TEMPORARILY
>
>
> >occupies
> >may be valuable for other purposes due to location.
>
> air or clean water on, or even just a block buster.
What if you recycle food and organic wastes into compost?
Dutch Courage
>
> >There isn't any more land coming our way,
>
>But it isn't going away, either.
Well, it is if you throw garbage in it.
>
>The only problem with landfill is that the SURFACE it TEMPORARILY
Again with the caps.
>occupies
>may be valuable for other purposes due to location.
You know, like living there, or growing your food, or having trees or fresh
air or clean water on, or even just a block buster.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
news:20000404200418...@ng-dh1.aol.com...
> >But it isn't going away, either.
>
> Well, it is if you throw garbage in it.
No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of garbage
under it.
Shawn Wilson
> >> I see you don't bother (as usual) to address the whole issue - what
> >> about the landfills? How economical and efficient is it to keep
> >> burying more and more trash?
> >
> >
> >Very. It's not like the landfills are unusable after they're filled.
> >
>
>
> What happens when we run out of canyons to destroy?
Landfills aren't generally built on land with a higher use than trash heap,
such land is just too expensive.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> "Shawn Wilson" writes:
>
> >Look, we can expend X resources recycling materials or Y resources
creating
> >new materials.
>
> Hmm. Or, we can expend X renewable resources, or X easy to come by
resources
> recycling, or Y market price doesnt reflect true cost resources creating
new,
> say.
Market prices reflect scarcity.
> There isn't any more land coming our way, for example, or aluminum ore,
> and trees don't exactly grow on trees.
(trees Dutch???)
Human time and energy are also scarce resources, or didn't you know that?
No matter what you do, you are going to use up scarce resources. Recycling
uses up more of them than not-, which is why recycling is an inefficient use
of scarce resources.
Greg Goss
>Look, we can expend X resources recycling materials or Y resources creating
>new materials. For most recycled goods, X >> Y, making recycling a wasteful
>and inefficient use of resources.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Even for ecofreaks like me, recycling is a distant third choice. But
too many people don't actually pay attention to the mantras that they
chant.
StarChaser_Tyger
wrote:
>r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey) wrote:
>>Glass simply doesn't get
>>recycled, since it's easier to buy sand than to try to sort waste
>>glass by color. With all the different plastics mixed in with each
>>other, it would be an expensive process to sort them out by grade.
>
>With all the good sand going to glass manufacture, we could run short.
>
>One of the local recycling outfits was selling their coloured glass to
>a local paving operation that used it instead of a fine gravel in
>their roads.
This enterprise was sponsored by tire manufacturers, yes?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000404200418...@ng-dh1.aol.com...
>
>> >But it isn't going away, either.
>>
>> Well, it is if you throw garbage in it.
>
>
>
>No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of garbage
>under it.
Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are more
expensive than you might think.
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000404160151...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
>
>> "Shawn Wilson" writes:
>>
>> >Look, we can expend X resources recycling materials or Y resources
>creating
>> >new materials.
>>
>> Hmm. Or, we can expend X renewable resources, or X easy to come by
>resources
>> recycling, or Y market price doesnt reflect true cost resources creating
>new,
>> say.
>
>
>Market prices reflect scarcity.
A given commodity could easily be well distributed and easy to obtain, but
finite in its, uh...you know, how much there is of it. Therefore, the price
would not reflect certain externals.
>
>
>
>> There isn't any more land coming our way, for example, or aluminum ore,
>> and trees don't exactly grow on trees.
>
>
>(trees Dutch???)
I am not at all sure the price of lumber reflects the replacement cost of
another tree, or the future scarcity of that resource, as with the observed
oyster-lobster thing, only worse.
>
>Human time and energy are also scarce resources, or didn't you know that?
We have more people than we have things for them to do, since no society has
reached full employment yet.
Dutch Courage
>What if you recycle food and organic wastes into compost?
What then?
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
garbage
> >under it.
>
> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
more
> expensive than you might think.
Do you have any evid...
[what am I thinking, this is Dutch...]
No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >Market prices reflect scarcity.
>
> A given commodity could easily be well distributed and easy to obtain,
but
> finite in its, uh...you know, how much there is of it.
As in, say, land.
Therefore, the price
> would not reflect certain externals.
Except that it would.
> >> There isn't any more land coming our way, for example, or aluminum ore,
> >> and trees don't exactly grow on trees.
> >
> >
> >(trees Dutch???)
>
> I am not at all sure the price of lumber reflects the replacement cost of
> another tree, or the future scarcity of that resource, as with the
observed
> oyster-lobster thing, only worse.
Do you have evidence or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
> >Human time and energy are also scarce resources, or didn't you know that?
>
> We have more people than we have things for them to do, since no society
has
> reached full employment yet.
No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405035040...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
>garbage
>> >under it.
>>
>> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
>more
>> expensive than you might think.
>
>
>Do you have any evid...
> [what am I thinking, this is Dutch...]
>
>No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
Do you have any evid...
[what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
Dutch Courage
>
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405035928...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> >Market prices reflect scarcity.
>>
>> A given commodity could easily be well distributed and easy to obtain,
>but
>> finite in its, uh...you know, how much there is of it.
>
>
>As in, say, land.
I was thinking tall trees.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the price
>> would not reflect certain externals.
>
>
>Except that it would.
Or not, like with Cigarettes. The price would reflect the demand. The demand
would not necessarily reflect a future scarcity, as with oysters in the 19th
century.
>
>
>
>
>> >> There isn't any more land coming our way, for example, or aluminum ore,
>> >> and trees don't exactly grow on trees.
>> >
>> >
>> >(trees Dutch???)
>>
>> I am not at all sure the price of lumber reflects the replacement cost of
>> another tree, or the future scarcity of that resource, as with the
>observed
>> oyster-lobster thing, only worse.
>
>
>Do you have evidence or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
Please, Kiddo. You do know about Lobsters, yeah?
>
>
>
>
>> >Human time and energy are also scarce resources, or didn't you know that?
>>
>> We have more people than we have things for them to do, since no society
>has
>> reached full employment yet.
>
>
>No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
How about the Wooly Mammoth?
As long as you and I are yammering at each other, then there's plenty of human
time and energy to go around.
Bob Ward
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405035040...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
>garbage
>> >under it.
>>
>> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
>more
>> expensive than you might think.
>
>
>Do you have any evid...
> [what am I thinking, this is Dutch...]
>
>No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
>
>
You mean like the fine, fine Stringfellow Acid pits in California, or
the Love Canal in New York?
It may cost billions to clean it up, but eventually that land MIGHT be
useful for something.
Dutch Courage
> that creepy Wilson kid
>>No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
Arable farmland in the mid-east, say.
Heck, next you're going to be telling us there was never a famine in a
capitalist country, or some other chestnut.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> Do you have any evid...
> [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
it.
Marie Martinek
>
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>
>> >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
>garbage
>> >under it.
>>
>> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
>more
>> expensive than you might think.
>
>No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
Why does it not lose utility?
You cannot plant trees on it.
You cannot build houses on it.
You cannot put in anything that needs a foundation.
About the only thing that used landfills are made into (at least, now)
are golf courses and ski slopes. And even there, they get problems
with inner tubes floating upward into the greens, and not being able
to anchor their ski lifts.
Marie Martinek
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
mv-ma...@northwestern.edu
Marie Martinek
>No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
>
How about "land within 10-minute travel time of LaSalle Street"?
Bob Ward
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405112527...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> Do you have any evid...
>> [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
>
>
>It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
>it.
>
You made the statement that land used for landfills does not limit its
usefulness - care to provide evidence supporting that contention?
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405112527...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> Do you have any evid...
>> [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
>
>
>It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
>it.
It is patently obvious that a landfill reduces the utility of a piece of land,
Shawn. It's full of garbage. if you think otherwise, the responsibility for
showing so devolves to you. Extraordinary claims, and all.
Shawn Wilson
"Marie Martinek" <mv-ma...@northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:8cfvgb$fsl$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu...
> >No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
> >
>
> How about "land within 10-minute travel time of LaSalle Street"?
There's as much of that as there ever was... more even.
Marie Martinek
Yeah, I left out the phrase "available to build single-family housing
on". Although, I suspect if you paid a zillion dollars, you could raze
the Sears Tower and build a bungalow....(if you had a zillion dollars,
you could influence the zoning board, too)
Amy Elizabeth Gleason
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> news:20000405112527...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
> > Do you have any evid...
> > [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
> It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence
supporting
> it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the votes have finally been tabulated, and the
winner of the AFCA Personal Motto For Shawn contest is:
<drum roll>
> It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> it.
</drum roll>
Mr. Wilson, your prize is that you no longer have to say anything
original in this newsgroup again! Our Prize Patrol will be over
shortly to install a macro on your computer that, at the simple touch
of a button, will allow you to reply to any post with:
> It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> it.
That's right! No more long, cold nights spent at the library
supporting your own contentions when you could be curled up with Mom
on the couch. No more lonely hours of surfing the internet doing
research. Everything you need is right here:
> It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> it.
And best of all, you can trademark your new statement and charge
people for the right to use it! That's right! Anytime that anyone
tries to weasel out of an argument by saying:
> It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> it.
You can charge them two-fifty! Thank you for playing, have a nice
day!!!
mlo...@civetsystems.com
> "Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> news:20000405035040...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
> > >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
> garbage
> > >under it.
> >
> > Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
> more
> > expensive than you might think.
>
>
> Do you have any evid...
> [what am I thinking, this is Dutch...]
>
> No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
In some sense it does: it used to have the potential to be a landfill,
then a park. Now the only utility left is a park.
M.
mlo...@civetsystems.com
> In article <S5DG4.36623$pK3.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >news:20000405035040...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >
> >> >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
> >garbage
> >> >under it.
> >>
> >> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
> >more
> >> expensive than you might think.
> >
>
> >No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
>
> Why does it not lose utility?
> You cannot plant trees on it.
Uh, why not?
> You cannot build houses on it.
> You cannot put in anything that needs a foundation.
Uh, so? Houses and other buildings with foundations, and the parking
lots and roads that services them, represent less than 1% of the land
area.
So we get a lot of green meadow. I, for one, can deal.
M.
mlo...@civetsystems.com
> In article <ccMG4.14047$TM.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Marie Martinek" <mv-ma...@northwestern.edu> wrote in message
> >news:8cfvgb$fsl$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu...
> >
> >> >No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
> >> How about "land within 10-minute travel time of LaSalle Street"?
> >There's as much of that as there ever was... more even.
> Yeah, I left out the phrase "available to build single-family housing
> on". Although, I suspect if you paid a zillion dollars, you could raze
> the Sears Tower and build a bungalow....(if you had a zillion dollars,
> you could influence the zoning board, too)
Exactly. There are more valuable things to do with that particular
resource than use it for that particular purpose. But yes, if you
wanted the most expensive single-family house since Versaille, you
could buy Sears Tower, tear it down, and build your bungalow...
M.
Dutch Courage
>Exactly. There are more valuable things to do with that particular
>resource than use it for that particular purpose.
Right...but landfill is difficult to clean up, when it's even possible.
> But yes, if you
>wanted the most expensive single-family house since Versaille, you
>could buy Sears Tower, tear it down, and build your bungalow...
Assuming you can convince the zoning board, sure.
Dutch Courage
>"Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> "Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>> news:20000405035040...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>>
>> > >No, the land is still there, even after you've buried ten years of
>> garbage
>> > >under it.
>> >
>> > Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
>> more
>> > expensive than you might think.
>>
>>
>> Do you have any evid...
>> [what am I thinking, this is Dutch...]
>>
>> No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
>
>In some sense it does: it used to have the potential to be a landfill,
>then a park.
You know, an expensive messy smelly dirty hazardous park.
> Now the only utility left is a park.
You know, an expensive toxic messy smelly dirty hazardous park, sure.
Tell it to the marines, Lorton. The navy ain't buyin'.
Shawn Wilson
"Amy Elizabeth Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:O6LgMm#n$GA.237@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence
> supporting
> > it.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the votes have finally been tabulated, and the
> winner of the AFCA Personal Motto For Shawn contest is:
>
> <drum roll>
> > It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> > it.
> </drum roll>
Gee Amy, I guess you're ignorant of the standard rules of debate.
Shawn Wilson
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote in message
news:m3em8in...@zorro.civet...
> > No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
>
> In some sense it does: it used to have the potential to be a landfill,
> then a park. Now the only utility left is a park.
It can still be a landfill, you just add layers.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> >it.
>
> It is patently obvious that a landfill reduces the utility of a piece of
land,
> Shawn. It's full of garbage. if you think otherwise, the responsibility
for
> showing so devolves to you. Extraordinary claims, and all.
I'm sorry Dutch, but it is NOT patently obvious. The land had little or no
utility to begin with.
Shawn Wilson
"Bob Ward" <bob...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:2h2nes8jfk0fh8bnj...@4ax.com...
> >> Do you have any evid...
> >> [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
> >
> >
> >It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
> >it.
> >
>
>
> You made the statement that land used for landfills does not limit its
> usefulness - care to provide evidence supporting that contention?
Easy, the land was nigh on worthless before the landfill was built, which is
why the landfill builder could outbid everyone else to obtain it. Once the
landfill is filled and covered, you're just back to where you started, but
likely with better (often parklike) landscaping than was there previously.
>
>
Shawn Wilson
> >> Well, sure, but the utility of the land is reduced, thus landfills are
> >more
> >> expensive than you might think.
> >
>
> >No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
>
> Why does it not lose utility?
'Cause it had very little to begin with.
> You cannot plant trees on it.
Yes, you can.
> You cannot build houses on it.
> You cannot put in anything that needs a foundation.
There was little or no demand for that land for building to begin with. At
least the closure landscaping makes the land into a viable park.
> About the only thing that used landfills are made into (at least, now)
> are golf courses and ski slopes.
Both of those are more valuable uses than the land had before the landfill.
And even there, they get problems
> with inner tubes floating upward into the greens, and not being able
> to anchor their ski lifts.
Then such fills weren't closed properly.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >>No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
>
> Arable farmland in the mid-east, say.
The destruction of the irrigation system by the Monguls had more to do with
that than anything else.
> Heck, next you're going to be telling us there was never a famine in a
> capitalist country, or some other chestnut.
Then cite one. Though I insist on a country that had had capitalist
policies for at least 20 years before the famine, so as not to include
transitional rather than actually capitalist countries.
Shawn Wilson
> >No, Dutch, the land doesn't lose 'utility'.
> >
> >
>
> You mean like the fine, fine Stringfellow Acid pits in California, or
> the Love Canal in New York?
That's toxic waste, and is a different issue.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> > Therefore, the price
> >> would not reflect certain externals.
> >
> >
> >Except that it would.
>
> Or not, like with Cigarettes. The price would reflect the demand.
Price reflects demand and supply.
The demand
> would not necessarily reflect a future scarcity, as with oysters in the
19th
> century.
Actually, the price of owned commodities DOES reflect future scarcity and
exhaustion. 19th century oyster stocks (and fish stocks in general even
today) weren't owned, leading to a tragedy of the commons.
> >Do you have evidence or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
>
> Please, Kiddo. You do know about Lobsters, yeah?
Yep, a scarce resource whose scarcity could be resolved by the introduction
of capitalism.
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405112806...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
>> > Therefore, the price
>> >> would not reflect certain externals.
>> >
>> >
>> >Except that it would.
>>
>> Or not, like with Cigarettes. The price would reflect the demand.
>
>
>Price reflects demand and supply.
Price reflects demand relative to supply, and not necessarily costs which can
be externalized. Supply also doesn't create demand, and with certain
illusionary values, has little bearing on supply.
>
>
>
>
> The demand
>> would not necessarily reflect a future scarcity, as with oysters in the
>19th
>> century.
>
>
>
>Actually, the price of owned commodities DOES reflect future scarcity and
>exhaustion.
Or, just demand for a given product, and the relative ease of obtaining it
right that minute.
> 19th century oyster stocks (and fish stocks in general even
>today) weren't owned, leading to a tragedy of the commons.
Ah yes, the T of the C, or why the market can yield less than optimal results.
>
>
>
>> >Do you have evidence or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
>>
>> Please, Kiddo. You do know about Lobsters, yeah?
>
>
>Yep, a scarce resource whose scarcity could be resolved by the introduction
>of capitalism.
So that would be a "No, Dutch, I don't know what I am talking about. I am an
annoying contentious troll."
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> Ah yes, the T of the C, or why the market can yield less than optimal
results.
No Dutch...
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405132042...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
>
>> >>No society has exhausted a scarce material resource yet either.
>>
>> Arable farmland in the mid-east, say.
>
>
>The destruction of the irrigation system by the Monguls had more to do with
>that than anything else.
"The Major factor behind these shifts becomes obvious as one compares the
modern Fertile Crescent with ancient descriptions of it. Today, the expressions
"Fertile Crescent" and "world leader in food production" are absurd. Large
areas of the former Fertile crescent are now desert, semidesert, steppe, or
heavily eroded or salinized terrain unsuited for agriculture. Today's ephemeral
wealth of some of the reigon's nations, based on the single nonrenewable
resource of oil, conceals the region's long-standing fundamental pverty and
difficulty in feeding itself.
In ancient times, however, much of the Fertile crescent and eastern
Mediterranean region, including Greece, was covered with forest. The regions
transformation from fertile woodland to eroded scrub or desert has been
elucidated by paleobotanists and archaeologists. Its woodlands were cleared for
agriculture, or cut to obtain construction timber, or burned as firewood or for
manufacturing plaster. Because of low rainfall and hence low primary
productivity (proportional to rainfall), regrowth of vegetation could not keep
pace with its destruction, especially in the presence of overgrazing by
abundant goats. with the tree and grass cover removed, erosion proceeded and
valleys silted up, while irrigation agriculture in the low rainfall enviroment
led to salt accumulation. These processes, which began in the Neolithic era,
continued into modern times. For instance, the last forests near the ancient
Nabatean capital of Petra, in modern Jordan, were felled by the Orroman turks
during construction of the Hejaz railroad just before World War I.
Thus, Fertile Crescent and eastern Mediterranean societies had the misfortune
to arise in an ecologically fragile enviroment. They commited ecological
suicide by destroying their own resource base."\
Guns, Germs, and Steel, 410-411 (Diamond.) A book Shawn never read, but ought
to. He;d learn how little application his "science" has to the real world. Let
me count what all we've seen the lie put to up there...
Future scarcity and price
Humans can't screw up the enviroment
The market is always right.
>> Heck, next you're going to be telling us there was never a famine in a
>> capitalist country, or some other chestnut.
>
>
>Then cite one. Though I insist on a country that had had capitalist
>policies for at least 20 years before the famine, so as not to include
>transitional rather than actually capitalist countries.
Ireland 1850, India 1943-44, bangladesh 1974. Surprising how its more
profitable to sell your rice or whatnot to someone with money, and generally
abroad, rather than someone who is too poor to buy it, and hungry as a result.
::does "I win" dance::
Bob Ward
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000405150901...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
>
>> >It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
>> >it.
>>
>> It is patently obvious that a landfill reduces the utility of a piece of
>land,
>> Shawn. It's full of garbage. if you think otherwise, the responsibility
>for
>> showing so devolves to you. Extraordinary claims, and all.
>
>
>I'm sorry Dutch, but it is NOT patently obvious. The land had little or no
>utility to begin with.
>
Except, of course, without all the buried garbage they could, like,
build houses and stuff there.
Bob Ward
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amy Elizabeth Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:O6LgMm#n$GA.237@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
>> > It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence
>> supporting
>> > it.
>>
>> Ladies and Gentlemen, the votes have finally been tabulated, and the
>> winner of the AFCA Personal Motto For Shawn contest is:
>>
>> <drum roll>
>> > It's your contention, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
>> > it.
>> </drum roll>
>
>
>
>Gee Amy, I guess you're ignorant of the standard rules of debate.
>
Gee, Shawn - I guess you're ignorant...
Bob Ward
No, it's not a different issue - it is burying shit instead of
disposing of it properly.
Bob Ward
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Bob Ward" <bob...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:2h2nes8jfk0fh8bnj...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> Do you have any evid...
>> >> [what am I thinking, this is Shawn...]
>> >
>> >
>> >It's your contention Dutch, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting
>> >it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> You made the statement that land used for landfills does not limit its
>> usefulness - care to provide evidence supporting that contention?
>
>
>Easy, the land was nigh on worthless before the landfill was built, which is
>why the landfill builder could outbid everyone else to obtain it. Once the
>landfill is filled and covered, you're just back to where you started, but
>likely with better (often parklike) landscaping than was there previously.
>
>
Is this what passes for evidence in your world? I guess you
scientific types get to write the rules there. Too bad it doesn't
work that way in the REAL world.
How about the Stringfellow Acid pits or the Love Canal? Great
landscape possibilities there, huh, Shawn?
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000406215621...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
>
>> Ah yes, the T of the C, or why the market can yield less than optimal
>results.
>
>
>No Dutch...
sure Shawn. An individual's goals are not societies long term goals.
Shawn Wilson
"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
> >> Ah yes, the T of the C, or why the market can yield less than optimal
> >results.
> >
> >
> >No Dutch...
>
> sure Shawn. An individual's goals are not societies long term goals.
Very funny. I'll bet you can't even figure out what's wrong with that
sentence.
(here's a hint: society, not being a sentient being, has neither
motivations nor goals)
(And I'll be the bigger man and not draw attention to the messed up
possessive ('society's' Dutch, 'societies' is plural, not possessive)).
Shawn Wilson
> How about the Stringfellow Acid pits or the Love Canal? Great
> landscape possibilities there, huh, Shawn?
Both toxic waste dumps, not landfills.
Big Iron5
>(And I'll be the bigger man and not draw attention to the messed up
>possessive ('society's' Dutch, 'societies' is plural, not possessive)).
A classic Shawnism!
"I've told you I don't live and die by the polls. Thus I will refrain from
pointing out that we're not doing too bad in those polls." -- Former President
George Bush
Dutch Courage
>"Dutch Courage" <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:20000406233258...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
>
>> >> Ah yes, the T of the C, or why the market can yield less than optimal
>> >results.
>> >
>> >
>> >No Dutch...
>>
>> sure Shawn. An individual's goals are not societies long term goals.
>
>
>Very funny. I'll bet you can't even figure out what's wrong with that
>sentence.
I bet you haven't even the slightest inkling whats wrong with what you just
said.
>
>(here's a hint: society, not being a sentient being, has neither
>motivations nor goals)
Individuals, being merely abstractions, only have existence in the way society
does. See Ryle, for example.
>
>(And I'll be the bigger man and not draw attention to the messed up
>possessive ('society's' Dutch, 'societies' is plural, not possessive)).
You say Cadere, I say Caedere...